Difference between revisions of "Textus Receptus"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (italics to quotes)
Line 41: Line 41:
 
According to supporters of the Critical Text, the TR is defective because it is based on later manuscripts. Manuscripts wore out over time and had to be copied by hand to preserve their text. Late manuscripts are likely to be the product of multiple copying cycles, each one with the potential to introduce errors.  
 
According to supporters of the Critical Text, the TR is defective because it is based on later manuscripts. Manuscripts wore out over time and had to be copied by hand to preserve their text. Late manuscripts are likely to be the product of multiple copying cycles, each one with the potential to introduce errors.  
  
−
Supporters of TR, notably the [[KJV Only]] movement, counter that these codices survived because Christians knew them to be defective and therefore did not use them. Good manuscripts would be used and copied more and would therefore wear out more quickly.<ref>For more on reasons older manuscripts may not be more reliable. See [http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Document/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable ''Are older manuscripts more reliable?''] at Textus Receptus Bibles.</ref>
+
Supporters of TR, notably the [[KJV Only]] movement, counter that these codices survived because Christians knew them to be defective and therefore did not use them. Good manuscripts would be used and copied more and would therefore wear out more quickly.<ref>For more on reasons older manuscripts may not be more reliable. See "[http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Document/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable Are older manuscripts more reliable?]" at Textus Receptus Bibles.</ref>
  
 
Among modern translations, the [[New King James Version]] uses TR, while the [[New International Version]], the [[New American Standard Bible]], [[New Revised Standard Version]], and the [[English Standard Version]] use the Critical Text.
 
Among modern translations, the [[New King James Version]] uses TR, while the [[New International Version]], the [[New American Standard Bible]], [[New Revised Standard Version]], and the [[English Standard Version]] use the Critical Text.

Revision as of 22:09, March 6, 2022

The last page of the 1516 edition of Textus Receptus by Erasmus. A Latin translation by Erasmus is on the right.

Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," was a Greek text of the New Testament that was used by Reformation-era translators. The earliest edition was published by Erasmus in 1516. The King James Version is based on a 1598 edition by Theodore Bezae. Bezae used the final Erasmus text of 1535 and added footnotes with alternative readings.[1]

The name Textus Receptus is from a Latin phrase used in the preface of a 1624 edition by Bonaventure Elzevir: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum. (So [the reader] has the text which all now receive.)[2]

Erasmus

Erasmus, a Dutch Catholic, published the first edition of TR in Basel in 1516. Erasmus had produced a fresh Latin translation of the New Testament. He added a Greek text to his book as an afterthought, a tool to support his Latin translation. It was put together hurriedly, and on the basis of manuscripts available locally in Basel. Yet this text struck a chord with a reading public hungry for access to the original. Erasmus used the following manuscripts to produce the first edition of TR:

  • Codex 1eap — This 12th century miniscule contains the entire New Testament except Revelation. It is the only TR manuscript not of the Byzantine type. Erasmus made little use of it as he believed it to be corrupt.
  • Codex 1r — A 12th century miniscule of Revelation.
  • Codex 2e — A 12th century miniscule of the Gospels.
  • Codex 2ap — A 12th century miniscule of Acts and the epistles.
  • Codex 4ap — A 15th century miniscule of Acts and the epistles.
  • Codex 7p — An 11th century miniscule of the epistles.
  • Codex 817 — A 15th century miniscule of the Gospels.[3]

The gospels were taken directly from Codex 2e, Acts and epistles from 2ap, and Revelation from 1r. Where these manuscripts had gaps, back-translations from the Vulgate were used. In fact, 2e and 2ap were sent directly to the printer for typesetting. Erasmus’ handwritten annotations can be seen between the lines, although the printer often ignored these. 1r could not be treated this way because it mixes text and annotation. Erasmus separated these by referring to the Vulgate. As a result of this haphazard process, there were numerous typographical errors in the first edition.

Some four hundred corrections were made for the second edition (1519). Erasmus obtained access to 3eap, a nearly complete New Testament text. But there is no indication that he made much use of it. The second edition is the basis for Martin Luther's German translation.

