Which Textus Receptus?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by EdSutton, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just accidentally stumbled on a great question for this forum. It is from one Robert Martin, of whom I had never before today even heard, but the question is legit.
    Answers, anyone??

    Ed
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    See my reply on 'Accidental Double Post' also authored by Ed .
     
  3. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon, would you please repeat the post? I had asked the Moderators to delete the 'Accidental Double Post' and it appears they did that, hence removing the entire thread, as I requested.

    Thank you,

    Ed
     
    #3 EdSutton, Jan 9, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2008
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    According to Arthur Farstad, president of the Majority Text Society and Executive Editor of the NKJV, "there are actually about 30 editions of the Textus Receptus, all varying slightly" (The Pillar, Spring, 1992).


     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1550 Stephanus edition is said to differ from the 1633 Elzevir edition [first edition called Textus Receptus] in 287 places (Scrivener, Introduction, II, p. 195). The 1550 Stephanus edition became the standard form of Greek text in England while the 1633 Elzevir became the standard form on the continent of Europe. The text of the Stephanus edition was followed in the Greek N. T. included in Walton’s 1657 Polyglot.

    Gail Riplinger implied that the 1633 Elzevir was the Greek text used by the KJV translators before 1611 even though this text was not available to them (Blind Guides, p. 13). The 1633 edition (the second of the editions published by Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir--uncle and nephew) was said to be edited by Jeremias Hoelzlin (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring, 1996, p. 35). Scrivener indicated that this 1633 Elziver edition corrected some of the worse misprints in their first 1624 edition, but that it still retained some misprints from that edition and “added a few peculiar to itself” (Introduction, II, p. 194). The Stephanus editions by Robert Estienne [Latinized form of his last name--Stephanus] also differ some from the editions of the Greek New Testament edited by Theodore Beza.

    Peter Ruckman wrote: "We recommend any edition of the [Textus] Receptus by Erasmus, Beza, Colinaeus, Stephanus, or Elzevir" (Bible Believers' Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3).

     
  6. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why am I not surprised by the implication made by Dr. Gail Riplinger?

    No doubt she is very familiar and experienced with Blind Guides. :rolleyes:

    In fact, I believe it is actually the 1598 Beza edition of the TR, that is primarily (but not entirely) believed to underlie the KJV NT, for the KJV seems to follow "its own readings" in several places, and not those of Beza, Stephanus, or even Erasmus, and also "picks and chooses" one over another, where there is apparently 'real' difference.

    Ed
     
    #6 EdSutton, Jan 9, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2008
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Floyd Jones wrote: "Basically it is Erasmus' work which is the foundation of the King James Bible" (Which Version, p. 44). In a sermon later transcribed into an article, David O. Fuller stated: “Erasmus was responsible for the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, that Greek text upon which the King James Version is founded” (Flaming Torch, Oct.-Dec., 2004, p. 6). David Cloud wrote: “The Greek Received Text was first published by Desiderius Erasmus” (Faith, p. 145). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 47). Yet in a later book, Waite claimed that the KJV is not “based on the Erasmus text” (Foes, p. 113). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible confirmed that “it was Erasmus’s editions that were to be the parents of the text of the subsequent centuries” (p. 113). This source added that “it is the text descended from Erasmus that is their [KJV translators/revisers] base” (p. 117).

    In 1534, Simon Colinaeus produced an edition of the Greek text that was "an eclectic mixture of the Complutensian and Erasmian" (Scrivener, Plain Introduction, II, p. 188). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible maintained that “the 1534 Paris Greek Testament produced by Simon de Colines, stepfather of Robert Estienne, came nearer to a critical edition, using Erasmus, the Complutensian text, and unnamed manuscript sources which obviously furnished some good readings” (p. 199). Scrivener's book cited Mill as observing that "in about 150 places Colinaeus deserts both [the Complutensian and Erasmian], and that his variations are usually supported by the evidence of known codices" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 188). Tregelles noted that in some places the edition of Colinaeus was based on manuscripts that the editor had examined (Account of Printed Text, p. 30). Tregelles pointed out that Colinaeus did not include 1 John 5:7 in his text (p. 30).
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The first two editions [1546 and 1549] of Stephanus' Greek New Testament were a compound of the earlier editions by Erasmus and the earlier Complutensian Polyglot. His third edition (1550) is considered to be closer to the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus' text (Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 104). KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance also noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). The Cambridge History of the Bible pointed out that "Erasmus's Greek text was to remain the principal source" for that standard 1550 text of Stephanus (Vol. 2, p. 449). Tregelles affirmed that in Stephanus' 1550 folio edition "Erasmus was almost exclusively followed" (Account of the Printed Text, p. 30). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "through its [Erasmus's Greek text] being incorporated into the third edition of Robert Estienne's Greek Testament (1550) it influenced strongly the Greek Testament of Theodore de Beza" (Vol. 2, p. 57). Scrivener noted that his “own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata” (Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).

