The TR

Which version of the TR?

 

You were told wrong.

It has been claimed that when Erasmus was compiling his Greek New Testament which later became the text from which the KJV was translated he was missing the last six verses of Revelation in the Greek and so he used the Latin Vulgate and translated those verses into the Greek.

That may be true, but it may not be the whole story. Erasmus' Greek New Testament, while departing from the Alexandrian text type, also departs from the Latin text. Not as much, but it does depart. In verse 20 the Erasmus Greek text reads "Amen. Nai, erchou, kurie Iesou" [Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus] while the Latin reads "amen veni Domine Iesu" [Amen come Lord Jesus].

The great textual scholar Herman Hoskier, in his book Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), on page 644 argued that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 141 (which we know as 2049), and the evidence seems to support this position. Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of Revelation 22:19. To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067.

So, the evidence is mixed. However, the KJV translators did not have to add anything or back translate anything. Erasmus began his work in 1516, 91 years before the KJV committees began their work. They had several editions of his TR, all of which contained the complete text of Revelation as compiled by Erasmus in 1516 and following.

 

I think Skan is right. Erasmus by all accounts DID use a little Vulgate Latin in the last chapter but he did produce a complete copy of the NT. Remember he was trying to beat the pope's officially sanctioned translation. That's why Erasmus dedicated his to the pope - to assuage any anger that would come by his coming out first! And the KJB translators worked nearly 90 years after Erasmus' original, which itself was revised multiple times.

 

The following is posted at the request of the source:

From Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D., Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina:



I do not participate on the Baptist Board, but do look over its postings from time to time. Since I could not reply privately to “skanwmatos” (who has no email address in his member profile), it might be useful to post on the board some clarification regarding an oft-repeated inaccurate statement regarding manuscript evidence in Hoskier’s collation of MSS of the Apocalypse.



Skanwmatos’ post under the “TR” thread stated:



“The great textual scholar Herman Hoskier, in his book Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), on page 644 argued that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 141 (which we know as 2049), and the evidence seems to support this position. Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of Revelation 22:19. To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067.”



First, the page referenced above states _only_ the collation data, and makes _no_ claim nor argument regarding any hypothetical use by Erasmus of MSS 2049, 296, or 2067 (which happen to be the only Greek MSS reading “book of life” at that point). Hoskier’s note reads simply,



“TOU XULOY Aleph A B E minn. Omn. Et 208 [exc. 57 141, BIBLIOU 119mg***] …”



This is followed by a list of some printed editions, versions and fathers who also read XULOU in that location.



As for Hoskier’s MS 57 (= 296, XVIth century, located in Paris), Hoskier vol. I:179 states that this MS is a “Copy of Colinaeus Edition” – a printed TR.(1534). Regarding MS 141 (= 2049, XVIth century, located in Athens), Hoskier I:474 expresses concern regarding its presumed date, noting that virtually all scholars date it as 16th century, and if they are correct, “it may simply be a copy of the printed text of Erasmus, Aldus, or Colinaeus”; on the other hand, if they are incorrect in their dating, it may be “a sister of Apoc. 1” (the MS Erasmus used to create his TR edition), but with no suggestion that Erasmus would have actually used this particular MS. The current opinion of that MS as given by expert palaeographers continues to hold that it is a XVIth century product. As for the marginal notation by the third corrector of MS 119 (= 2067, XVth century, located in the Vatican Library), Hoskier says nothing about this in his discussion of that MS, except to note (I:390) that the third corrector who wrote that marginal notation is “late” and only corrected “a few” readings.

Even if any of these MSS predated Erasmus (which is unlikely), given the locations in Rome and Athens for MSS 2049 and 2067, it would not seem that Erasmus would have ever seen either MS. Erasmus possibly could have seen MS 296 in Paris before his death in 1536, but if that MS indeed is a “copy of Colinaeus” edition (1534), it would not have existed prior to Erasmus’ creation of his first edition TR in 1516. While Erasmus did reside in Italy between 1506-1509, and did make a short visit to Rome in 1506, there seems to be no indication that during that time he investigated the readings of Greek MSS in the Vatican, and would hardly have been aware of or sought out a single obscure MS of Revelation during a time several years before the thought or work upon a printed Greek NT edition had begun.



I hope that clarifies.

 

If you don't count Scrivener's 1894/5 version.

HankD