Feedback and Discussion on The 1550 Textus Receptus Stephanus

Please leave any feedback to the 1550 Textus Receptus Stephanus in the Comment box below. After moderation, a reply, if necessary, will appear on this same page. Thank you. (Most recent feedback is at the bottom of the page.) Note: the Bible Resource can be found at the following link (PDF): http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/TRStephanus.pdf.

44 comments on “Feedback and Discussion on The 1550 Textus Receptus Stephanus

  1. Errors spotted in the TR Stephanus PDF, checked against the original scanned version:

    Ac 25:25 pepracenai kai autou : Abbreviation of KAI is clearly present in the original
    Ro 12:3 o dei fronei alla : correctly: fronein
    2Co 2:12 anewmenhv: g is present as a compound letter

  2. Thanks God for your work!!!!

    I’m a baptized in name of Jesu Christ in Italy and I’m really interested in your TRStephanus.pdf.
    But I need to dowmload your free greek font: where can I find it?

    Many thanks in advance.
    God bless you in the name of Christ!

    Marco

  3. Hi! I have to thank you (the Lord first) for “your” Stephanus 1550. It´s a blessing since getting a Greek TR with all the breathings and punctuation is not an easy task. Anyway, I wanted to tell you that I was going through Mathew before printing it (I prefer it printed, I hope you don´t mind) I came by an error which you guys should check. It´s in Matthew 20:22, where it says ]Apokriyei’v o de’ Ihsou#v instead of Apokriyei’v de’ o Ihsou#v. I understand that the 1550 has it this last way. Please check it out, and if there is an e-mail I can write to, I´d love to have it. I hope I´m not a bother, God bless you, and thanks again.

    • You are certainly not a bother, my fellow Christian pilgrim. Thanks very much for your kind words, and for your love for Jesus, which is obvious in what you say. Thank you for your comments re. Stephanus 1550. You are correct about the printing anomaly at Matthew 20:22. The reason we have this in the text is that, as you say, it is the way the actual Stephanus 1550 has it printed. We reproduce the 1550 EXACTLY as printed (hopefully 100% accurate), but any anomaly like this we note in the footnotes. So you will see here at Matthew 20:22 there is a note (a) which tells the reader that the first edition of Stephanus (1546) and the last edition (1551) printed the text in the normal grammatical way: that is, “]Apokriyei’v de’ [o …” etc. We do this so that everyone can be confident we have reproduced the 1550 in the main body of the text EXACTLY. I hope this answers your question. On the email: we don’t use emails on the main site, but any time you can contact us on the blog by posting a comment (say on the Contact page) and if you say you want it kept private we can do that. Also by the same method you can request a chat (text-chat online) or skype. You will find how to do this on the right-hand menu of the main page. God bless you richly.

  4. Thanks for your fast reply, Brother Richard. I understand this was my mistake caused by checking with some other online version of the 1550 (supposedly) instead of with the original. (it isn´t easy to find the verse) I believe there is some confusion between the 1550 and the 1551 out there, I even heard that the 1550 was the first with verse numbers in the text, but I believe that was the 1551. Anyway, that´s another issue. I´ll just say thanks for the great job you do! May the Lord reward you as He only can.

    • You will find most so-called Stephanus 1550 online are not the real thing. The edition on this site is an exact reproduction, letter by letter and accent by accent, of the original Stephanus 1550. It aspires to be 100% accurate, so if you spot any clerical errors please let me know on this blog. The 1551 was produced when Stephanus was escaping persecution and on the move. It is the best he could do at the time but doesn’t claim to improve on the 1550 text. It merely, on occasions, corrects some printing anomalies in the 1550, like the one you found. The 1550 was the acme of Stephanus’ scholar-printing work, based on the best and earliest manuscripts which the Vatican immediately “confiscated”, or destroyed. You can find details on that on this Resources page above, in the section #9 “The Great Bible Text Fraud” and at this link. May the Lord Jesus bless you in His service.

  5. Thanks again for the great material, the information in section #9 is very interesting and useful. I also downloaded the facsimile of the 1550 onto my computer. It is at this point that maybe you can help me. I am also interested in having the 1551, and I managed to download the first volume (Matthew to Acts) but can´t find the second volume anywhere online or for download (facsimile of course). I´d be very grateful if you have any info on that. Anyway, I´m very much blessed already. Thanks in advance.
    May the Lord bless you guys for sharing and promoting the clean text of Holy Scripture, which will last forever! John 12:48

  6. Am downloading now, thank you very much.

  7. Thanks for having published this transcription of Stephanus 1550. I had just a quick question about the book “kaine diatheke” by Scrivener (1906). Would you know if that book contains the same text or if it is based on other source please ?
    Be blessed
    Joseph

