Complutensian Polyglot as a Textus Receptus edition - Evangelical Textual Criticism discussion

Steven Avery

On the Comma Johanneum in printed editions, “Which TR?” and working from inaccurate data
by Elijah Hixson December 01, 2021

Numerous men during the past four centuries have produced editions of the Textus Receptus; these editions bear their names and the years in which they were published. These include:
  • the work of Stunica as published in the Complutensian Polyglot (printed in 1514 but not circulated until 1522) ....

Elijah Hixson then highlights verses that are not in the CP.

1. The Complutensian Polyglot lacks the Doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, though it does have a marginal note about it. The place where it would be if it were here is marked by a cross in the Greek text.

2. The Complutensian Polyglot omits the Greek text of Acts 8:37, though it retains it in the Latin side. Space-fillers are printed here in place of the Greek text.


I expect one could find even more places of difference, especially where the Complutensian Polyglot goes off on its own, and especially in Revelation. But to say with certainty would take more familiarity with the data than I currently have other than in a couple of instances (compare the Complutensian Polyglot to Erasmus’ first two editions at Rev. 1:2 and 1:11, for example). If we focus only on a handful of ‘test passages’, we can easily miss differences that occur where we aren’t looking—especially if we are not even accurately representing what is happening where we are looking. Worse still is taking the ‘absence’ (or rather, unawareness) of evidence where we aren’t looking as evidence of absence in general or assuming that there is no such evidence simply because we are unaware of it.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Here is the three-way continuation discussion on the CP issue.

Dwayne Green12/02/2021
Why is the Complutensian Polyglot considered a TR text? It was my understanding that Erasmus' work was developed completely independently of the CP.

Steven Avery12/08/2021
Hi Dwayne,
Good question.

Erasmus used the Complutensian as a source in his 3rd edition on. And it was used by Stephanus as well, thus it would effect Beza. The CP has a solid place in the TR tradition.

You can consider the general excellence and closeness of the Eramsus editions and the Complutensian Polyglot as a type of mutual corroboration.

My suggestion, read the section by Basil E. Hall (1914-1995) in the book Humanists and Protestants, 1500-1900, published 1990.

"Cardinal Jimenez de Cisneros and the Complutensian Bible."

For me it was a real eye-opener on the excellent scholarship, and the window on a time, pre-Trent, when the RCC was doing a very solid NT textual edition.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

Matthew M. Rose12/08/2021
Here's an older example of Scrivener including the Complutensian Polyglot within the TR corpus:

"It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus." –Scrivener "Intro." Ed. iv Vol. II pp. 264-265

And yes, the initial "closeness" and later use as a "source" by key TR moulders are both primary factors in it being regarded as part of the TR corpus. (As Avery has already explained.)

Dwayne Green12/08/2021
Thank you Steven!

Though I wouldn't be comfortable calling the TR "THE" text, it certainly does have an intriguing history.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Now we notice special information that might help this inquiry.

The World Perceived: Latin Vulgate readings found in the Textus Receptus compared with the Complutensian Polyglot

Hi, On Acts 8:37 the Latin text of the CP included the verse, and it was omitted on the Greek text. Afaik, the editions of Erasmus never allowed this divergence. Was this the only verse where this was done on the CP?

Some of these issues are recently discussed on"

Evangelical Textual Criticism
On the Comma Johanneum in printed editions, “Which TR?” and working from inaccurate data

Additional info at post #5:

Pure Bible Forum
Complutensian Polyglot as a Textus Receptus edition - Evangelical Textual Criticism discussion
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy

"The first time Erasmus acknowledged the use of the Polyglot was in the Annotationes to the 1527 edition, by incorporating readings explicitly taken from it, especially in the Book of Apocalypse.28 "


Reconsidering the Relationship between the Complutensian Polyglot Bible and Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum
Ignacio García Pinilla'_Novum_Testamentum

This is a helpful note in all the consideration of Revelation in the first edition of Erasmus, and how he improved the text in the years ahead.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Complutensian Polyglot Topics - Pure Bible Forum

Stephanus influenced by Complutensian, more than the Erasmus fifth edition

Stunica, the Complutensian Polyglot and the Rhodian manuscript

the Complutensian editors receive flak for their Greek text acceptance

the Complutensian Polyglot utilized the Codex Vaticanus?

from the Complutensian Polyglot and Erasmus to the Council of Trent

Complutensian Polyglot as a Textus Receptus edition - Evangelical Textual Criticism discussion

Summary - Complutensian Polyglot - Michael Screech cancel-sheet hypothesis countered by Ignacio García Pinillaía-pinilla.1909/
Last edited: