Textus Receptus

[halifaxchristian]

Super Jew...

Sorry for the long delay. I have been re-reading books, articles, and other information on this topic. A lot of the old information I had stored on this topic got lost in the trash can of my forgetfulness so I had to re-obtain much facts and history. I hope that I touch on all of the points that you brought up in your previous email. I wrote down summations of the things you used in your defense and I have laboured to answer accordingly.

THE OLD LATIN VULGATE

Let's go back in time. The oldest COMMON ANCESTOR of the original autographs is generally agreed by all parties to be the Old Latin Vulgate. There are presently no complete manuscripts of the Old Latin Vulgate. There are, however, many quotes and references to the Old Latin Vulgate by many of the early church fathers including Tertullian and Augustine and many historians. The Old Latin Vulgate was never subject to a revision committee or a council, but, rather, was merely a collection of texts that had the approval of local churches and bodies of believers.

JEROME'S LATIN VULGATE

The Pope made a decree that would forge the Old Latin Vulgate into an official document of the Church. It would be commonly be called the Latin Vulgate. It was translated by Jerome. Jerome objected to the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Old Testament, among other things, but in obedience to the authority over him, was faithful in his translation. This version of the Bible took place in the 4th century.

THE L.V. REJECTED BY MANY GROUPS

The now-official Latin Vulgate was supposed to be a very popular and common translation, but it never caught on as intended...much like the Revised Version of the King James Bible in 1881. When Latin became a dead language, the Latin Vulgate "died" per-se. Many of these ancient manuscripts and fragments have been recovered in the modern day. The Latin Vulgate became the basis for every sequencial Bible of the Catholic Church. There is a common belief that Erasmus, in his Textus Receptus, used the Latin Vulgate as his primary source of translation...but this is unwarranted. And we shall see why. It is worthy to note that during the reign of the Latin Vulgate, all of the eastern churches, including the Greek Orthodox Church, the Waldenses, Anabaptists, and many of the more primative northern churches, rejected the Latin Vulgate for their "majority text" which was based on the Old Latin Vulgate. The "majority text" gets its name from the fact that this "type" of manuscript, often called the "byzantine", is in the vast majority of known artifacts and manuscripts. Though much of the "byzantine" or "majority" groupings are much newer than the opposing types of manuscripts (see below)...this lineage represents the mainstream by all accounts.

THE "MINORITY" OR ALEXANDRIAN TEXT

The "minority" type retrieves its name from the fact that this lineage of manuscripts is in the vast minority. Much of the "minority" texts were found in Alexandria, Egypt, and surrounding areas. This grouping more resembles the Latin Vulgate by Jerome than it does the Byzantine family. Other Biblical textual findings by the Catholic Church in recent years, such as Vaticanus and Sinaticus, are "generally" in agreement with Minority. I say "generally" for a reason. It is a well-known fact that the Minority manuscripts differ far more often than we find the Majority manuscripts do. Most scholars would agree that the Minority manuscripts are hopelessly contradictory in a series of ways.

The Alexandrian texts are the oldest actual manuscripts that we have in existance today. They date to around the 4th century. Most scholars and historians agree that they probably are distortions of or based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate (depending on whom you were to talk to). They likely post-date the Old Latin Vulgate. It is probable that the people around Alexandria did not have access to the Old Latin Vulgate. These writings were not in abundance and this Bible was also outlawed by the Roman Empire at this time (pre-330AD). Most, if not all, true believers in Christ fled this area and avoided this area. The blatant paganism that prevailed in this area was also a reason for this avoidance. There is every reason to believe that the Gnostic areas of Alexandria did not have access, in any significant terms, to the pre-Jerome Latin Vulgate. Even scholars in Alexandria who did have such access, such as Origen, unquestionably and without doubt cut and pasted, added and subtracted, unto the New Testament Scriptures. Much of this evidence lies in their own admission. This is not a good beginnings for the Alexandrian type. All in consideration...gnostic influences, lack of common canon, avoidance by believers, etc...the minority text has many factors that discredit them.

Keep in mind that the Minority manuscripts died out. They were in all reality "lost" for hundreds of years. The likely reason for their old ages and preservation is the environment conditions of egypt and lack of usage. Older does not mean better.

ERASMUS

Erasmus (16th century) was a Roman Catholic and a humanist. However, he was not a Roman Catholic at heart and a "humanist" in his day was far different than a present-day humanist. People love to try to discredit erasmus' name but only in vain. God chose the right man for the job, no question. Erasmus, although a Roman Catholic by name, was far from a RC at heart. Many of his writings and commentaries go against RC doctrines, such as his essay "Treatise of Preparation of Death", in which he heavily exhorted justification by faith, not works, etc. In fact, Erasmus and his writings were specifically condemned in the Council of Trent (which was formed to stop the Reformation). Erasmus refused to be a Cardinal when offered the position and was condemned by the RCC in "The Blasphemies and Impieties of Erasmus of Rotterdam" by Diego Lopez Zuniga in the year 1522. Erasmus is also accused of being a "humanist" which he was. However, a "humanist" in that day and age was merely someone who enjoyed the arts and entertaiment and was appreciative of higher learning in the sciences, etc. He did not embellish anti-Biblical doctrines but cherished the Bible highly as can be seen in his preface to the Textus Receptus. Amazing words by an amazing man. Though he was not perfect, he was the right man for the job.

ERASMUS AND HIS "ERRORS"

People often accuse Erasmus of making many mistakes and errors because of the fact that he made 4 editions of the Textus Receptus. The first accusation is that he rushed his work. The 1st edition he made was indeed hastily and very quickly done in one year. This was only because he had to make a deadline set by a very eager publisher. The 1st edition sold out in one year and never ever was the basis for any other translation. The later editions took him a total of 20 years...not exactly "rushed" according to most. The subsequent editions that Erasmus made are a testimony to his devotion and diligence, though opponents would have one think otherwise. Also, during this time, Erasmus did not change manuscripts, but merely laboured to make his rendition more accurate.

The second accusation is that Erasmus was not well versed in the languages. This is pure propaganda as Erasmus was chosen for the job for a reason. He was highly educated, and obviously was sure of himself...after all, he did translate the whole Bible in one year...did he not? That alone is a testimony to his confidence and ability. Let me note this also: the original accusers of Erasmus were not concerning his abiliy or even theology, critical, or textual integrity, but rather, were personal attacks and slander...much like the tabloids of today. Only after this failed were there attacks on Erasmus' expertise. The first to offer such criticisms was Edward Lee, archbishop of York, who organized a committee against him. He accused Erasmus of tampering with the Vulgate. But wasn't Erasmus a "good Catholic" as the propagandists of our day would have one believe?

ERASMUS AND HIS MANUSCRIPTS

A charge often used against Erasmus is that he only used a few late byzantine manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate. In fact, Erasmus had over 300 manuscripts at his disposal and even had access to B and Oleph, the basis for most modern translations. Dean Burgeon, the great contemporary and anti-thesis to Westcott and Hort (both whom were the cheif post-modern defenders of the Alexandrian-type)...shows proof of this in much of his writings and findings. However, much of Dean Burgeon's defense of Erasmus and his manuscripts have never been published by any major publishers. His scholarly efforts have never been mainstream and deaf ears have been turned...simply because of his stance and not because of his qualifications...which are absolutely prestigeous and among the elite of all time learners. Much of his works sit in the British museum today.

So there is proof that Erasmus had the Alexandrian-type proof-texts, the Latin Vulgate, and the Byzantine-type manuscripts at his disposal while making the Textus Receptus. It is by Eramsus' own admission, and even by his opponents (including the RCC), that he followed the Byzantine family and agreed with this lineage in his translation...rather than following the Vulgate/Minority/Alexandrian type. Erasmus defended his faithfulness to the Byzantine-type. Erasmus even had to defend his inclusion of 1 John 5:7 (this is further proof that he had access to the Minority texts). Though this verse was not found in the majority of even his byzantine texts, it was in many of them. But the real reason Erasmus used in his defence of 1 John 5:7 was that many of the early church fathers quoted and referred to this text, such as Jerome, Origen, Cyprian, Hilarius, Priscilian, Cassiodorus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, etc. There are instances where Erasmus is even accused of not being faithful to the byzantine, but these occurances are few and far between. Most of these accusations concern only the last 6 verses of Revelation and a few verses of John's writings. He defended his inclusions and translation by referring to variants of the early church fathers, among other factors.

TEXTUS RECEPTUS

The Textus Receptus is the version considered preserved by the Greek Orthodox Church, the Syrian Church, the Celtic Church, the Anabaptists, Bohemians, Waldenses, and other persecuted Protestant groups that preserved and remained faithful through the ages to justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ. The Textus Receptus is the basis for our present-day King James Version Bible and all of the previous English translations. However, after God's finished work of the KJV Bible for the english-speaking world...EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION SINCE HAS BEEN FROM THE MINORITY/ALEXANDRIAN TYPES and NOT FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ALONE.

Pick and choose what Bible you read from and do not be decieved.

Super Jew...I have much more that I want to quote and state...however, for now I will post this and reply later with more.

God bless.

[Guest eponine]

A few questions for you, Halifax:

(I'm sure superjew will have many more

THE OLD LATIN VULGATE

Let's go back in time.  The oldest COMMON ANCESTOR of the original autographs is generally agreed by all parties to be the Old Latin Vulgate. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you please explain this statement? How can an original autograph have an ancestor?

Sorry, I don't know how to quote more than once in a post. I'll just copy and paste your statements I want to ask about...

"Most scholars would agree that the Minority manuscripts are hopelessly contradictory in a series of ways."

I have only heard this affirmed by KJV- or TR-only scholars. To which scholars are you referring in your "most"?

"Most scholars and historians agree that they probably are distortions of or based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate (depending on whom you were to talk to)."

Same as previous question

"He was highly educated, and obviously was sure of himself...after all, he did translate the whole Bible in one year...did he not?"

Into what language did Erasmus translate the whole Bible? I really did not know that he did this.

"So there is proof that Erasmus had the Alexandrian-type proof-texts"

These are separate from the ones that were buried in Egypt for so many years?

"(this is further proof that he had access to the Minority texts). "

same as last question

[halifaxchristian]

"The Greek Vulgate (byzantine/Majority)...had in its origin no such single focus as the Latin had in Jerome."-Ernest C. Colwell, American scholar...

"...It is now abundantly clear that the Eastern Church never officially adopted or recognized a received or authorized text and only by a long process of slow evolution did the Greek text of the New Testament undergo the various changes that we can dimly see in the few variant uncial codices identified with the Byzantine text."-Jacob Geerlings

"...The view popularized by Westcott and Hort before the turn of the century, that the Majority text [was] issued from an authoritative, ecclesiastical revision of the Greek text, is widely abandoned as no longer tenable."-David Otis Fuller, D.D.

"In the balances of these seven Tests of Truth the speculations of the Westcott and Hort school, which have bewitched millions...I am utterly disinclined to believe, so grossly improbable does it seem - that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, supose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired.

"I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years, much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a Germen critic out of a wastepaper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owned their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of other had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them...

"Happily, Western Christendom has been content to employ one and the same text for upwards of three hundred years (KJV). If the objection be made, as it probably will be, 'Do you then mean to rest upon the five manuscript [authoritatively] used by Erasmus?' I reply that the copies employed were selected because they were known to represent the accuracy of the Sacred Word; that the descent of the text was evidently guarded with jealous care, just as the human geneology of our Lord was preserved..."-Dean Burgeon, B.A., M.A. at Oxford, Fellow of Oriel College at Oxford, Vicar of St. Mary's, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Dean of Chichester.

[apothanein kerdos]

Half of what you posted I've already responded to and 1/4 of what you posted destroys your previous arguments.

They date to around the 4th century

Some of the manuscripts date back to the 2nd century though.

Most scholars and historians agree that they probably are distortions of or based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate (depending on whom you were to talk to).

Actually many believe that Jerome used manuscripts similar to these for his translation. Plus, a good portion of these manuscripts pre-date Jerome.

The blatant paganism that prevailed in this area was also a reason for this avoidance. There is every reason to believe that the Gnostic areas of Alexandria did not have access, in any significant terms, to the pre-Jerome Latin Vulgate. Even scholars in Alexandria who did have such access, such as Origen, unquestionably and without doubt cut and pasted, added and subtracted, unto the New Testament Scriptures. Much of this evidence lies in their own admission. This is not a good beginnings for the Alexandrian type.

This was responded to when Other One brought it up. I suggest you go back and read it

gnostic influences, lack of common canon, avoidance by believers, etc...the minority text has many factors that discredit them.

All of which were disproved by previous posts.

eep in mind that the Minority manuscripts died out. They were in all reality "lost" for hundreds of years.

I responded to this in my first response to your opposition.

The subsequent editions that Erasmus made are a testimony to his devotion and diligence, though opponents would have one think otherwise. Also, during this time, Erasmus did not change manuscripts, but merely laboured to make his rendition more accurate.

Yet after 20 years he had to continue to make rendentions. This doesn't show inspiriation but scholarly integrity and honestly. This shows that the Textus Receptus, for the most part, can be an accepted work, but it does not qualify it it as soley inspired.

So there is proof that Erasmus had the Alexandrian-type proof-texts, the Latin Vulgate, and the Byzantine-type manuscripts at his disposal while making the Textus Receptus.

If this claim is true, then how can the Alexandrian texts be evil and wrong?

Erasmus defended his faithfulness to the Byzantine-type. Erasmus even had to defend his inclusion of 1 John 5:7 (this is further proof that he had access to the Minority texts). Though this verse was not found in the majority of even his byzantine texts, it was in many of them. But the real reason Erasmus used in his defence of 1 John 5:7 was that many of the early church fathers quoted and referred to this text, such as Jerome, Origen, Cyprian, Hilarius, Priscilian, Cassiodorus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, etc. There are instances where Erasmus is even accused of not being faithful to the byzantine, but these occurances are few and far between.

This here proves false the claim you made that none of the manuscripts were different. In fact, this seems to admit that the manuscripts were very different.

This taken from Wikpedia:

Typographical errors abounded in the published text. The selection of manuscripts available to Erasmus was quite limited, being confined to a few late medieval texts most modern scholars consider to be of dubious veracity. Erasmus was often forced to make his own interpretations

[halifaxchristian]

Super Jew...I admit that Erasmus had at his disposal many different manuscripts. However, by his own admission he faithfully followed the Byzantine-type of text and was even accused of this by the Catholic Church who outlawed his writings and formed councils against him charging him with tampering with the Latin Vulgate. Just as we have a broad path placed before us each day...we must choose to walk the narrow one. Erasmus did just that and this is a wonderful allegory that is relevant for all of us today.

God bless.