On the Comma Johanneum in printed editions, “Which TR?” and working from inaccurate data

A long-ish post, but only because I care about data and getting it right.

One of the criticisms of Textus Receptus (henceforth, TR) advocacy is the question, “Which Textus Receptus?” (See the article by Mark Ward here). Instead of dealing with that question seriously, some TR defenders seem to brush it off as irrelevant.

For example, one TR advocate recently claimed that even though there are ‘minor’ differences between editions of the TR, all of them have the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), all of them have the Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), all of them have the doxology on the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13), all of them have the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8), and all of them have the Ethiopian’s confession at Acts 8:37.

Unfortunately, that statement is simply not true. Familiarity with the editions of the Textus Receptus themselves demonstrates as much.

I have seen I think at least one TR advocate respond with the No True Scotsman argument, redefining “Textus Receptus” to include only the editions that do have these passages (thus excluding Erasmus’ first two editions). That objection doesn’t work for three reasons:

1. Martin Luther himself used Erasmus’ second edition for his German translation of the New Testament, which lacked the Comma Johanneum. Even though later Lutherans added it after his death, Luther himself still rejected it. Additionally, the 1537 Matthew’s Bible places it in brackets in smaller type, which does indicate textual uncertainty.

Source: my own copy of the 1537 Matthew's Bible facsimile.

2. By my count there are not two but (at least) six editions of the TR that lack the Comma Johanneum (and if you argue that ‘canon’ extends to the very form of the text, an argument could be made for more editions that have a form of the Comma Johanneum but with a number of variations from the form of the Comma Johanneum in Scrivener’s TR as republished by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which seems to be the standard TR now).

3. The Trinitarian Bible Society provides a definition of “Textus Receptus,” and their definition explicitly includes three of the six editions that lack the Comma Johanneum. In their article “The Received Text: A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus” originally published in the March 1999 edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record (but presently linked on their website on this page), G.W. and D.E. Anderson write, 

Today the term Textus Receptus is used generically to apply to all editions of the Greek New Testament which follow the early printed editions of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469?-1536), a Roman Catholic humanist, translated the New Testament into Latin and prepared an edition of the Greek to be printed beside his Latin version to demonstrate the text from which his Latin came. Erasmus used six or seven Greek manuscripts (the oldest being from the 10th century), combining and comparing them in a process in which he chose the correct readings where there were variants. On several occasions he followed the Latin and included some of its readings in his text. This edition was published in 1516. There was great interest in this Greek text, and it is the Greek text for which the volume is remembered. This New Testament was the first published edition of a Textus Receptus family New Testament.

They continue,

Numerous men during the past four centuries have produced editions of the Textus Receptus; these editions bear their names and the years in which they were published. These include:

• the work of Stunica as published in the Complutensian Polyglot (printed in 1514 but not circulated until 1522);the Erasmus editions of 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535;
• the Colinæus edition of 1534 which was made from the editions of Erasmus and the Complutensian Polyglot.
• the Stephens editions (produced by Robert Estienne, who is also called Stephanus or Stephens) of 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551;
• the nine editions of Theodore Beza, an associate of John Calvin, produced between 1565 and 1604, with a tenth published posthumously in 1611;
• the Elzevir editions of 1624, 1633 (the edition known for coining the phrase “Textus Receptus”) and 1641.

Of note here is that the Trinitarian Bible Society, one of the leading institutions defending the TR as well as the the publisher of what is almost certainly the most widely-used edition of the TR, explicitly names the Complutensian Polyglot, all five of Erasmus’ editions, and the 1534 Colinaeus edition as editions of the TR. If we want to make claims about "all editions of the TR," the Trinitarian Bible Society’s definition of what counts as a TR is probably the best definition to use. Here we should remember that Scripture doesn’t tell us which editions count as true TRs or even which manuscript(s) to use.

In what follows, I want to show that it is simply not correct to claim that “the editions of the TR all contain” those five passages. By my count (and I admit I have not looked exhaustively), there are at least six editions of the TR that lack the Comma Johanneum and one that lacks the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer and Acts 8:37. Then I will follow up with some thoughts.

Editions of the TR that lack the Comma Johanneum

As I mentioned, by my count there are at least six editions of the TR that lack the Comma Johanneum. In his book Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe, Grantley McDonald lists another two—in addition to the six I list, he also claims that Bebelius’ 1524 and 1531 editions lack the Comma Johanneum. I have not been able to find images of the 1531, but I did find images of the 1524 and can confirm that it does have the Comma Johanneum, contrary to McDonald’s claims. On that basis, I will also omit the 1531 on the grounds that I haven’t been able to verify its text. I have marked with a red arrow the point after the “there are three witnesses” where we would expect to see “in heaven ...” if the Comma Johanneum were present.

1. Erasmus’ first edition (1516)

Source: https://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/doi/10.3931/e-rara-2849

2. The Aldine Edition (1518)

Source: https://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/doi/10.3931/e-rara-72721

3. Erasmus’ second edition (1519)

This one occurs over a page break for the full text, so here are images of both parts.

Source: https://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/doi/10.3931/e-rara-46825

4. Gerbellius’ edition (1521)

Source: https://sammlungen.ulb.uni-muenster.de/hd/content/titleinfo/5374967

5. Wolfgang Köpfel’s edition (1524)

CSNTM owns a copy of this edition.

Source: http://diglib.hab.de/drucke/alv-u-272/start.htm

6. Colinaeus’ edition (1534)

Source: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102392967

Other instances where an edition of the TR does not agree with others in all five places

The claim also listed the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer and Acts 8:37 as being present in all editions of the TR. But remember: the Trinitarian Bible Society names the Complutensian Polyglot as an edition of the TR. Here are two more issues:

1. The Complutensian Polyglot lacks the Doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, though it does have a marginal note about it. The place where it would be if it were here is marked by a cross in the Greek text.

Source: p. 2069 at http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000013439&page=1

2. The Complutensian Polyglot omits the Greek text of Acts 8:37, though it retains it in the Latin side. Space-fillers are printed here in place of the Greek text.

Source: p. 2398 at http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000013439&page=1

So what?

At the end of the day, one could argue that there was eventually a consensus and that these examples don’t actually matter. That might be especially the case for the two additional examples from the Complutensian Polyglot—I haven’t checked to see if other TRs make those same omissions. That argument would be fine, except that isn’t the claim that often gets made. The claim that gets made is that TRs all agree in these ‘major’ passages, and they only disagree in ‘minor’ places.

That claim is demonstrably untrue—there’s just no way around it.

I expect one could find even more places of difference, especially where the Complutensian Polyglot goes off on its own, and especially in Revelation. But to say with certainty would take more familiarity with the data than I currently have other than in a couple of instances (compare the Complutensian Polyglot to Erasmus’ first two editions at Rev. 1:2 and 1:11, for example). If we focus only on a handful of ‘test passages’, we can easily miss differences that occur where we aren’t looking—especially if we are not even accurately representing what is happening where we are looking. Worse still is taking the ‘absence’ (or rather, unawareness) of evidence where we aren’t looking as evidence of absence in general or assuming that there is no such evidence simply because we are unaware of it.

I am on record for opposing misinformation when it comes to New Testament textual criticism, and I have even had to confess my own sins in this area (see p. 108 in the book referenced in the most recent link). If somebody wants to use a particular edition because textual criticism is hard and they have a hard time evaluating modern text-critical claims but they trust they will be safe if they use an edition that God has used for a few hundred years, I have absolutely no problem with that. However, I do have a problem with misinformation—wherever it comes from (myself and my friends included). God’s Word is too important to make arguments for or against it out of careless (incorrect) assertions about things that can be easily verified. (Perhaps you will have noticed that for some of these longer posts, I try to load them down with links to the actual sources or bibliographic entries so that you can check my claims instead of just taking my word for them.)

Jesus said, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10, KJV). The little details matter to Jesus, and they should matter to us as well. All the more reason to work “as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Col. 3:23 KJV) when it comes to having familiarity with the data that we write and speak about, and it’s never been easier than now with so many manuscripts and editions available online, freely accessible by anyone! A great place to start is here.

---

UPDATE (2 Dec. 2021): I did manage to find images of the 1531 Bebelius edition here, and I can confirm that it does have the Comma Johanneum (page view “[671] - 339r”).

UPDATE (16 Dec. 2021): Jeff Riddle has replied to my post here. Brief comments:

1. I’ve seen many claim that TRs differ only in minor matters, so the intent of the post was to give images of divergent editions for anybody who has heard those claims from whatever source. Dr. Riddle’s comments in the interview are just what reminded me that this claim circulates, which is why I linked to the video.
2. I don’t think I misrepresented Dr. Riddle when taken in context with how he represented himself in the interview. I assumed it was just a simple mistake. I don’t think it is fair to assume that when he says “all editions,” the average listener will know that he really means “only some editions.”
3. The TBS did refer to those editions as editions of the Textus Receptus in their doctrinal statement and/or (explicitly so) in literature posted to their website (by the Andersons).
4. Regarding my statement that precipitated the ‘lazy, dim-witted, and emotionally insecure’ comments, I meant nothing negative. Dr. Riddle himself posted the same sentiment approvingly (“... it is the safest course to let the scale of the received text and traditional belief preponderate...”) earlier this year.