four Textus Receptus positions

Steven Avery


The main positions on "which TR" are as follows.

TR - Scrivener 1881
(Dean Burgon Society, TBS, many Baptist)
It is true that Scrivener's position and the history of this edition has been masked.

TR - Stephanus 1550 and/or Beza 1598 and Elzevir 1633
These were the refined editions used for translating for hundreds of years, allowing some significant differences between Stephanus and Beza-Elzevir

TR - King James Bible -
Edward Freer Hills is important here
(then the sub-question, which one, like 1611, 1769, PCE)

TR - many editions in general (one Confessional writer tried to omit Erasmus 1-2 which shows the difficulties in this position)

My own position is KJB (PCE) as the apex Pure Bible text.
And I would say that overall the various KJB positions are more popular then the somewhat stale Scrivener 1881 edition position, often called 1894 wrongly.

Remember, the Scrivener position is often combined with the Ben Hayim Masoreetic Text edition position, which falls immediately on Psalm 22:16 and Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68. There really is no possible answer there for Waite and TBS.

However I can ally with any of the positions in disputes with corruption versions and the massive amount of Critical Text nonsense.
And even against the one-dimensional Majority and Byzantine Greek positions. And various Peshitta primacists and Vulgate positions.