Many readers criticized the first two editions of TR because they lacked the Johannine Comma found in Latin manuscripts that circulated at the time.[4] Out of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, this trinitarian passage is found in only four, none of them earlier than the 14th century.[5]

Erasmus added the Johannine Comma to the third edition (1522), citing Codex 61. This was a recently produced manuscript, possibly produced in response to TR. Although Erasmus was skeptical of this manuscript, he thought it wiser to reverse himself. This edition is the basis of William Tyndale's Geneva Bible, which is in turn the basis of KJV.[6]

For the 1527 edition, Erasmus made extensive revisions based on the Complutensian Polyglot, a text edited by Jiménez de Cisneros and based on manuscripts kept at the Vatican library. A final edition was published in 1535.

Later editions

In 1550 Robert Stephanus produced a beautifully printed edition that added footnotes containing text from the Bezae and Regius codices. This is considered the classic edition of TR and is referred to as Editio Regia (royal edition). In 1551, Stephanus added a verse numbering system that is still used in modern Bibles. As for the text itself, Stephanus did little to improve on what Erasmus published. The KJV translators consulted a 1598 reprint of Edito Regia by Theodore Beza as well as several other editions. The Scrivener New Testament (1894) reconstructs the underlying Greek text they used.

Development of the text

TR follows a Byzantine text. Most modern scholars believe that the Alexandrian text is closer to the original.

The oldest examples of Alexandrian text are Papyrus 46, or Chester Beatty II, and Papyrus 66, or Bodmer II. P46 contains the Pauline epistles while P66 contains the Gospel of John. Both manuscripts date from about AD 200.[7]

The Western text seems to have developed somewhat later. The earliest witnesses are quotes from the third century provided by church fathers, including Cyprian, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. The most representative example of Western text is Codex Bezae, which dates to about 400.

The Byzantine text is thought to be a recension of various Alexandrian and Western manuscripts, possibly done by Lucian of Antioch around 300. Wulfila's translation to Gothic, made around 350, may be based on a Greek manuscript of the Byzantine type. Another early translation that appears to be based on the Byzantine text is the Peshitta, which dates to the early fifth century. In the late fourth century, church father John Chrysostom quoted at length from the Byzantine text. The gospels in Alexandrinus feature Byzantine text. This codex dates to about AD 400.

In 1720, Richard Bentley proposed that TR be replaced with a Greek text based on Codex Alexandrinus.[8] In the early 19th century, Karl Lachmann developed a methodology which allowed a critic to determine which manuscript variants are likely to be closer to the original. He assigned manuscripts to various text types. In 1850, he published a Greek New Testament based on manuscripts of the Alexandrian type. In 1881, Brooke Westcott and F. J. A. Hort published a critical text based on Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, a manuscript in the Vatican Library, and Codex Alexandrinus.

For and against

According to supporters of the Critical Text, the TR is defective because it is based on later manuscripts. Manuscripts wore out over time and had to be copied by hand to preserve their text. Late manuscripts are likely to be the product of multiple copying cycles, each one with the potential to introduce errors.

Supporters of TR, notably the KJV Only movement, counter that these codices survived because Christians knew them to be defective and therefore did not use them. Good manuscripts would be used and copied more and would therefore wear out more quickly.[9]

Among modern translations, the New King James Version uses TR, while the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, New Revised Standard Version, and the English Standard Version use the Critical Text.

References

  1. ↑ "Beza's 1598"
  2. ↑ Thomas Holland, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (Lincoln, NE: Writers Club Press, 2000), 253.
  3. ↑ Combs, William W., "Erasmus and Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring 1996.
  4. ↑ "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7–8).
  5. ↑ "It is found in only four Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the 14th century. 4 other Greek mss. offer it as a margin note. The remaining Greek mss., numbering in the hundreds, do not include it." ("The Comma of 1 John 5:7.")
  6. ↑ Moynahan, Brian, (2011) Book of Fire: William Tyndale, Thomas Moore, and the Bloody Birth of the English Bible, "Tyndale’s primary source was Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, already in its third edition by 1524."
  7. ↑ Metzger, Bruce, (1994) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. "With the acquisition, however, of the Bodmer Papyri, particularly P66 and P75, both copied about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, evidence is now available that the Alexandrian type of text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century." P75 has since been redated to a later period.
  8. ↑ Bentley, Richard, Proposals for a New Edition of the Greek Testament, 1720.
  9. ↑ For more on reasons older manuscripts may not be more reliable. See "Are older manuscripts more reliable?" at Textus Receptus Bibles.

See also

External links

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Textus_Receptus&oldid=1843737"