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]." 

Avoid bad company

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. (KJV)
Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” (ESV)
μὴ πλανᾶσθε· Φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρησθ' ὁμιλίαι κακαί (Stephanus 1550)
Nolite seduci: corrumpunt mores bonos colloquia mala. (Clementine Vulgate)
Be not seduced: Evil communications corrupt good manners. (Douay-Rheims)

Be not deceived. Evil communications corrupt good manners As nothing is easier than to glide into profane speculation, under the pretext of inquiring, he meets this danger, by warning them that evil communications have more effect than we might suppose, in polluting our minds and corrupting our morals. To show this, he makes use of a quotation from the poet Menander, as we are at liberty to borrow from every quarter everything that has come forth from God. And as all truth is from God, there is no doubt that the Lord has put into the mouth of the wicked themselves, whatever contains true and salutary doctrine. I prefer, however, that, for the handling of this subject, recourse should be had to Basil's Oration to the Young. Paul, then, being aware that this proverb was in common use among the Greeks, chose rather to make use of it, that it might make its way into their minds more readily, than to express the same thing in his own words. For they would more readily receive what they had been accustomed to -- as we have experience of in proverbs with which we are familiar.

Now it is a sentiment that is particularly worthy of attention, for Satan, when he cannot make a direct assault upon us, deludes us under this pretext, that there is nothing wrong in our raising any kind of disputation with a view to the investigation of truth. Here, therefore, Paul in opposition to this, warns us that we must guard against evil communications, as we would against the most deadly poison, because, insinuating themselves secretly into our minds, they straightway corrupt our whole life. Let us, then, take notice, that nothing is more pestilential than corrupt doctrine and profane disputations, which draw us off, even in the smallest degree, from a right and simple faith; for it is not without good reason that Paul exhorts us not to be deceived.

John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:33

Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

Image: Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) by Nat Ewert

This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 1 (The nature and extent of sacred doctrine) Article 8 (Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?) Reply to Objection 2 (emphasis added)