    • God bless you. Good question! Scrivener is NOT an exact reproduction of the Stephanus 1550. I have gone through the Stephanus 1550 letter by letter, and that is what is available to download on this site. I found one or two places where Scrivener did not reproduce the literal text correctly. Of course, he also altered the punctuation and accents. This is highly important, as accenting and punctuation can change the meaning entirely. I came to the conclusion Scrivener acquiesced in the 19th century Revision of the Authorized Version, and became, for the Revisers, their “token” Received Text man. His text is that reproduced by the Trinitarian Bible Society. You will notice in their introduction they repeat the fables (accepted by Scrivener) about the 1550 Stephanus’ being based on the later editions of Erasmus. As you will see by reading the linked works below, Stephanus 1550 was based solely on the excellent Manuscripts in the Royal Library in Paris brought by Lascaris from Greece, and on similar manuscripts sought out by Stephanus’ son in Italy (mainly Venice, where Lascaris’ patron Lorenzo Medici stockpiled the treasures of Medieval Greece away from the Muslim conquerors of that country).
      To get the background of Stephanus 1550 click here: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud-online/

      or in PDF form: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud.pdf

  8. I downloaded a PDF of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament and it has your website on it. It has a link to your site where it says that we can download the Biblos Regular Greek font so that we can copy and paste from the PDF. However, the link is a dead link, and I can’t find that font on your site. I’ve looked all over the internet, and I can’t seem to find that font anywhere. I would really like to be able to copy and paste a verse from the Textus Receptus. Can you please tell me where I can find this font?
    ThankYou.

  9. Hi: I appreciate your hard work. Do you use the 1611 King James Bible? I am trying to determine the different meanings of crown and crowns in the book of Revelation. There appears to be about four variations for the Greek spelling of crown/crowns in the book of Revelation. Maybe you could tell me the difference in their meanings. I especially noticed that the crowns of the elders in Revelation 4 is written with a different variation of the Greek word for crown than any where else in Revelation. I am most interested to know what kind of crowns the 24 elders were wearing. It has me a little confused since it is spelled in the Greek an little different than the victors crown like the crown of life or the diadem crown like Jesus is wearing. Crown is written in two different places in Revelation 4. Both of these crowns are spelled the same way in the Greek. What does this difference mean in comparison to where crown is spelled different in other places in Revelation? Where the demons are coming out of Hell in Revelation 9 crown is spelled different than the ones in Revelation 4. The crown that Jesus is wearing in Revelation 19 is spelled different than the ones in Revelation 4 and Revelation 9. From what I understand the one Jesus is wearing means diadem. This is not an earned crown but a crown of royalty. Please help me to understand this if you can! Some say that it is a victors crown in Revelation 4 instead of a royal crown. But it is spelled different in the Greek than the victors crown of life and the other victors crowns that we can earn. You said that the Greek letters that you used are standard Classical Greek. Is this the same as Koine Greek (or common Greek) from which the King James Version of the bible was translated? For example, I am looking at the Greek for crown in Revelation 4. The Translationliteration according to another site is 4:4 kai kukloqen tou qronou qronoi eikosi kai tessarej kai epi touj qronouj eidon touj eikosi kai tessaraj presbuterouj kaqhmenouj peribeblhmenouj en imatioij leukoij kai esxon epi taj kefalaj autwn stefanouj xrusouj stefanouj is the word for crown. This is the crown worn by the twenty four elders. If I use your Greek font that I downloaded called Symbol recommended by you, it gives me a different Greek spelling for crown than what you have in your Textus Receptus New Testament. Also, I seem to get a bunch of extra letters such as (;). It does not appear that these extra letters should be there. They are English punctuation, not Greek. But, if I use another font download it comes up with the same Greek letters that you used in your Greek New Testament. Is your Greek symbols the same as the ones used by the 1611 King James translators or should I use the Greek SpIonic font that I downloaded from: https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textus_receptus/revelation/rev04.htm When I applied the Greek Splonic font to the transliteration that I included here from Revelation 4:4, it gave me exactly the same Greek text symbols that you used in your Greek New Testament. I want to make sure that I am using the same Greek symbols as the 1611 King James translators. I do not want to use a different Greek than the King James translators did. I looked at your Greek New Testament in the following location: The Received Text New Testament in the original Greek as printed by Stephanus in 1550 (PDF, right-click here, Save As …). This is the only literally inerrant inspired Greek text of the New Testament which was providentially preserved by God Himself for his believing children through the ages. It is presented here in standard Classical Greek script with all accents and punctuation as in the original, PDF format for easy reading/printing. PLEASE NOTE: Christian Hospitality can only guarantee the copy of the Stephanus 1550 downloadable from the above link is an authentic reproduction, letter by letter, of the original. Please let me know the answer to my questions in this comment. I am writing a paper that includes the meaning of these crowns of Revelation 4. Identifying these crowns will help to identify the 24 elders. Thanks!

