Talk:Textus Receptus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-->It was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus for his translation of the Bible into --->Latin, and later used as the basis for the translation of the New Testament --->in the King James Version of the Bible. This is the text that was in use by --->the Eastern Orthodox Church in Erasmus' time (c. 1500).


If Erasmus COMPILED the text (which he did from several texts, including the Vulgate,) then how could it be the text "in use by the Eastern Orthodox Church?"

Did the "Eastern Orthodox church" adopt this text after it was compiled??? or is this because most of the manuscripts he used were late Byzantine?

Part of the Greek in the TR is backtranslated from the Latin Vulgate -- I find it difficult to believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church would accept Eramsus text.

Michael

I agree with this. That the Orthodox Church should adopt this after the fact borders on impossibility. More likely the author meant that the Byzantine Orthodox were responsible for preserving some of the texts Erasmus used. But still--more evidence of the need for citations. Sophy's Duckling 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sources

Given that the Textus Receptus is a controversial topic, I think there should be sources for this article. With some (including Jack Chick) arguing that the textus receptus is the *only* legitimate text around, the claim that Erasmus just made a lot of it up with the help of the Vulgate should be very well verified if it is to appear in a Wiki article. Sophy's Duckling 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

* The wiki article says it was the first edition that was used as a basis for the KJV translation, but there are other sites that say later editions were used as the basis. Is there a more objective source, not necessarily on the internet, that could resolve this dispute?
  • Is there a survey of these anonymous "modern scholars" available?
  • Is there a list of the bits Erasmus made up? Moreover, is there proof that he fabricated them?


    • Edit, on 02/03/06 by Finlay Campbell

Added qualification and reference to debate over Erasmus' fabricating material - article was phrased too rigidly in favour of anti-Erasmus side of the debate. Also removed claithat "typographical errors abound". This MUST be substantiated if it is to remain in a Wikipedia article - even a few examples would have made it decent. Finally, rephrased statement regarding subsequent use of first editin, for sake of readability - previous version jarred.

[edit] Sources indeed

The contention that Erasmus fabricated his Greek text is a charge made often, (by those who do not like Erasmus) but not substantiated. Wiki guidelines specifically state that the information must be "verifiable". Either produce citations and reference that authenticate the points about Erasmus, or change this. The data needs to be...verifiable. Theo5


  • the 'Fabricated' (though this word is not fair, a better word would be 'restored' as Erasmus was interested in comparing the Greek to the Latin translation.) text is mostly the last part of Revelation. It seems he did not have a good copy and was forced to back translate from the Vulgate. Anyways, the last part of Revelation is 'unique' to the TR.

I John 5:8 also seems to be unique to the TR. It is not in any of the major text families, NOR was it in the major manuscripts Erasmus used [though, it was in at least one late western manuscript -- Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin. (From Clarke's commentary on I John 5:8)

Michael

[edit] "No school of textual scholarship..." source

It is impossible to prove that "No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus". Recently, I added a "source needed" tag to the clause, but had it removed. Something must be done with this sentence, as it is unsourced and unsourcable. Can we at least change it to say that the vast majority of textual scholars no longer defend its priority? --Mister Magotchi 17:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag - as the statement is linked to the textual criticism page; and simply summarises what is referenced there. If you know of a school of Biblical textual scholarship that does defend the priority of the Textus Receptus, then by all means add it to that page, and modify the statement on this one. Surely, it is the function of Wikepedia to summarise all significant scholarly positions on an issue - and then to say that there are no others? Just because this final statement is a negative, and not formally provable, is no reason not to include it. TomHennell 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

It's not clear why the square-bracketed phrase "text type" was inserted in the last edit. Suggest removing it if the editor doesn't clarify. The Editrix 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a conjecture on my part, based on the phrase "manuscripts. . .every variety" — in such a context I found it hard to understand "variety" as anything other than "text-type" (or on a long shot, "translation/version"). But those not familiar with textual criticism might have taken it to mean "every copy" or similar, so I attempted to clarify. It turns out I was correct, and text-types are meant rather than versions or anything else, judging from the source you provided:
With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. [. . .] With regard to Versions. . ."
» MonkeeSage « 06:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, it's not my source. I'm just here making grammatical fixes, and was baffled by the term.The Editrix 07:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. In any case, I've added more context to the citation and another citation from the same work so that the bracketed phrase is no longer necessary. » MonkeeSage « 07:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erasmus Annotations to NT

I believe it would be helpful if we got Erasmus' own annotations to the New Testament. Hopefully there he would point out how his translation differs from the Vulgate of Jerome, and his reasons for making the differences. As far as I know the only source for Erasmus' annotations to the New Testament are in The Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 66 pp. 51-60. I do not know this for sure, it is a reference from a book called The Erasmus Reader. I am going to check to see if I can find either the annotations online or where there is a copy of the Vol.66.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.68.117.82 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 April 2007.

Erasmus's Annotations have been published in recent years in facsimile, with an English Introduction. Most University libraries should have copies.

"The Gospels / edited by Anne Reeve ; introduction by M.A. Screech ; calligraphy by Patricia Payn : facsimile of the final Latin text (1535) with all earlier variants (1516, 1519, 1522 and 1527). 1986."

TomHennell 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Idiot

The author of this article explains that the Erasmus, Luther, King James and all the East, Western and Central Europe, William Tyndale, Church Fathers, the Orthodox and the Catholic churches (Latin Vulgate) are untaught idiots. So it is obvious authenticity that the author of this article himself is absolute idiot. Please read the following material as produced by heretic and cult.

(pov put in article proper in error TomHennell 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

The Church Fathers, and the Orthodox Church has never used the textus receptus, but the Byzantine text. In many cases the Byzantine text agrees with Alexandrian against the Textus Receptus (Comma Johanneum, Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; Re 22:19). The Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus are not the same. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The good example of an untaught thinking and argumentation you can find in: Providential Preservation of the Text of the NT. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)