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):


  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!


  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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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:

    or in PDF form:

  10. 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?

  11. 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: 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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!

  14. 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:
    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, 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.

  15. 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

    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: As proof that the mss. and codices that Stephanus used have “gone missing” we can cite these facts:
    From the Great Bible Text Fraud,
    “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.

  16. 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:

    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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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:, 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

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

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


  27. 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.

  28. 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”.

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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?

  33. 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.

  34. Hello. The Biblos font was designed by me with help from another partner many years ago to be as simple as possible and be usable without a lot of SHIFT use on the keyboard. There is no guarantee it works correctly on the latest versions of Word or other word-processing software applications, but it used to work fine, and still does, for example in LibreOffice which you can probably get in a Windows version free online. However, I have always found the best way to use it is with a special Biblos keyboard which my son designed when he was young (very young!), that is, with the BOSK keyboard. You can download it here: BOSK Biblos Keyboard. It is a basic, non-sophisticated little program. It is a Windows exe, as I presume you are using Windows. This used to work fine with simple text files and should be OK with Word. Try it and see, if not let me know. God bless you.

  35. Are there any known problems with using the Biblos font in MS Word? I have it installed on my computer and it doesn’t correctly reduplicate the Greek accentuation according to the TRStephanus pdf, especially capital Greek letters. I would like to copy some Greek to a document. Any advice?

  36. I downloaded the Adobe Acrobat file, “TRStephanus.pdf”, but in trying to copy it to a Micorosoft Word format it has been troublesome.

    Can I somewhere download the source document that was used to make the PDF file “TRStephanus”.

    Please advise.

    Thanks in advance.
    website: http: // www. childofthemountainswebdesign .com

  37. Hello and blessings in Jesus the Messiah. Only the PDF is available at present. The font online Screenboard referenced in an earlier comment reply might be a little help to get you to your destination.

  38. Gentlemen: We are working on a project, and it would be extremely helpful to have a copy of the Textus Receptus by Stephanus 1550 in Word format. We can load all the fonts required into our Windows Font directory, or the required fonts could be embedded in the document.

    Please advise if you can provide such a document.

  39. Blessings again in Jesus the Messiah. The TRStephanus is only available in the current PDF format. It is the only format authenticated by this site. Limiting the distribution to this format is, amongst other things, a way of ensuring an accurate reproduction of the text is achieved and maintained. The PDF is freely downloadable but that is the only service we provide at present. I hope that is not too much of a disappointment to you. With blessings again in Jesus and wishing you success in your work for Him.

  40. I see a typo in Revelation 17:4.

    The PDF has ἀκάθαρτητος. The correct form is ἀκαθάρτητος

    Thanks, David

  41. Thanks. You’re right again. You’ve been a great help, and God bless you for it. You’ll notice in the margin variant reading number 3, at Rev. 17:4 the variant reading is akatharta with the accute accent on the first alpha. It is this variant reading adopted by modern editions which underlies no doubt the base text I used in the beginning when starting the TRStephanus project. You will find these variant readings are found more often than not in the odd places I have failed to spot the difference. Again, great work!

  42. No problem. Glad to be of assistance. I appreciate your going to the great trouble of typing up this PDF.

    Well, I’ve happened upon another one. It is in Revelation 20:4. The PDF has θηριῷ. The scan has θηρίω.


  43. Oops! Here’s another…

    Revelation 20:4 – the PDF reads: τῷ θηρίῳ, οὐτὲ. the correct form is: τῷ θηρίῳ, οὔτε

  44. I need some history on this textus receptus 1550. i have heard it was used by the puritans. Please help me find the info I NEED.


  45. Blessings in Jesus. The Textus Receptus is the “received text”, a term used by the Elzevir printers in the early 1600s to describe the kind of text accepted as the God-preserved text of the New Testament. At the time there were minor textual variations in this text current in Protestant circles. The Calvinists in Geneva relied heavily on Beza’s New Testament work, and he, in turn of the notes of Henry Stephens, the son of Robert Stephens (Stephanus), who printed the 1550 Textus Receptus in Paris. Beza used Henry’s notes which included variant readings, and it was from a text of this type, basically the 1550 plus a few variants from Henry’s notes, that the Elzevir edition was formed. This is sometimes referred to as the Textus Receptus itself, but Henry’s notes were not intended to provide BETTER readings, they were merely variants which he had noted in manuscripts his father Robert had sent him to obtain in Italy, before he printed the 1550. Thus it is a mistake to take the Elzevir edition to be the true Textus Receptus, and it was mainly this that the KJV translators used to produce their (admirable) translation. Nevertheless, because both the Elzevir and KJV texts are largely the 1550 (with a few variants), it is easy for the modern reader to do as the KJV translators advised and correct it in the few places necessary to bring it in line with the 1550. The 1550 was itself a “letter-for-letter” reproduction by the great scholar-printer Robert Stephens (Stephanus in Latin, Estienne in French) of the inestimable Greek texts brought by the Greek monk Lascaris to the Royal Library in Paris. Lascaris was the greatest Greek scholar of the early Renaissance period in the West. It is a common error to believe that the text of Stephanus 1550 was produced as a compilation from the earlier text of Erasmus as used by Luther. Erasmus compiled his Greek text meticulously from the material available in his time, and produced a text ALMOST identical to the Stephanus 1550, but he did not have Lascaris’ manuscripts which arrived in Venice later. Thus Stephanus’ work is unique and is the only true Textus Receptus of the Reformers. Please note, as regards the Puritans’ attitude to the Received Text the following passage from the Westminster Confession:

    “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.” (Westminster Confession 1:8)

  46. I request the ability to forward my reading and learning on the NAME of the FATER in this amazing document. Please forward me an email that I can forward my Paper on this. the true Hebrew Name of our Father in whom the Son of Man came to fulfill Deut 18:18,19 I am a bit of a witness

  47. Blessings in Jesus. We don’t receive documents on this blog. If you summarize it in a comment here we can maybe discuss it.

  48. Hi, Revelation 11:10 “χαροῦσιν” (from the facsimile), seems to have reverted back to “χάρουσιν” in your latest TRStephanus. The previous TRStephanus had the corrrect reading “χαροῦσιν”.

  49. Blessings in Jesus! You’re right and don’t know how that one happened. Probably when they migrated servers on the hosting company — may have used slightly old copy by mistake and not the very latest. Corrected and uploaded accordingly. Thanks!

  50. Hello Brother Richard,

    Thank you for your work on this website!

    I do not see any mention of Public Domain on the site, and only a Copyright at the bottom of each web page. Is the Stephanus 1550 with Accents PDF you have in the Public Domain? If not, what type of Copyright or Creative Commons does it have?

    The exact text I am talking about is:

    Thank you for what God has led you to do here!


  51. Blessings to you in Jesus the Messiah! I guess what you are asking is is this TRStephanus.pdf usable in someone else’s software package. The answer is: not without permission. It is freely downloadable for private and non-commercial use, but if you want to include it either in a free or commercial software package or distribute it publicly yourself in some way, I would need to know who you are, what the deal is, and any monetary gains you would get from it, before giving an ok (if at all). I hope this answers your question, if not write back. Shalom.

  52. Hello, I have been using your pdf of the Stephanus Textus Receptus. Thank you so much for providing this. Now I really wish to know if there is somewhere that I can find a printed copy of the Textus Receptus that is not contaminated with any Sinaitticus. Maybe one from Stephanus. Every TR sold online is the Scrivener, and that is unacceptable. Please can you tell me where I can get my hands on a good TR? I wish I had your pdf printed as a book, but book printing is expensive. Please let me know if you know of anywhere where they are printing the true TR. May God always keep you in his truth. Amen.

  53. Thank you for your kind wishes, and may the Lord Jesus bless you richly. As far as I know, there is no printed copy of the true TR Text. However, I have done my own in the past, simply by printing out the TR on a laser printer and binding it. You can get PDFs printed and bound professionally, but that does cost, as you say. So no easy solution, though I recommend the DIY option.

  54. Hello sir, I have just today printed and bound a copy of the Textus Receptus that you published online. I want to thank you so much for putting in the work towards making this available. (I posted something on your website a few days ago.) I wonder if you could tell me what you know about the Stephanus 1550 edition. How did you become convinced that it is true to the original Majority text? I have seen that there are many editions of the TR and my desire is to know how to know which one is the real thing without any corruptions. I already know all about the insidious corruptions of all modern Bibles (after KJV, of course) and that is what lead me to search for the real thing. It seems to me that all TRs before the Scrivener’s edition are good, but which is the best? How did you choose Stephanus 1550 and also where did you get it from? Again, thank you so much for preparing the text.

    Samuel Kurcab

  55. Blessings in Jesus Christ and thank you for your kind words. I became convinced the Stephanus 1550 was the true Textus Receptus when I investigated its background. First the Textus Receptus referred to in the Elzevir edition is the Stephanus Text. Second, the 1550 Stephanus proves not to be based on the researches of Erasmus, as commonly believed, but solely on unique manuscripts of the highest quality brought into the Royal Library via Lascaris, the pre-eminent Greek scholar of the Renaissance, working for Lorenzo Medici. The text has the imprimatiur of Robert Stephens himself, the foremost scholar-printer of his day. These facts were established by Huyshe, whose stringent defense of the Stephanus 1550 as opposed to other texts is found in pdf form at I would recommend studying this thoroughly as it explains the true historical background of Stephanus’ work. A facsimile of the original printed edition of Stephanus 1550 can be downloaded from the link given at the beginning of the TRStephanus.pdf which you have downloaded. That is what is duplicated in the text found on this site. Incidentally, I would advise against using any other text found online claiming to be the Stephanus 1550, as you will find they are either faulty versions (e.g. Scrivener), or based on earlier versions of the text on this site, without any of the latest corrections, as supplied from time to time.

  56. [copy of contact form request]
    I am trying to translate Greek TR New Testament to my mother tongue, and I want to convert PDF Greek TR to Word, I tried copy and paste, but Greek change into transliteratation on the Word. Is there any way to keep the Greek on the Word when I do copy and paste?
    Please help me


  57. Hello.I found the webpage https:// distinguishingtruth.files. wordpress. com/2018/02/ trstephanus.pdf in a search for info on the various editions of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament.
    From what I can find on-line there seem to be several editions of the T.R. Greek New Testament.Such as: Beza, Elzevir, Stephanus, Giuseppe Guarino, and others.
    I like looking at the difference between the various editions. ( http: // www. textusreceptusbibles. com/ Variations_ Between_TR_ and_KJV and http: //textus- /wiki/ 191_Variations_in_Scrivener%E2%80%99s_1881_Greek_New_Testament_from_Beza%27s_1598_Textus_Receptus)
    Could someone help me find out WHICH edition of the “TR” Greek New Testament is CLOSEST to what I am seeking textually?
    Thank you for your time and possible help.

  58. Thank you my friend for your interest in getting hold of the actual Textus Receptus. There is only one “Received Text” (Textus Receptus) and that is the 1550 Stephanus as reproduced on this site. That was what the Elzevir brothers were referring to in their introduction to their printed Bible when they said we “now have the text received (textus receptus) by all.” Beza produced his own variation on this text when he added certain readings from the manuscripts of Henry Stephens (son of Robert Stephens/Stephanus who produced the 1550). These were not originally intended by Henry Stephens to improve the text but merely to provide a conspectus of the ms. variations. Beza’s altered text was in turn drawn on by the Elzevirs and then by the KJV translators in England. Giuseppe Guarino’s is a Majority or Byzantine text-form which draws on the majority of Greek texts from the Middle Ages, but these are not the same as the Textus Receptus of Stephanus. Stephanus is a particular form of that Majority tradition, a copy of the superb manuscripts brought from Greece under the patronage of Lorenzo Medici by the chief Renaissance Greek scholar Lascaris. Robert Stephens was the premier scholar-printer of the Renaissance and he was full of praise (“reverence” even) for these manuscripts. Later they “disappeared” after the Vatican’s representatives in Paris conducted an inquision into Stephens’ work.
    Scrivener’s text again is not an exact reproduction of the 1550 Stephanus. For example it alters the accentuation and punctuation, which is important. You can get a fuller understanding of the corruption of the text in these later editions by reading the comment and comment replies above, some of which go into more detail. We cannot guarantee that any other text you might come across is the real 1550 Stephanus apart from the copy downloadable on this site.

  59. [from Contact form]
    Textus receptus in word format

    Hello Richard,

    trying to find the best edition of the textus receptus, I came across and downloaded the Stephanus version available there.

    I would like to print this version and make it available to Spanish speakers in Mexico primarily. However, I would like to translate headings and chapters into Spanish, but doing this on a PDF is complicated. The document I downloaded says that there is an MS word version.

    Could you share the MS Word document?
    Can I have the print rights and distribute them in Mexico? I know the text itself does no longer have copyrights, but not sure if your edition has. I have a small printing shop, and I do not make a big profit out of the books I sell. I only recover production and management costs to offer affordable books to Christian people.

    Thanks a lot,

    Doner Bartolon

  60. My dear brother
    Blessings in Jesus’ Name, nice to hear from you. Certainly go ahead
    print the TRStephanus. I’m pleased our Mexican brothers and sisters
    will be getting the pure text. I’m a little concerned you may have
    downloaded an old copy of the TRStephanus, as the latest updated copies
    don’t have any reference to MS Word document. I suggest you download
    the latest copy from
    As regards the underlying file, I don’t hand that out these days as it
    ensures the text, when passed out over the web, is as free from errors
    as possible. However I would be happy to send you a copy of the Spanish
    version in PDF format if you send me first the relevant passages,
    headings etc. all translated into Spanish.
    With love in Jesus

  61. Brother Richard,

    Thank you for your fast reply. The only things that would need to be
    translated are the names of the books. The compilation of names is in the
    attached file.

    In Christ


  62. Blessings in Jesus
    thanks for the information. As I don’t open attachments on emails, I
    would be grateful if you could copy and paste this content on our blog
    where you first contacted me and I can take it from there.
    Looking forward to hearing from you so I can supply you with the PDF.

  63. [from Contact form]

    Stephanus 1550 Bible Resource

    Hi there,

    I am researching the texts of the Greek New Testament, and comparing them among others, like Scrivener’s 1894 TR.

    I appreciate the Stephanus 1550, you made available here:

    I am wondering whether you have another version of this resource, such as a Sqlite DB, or Excel sheet? I am attempting to extract the text from this PDF, am having some trouble with the process..

    If you could make this available to me, I’d greatly appreciate it.



  64. Shalom! Thank you for the time you are putting in to this important project. As said above in another comment reply: “As regards the underlying file, I don’t hand that out these days as it ensures the text, when passed out over the web, is as free from errors as possible.” This applies to the other formats you mention. Regarding the comparison of texts you will find the Stephanus 1550 is the ONLY “Received Text” (as referred to in the Elzevir edition) and if you search “Scrivener” on this site you will find some observations about his erroneous text. For more detail on Stephanus and on Erasmus’ efforts to discover the text finally established by Stephanus (from unique manuscripts from Greece) see the following link on this site:

  65. [reply to contact form query]
    Subject: Underlying file

    Message Body:
    Hi Brother Richard,

    The integrity of the greek is indeed important to me, as it is to you.

    I have no intention of distorting it, but am needing to look more deeply into it.

    I can offer you a fair payment for this if you could provide me this file for my research,


  66. Dear friend, thank you for your message. Of course there was no implication that you would distort the text in any way, it is merely my way of ensuring no errors creep in by mistake as the file is passed on. I simply provide the PDF for anyone free of charge (“Buy the Word and sell it not” as the Scriptures say). This is why also it is not a question of receiving payment for it. It will always be free. I would be interested to hear from you what your views of the transmission of the Greek text are, or any related beliefs you have. Please feel free to message on the blog any time.

  67. [from email reply]
    I am actually researching the exact values of the words used in the Bible. “Isopsephy”. What I have found is that the original Stephanus, and later the Beza and Scrivener TR have precise values in certain places, which are a symbol to something.

    I am needing the actual text available of the precise transcription you did, so that I can precisely calculate the values of each letter, word, verse.

    I can extract the text from your pdf, but there are a few errors in spacing:

    translit = {‘a’ : ‘α’, ‘A’ : ‘Α’, ‘b’ : ‘β’, ‘B’ : ‘Β’, ‘g’ : ‘γ’, ‘G’ : ‘Γ’, ‘d’ : ‘δ’, ‘D’ : ‘Δ’, ‘e’ : ‘ε’, ‘E’ : ‘Ε’, ‘z’ : ‘ζ’, ‘Z’ : ‘Ζ’, ‘h’ : ‘η’, ‘H’ : ‘Η’, ‘y’ : ‘θ’, ‘Y’ : ‘Θ’, ‘i’ : ‘ι’, ‘I’ : ‘Ι’, ‘k’ : ‘κ’, ‘K’ : ‘Κ’, ‘l’ : ‘λ’, ‘L’ : ‘Λ’, ‘m’ : ‘μ’, ‘M’ : ‘Μ’, ‘n’ : ‘ν’, ‘N’ : ‘Ν’, ‘x’ : ‘ξ’, ‘X’ : ‘Ξ’, ‘o’ : ‘ο’, ‘O’ : ‘Ο’, ‘p’ : ‘π’, ‘P’ : ‘Π’, ‘r’ : ‘ρ’, ‘R’ : ‘Ρ’, ‘s’ : ‘σ’, ‘v’ : ‘ς’, ‘S’ : ‘Σ’, ‘t’ : ‘τ’, ‘T’ : ‘Τ’, ‘u’ : ‘υ’, ‘U’ : ‘Υ’, ‘f’ : ‘φ’, ‘F’ : ‘Φ’, ‘c’ : ‘χ’, ‘C’ : ‘Χ’, ‘q’ : ‘ψ’, ‘Q’ : ‘Ψ’, ‘w’ : ‘ω’, ‘W’ : ‘Ω’ }

    Each Greek accent and letter has a transliteration that needs to be converted.

    I’ll offer $1000 in BTC for the original source file, just so there are no errors in formatting.

    Let me know

  68. Shalom. That is an interesting project. As I said on earlier comment reply the policy is not to give out the source documents. And Proverbs 23:23 “Buy the Truth, and sell it not.” and John 17:17 “Thy Word is Truth.”

  69. [from Contact form]
    Text based format

    If anyone is curious, a text based format of the Stephanus 1550 is here:

    h t t p s://t h e p r o p h e t i c t i m e l i n e . c o m / S t e p h a n u s _ T R _ 1 5 5 0 . h t m l


  70. I hope to have this as a hardcover NT, is there any way you would consider offering it as a physical copy and sell it at publishing cost, so the Word of God can be placed as an unalterable physical book? I received one from LuLu which someone else prepared and it had errors, I noticed immediately when movable nus were in the genealogy in Matthew that aren’t in the fascimile. You would be blessing others even more by doing so, certainly me, and I hope this happens. God bless you!

  71. Shalom. I have considered a hardback edition, because my own laser-printed copy gets worn out so easily. Your comment has prompted me to get my head down. So expect some good news on our own “Christian Hospitality Publishing Company” edition! Shouldn’t cost much to print it privately. Keep an eye on the site for notification. Give it six months maximum? something like that. Blessings in Jesus.

  72. I would like to give a heartfelt thanks to Sister Cheryl for providing me with a Stephanus Textus Receptus Greek New Testament. It is a tremendous blessing, and I thank God,Cheryl,and Brother Richard for making it possible. It is beautiful and priceless, and I look forward to reading it in the Spirit of God’s Word.

Leave a Reply

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

Comments of all kinds are welcome.

If you have no email or want to keep it private, just enter or similar in the Email box. Thankyou.