Get unlimited access to thousands of Bible and theology video lectures. Access an always-growing video library. Learn from leading Christian scholars. Stream unlimited videos on the web or on your iOS or Android device. Try It Free. ZA Blog Books and articles that equip you for deeply biblical thinking and ministry.
Robertson is prolix and Daniel B. At the very least, Erasmus consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla link to scanned image. The charge with respect to Erasmus' treatment of Revelation is dealt with in this article link on this website. As for the alleged "countless hundreds of printing errors" in Erasmus' first edition, these were corrected in later editions of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus himself and others, and never made their way into the KJV.
KJV translators knew of alternate readings. The KJV translators were not ignorant of the body of manuscripts and variant readings. The KJV has marginal notes next to the following verses showing alternate readings:. There were other manuscripts available to the KJV translators, and yet they used the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of manuscripts. Hodges, Maurice A. Robinson, are in the Byzantine tradition which generally agrees with the Textus Receptus.
With respect to the differences of whole verses, Codex Vaticanus does not have Matthew , forty-five chapters of Genesis, portions of Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, and Revelation. Papyri are just fragments of various books. Search this site. Wasn't the Textus Receptus based on just a few manuscripts? God in the Bible used only a few manuscripts to preserve his words There is a theological problem with deriding the Textus Receptus on the basis that its original edition descends from just a few manuscripts.
The dates being; , and The Elzevir text is practically a reprint of the text of Beza with about fifty minor differences in all. The Elzevirs were notable printers, and their editions of the Greek New Testament were accurate and elegant. They were of Flemish ancestry and were famous printers for several generations. Throughout Europe the Elzevir editions came to occupy a place of honor, and their text was employed as the standard one for commentary and collation.
The text of this edition became known as the "Textus Receptus" because of an advertisement in Heinsius' preface that said in Latin Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, 'Therefore you have the text now received by all in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. The Greek New Testament which is sold by the Trinitarian Bible Society today, was edited by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener is the same as the text of Beza 's fourth edition, except for places , in which Scrivener amended his text using earlier editions of the Textus Receptus.
John Mill - , collated textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS Oxford he reprinted the unchanged text of the Editio Regia , but in the index he enumerated 30, textual variants. Shortly after Mill published his edition, Daniel Whitby - , critiqued his work. He claimed that the autographs of the New Testament were identical to the Textus Receptus, and that the text had never been corrupted.
He believed the text of the Holy Scripture was endangered by the 30, variants in Mill's edition. Whitby claimed that every part of the New Testament should be defended against these variants. Bengel divided manuscripts into families and subfamilies. He favoured lectio difficilior potior. Johann Jakob Wettstein. His Apparatus was fuller than of any previous editor. He introduced the practice of indicating the ancient manuscripts by capital Roman letters and the later manuscripts by Arabic numerals.
Griesbach combined the principles of Bengel and Wettstein. He enlarged the Apparatus by more citations from the Fathers , and various versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Philoxenian. Griesbach distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, and a Byzantine Recension. Christian Frederick Matthaei was a Griesbach opponent. Karl Lachmann , was the first who broke with the Textus Receptus.
His object was to restore the text to the form in which it had been read in the ancient Church about A. The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament ; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6, readings.
A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type ; and consequently prefer the " Majority Text ". No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement , and other independent Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions.
Gail Riplinger concerning Theodore Beza stated:. Frederick von Nolan , a 19th century historian and Greek and Latin scholar, spent 28 years attempting to trace the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. He was an ardent advocate of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus over all other editions of the Greek New Testament , and argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.
Regarding Erasmus , Nolan stated:. Regarding 1 John , the long-standing belief that MS. Metzger himself admits this in the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament The Bible clearly portrays this single copy found in the temple as the sole catalyst for the great spiritual revival during Josiah's time and the rediscovery of God's words for subsequent generations. Ezra, a direct descendant of Hilkiah Ezra , canonized the Old Testament and transmitted it to future generations.
Ezra's Old Testament was surely based on Hilkiah's copy found in the temple. Whether or not Hilkiah or Ezra found other manuscripts besides the one found in the temple during Josiah's reign, the Bible is clear that the number of manuscripts does not matter as long as God providentially provides the manuscripts for a time of spiritual revival.
King Josiah saw the hand of God in preserving this single copy and never doubted its authenticity or integrity. He caused the words of this single copy to be read to the people 2 Kings There is a strong parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, the originator of the Textus Receptus. Both were men of high repute and rank. Both were upright while their contemporaries were apostate. Both caused God's words to be published after a time of spiritual darkness.
Both were catalysts of a great spiritual awakening. The Textus Receptus was to the Reformation what Hilkiah's discovery was to the revival in Josiah's days. Modern textual critics need to learn what the Bible says about textual transmission.
0コメント