    The fourth edition (1551) of Stephanus included two Latin New Testaments (the Vulgate and the Latin translation by Erasmus) on either side of the Greek text (Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 104). Armstrong pointed out that Stephanus defended the inclusion of the Latin Vulgate in his 1551 edition "on the grounds that it represented a very ancient Greek text, was still the most familiar version to most people, and was still a valuable translation to the beginner in Greek when used with a modern version" (Robert Estienne, p. 76). This fourth Stephanus edition was the first to have the text divided with numbered verse divisions.

    Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener noted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of all his collations? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31).

    Edwin Rumball-Petre asserted that Henry Stephens would later edit his own edition of the Greek N. T. printed in 1576 that “differs from both Beza and Robert Stephens” (Rare Bibles, p. 35).
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The editions of Theodore Beza (1519-1605), the friend and successor of John Calvin at Geneva, were based on those of Stephanus with only a few differences. Laurence Vance acknowledged that Beza's text "differs little from the work of Stephanus" (Brief History, p. 13). Beza's Greek editions also included the Latin Vulgate and Beza's own Latin translation (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 13). Irena Backus stated: "Beza's 1582 version differed from Stephanus in about 40 places" (Reformed Roots of the English N. T., p. 2). Backus produced evidence that "suggests that Beza was largely dependent on the collations of the two Stephani for his MS variants" (p. 6). Scrivener affirmed that “Robert Stephen did not even print all the materials that Henry had gathered; many of whose various readings were published subsequently by Beza from the collator’s own manuscript, which itself must have been very defective” (Introduction, II, p. 191). Edward F. Hills noted: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208). Scrivener wrote: "On certain occasions, it may be, the [KJV] translators yielded too much to Beza's somewhat arbitrary decisions" (Authorized Edition, p. 60). In his notes, Beza mentioned his misgivings about including John 7:53-8:11 in his text (Letis, Majority Text, p. 136).

    KJV defender Edward Hills asserted that the KJV "agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus" (KJV Defended, p. 220; see also Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 60). D. A. Waite pointed out that Scrivener found about 190 places where the KJV translators departed from the 1598 edition of Beza (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 71). James D. Price cited F. H. A. Scrivener as noting that the KJV translators followed the Complutensian Polyglot against Stephanus and Beza nineteen times and followed the Latin Vulgate against all the Greek editions of the Textus Receptus three times (Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version, p. 4). Kirk DiVietro, a KJV-only advocate, claimed: "The fact that the King James translators left the Beza text and the Stephanus text for other readings in about 25 places shows that they did not consider Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or any other printed text the final authority" (Anything But the KJB, p. 23). Edward F. Hills acknowledged: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207). Doug Kutilek observed: "In at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).
     
  10. Armchair Scholar

    Armchair Scholar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you, Ed.

    A book that I recently checked out, called God's Word in Our Hands, did a pretty good job of explaining the history of the TR and its revisions. I recommend that book. It can be found at Amazon.

    Just as there is no rule in Scripture against revising the English Bible (or in any other language), there is no rule in Scripture against revising the TR, which was originally edited by men, and still open to further revision. Has there ever been a "canon" made for the TR? And, if so, which edition of the TR? :D
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Which one of the twenty to thirty varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus do 99% of the existing Greek manuscripts support every word of its text?
     

Share This Page

Loading...