The Christian world has appreciated the "lousy" job that they did for the last 400 years than the job that the Greeks didn't do at all ---
What a crock! What went into Textus Receptus were two 12th century unreliable Byzantine text-type copies of clopies of copies, only an idiot can consider that reliable.
He lived by that ancient code: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"????
He received a lot of manuscripts from the Greeks but chose only the two most reliable and representative.
besides, Erasmus used the unreliable Vulgate for those parts of the Bible he couldn't find in Greek.
Oh no -- don't tell us that the Greeks actually left words out of their own manuscrripts. God Forbid. Thank God that the Latin retained them.
And in one instance he even retro-translated a whole section from Vuglate Latin into his (lousy) Greek and passed it on as the "ancient" Received Text!
And since he knew Greek and Latin so well, he probably fixed the text for you guys --
Why would Greeks make translations for others?
Why indeed??? They may know Greek, but they sure don't know English. So why are you complaining about an English translation????
The Greek Orthodox Church uses Codex Alexandrinus, which is the same text trecived by Erasmus and which is a lot more corrupt than the older 4th century Codices Vaticanus and Sinaitcus, the least "polished" and altered and the oldest, of all other manuscripts. In fact the Received Text are copies of the 12th century copies of the highly "harmonzied" and choregraphed end of 5th century C. Alexandrinus, which has been throughly "Christianized."
Codex Alexandrinus is a hybrid -- Siniaticus/Vaticanus B [Origen's Hexapla] for the OT, Sinaiticus/Vaticanus B for the Epistles and Acts, but the same as Erasmus' Received Greek Text in the Gospels. And even with that you are not happy!!!!
You mean the Protestant world?
He received a lot of manuscripts from the Greeks but chose only the two most reliable and representative
Your ignorance is amusing. Somone taught you the exact opposite...hmmm, who could that be?
Oh no -- don't tell us that the Greeks actually left words out of their own manuscrripts. God Forbid. Thank God that the Latin retained them
No, only his "reliable" copies didn't.
And since he knew Greek and Latin so well, he probably fixed the text for you guys
Actually, his Greek was lousy. Besides, what he presented was a fraud.
Why indeed??? They may know Greek, but they sure don't know English.
Actually, it's usually the English=speaking people who don't know any oyther language (they don't even know English it seems), but the Greeks were under no obligation to make translations for nayone, let alone English which was hardly alanguage capable of prose, let alone biblical complexity. Anglo-Saxon contained about 500 grumnts before it borrowed heavily form Latin and Norman languages.
Codex Alexandrinus is a hybrid
It's still "christianzied" compared to earlier Codices, and therefore less reliable.
Revelation 22:19
While the focus of this verse deals with the phrase “book of life,” as opposed to “tree of life,” the issue is deeper. The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two. It is thought that Erasmus took the Latin Vulgate and retranslated these verses back into Greek. [Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 93. It is claimed that Erasmus openly declares in the Annotations of his 1516 edition (page 675) that he “ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca” (supplied the Greek from the Latin). Thus the claim that the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two were retranslated from the Vulgate into Greek. However, the reprint of the 1516 edition of Erasmus does not contain this phrase on page 675 of his Annotations, which is the conclusion of his notes on the book of Revelation, nor is such a phrase found elsewhere in that edition.] Assuming this hypothesis is true we must ask ourselves the following questions. First, if Erasmus did make use of the Latin Vulgate to supply these last six verses, has the usage of the Latin corrupted the text? Second, was Codex 1r really the only Greek manuscript used by Erasmus for this passage?
Certainly the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Textus Receptus are similar in these last six verses. This, of course, would be natural if the Latin was based on early Greek manuscripts that correspond with the Textus Receptus. We must remember that most of the Greek manuscripts of the second, third, and fourth centuries have not survived the passage of time. However, the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus are not identical either. For example, the conclusion of Revelation 22:20 reads in the Receptus, Amen. Nai, erchou, kurie Iesou (Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus). The Latin reads, amen veni Domine Iesu (Amen come Lord Jesus). The Textus Receptus includes an additional affirmation nai (even so), an addition not found in either the Greek Critical Text or the Latin Vulgate.
If Erasmus did translate back into Greek from the Latin text, he did an astounding job. These six verses consist of one hundred thirty-six Greek words in the Textus Receptus, and one hundred thirty-two Greek words in the Critical Text. There are only eighteen textual variants found within these verses when the two texts are compared. Such textual variants, both in number and nature, are common throughout the New Testament between these two Greek texts. For example, the preceding six verses, Revelation 22:10-15, have fourteen textual variants which are of the same nature, and in Revelation 21:3-8 we find no fewer than twenty textual variants. One would expect, therefore, a greater number of textual variants if Erasmus was translating from the Latin back into Greek, and yet the two texts are extremely close. Even if he did translate from the Latin into Greek it would have no bearing on the doctrine of biblical preservation. Preservation simply demands that God has kept and preserved the words throughout the generations from the time of their inception until this present day and even beyond. It does not demand that these words be preserved in the original languages only.
However, this brings us to our second question. Did Erasmus really translate the Latin back into Greek? Textual scholar Herman C. Hoskier argued that Erasmus did not do this. Instead, he suggests that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 2049 (which Hoskier calls 141), and the evidence seems to support this position. [H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644.] Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of Revelation 22:19. To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067.
Additionally, the Greek text copied by Erasmus in Revelation 22:16-21 reflects a consistency that is found elsewhere in the Textus Receptus, suggesting that it was copied from other Greek manuscripts and not translated from the Latin back into Greek. In Revelation 22:16 we find the phrase tou dabid (the David) in the Textus Receptus as opposed to the Critical Text’s dauid (David). While the English would translate the two identically, it is interesting to note that in Revelation 3:7 we find the same thing. In that passage the Textus Receptus places the definite article before the name of David just as it does in Revelation 22:16, while the Critical Text does not use the definite article before David’s name in either passage.
To counter this, it has been noted that within the text of Erasmus at Revelation 22:16-21 there are a few unusual spellings; for example, elthe (come) instead of the normal erchou (come). This suggests that Erasmus was copying from a Greek manuscript and not translating from the Latin. Erasmus, it should be remembered, was one of the greatest scholars and thinkers of his day. He was fluent in Greek and several other languages. He would have known that the normal New Testament word for come is not elthe but is instead erchou. In fact, Erasmus used erchou in Revelation 22:7; 22:12; and even in 22:20. There must have been a reason for Erasmus to depart from the normal form of the word and write elthe in 22:17. Moreover, the Latin for come in 22:17 is the same Latin word in 22:20, veni. This further suggests that Erasmus was not really translating from the Latin, but was using an additional Greek manuscript other than Codex 1r.
Likewise, there is textual evidence for the reading book of life instead of tree of life. As noted above, the reading is found in a few Greek manuscripts. It is the main reading among the Latin witnesses. The phrase book of life is also the reading of the Old Bohairic version. Finally, it is the reading found in the writings of Ambrose (397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), Primasius (552 AD) and Haymo (ninth century).
One must also consider the internal evidence. The phrase tree of life appears seven times in the Old Testament and three times in the New Testament. In these verses we are told we will be able to eat of this tree, and that this tree of Eden will reappear in Eternity. The idea that one can have their share taken away from the tree of life seems abnormal to Scripture. However, the phrase book of life appears seven other times in the New Testament (Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; and 21:27). In each case we find the book of life either contains or does not contain names, or names are blotted out of it. Therefore, the phrase, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,” is extremely consistent with the biblical texts.
As can be seen from this text, the warning is ominous. While one may understand this passage to apply only to the book of Revelation, it is clear from other passages that the same is true of the whole of Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6). When applied to the verses discussed in this chapter we must conclude that somewhere in the process of transmission someone either added to the text or omitted from it. There’s the rub, and it should be taken seriously. Scholarship is a noble and honorable profession. However, it ceases to be both if it seeks to usurp the authority of the Lord God. After all, our commitment does not so much rest with our scholarship as it does with the ultimate Scholar.
http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter8.html