What Is the Textus Receptus? The Greek Text Behind the NKJV
Finding a familiar verse missing from another Bible can be unsettling, especially if you have memorized it or heard it preached for years. The difference may involve the Greek text being translated, rather than a translator choosing other English words. For the New Testament, I use the Textus Receptus and the received Byzantine tradition. I believe this text agrees with the manuscript evidence and with Scripture’s teaching that God preserves His words for His people. Understanding that choice requires us to consider both the evidence and the promise of preservation.
God Preserves His Words
A manuscript is a handwritten copy, the kind people made before printed books became common. We no longer possess the original documents written by the biblical authors, so scholars compare surviving copies to examine their wording. Ancient translations and books arranged for church readings also provide evidence, as do quotations in early Christian writings. A difference between these witnesses is called a textual variant. Many concern spelling or word order, while others involve a whole verse or a longer passage.
Copyists made mistakes, but their mistakes do not require me to conclude that God’s Word disappeared. I believe He kept His words available for His people to read, preach and translate into other languages. For the Old Testament, I use the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Here I am considering how to recognize the preserved New Testament text among the surviving witnesses.
Preservation does not mean that everyone who copied the Bible was inspired. Inspiration belongs to the God-breathed Scriptures, not to each copyist, printer or translator. Concealing their mistakes would weaken the position I am defending. We can acknowledge their limitations while trusting the God who preserved His Word through their work.
The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
Psalm 12:6-7, NKJV
I read Psalm 12 as an assurance that the LORD preserves His pure words. His people have received those words, not merely a religious impression left after the wording disappeared. The psalm does not trace every manuscript or identify a future printed edition, but its promise shapes how I approach that history.
Jesus spoke of the written Law down to its smallest marks and affirmed that it would be fulfilled. He also said that His own words would outlast heaven and earth.
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18, NKJV
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
Matthew 24:35, NKJV
Matthew 4:4 says that man lives by every word that proceeds from God’s mouth. Proverbs 30:5 calls every word of God pure, and the following verse warns against adding to His words. Revelation 22 likewise warns against adding to or taking away from the words of that book. I understand these passages to concern words people can actually receive and obey, rather than a general theme whose wording is beyond anyone’s reach.
Those promises do not settle every disputed reading. We still need to examine the evidence, including how manuscripts were copied and why some survived. I approach that work convinced that God preserved a usable text among His people. Climate and the work of institutions help explain the survival of particular copies; they do not fully account for the church having a Bible.
What the Received Text Is
Textus Receptus is Latin for “Received Text.” The name refers to a group of printed Greek New Testaments from the Reformation era. Erasmus published his first edition in 1516, and Robert Stephanus produced an influential edition in 1550. Theodore Beza published several editions later in the century. The Elzevirs’ 1633 edition described the text as received by all, helping establish the name now used for this printed tradition.
These editions differ in some readings as well as spelling and accents. Defending the Received Text does not require me to declare every edition flawless or its editor incapable of error. I believe God cared for the received text through the ordinary work of fallible people, keeping it recognizable and available to the churches.
The Received Text is closely related to the Byzantine tradition, long copied and used in Greek-speaking churches. It is not identical to every Byzantine manuscript or to modern editions called the Majority Text, which seek to represent the majority of surviving Greek witnesses. The NKJV’s own preface distinguishes these texts. Keeping the names clear helps us discuss the evidence for a particular verse without assuming that they all contain the same reading.
The KJV and NKJV were translated from the Received Text tradition. Choosing that Greek foundation does not mean English has replaced Greek or that the KJV translators produced newly inspired Scripture. I honor their work because they sought to convey Scripture faithfully. A translation has authority as it accurately communicates the words God gave and preserved.
The Manuscript Streams and Their Major Witnesses
Ancient translations and quotations can show that a reading was known before many surviving Greek copies were made. A lectionary preserves passages arranged for public worship rather than all the books in their usual order. Early Christian writers supply another witness when they quote Scripture. These sources broaden the evidence we can examine, although each still needs to be weighed carefully.
Not every manuscript fits neatly into a single family. Broadly speaking, the Byzantine text represents the tradition widely copied in the Greek-speaking Byzantine churches. The Alexandrian text is associated especially with early surviving witnesses from Egypt. These are descriptions of recognizable patterns, not a claim that every manuscript from a region has identical wording.
Modern critical editions are called eclectic because editors select readings from different witnesses according to what they judge closest to the original. They do not reprint Sinaiticus or Vaticanus unchanged. Alexandrian witnesses nevertheless carry considerable weight in those decisions, including decisions to omit wording retained in the Received Text. I disagree with that weighting because it can set aside the wider testimony of the churches that received and used the text.
An older copy deserves attention, but its date cannot establish the faithfulness of every reading it contains. Good storage could preserve one book while frequent use wore another out and required its replacement. Those possibilities do not tell us the history of an individual manuscript. We cannot assume that a well-preserved copy was seldom used or that every lost copy wore out in faithful service.
A later copy may preserve wording much older than the book itself. I give weight to the agreement of the Byzantine tradition and its widespread use among the churches. Believers heard Scripture read publicly, committed it to memory and replaced worn copies. That use could help people notice errors, even though errors could also be transmitted. I believe the church’s continuing use of the text belongs in our understanding of God’s preservation.
Two manuscripts frequently discussed are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century. A codex is a book with pages rather than a scroll. They are also called majuscules because of their large capital-style Greek writing. Their age makes them valuable witnesses, but it does not make every reading they contain decisive.
Sinaiticus has a long association with Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. Parts of its nineteenth-century history are disputed, but those disputes do not establish fraud. I can question the weight given to its readings without making an accusation I cannot substantiate.
The Codex Sinaiticus Project describes extensive correction, and its transcription guide explains that most corrections concern spelling. We need to examine what changed before treating a correction as evidence against a reading. Counting every correction as a doctrinal alteration would misrepresent the manuscript. I still question allowing its readings to overrule wording received broadly in the churches without weighing that wider testimony.
Vaticanus is not a complete ancient New Testament. Its surviving fourth-century text ends partway through Hebrews 9:14, with later copying supplying material beyond that point. The ancient portion lacks the letters to Timothy and Titus, known as the Pastoral Epistles, as well as Philemon and Revelation. It cannot testify to a reading where its text is missing. The surviving text remains valuable evidence to weigh alongside other witnesses. A gap does not establish deliberate removal, and the manuscript’s age does not settle the remaining questions about its wording.
Readings That Ordinary Bible Readers Notice
A footnote or a bracketed passage is often a reader’s first encounter with these questions. A note such as “some manuscripts omit” summarizes a judgment about the evidence without explaining the whole case. Brackets often indicate uncertainty about whether words belong in the text, although editions differ in how they use them. We need to know what changed and why: a spelling difference raises a different question from the absence of a whole verse.
In 1 John 5:7-8, the Received Text includes the heavenly witnesses: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. That wording is commonly called the Johannine Comma. I retain it as part of the received reading.
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
1 John 5:7-8, NKJV
The NKJV’s note on this passage acknowledges that the wording about the heavenly witnesses has very limited support in surviving Greek manuscripts and is absent from both the critical and Majority Text editions. I cannot defend the wording by claiming that most Greek manuscripts contain it. I retain it because of its place in the Received Text, and the study on the Johannine Comma examines the question more fully. Scripture elsewhere teaches the Trinity: one God in three coequal, coeternal Persons. That teaching does not depend on this passage alone, but its presence elsewhere does not settle whether these particular words belong here.
In 1 Timothy 3:16, the Received Text states explicitly, “God was manifested in the flesh.” Other readings do not explicitly name God in that clause. I retain the received wording, which agrees with Scripture’s teaching that Christ is fully God and fully man.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16, NKJV
In the Received Text, Colossians 1:14 explicitly connects redemption with Christ’s blood. The shorter reading does not erase the teaching about His blood elsewhere in the chapter, but that does not answer whether these words belong in this verse.
in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:14, NKJV
Our salvation involved Christ’s actual bodily suffering and death. The blood He shed was physical blood, and the forgiveness we receive by faith rests on His sacrifice for us.
In Acts 8:37, the difference involves a whole verse in which the Ethiopian eunuch confesses his faith before Philip baptizes him. The exchange shows that baptism follows faith in Christ and publicly confesses Him; it does not produce salvation.
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Acts 8:37, NKJV
I want someone learning about baptism to be able to read this exchange with Philip in the passage itself. Here the eunuch plainly identifies Jesus Christ as the Son of God before receiving baptism.
Mark 16:9-20, commonly called the longer ending of Mark, is another disputed passage. I receive it as part of Mark’s Gospel. It records resurrection appearances and the commission, followed by Christ’s ascension and His work through those who preached.
So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.
Mark 16:19-20, NKJV
The bodily resurrection is taught throughout the Gospels and apostolic preaching, so it does not depend on this ending alone.
John 7:53-8:11, the account of the woman taken in adultery, is often bracketed or footnoted too. Jesus answered the attempt to trap Him and showed the woman mercy without excusing her adultery. His instruction to “go and sin no more” in John 8:11 belongs with that mercy. We should not use the passage to dismiss the sin or to approve the hypocrisy of her accusers.
Some shorter readings also affect familiar statements about salvation. Matthew 18:11 says, “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” John 6:47 makes the object of faith explicit: “he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” I want those statements of Christ’s purpose and the faith through which we have life retained where the Received Text places them.
Romans 16:24 preserves the closing blessing, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” Mark 1:2 illustrates a difference in attribution rather than the loss of a whole sentence. The Received Text introduces a combined quotation from Malachi and Isaiah with the words “in the Prophets.”
People can hear the gospel and be saved while reading translations based on a critical text. My concern is the cumulative effect of removing or questioning received wording about Christ and His blood, as well as confession, repentance, baptism and resurrection. Showing that a doctrine survives elsewhere does not answer the textual question in a particular passage.
Why I Use the NKJV
Choosing a Greek text leaves us with the responsibility to translate it faithfully. Formal equivalence, often called word-for-word translation, aims to stay close to the source’s wording and structure. It does not assign one English word mechanically to every Greek word, because languages do not correspond so neatly. Translators must express the meaning accurately in good English. The KJV and NKJV follow this approach.
Dynamic equivalence gives translators greater freedom to express what they understand a sentence to mean, while a paraphrase restates the thought more freely still. This can make an explanation easier to follow, but more of the translator’s interpretation enters the wording. I would consult a paraphrase as an explanation or devotional aid and use a translation closer to the source wording as my foundation for doctrine.
For public teaching at Unforsaken, I use the NKJV. It keeps the Received Text foundation for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament while using current English. Its notes identify major textual differences, including differences from the critical text and the Majority Text. A reader can examine those differences instead of having to guess what another edition says. The study on which Bible translation I can trust develops the reasons for my choice.
Using the NKJV gives me no excuse to humiliate someone who owns an NIV or ESV. A person beginning to read the Bible needs patient instruction. If a family owns several translations, I should explain the differences without frightening them about every Bible on their shelf. I can give firm reasons for my choice without expecting a fellow believer to know the history of every verse already.
Careful scholarship can serve the church through language work, historical study and manuscript comparison. I welcome that work under Scripture’s authority. My disagreement concerns the practical authority given to a reconstructed critical text over the text received and used among God’s people. I am still responsible to describe the opposing methods accurately.
Receiving and Obeying the Preserved Word
If a footnote has unsettled you, compare the readings and ask what evidence supports the decision. You do not have to master every manuscript before trusting the God who preserved His Word. Bring the questions into the open and work through them instead of withdrawing from Scripture.
I recommend reading the NKJV with confidence and learning its wording. Bring your Bible to church and examine what is being preached. Teach it to your children, and let its instruction govern the decisions you make away from church. If I am too busy arguing about the Bible to read it, I need to change how I am spending my time. The study on how to study the Bible properly offers further guidance.
The Scripture we are defending reveals Jesus Christ and exposes our need for Him. He is the eternal Son, fully God, who became fully man and lived without sin. Wicked men tortured His innocent body and put Him to death. His sinlessness made Him the perfect sacrifice, and He willingly gave Himself to be slain for the sins of the whole world. The Father did not punish, curse, abandon, strike, bruise, or pour wrath on Jesus. Father and Son remained united in providing salvation. Through His shed blood and death, Christ completed His saving work before His burial and bodily resurrection.
God genuinely offers salvation to every person, though people can resist that offer. Everyone who repents and believes in Christ receives forgiveness and everlasting life. God makes that person a new creation, indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. The believer is eternally secure, but assurance gives no permission for lawlessness. Calling myself a Christian does not establish that I have been born again. The new life should be evident in my conduct; obedience does not earn salvation or keep me saved.
My Final Thoughts
I believe the Textus Receptus and received Byzantine tradition are the proper New Testament foundation for Unforsaken. That conviction does not require an inspired printer or a copying history without mistakes. I trust God’s preservation through the text His people received and used, and I teach from the NKJV so readers can understand it in current English. When I recommend that Bible, I am also acknowledging its authority to correct me, including when it exposes something I would prefer to excuse.