公认文本
参考

↑  .   [2015-02-14]. （原始内容存档于2020-11-08）.
↑  《希腊文圣经的印刷和公认经文》
↑  A P. S. Allen, H. M. Allen, and H. W. Garrod, eds., Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 12 vols. (Oxford 1906–58), 2:226
↑  W. W. Combs, Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996), 45.
↑  Aland, Kurt; M. Welte; B. Köster; K. Junack (1994). Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neues Testaments. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 95. ISBN 3-11-011986-2.
↑  Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Edward Miller (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 1 (4 ed.). London: George Bell & Sons. p. 200.
↑  Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Edward Miller (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 2 (4 ed.). London: George Bell & Sons. pp. 189–190.
1 2  W. W. Combs, Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996).
↑  Joseph, D. I. (2023, September 1). 9 facts about the Textus Receptus. Bible Languages. https://biblelanguages.com/9-facts-about-the-textus-receptus/ （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 152.
1 2  Scrivener’s Preface To The TR, First Edition 1881, Reprinted 1881 (twice), 1883, 1884, 1886, 1890, 1894, 1908.
↑  Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1884  [2015-02-28]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-05）.
1 2  Scrivener 1884
↑  .   [2024-04-07]. （原始内容存档于2024-04-07）.
↑  Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1884  [2015-02-28]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-05）.
↑  .   [2024-04-07]. （原始内容存档于2024-04-07）.
↑  Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1884  [2015-02-28]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-05）.
↑  Scrivener’s Preface To The TR, First Edition 1881, Reprinted 1881 (twice), 1883, 1884, 1886, 1890, 1894, 1908. 斯克里夫纳写道：In considering what text had the best right to be regarded as “the text presumed to underlie the Authorised Version,” it was necessary to take into account the composite nature of the Authorised Version, as due to successive revisions of Tyndale’s translation.
1 2  .   [2024-04-07]. （原始内容存档于2024-04-07）.
↑  .   [2024-04-07]. （原始内容存档于2024-04-07）.
↑  .   [2024-04-07]. （原始内容存档于2024-04-07）.
↑  .   [2014-03-13]. （原始内容存档于2020-11-20）.
↑  Daniel Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text", Bibliotheca Sacra, July–September, 1989, p. 276.
↑  英文Douay-Rheims译本，此译本是按照武加大译本翻译到英语中的
↑  《伊拉斯谟出版的希腊文圣经》
1 2  "Why Does the Dutch “KJV” Differ from the English One?"
↑  Is the Textus Receptus Perfect in Every Jot and Tittle? | An Academic Lecture with a Surprise Twist!
↑  .   [2024-03-25]. （原始内容存档于2024-03-28）.
↑  Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? （页面存档备份，存于） "What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism.
↑  .   [2024-03-27]. （原始内容存档于2023-06-30）.
↑  An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin (London, 1815), ch. 1. The sequel mentioned in the text is Nolan's Supplement to an Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; containing the Vindication of the Principles employed in its Defence (London, 1830).
↑  Edward F. Hills, King James Version Defended!, pp. 199–200.
↑  Edward F. Hills, King James Version Defended!, pp. 209–213.
↑  .   [2014-03-13]. （原始内容存档于2014-03-13）.
伊拉斯谟新约的最后一页(启示录 22:8-21)
罗伯特·司提反的第四版新约
爱思唯尔1633年版本的前言。此图片经过编辑以突出 "文本" 和 "公认"。