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      01/12/2017 at 1:15 pm Reply

      Thank you my friend for your question and your interest in getting the correct meaning of the Bible text. To answer your questions: 1) You ask: Do you use the 1611 King James Bible? Answer: Yes I do, just used it this morning. It is by far the best English translation of the Holy Scriptures. I believe in the FULL King James text, including the Prologue and Introduction etc., and in taking the advice of these excellent translators, which was to examine the translation carefully by the best Greek text, and adjust the translation if necessary where a better understanding is achievable. 2) You ask: I especially noticed that the crowns of the elders in Revelation 4 is written with a different variation of the Greek word for crown than any where else in Revelation. I am most interested to know what kind of crowns the 24 elders were wearing. Answer: The word crown here is the Greek stephanos, which means a garland obtained as a reward for a victor in a contest, as you correctly state in your comment. It is spelled slightly different in different places in Revelation only because it gets different grammatical endings depending on its grammatical place in the sentence. Just as we might write “dog” (singular) and “dogs” (plural). The word is identical in both cases, that is it is basically a dog, but the word gets an “-s” ending in the plural because it denotes many dogs. Likewise the basic word here is stephanos, victor’s crown, but it gets different Greek endings in different parts of Revelation depending on whether it is the subject of a phrase (the “doing word” in the phrase) or whether it is the object of a phrase (the “done to” word) etc. So you are basically dealing with a single concept in all phrases in Revelation which contain the basic element stephan-, that always means a victor’s crown or garland, like the one given to Ben Hur in the film after the chariot-race. There is a different basic word for crown in Revelation and that is diadema, a royal diadem or crown of royalty as you say. That is the crown worn by a ruler. So Jesus has total power, so He wears crowns of royalty, having been crowned by His saints. Also the Devil and the beast have rulership power over their subjects in Revelation, so they wear the diadema, the crown of royalty. Again in the Greek this basic word is diadem- and it can have different endings depending on its grammatical position in the sentence. But still in all cases the basic meaning is the same. So really we have two words only in Revelation for crown, a) stephanos, a garland or crown granted to victors in a contest, and that is the type worn by the 24 elders, and b) diadema, a royal crown, the type worn by a ruler, and that is the type worn by Jesus, who has unlimited power.
      As regards the Textus Receptus on this site, that is the Stephanus 1550, and it uses our own Biblos Greek font, not the fonts you mention in your comment. If you try to read this Stephanus with a non-Biblos font it won’t come out right in all instances. This is what you have found. As regards the King James Bible, they used mainly the Elzevir edition of the Textus Receptus, but consulted others. As it happens, this was not a good idea, as the Elzevirs used the text modified a little by Beza. Beza wrongly thought Stephanus’ son had different or rather better Greek texts available to him than the ones used by Stephanus himself to print the 1550. That is because the younger Stephanus had brought many Greek manuscripts from Italy for his father so he could do his job better by comparing one text with the other. However, Stephanus the elder used the best manuscripts from the Royal Library in Paris as his standard text, and these have since been siezed and removed or destroyed by the Vatican. The 1550 used these prime texts only and letter by letter. The younger Stephanus’ texts were only used for comparison. Beza used the notes of the younger Stephanus to amend or replace some small parts of the 1550 text. This was a mistake. It is this amended text which the Elzevirs printed and which was mainly used by the KJV translators. Actually the 1550 alone is the Received Text strictly speaking, and Beza’s corrections, though done in good faith, should be ignored.

  10. Thank you very much for the detailed answer. I have one more question to help me understand your explanation about parts of speech and grammar endings in the Greek or the transliteration of Greek. When looking at two different victors crowns with different endings, I am trying to determine if the endings are showing singular or plural and if it is a subject, direct object or and indirect object. Following are the two different victors crowns in transliteration form:

    Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

    Revelation 2:10 Mhde’n fobou#a`me;lleiv pa;scein (i]dou’ me;llei ba;lein e]x u[mw#n o[ dia;bolov ei]v fulakh’n i=na peirasyh#te> kai’e=xete yli;qin h[merw#n de;ka.) gi;nou pisto’v a/cri yana;tou, kai’dw;sw soi to’n ste;fanon th#v zwh#v>

    Revelation 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

    Revelation 4:4 Kai’kuklo;yen tou#yro;nou yro;noi ei/kosi kai’te;ssarev> kai’ e]pi’tou’v yro;nouv ei/don tou’v ei/kosi kai’te;ssarav presbute;rouv kayhme;nouv, peribeblhme;nouv e]n i[mati;oiv leukoi#v> kai’ e/scon e]pi’ta’v kefala’v au[tw#n stefa;nouv crusou#v.

    Revelation 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

    Revelation 4:10 pesou#ntai oi[ ei/kosi kai’te;ssarev presbu;teroi e]nw;pion tou#kayhme;nou e]pi’tou#yro;nou, kai’proskunou#si tw#j zw#nti ei]v tou’v ai]w#nav tw#n ai]w;nwn> kai’ ba;llousi tou’v stefa;nouv au[tw#n e]nw;pion tou# yro;nou, le;gontev,

    As you may notice, when I copy and paste from your site where it is written in Greek it is transliterated into the English alphabet. But, when the times roman letter font is applied to it in Microsoft Word , I get a lot of punctuation marks throughout the alliteration. Can you tell me how to get the alliteration without the extra punctuation marks. I did download the symbol fount that you recommended to translate my times roman font to Greek and that worked out ok, but it did give me a different translation of the Greek letters in the Greek New Testament than you have on your site. Maybe you can tell me how to get the transliteration without the extra punctuation marks.

    But, my main question is: In Revelation 2:10, the word stefanon is the transliteration, and in Revelation 4:4 and Revelation 4:10 the transliteration is stefanouv. As you say, I agree that they are both different forms of grammar for victor’s crowns. Can you tell me what the ending letters are on these transliterated words for crown and what part of speech it makes them. In other words, are they a subject, direct object, indirect object and are they endings that represent singular or plural forms. The ending letters u,v are the different letters for crown in Revelation 4 different from the letter n ending for crown in Revelation 2:10. In these two different places, what do these different endings for crown mean in grammar? For example: ed in normal English language means past tense. I was never too good at diagramming sentences. But, I do think that crown in all three of these cases is probably a direct object. I would like to explain the reason for the different ending of crow in the transliteration and Greek to someone else. I also what to tell them what each particular ending means in these three verses in Revelation. I want to tell them if it is a subject, indirect objects, direct object and past or present tense. The reason for my interest is that someone told me that they did not think that victors crowns would be handed out before the Tribulation started. To me, it appears that the seven year agreement with the Anti-Christ does not start until Revelation 6 when Jesus opens the sealed book. But, this casting of crowns in Revelation 4 happens before the sealed book is opened. Please let me know about the grammar of these two ways of spelling crown in the transliteration and the Greek! Thanks Again, James Lewis!

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      01/15/2017 at 12:38 pm Reply

      Nice Scriptural questions! To help you read the Greek on the Textus Receptus Stephanus from this site you need the Biblos font which is downloadable here: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/fonts/Biblos.ttf
      Just paste it into your Fonts folder and should work fine. If not let me know and maybe I can help.

      To answer your questions: You ask: “In Revelation 2:10, the word stefanon is the transliteration, and in Revelation 4:4 and Revelation 4:10 the transliteration is stefanouv. As you say, I agree that they are both different forms of grammar for victor’s crowns. Can you tell me what the ending letters are on these transliterated words for crown and what part of speech it makes them. In other words, are they a subject, direct object, indirect object and are they endings that represent singular or plural forms.”
      Answer: In all these cases the basic word is as you say stephanos which is “victor’s crown”. In all cases too the word is grammatically direct object. The ending is pronounced “on” in Rev 2, (in the font transliteration spelled “on”), and is singular: “I will give him the crown of life” (pronounced stephanon, phonetically it might be written thus: ste-fan-on). In Rev 4 the words are plural, pronounced “stephanous” (phonetically it might be written thus: ste-fan-oos) they wore “crowns” and they cast their “crowns”. Stephanos in Greek is a masculine gender noun. So all are direct objects, and the singular ending for a singular, masculine gender, direct object in Greek is pronounced “-on” (as in Reve 2), and the ending for a plural masculine gender direct object is pronounced “-ous” (like the -oose in moose) as in Rev. 4, both instances.

      On the point about the dating of the crown-giving, yes, I agree with you they have crowns of victory before the opening of the Seven Sealed Book, which brings in the Rapture and Tribulation. The crown of victory is called in Rev 2 the “crown OF LIFE” (life here being God’s own life, eternal life), and clearly the 24 elders already have life in heaven, and are therefore crowned.

      PS.: the site you refer to in your first comment, which is logosapostolic.org, does not have the true Textus Receptus, which is the Stephanus 1550 as on this site, but it has instead a “cobbled together” version which is effectively a “back-translation” from the King James Version English. For example the true Textus Receptus has in I Timothy 4 oikonomia, not oikodomia, the former obviously being the correct reading as it opposes the false mythic “spiritual” genealogies of the Gnostics to the Scriptural “economy”. The Gnostic beliefs included the false Trinity of three eternal god-persons, the two latter of which are being eternally produced (which is logical nonsense) by the preceding god-person. The true doctrine of the “oikonomia” is the Biblical “economic” Trinity of the sub-Apostolic Church, which believed in one True Eternal God only Who manifested Himself in time-space bodily in the form of the Son by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that is One God, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Father, Son and Spirit.

  11. Thank You very much!

  12. Your information on Erasmus and Stephanus is just outstanding. There is so much error out there from critical-text “scholars”. I have a few questions. You said the manuscripts that Stephanus used were returned to the Royal Library and have since “gone missing”(pg 28). But according to the internet, a bunch of those manuscripts are still in existence:

    http://csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/RobertusStephanusNovumTestamentum1550
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editio_Regia

    Also, critics say Stephanus relied heavily on the Complutensian because of the “a” in the margins, but your 1550 text doesn’t have the marginal notes. What are your thoughts on these marginal notes?

    Lastly, do you know where we can find the preface to the 1550 edition written by Stephanus himself? Or, if you wanted to translate it and put it online that would be pure gold.
    Thank you.

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      01/18/2017 at 1:41 pm Reply

      Thanks for your thoughts and inquiries on this important text topic. I agree totally on the amazing level of disinformation and error going the rounds on these questions of the true Bible text. I will give a quick reply right now on the points you bring up, but will probably, God willing, add extra information to this comment reply over the next few days, with more detail. The most excellent texts used by Stephanus were being sought for already whilst Stephanus was still in Paris by the “professors of the Sorbonne”. And they were becoming hostile to the newly emerging Protestant reformation movement in the city. Stephanus himself says he had them returned to the Royal Library. I will add the references later, God willing. They are found in the articles of Huyshe quoted in the Great Bible Text Fraud. The mss. you refer to are alleged to be the ones Stephanus used but this is nonsense. Because a ms. has Stephanus’ handwriting on it or his notes, that is no evidence it was used by him to print the 1550. He was after all in the Palace Library regularly and was the Court’s scholar-printer. On the marginal notes in the 1550, these are notes showing where other mss. or editions differed from his 1550 text. Again it does not mean Stephanus based his text on these. He did not. He did us the favor of showing where there were variations from his standard texts.
      Stephanus’ use of manuscripts and codices is described by Huyshe as follows (from The Great Bible Text Fraud at http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud-online/content/bible-fraud9.html):

      Quote from Huyshe in The British Magazine vol. 3, London 1833, pp. 285: “Upon his {Stephanus’} petition to his high-minded patron, Francis I., he was accommodated with the use of fifteen MSS. from the royal library; out of these, and some one private MS., he formed the text of the “O mirificam,” of 1546. This stock he nearly doubled while he was preparing for the glory of his life, the folio of 1550; and when the text of that splendid edition had been formed from it, he selected seven of the fifteen royal MSS. and six of the private, numbered 2-14, to give opposing readings to his first volume (the Gospels and the Acts) which together with those of one of the previous editions, No. 1, are given in the inner margin. As a sufficient number of these thirteen MSS. contained the epistles of St. Paul, and the remainder of the third part of the sacred text (the catholic epistles) there was no alteration made in the opposing materials for giving various readings thus far, in the second volume. But in the Revelations (the 4th part of the sacred text) all the thirteen of the first selection failed. A new selection then became necessary, and No. 15 was taken out of the royal MSS., and No 16 out of the private MSS., with the printed edition, to furnish opposing readings to the new text, there. A reading or two was given from each of the two last selected MSS., in the previous part of the work, probably (as I have imagined) to shew that the royal MS., No. 15, contained the whole of this second volume; and that the private one, No. 16, contained the whole New Testament. The original set of MSS. then amounted to little more than half of what were obtained in the whole, for the text of the folio; and exactly half of that set, (viz., eight of the royal MSS.) and about one half of those that were obtained afterwards, together with the Complutensian print, made up the set that was taken first and last to oppose the text of the folio in the marginal readings. Such was the theory of a pamphlet entitled “Specimen of an intended publication &c”, namely, that Stephanus had fifteen MSS. from the royal library, but that he had, in all, 16 MSS., “posterioribus diebus,” for the first edition of 1546; that these were increased, as might naturally be expected, by his keeping his son so long searching the libraries of Italy, to thirty, and more, for the folio; and that a selection was made out of the whole, to furnish opposing readings in the margin.” (End of quote from Huyshe.)

      Huyshe’s conclusions are based on the totality of written statements in relation to his sources by Stephanus himself, and not on a priori assumptions that Stephanus was mistaken or misleading, which is the usual approach of text-critics.” (End of Quote from the Great Bible Text Fraud.)

      You can see no use was made by Stephanus of the Complutensian as a basis for his text (though as he said it was in remarkable agreement with his mss. and codices) but it was used to supply opposing readings in the margin.

      Stephanus’ texts were the best mss. brought mainly by Lascaris from Greece to Venice and then transported from there to the Royal Library. You can read the basic facts at this link: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud-online/content/bible-fraud9.html. As proof that the mss. and codices that Stephanus used have “gone missing” we can cite these facts:
      From the Great Bible Text Fraud, http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud-online/content/bible-fraud7.html
      “The havoc wrought can be illustrated by the fact that in the locus classicus of I John 5. 7 even Stephanus’ different set of manuscripts with a variant reading (seven manuscripts omitting only the words “in heaven” in that verse) are no longer to be found anywhere in the world, — in fact, no such reading is attested in any extant manuscript whatsoever, — quite apart from the more numerous and more correct manuscripts which Stephanus followed in the main body of the text, and which, on account of their antiquity, according to his own testimony, were worthy almost of “adoration”. Since the early printed editions are equivalent in every respect to manuscript authorities, all these employed by Stephanus should be added, by the by, to the list of witnesses in respect of any given Greek reading in the New Testament. The hostile theological Doctors of the Sorbonne were already demanding from Stephanus detailed information about the manuscripts he used to print his Bibles before his enforced flight to Geneva, and three hundred years of book-burning, expurgation and indexing thereafter by opponents of the Reformation have ensured their consignment to oblivion. It is disingenuous for critics of the Textus Receptus after the Counter Reformation’s continent-wide and centuries-long censorial fury to demand the production of these manuscripts before they accept the authenticity of Stephanus’ work: his Bibles, for example, were specifically targeted in the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Index of the Roman ecclesiastical authorities for over two hundred years after his decease.”

      The preface to the 1550 is found on this site in the photocopy of the 1550 text, link on the Bible Resources page. God willing I may be able to translate it shortly. I agree it would be nice to have it online. As I say, this comment will probably be added to in the next few days. Till then God bless you in your work for Him.

  13. Brother Richard I want to thank you for your work. It’s just unbelievable how text-critics say that Stephanus’ Greek New Testament is just a “reprint” of Erasmus. My Latin isn’t that great, but I don’t see any mention of “Erasmus” at all by Stephanus. Not in the Preface to the 1546 or 1550 editions. Not anywhere. Am I wrong? Have you found anywhere where Stephanus even mentions Erasmus?

    Also, could you pinpoint where Edward Lee said Erasmus would have “certainly” found manuscripts (plural) containing 1 John 5:7 if he had looked? You mentioned that on page 29 of the Bible Fraud pdf, but without a reference. Thank you.

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      08/02/2017 at 1:04 pm Reply

      Thank you for your kind comments. I apologize for the delay in replying to your comment. They have been migrating to new servers on my webhosting company and they weren’t too efficient about it — hence the delay. On Stephanus and Erasmus, you can see this link in the Great Bible Text Fraud: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud-online/content/bible-fraud9.html, especially at the top and bottom of the page. I would have to check out the early editions to confirm no mention at all. Of course, everybody knew Erasmus and his work at that time, so it would not be unusual for Stephanus to mention him. What is remarkable is how rarely he mentions or uses him, and he certainly did not use him to “compose” a text of the New Testament — for that text he used only the manuscripts from the Royal Library “letter by letter”. This proves the point: Stephanus’ manuscripts were unique and beat everything Erasmus had laboriously put together. I will, God willing, check out the Lee reference for you, please return to this comment in a week or so when it should be updated with your information.

      =====
      UPDATE #1 08/09/17

      The reference to Lee’s criticism that Erasmus was guilty of “indolence” if he had not found any Greek manuscripts containing the Johannine Comma is in Responsio ad Annotationes Eduardi Lei, ed. 1520, p. 284-285.

      UPDATE #2 08/12/17

      There is no mention whatsover of Erasmus or any of his editions of the New Testament in the Prologue to Stephanus 1550, but the Complutensian is said there to have been used to provide alternative readings occasionally in the margin (noted as alpha). Instead of alleging this or that about Stephanus’ use of editions and manuscripts we should (of course) take exactly what he said to be the simple truth — that he used the magnificent manuscripts from the Royal Library. He never anywhere says he used Erasmus’ editions. The facts are detailed comprehensively in the following articles by Huyshe, which describe Stephanus’ methods in detail, using Stephanus’ own testimony, and prove, amongst other things, his non-dependence on Erasmus. I have combined Huyshe’s articles into a single PDF file: Huyshe on Stephanus 1550.

  14. Hello, I assume you are accepting notifications of typos in the Stephanus 1550 text. I am doing my own word by word comparison between your PDF and the UBS text, making notes on ever variation. In the process, I have encountered a few typos. I have pasted the list below that I have seen so far in 1 & 2 Peter and 1 John. I have compared each to the scan of the text provided on this website.
    Thank You!

    1 Peter
    πολυ for πολὺ in 1:7
    δι ’ for δι’ in 2:14
    κακοποιων for κακοποιῶν in 3:16
    ἓν for ἐν in 4:1
    ἡς for ἧς in 4:11
    μηδ for μηδ’ in 5:3
    ἀμὴν for ἀμήν in 5:14

    2 Peter 2
    δι ’ for δι’ in 2:2
    καταλίποντες for καταλιπόντες in 2:15
    ἀποφύγοντας for ἀποφυγόντας in 2:19
    κὺλισμα for κύλισμα in 2:22
    ἡ for ᾗ in 3:10
    οὺν for οὖν in 3:11

    1 John
    ἐσμεν for ἐσμέν in 4:6
    ἐαυτὸν for ἑαυτὸν in 5:18

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      08/27/2017 at 1:01 pm Reply

      Thank you for your observations. The UBS text of course is not the same as Stephanus 1550, as you are probably well aware. Most of the “typos” you list here, apart from the last two, don’t correspond to what is actually found in the original Stephanus, as you can confirm by looking at the scan and comparing it with the most recent version of TRStephanus.pdf downloadable on this site. In all those cases the present TRStephanus.pdf represents what is found in the scan precisely. Perhaps you have an older version of TRStephanus.pdf. I would check you have the latest TRStephanus.pdf by downloading it again. The last two typos in 1 John are genuine typos and I thank you for pointing them out. They will be fixed asap.

  15. Yes. You are correct. I did have an “old” copy. I say “old” because it has not been quite a long time since I downloaded it, but you apparently updated it fairly recently (i.e. in the past few months or so). All the typos I listed above did correspond to this “old” PDF of your typed version which I compared side by side to the scanned version of the original 1550 text, both of which PDFs came from this website. Last night, I downloaded the latest version and see that the typos I listed from 1 & 2 Peter above are correct in the latest version. Thanks!

    And. Yes. You are correct. I am aware of the fact that the UBS text and the Stephanus 1550 are different. I have used both (i.e. the UBS and/or Nestle-Aland and at least some version of the TR) for years, and have recently decided to make a full-scale, word by word comparison in order to mark every minute difference. I am creating the list so I will have every detail at my disposal. I decided to use your PDF because I can print it out for ease of comparison and so I can make notes on the printout. Thanks.

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      08/29/2017 at 12:37 pm Reply

      I updated the PDF TRStephanus yesterday with your two last typos corrected, but the previous one that I replaced yesterday was pretty recent update (early 2017). I put a note on the Resources page for readers to download the most recent version of any resource as I update some works regularly. Thanks again for your accute checking. I note one of the typos, the “esmen” with accute accent following a circumflex on “Theou”, occurs elsewhere in Stephanus 1550 without an accent (but there too following “Theou” with circumflex). That is a genuine alternative accentuation apparently.

  16. Hi, do you have the TrStephanus available in standard verse format, instead of crowded paragraph form?

    Regular verse format would be so much easier to compare and study.

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      09/06/2017 at 12:35 pm Reply

      At present the pdf format only is available, the original idea being to reproduce more or less the format of the original (that is blocks of text, page by page). Maybe verse format will be available in the future.

  17. I’m curious if any of Stephanus’ 30+ manuscripts contained Luke17:36? And why did the 1551 edition have it?

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      10/07/2017 at 1:08 pm Reply

      Thanks for your inquiry. The verse you refer to is found referenced in the margin of Stephanus where he notes texts alpha, beta, gamma, stigma and zeta added that verse. Of course, this shows the reliable texts he followed for the printed text supply the correct reading, as he reproduced them “letter by letter”. As regards the 1551, Stephanus did not have access to the texts he followed (the prime texts) for the 1550 as they were returned to the Palace Library, where they seem to have been confiscated or destroyed by the hostile pro-Vatican doctors of the Sorbonne (who enquired about them menacingly while he was still in Paris). The 1550 has the precedence over the 1551 for that reason. Also the 1551 is a comparative work, that is it compares the Greek (of assorted texts, as shown in this instance) with the Latin of the translations of the Vulgate and Erasmus. You will notice the Vulgate has this verse but Erasmus does not, as marked in the parallel columns. Stephanus provides the Greek here for the Vulgate text.

  18. I would like to report another typo in the PDF text at Revelation 11:10. The PDF says χάρουσιν; the original scan has χαροῦσιν.

    Thanks.

  19. Thanks for your reply. Luke 17:36 is interesting because the Old Syriac,the Peshitta, and the Complutensian contain this verse, and Beza also said it was in some ancient manuscripts.
    So is it rational to say that Stephanus’ manuscripts beta, gamma, stigma, and zeta may have come from the Royal Library and Italy? And a few of his manuscripts did in fact contain Luke 17:36, and it is therefore a minority reading?

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      10/10/2017 at 1:09 pm Reply

      Hello again with blessings in Jesus. Just to recap on Stephanus’ manuscripts and texts he used for the Gospels (quoted from link): “He {Stephanus} was accommodated with the use of fifteen MSS. from the royal library; out of these, and some one private MS., he formed the text of the “O mirificam,” of 1546. This stock he nearly doubled while he was preparing for the glory of his life, the folio of 1550; and when the text of that splendid edition had been formed from it, he selected seven of the fifteen royal MSS. and six of the private, numbered 2-14, to give opposing readings to his first volume (the Gospels and the Acts) which together with those of one of the previous editions {viz. the Complutensian printed text} No. 1, are given in the inner margin.” The MS. “alpha” in the margin here is the Complutensian printed text and the other texts (beta, gamma, stigma and zeta), are four (out of the original 15) Royal Library manuscripts. These are Greek manuscripts all of which have “gone missing” in the usual way such important witnesses of the anti-Vulgate Received Text did in the Renaissance. Compared to these good, but secondary, witnesses the palm was given by Stephanus to the majority witness of his best texts, which alone he used “letter by letter”, as he himself says, for the 1550. I think everybody would agree Stephanus was a good judge of these things. These excellent texts beat the Syriac, Peshitta and Complutensian hands down, though the Complutensian did use at least one good Manuscript (the “Rhodian” praised by Erasmus). However the Complutensian was capable also of ridiculous tampering (see the paragraph beginning “In one other respect Erasmus, wisely, did not follow the Complutensian” at this link: link). So yes, it is a minority reading in respect of Stephanus’ manuscripts (which should all be included as witnesses in Text Critical sources), and that is the important thing here, even though that minority of manuscripts was from the Royal Library. A similar thing can be seen in I John 5, the Three Witnesses, where a minority of texts omitted “in heaven” — again these manuscripts have “disappeared”.

  20. Hi, I have a question about the subscriptions. What does the last part of Luke’s subscription mean?

    “The Gospel According to Luke written in στίχοις βχοζ, κεφαλαίοις τμβ.”

    And what does the Romans subscription with the bars mean?

    |Εν στίχοίς Ϡκ.|

    Thank you.

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      10/12/2017 at 1:23 pm Reply

      Greetings in the Lord. Good question: important but often ignored. The stichoi are the lines of the original text in columns, so many lines of Greek text. The kephalaia are the sections of text marked in sequence in the inner margin of the 1550, and cross-referenced in the Canons at the beginning of the work. The Canons are lists of sections of text which appear in different Gospels. Some sections (episodes in the Gospels) appear in just one Gospel, or in two or in three etc. That is what is found in the subscription to Luke: first the total number of lines in the original columns of Greek text, then the total number of kephalaia (“sections”) in the Gospel. The subscription to Romans shows only the number of stichoi (lines of Greek text in the original). It has two vertical bars in my edition because it was taken from the Errata at the back of the 1550, and put here in its proper place.

  21. Thanks.That’s very helpful. So how would you translate these subscriptions into English? Is the number of lines and sections determined by the numerical values of βχοζ, τμβ, and Ϡκ?

    And are the subscriptions in the TRStephanus to be considered in their more original place, since the facsimile doesn’t have them in the main? (e.g. Matthew, Romans)
    The original subscriptions wouldn’t have the bars, right?

    • Brother Richard Brother Richard

      10/14/2017 at 12:30 pm Reply

      Greetings in Jesus! I would translate (according to the particular wording in each case) something like “lines [so many], sections [so many]” and yes, those Greek letters are numerals. The subscriptions are part of the original text, as you can see by the mention of “lines” — which are the number of lines (usually in columns of text) in the original, this number being given so future scribes could easily tot up the number of lines in their copy and check that they had followed the original faithfully. The original subscriptions didn’t have the bars which are part of my editing scheme (as you can see by the notes at the beginning of TRStephanus.pdf). These bars merely show I replaced the text here to its proper position from the Errata at the back of the 1550. Some parts of the New Testament in the 1550 don’t have subscriptions and that is because Stephanus found it this way in his best texts. Definitely all true modern copies of the 1550 should retain the subscriptions.

  22. Thank you very much!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *