The Greek New Testament stands at the center of Christian textual studies. Its textual history has been subject to transmission across centuries, preserved in papyri, majuscule codices, minuscules, and lectionaries. When we evaluate the critical moments of transmission, few names are mentioned as frequently as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, who published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516 C.E. His work, though groundbreaking in the history of printing, has often been misrepresented as a faithful preservation of the original apostolic writings. Instead, a closer examination of Erasmus’ work reveals a text hastily compiled, heavily dependent on a limited and late manuscript base, and marred by conjectural emendations. The so-called “Textus Receptus” (Received Text), derived from Erasmus’ editions, does not represent the earliest or best form of the New Testament text but rather a corrupt and secondary stage in the history of the transmission.

This article explores Erasmus’ compilation process, the deficiencies of his sources, the editorial choices he made, and the lasting yet misleading legacy of the Textus Receptus. By unmasking the historical and textual realities, the manuscript evidence itself reveals the reliability of the original New Testament text—yet it also exposes the inadequacies of the work that became the basis for the King James Version and many Protestant traditions.

---

Erasmus’ First Edition of 1516 C.E.

Erasmus produced the Novum Instrumentum Omne, published in Basel in 1516 C.E., as the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. He prepared it under intense time pressure, with the intention of producing a Greek text alongside his revised Latin translation. His Latin was, in fact, his priority, as Erasmus sought to correct what he perceived as weaknesses in the Vulgate. The Greek text served largely as a support for his Latin column rather than as a fully independent critical reconstruction of the New Testament.

The printer Johann Froben urged Erasmus to complete the project rapidly, competing against the Complutensian Polyglot (though the latter was delayed in publication). Erasmus, working in less than a year, hastily collated a handful of late Greek manuscripts and produced a text riddled with typographical errors, omissions, and interpolations.

---

The Manuscripts Behind the Textus Receptus

The most significant deficiency in Erasmus’ edition lies in the quality and age of the manuscripts he employed. He relied on only a small number, none earlier than the 12th century. His primary sources included:

• Minuscule 1 (12th century), containing the Gospels.

• Minuscule 2 (12th century), containing Acts and Epistles.

• Minuscule 1rK (12th century), a commentary text with the Book of Revelation.

In Revelation, Erasmus possessed only one manuscript, which was incomplete at the end. For the final six verses of Revelation (22:16–21), he produced a back-translation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. This artificial construction introduced readings that never existed in any Greek manuscript, such as “the book of life” instead of “the tree of life” in Revelation 22:19. This invention illustrates the dangerous consequences of relying on insufficient sources and conjecture.

Erasmus had virtually no contact with the Alexandrian textual tradition, represented by papyri such as P75 (175–225 C.E.) or codices such as Vaticanus (B, 300–330 C.E.) and Sinaiticus (א, 330–360 C.E.), which preserve a far earlier and more accurate text. Instead, his reliance on late Byzantine manuscripts ensured his edition would reflect a secondary and expanded text.

---

The Problem of Conjectural Emendations

Where Erasmus encountered difficulties, he frequently resorted to conjecture. The most infamous example is his handling of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8). This Trinitarian gloss appears in no early Greek manuscript. Under pressure from critics who insisted that his omission of the phrase undermined orthodoxy, Erasmus promised to include it if he were shown a single Greek manuscript containing it. A manuscript (Minuscule 61, written in Oxford in the early 16th century) was produced, almost certainly created to satisfy this requirement. True to his word, Erasmus included the Comma in his third edition (1522 C.E.). From that point forward, the phrase gained undue prominence in the Textus Receptus and later in the King James Version, despite its complete absence from the authentic Greek manuscript tradition before the 14th century.

Other examples of conjectural insertions include the fabricated final verses of Revelation and various harmonizations throughout the Gospels, reflecting the tendencies of later scribes rather than the original text.

---

Erasmus’ Editions and Their Development

Erasmus produced five editions of his Greek New Testament between 1516 and 1535 C.E. Each edition attempted to improve upon its predecessor, but none overcame the fundamental limitations of the manuscript base.

• First Edition (1516 C.E.): Hastily printed with thousands of errors, incomplete Revelation, and conjectural back-translations.

• Second Edition (1519 C.E.): Corrected many typographical errors and influenced Martin Luther’s German translation.

• Third Edition (1522 C.E.): Introduced the Comma Johanneum, marking the most notorious corruption.

• Fourth Edition (1527 C.E.): Used the Complutensian Polyglot to make some corrections, especially in Revelation.

• Fifth Edition (1535 C.E.): Minor changes, but the text remained largely the same.

These editions served as the textual foundation for subsequent printings of the Greek New Testament, including those of Robert Estienne (Stephanus) and Theodore Beza, which cemented the tradition of the Textus Receptus.

---

The Birth of the Term “Textus Receptus”

The designation “Textus Receptus” itself did not originate with Erasmus but with the Elzevir brothers, who published an edition in 1633 C.E. Their preface proclaimed, “Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum” (“Therefore you have the text now received by all”). This marketing phrase later gave rise to the title “Received Text.” Ironically, the statement was more a commercial slogan than a scholarly assertion of textual accuracy. Yet, over time, the Textus Receptus was enshrined in the minds of many as the authentic New Testament text.

---

Contrast with Early Alexandrian Witnesses

When the early papyri were discovered in the 20th century, they exposed the vast gap between the Textus Receptus and the earliest New Testament manuscripts. Papyrus 66 (125–150 C.E.) and Papyrus 75 (175–225 C.E.), both containing large portions of John and Luke, revealed an early Alexandrian text remarkably close to Codex Vaticanus. These manuscripts demonstrated that the Alexandrian tradition reached back to the second century, long before the Byzantine expansions became dominant.

Codex Sinaiticus (א, 330–360 C.E.) and Codex Vaticanus (B, 300–330 C.E.) preserve a textual tradition free from many of the late interpolations found in the Textus Receptus. Their testimony is supported by the papyri, proving that the Alexandrian text was not a revision but a faithful preservation of the earliest form of the New Testament writings.

---

The Misguided Defense of the Textus Receptus

In later centuries, particularly among English-speaking Protestants, the Textus Receptus became closely linked to the King James Version (1611 C.E.). Defenders of the KJV began to ascribe to the Textus Receptus an almost mystical status, portraying it as the providentially preserved Word of God. This defense ignores both the historical reality of Erasmus’ limited resources and the overwhelming manuscript evidence that predates his work by a millennium.

The notion that God miraculously preserved the Textus Receptus is inconsistent with the observable facts of transmission. The true preservation of the New Testament text lies not in a single printed edition from the 16th century but in the thousands of manuscripts stretching back to the second century, which allow textual critics to reconstruct with confidence the original writings.

---

Erasmus’ Lasting Influence

Despite its flaws, Erasmus’ work played an undeniable role in advancing the accessibility of the New Testament. His printed editions made the Greek text widely available, sparking the Reformation’s emphasis on returning to the sources. Yet, while his contribution to the history of publishing is significant, his textual decisions must be recognized for what they were: rushed, poorly attested, and often speculative.

The discovery of earlier manuscripts in subsequent centuries has rendered the Textus Receptus obsolete as a reliable witness to the original text. Its place in history is important, but its authority in textual studies is misplaced.

---

The Restoration of the Original Text

Today, New Testament textual criticism operates on a foundation far stronger than Erasmus could ever have imagined. The early papyri (P52, P66, P75, P46, P45, P47, and others) bring us within a century of the autographs. The major uncial codices (א, B, A, C, D, W) and a vast array of versions and quotations by the early church fathers provide a comprehensive base for reconstruction.

Through the documentary method, which prioritizes external evidence, scholars can demonstrate with overwhelming confidence that the New Testament text is stable, with the vast majority of variations being minor and not affecting doctrine. The original words of the apostles are recoverable with remarkable precision, standing in sharp contrast to the late and corrupt Textus Receptus.

---

Conclusion

The legacy of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus is one of paradox. On the one hand, Erasmus ushered in a new era of printed Greek texts, fueling the study and translation of the New Testament. On the other hand, the limitations of his work introduced corruptions that persisted for centuries. When unmasked by the manuscript evidence, the Textus Receptus is exposed as a secondary and flawed witness, far removed from the earliest and most reliable tradition preserved in the Alexandrian manuscripts. The true text of the New Testament is not found in Erasmus’ hasty compilation but in the providential preservation of thousands of manuscripts, reaching back to the very threshold of the apostolic age.

You May Also Enjoy

Karl Lachmann [1793-1851]: How Was He a Foundational Contributor to New Testament Textual Studies?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS