The Received Greek Text

Image: The Received Greek text & the Authorised Version

“Stephen’s edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevir’s [1624] have been taken as the standard or Received text, the former chiefly in England, the later on the continent…”

F. H. A. Scrivener, “A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students” (p. 442)

“The text which has been considered the Received Text by theologians of different places and different years has not always been the same. One general distinction to be mentioned is that between England and the Continent, inasmuch as the text of Estienne of the Regia edition of 1550 has for the most part prevailed in England, whereas on the Continent the text of Elzevir, 1624, has held the chief place.”

Eberhard Nestle, The Journal of Theological Studies, (p. 564)

This being an historical fact, I think it's prudent that we defend these two (very similar) editions of the Received Greek text as THE Received Greek text. To do otherwise is, I think, to ignore the providence of God working through his church from 1514-1624. The text, by 1624, had settled, and these texts were defended as the Received Greek text from that time forward.

To suggest that we use Scrivener's edition, or use the various and sundry printed editions of the Renaissance/Reformation era Greek text since 1514 for a (possible) future edition with critical apparatus — neither of which has ever been received — is, I think, wrongheaded.

According to the providence of God working through his church, the Received text became what it became in time and on earth: "Stephen’s edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevir’s [1624]."