Posted on 07/21/2002 3:23:20 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
A further tip....if you navigate to the article and 'right click and copy link address' on the 'In Defense of Erasmus' at the top you'll get http://av-swordfighter.home.att.net/erasmus.htm which is the URL to put in the post. That way folks won't need to search the website to find the article (though this one was fairly easy, some are not).
FYI, the 'right click and copy link address' trick works on pdf files and other downloads as well. It's especially useful with 'frames' where after you click on a menu link, the article appears in the frame, but the URL at the top is still the main URL. That's when you 'right click and copy link address' from the menu link.
In his work, The King James Controversy he writes
It would be funny, if it we not so serious. Jerome takes the heat for translating the Vulgate, which eventually becomes the standard. Erasmus then takes the heat for challanging Jerome and for publishing the Greek New Testament. Then four hundred years later, it is Erasmus's work itself,in the form of the Textus Receptus which has become enshrined as 'tradition' by advocates of the AV. He who once resisted tradition has become the tradition itself. (P.17,)Now, the King James position has nothing to do with tradition, it has to do with purity.
What White fails to mention is that Jeromes work was based on the same critical text that is used today in the New Versions.
It was supported by the Pope to do away with the then Vulgate using the correct TR readings.
The RC Vulgate became the standard by killing those who resisted using it.
The Erasmus text was a return to the Received text.
It was that Received text that set Europe on fire with the Reformation.
Every Reformation Bible came from that text.
The issue, therefore is never 'traditon' the issue is which Bible (Fuller), the pure line of the Received text or the polluted one of the Critical text.
Finally, it was not Erasmus's text that was the basis of the AV but Beza'a fifth edition.
White on that same page has a footnote stating that King James Only Publications will often make reference to ancient heresies of the church in attempts to connect modern Bible translations with the heresies(Note 1,p.18)
Well, that was the position of Dean Burgon (not a King James Only man) who White himself acknowledges as a 'great scholar'(p.91).
It was the 'older' manuscripts likely to be corrupted with the Gnostic heresy of the 2nd century then the later ones, which were recopied and used by the believing church.
Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking, — 'whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible?' The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any text would equally suit our present purpose" (J. Burgon, The Revision Revised pg. 17).
and
Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (eg. at pg. 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (J. Burgon, The Revision Revised pg. 21)
fortheDeclaration also wrote:
It was the 'older' manuscripts likely to be corrupted with the Gnostic heresy of the 2nd century then the later ones, which were recopied and used by the believing church.
What objective evidence is there for this corruption? Note that the Byzantine Church also struggled withg Arianism, so what effect did this heresy have on that manuscript family? Indeed isn't the whole point of lower textual criticism that one can examine the totality of the manuscript evidence and the interdependencies between the manuscripts and look for these? Can't a modern scholar look at either NA26 or UBS3 and see which manuscripts have which variants?
The main point is that neither Waite, Riplinger, Ruckman, nor Holland have been able to show any manuscript that has excized any doctrine completely. They look at omissions in one passage and ignore the correct observation that parallel passages have the omitted words. These authors jump to conclusions of "heresy" rather than admit that the words could have been added by a scribe who was thinking of the parallel passage while copying. There is at least one marginal note in Sinacticus that suggests that the scribe who copied it thought that the one who had prepared his exemplar had done just that.
Erasmus had access to most of the same set of manuscripts as did modern translators with the obvious exception of Codex Sinaiticus, which was not rescued from the trash can at St. Catherine's monastery until the mid-19th century.
and in Question 12
The texts used by Erasmus for his first edition: 1 - 11th century, contained the Gospels, Acts, Epistles. Erasmus did not rely very much on 1 because it read too much like Codex B/Vaticanus. (9) 2 - 15th century, contained the Gospels. 2ap - 12th-14th century, contained Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus depended upon 2 and 2ap because they were the best and most accurate texts. (10) 4ap - 15th century, containing Revelation. Erasmus mainly used 2 and 2ap, occasionally used 1 and 4ap. (11) Erasmus may have had as many as 10 manuscripts at his disposal, 4 from England, 5 at Basle and one loaned to him by John Reuchlin. (12) Thomas Strouse mentions that the earliest of his manuscripts went back to the 5th century, "advisedly." (13) Bishop Charles John Ellicott, Chairman of the Revision Committee, said about the Received Text: "The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus . . .
This is in contradiction to what Metzger writes in The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., Oxford Univ Press (1968).
The printing began on 2 October 1515, and in a remarkably short time (1 March 1516) the entire edition was finished, a large folio volume of about 1,000 pages which, as Erasmus himself declared later, was 'precipitated rather than edited' [praecipitatum verius quam editum). Owing to the haste in production, the volume contains hundreds of typographical errors; in fact, Scrivener once declared, '[It] is in that respect the most faulty book I know.'' Since Erasmus could not find a manuscript which contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for various parts of the New Testament. For most of the text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle, one of the Gospels (see Plate XV) and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century. Erasmus compared them with two or three others of the same books and entered occasional corrections for the printer in the margins or between the lines of the Greek script. For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses, as well as a few other passages throughout the book where the Greek text of the Apocalypse and the adjoining Greek commentary with which the manuscript was supplied are so mixed up as to be indistinguishable, Erasmus depended upon the Latin Vulgate, translating this text into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any Greek manuscript – but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament [p99-100]
and
Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! Erasmus' text is inferior in critical value to the Complutensian, yet because was the first on the market and was available in a cheaper and more convenient form, it attained a much wider circulation and exercised a far greater influence than its rival, which had been in preparation from 1502 to 1514.[p. 102-103]
Since Dr. Metzger is one of the formost authorities in textual analysis of the NT, I would expect that Dr. Cereghin and Bishop Ellicott to deal specifically with these issues, which they have not. The problem here is that those who hold to the preservation of the TR have let their presuppositions determine their conclusions. The historical data just don't support the conclusions. Yes, the translators who prepared the TR did the best that they could with what they had at the time. Given Erasmus' love of manuscripts, he would have loved to have had the wealth of manuscripts we have today. He would have used the same procedure as Metzger and others. Even Burgon advocated basically the same procedure in his writings.
Thank You,......Again,............ for your postings!
m
Maranatha!
My reading of the matter, and I have Burgon's book too, is that 90% of all the papyrus, etc that has surfaced since 1611 have been TR readings, validating the text of the KJV and Erasmus's choice of manuscripts.
Sinaiticus readings were available to Erasmus in the Latin Vulgate, but rejected. Vaticanus readings were being sent to him from the Vatican Library, but rejected.
Can you name for me that supposed "wealth of manuscripts that we have today"? What are they? Certainly you wouldn't be referring to those that Burgon refers to as the most corrupt of all in his book that you and I have? Perhaps you can check with James White? Maybe he has some secret manuscripts that no one else has or maybe he is just blowing smoke as always.
The 'wealth' of manuscripts we have support the TR readings of the King James Bible.
The Critical text is supported by 1-5% of the manuscripts on a consistent basis.
The 'wealth' of manuscripts is put out by the anti-King James critics to give the impression that something 'new' was found. It wasn't.
The Critical text readings were already in the Roman Catholic Douey Rheims version when the King James translators were doing their own work.
The overwhelming majority of manuscripts found support the TR, hence even Nestles had to go put back into its text some 300 TR readings.
My reading of the matter, and I have Burgon's book too, is that 90% of all the papyrus, etc that has surfaced since 1611 have been TR readings, validating the text of the KJV and Erasmus's choice of manuscripts.
Amen!
Sinaiticus readings were available to Erasmus in the Latin Vulgate, but rejected. Vaticanus readings were being sent to him from the Vatican Library, but rejected.
Amen!
Can you name for me that supposed "wealth of manuscripts that we have today"? What are they? Certainly you wouldn't be referring to those that Burgon refers to as the most corrupt of all in his book that you and I have? Perhaps you can check with James White? Maybe he has some secret manuscripts that no one else has or maybe he is just blowing smoke as always.
Amen!
You speak of the "wealth of manuscripts that we have today that Erasmus did not have", and by that I assume that you mean the KJV translators as well. Could you list for me the names of those manuscripts??? I have asked this question of the James White ministry and gotten nothing but rhetoric and silence.
A list of papyri is here: here
Others are: Uncials * Minuscules: * 1-500 * 501-1000 * 1001-1500 * 1501-2000 * 2001 and up*
He clearly didn't have all otf these. See also Metzger's companion volume to the UBS3... and the Text of the NT. Also, do not neglect the advances in understanding of Koine Greek obtained since 1611. For example, consider the work of Adolph Deissman who spent a lot of time reading papyri of contracts, etc. His work, published in 1885, helps us to understand the Christ's shout of "tetelestai" was a commonly used term for contracts meaning "paid in full."
Typical 'Metzger' nonsense.
Did Erasmus get the readings right? Yes he did.
Moreover, other editions also came out such as Stephens and Beza (which the King James is based on, not Erasmus)
The key to the manuscripts is not their 'lateness' but their purity.
A good late manuscript is better then a bad early one.
Moreover, Erasmus did reject the readings of 'B' as being corrupt.
As for the endings of Revelation, we have already discussed that.
There are 135 Greeks words at issue, 100 were shown to be correct with the 'better' manuscripts.
That leaves only 35 words left and most of these are not important in the English. Of those that are and none of these have been proven to be in error and are in fact are themselves used by other versions.
Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! Erasmus' text is inferior in critical value to the Complutensian, yet because was the first on the market and was available in a cheaper and more convenient form, it attained a much wider circulation and exercised a far greater influence than its rival, which had been in preparation from 1502 to 1514.[p. 102-103]
So? How many revisions did Erasmus do on his work? What about Stephens and Beza's TR (so-called-yea right!)?
Since Dr. Metzger is one of the formost authorities in textual analysis of the NT, I would expect that Dr. Cereghin and Bishop Ellicott to deal specifically with these issues, which they have not.
They do not deal with them because they are not issues!
Erasmus's text was revised and corrected.
Late manuscripts can be far more accurate then 'early' ones.
No reading of Erasmus has been proven incorrect.
It bore the fruit (with the 2nd edition) of Luther's German Bible (the beginning of the Reformation) and Tyndales (by their fruit ye shall know them Matt.7:20)
The problem here is that those who hold to the preservation of the TR have let their presuppositions determine their conclusions. The historical data just don't support the conclusions.
You keep saying that and not supplying any facts.
Yes, the translators who prepared the TR did the best that they could with what they had at the time. Given Erasmus' love of manuscripts, he would have loved to have had the wealth of manuscripts we have today. He would have used the same procedure as Metzger and others. Even Burgon advocated basically the same procedure in his writings.
No, Erasmus had access to the manuscripts he needed.
The 'wealth' of manuscripts support his text (TR) not the critical text.
Burgon never would have accepted Metzger methodology, which is simply accepting a manuscript because of its age
Burgon listed the following as criteria for accepting a manuscript,
Antiquity or Primitiveness,
Consent of Witnesses, or Number
Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity,
Respectablity of Witnesses, or weight
Continuity or Unbroken Tradition,
Evidence of the entire passage or Context,
Internal considerations or Reasonableness.
Regarding Antiquity Burgon states,
Antiquity, in and of itself, will be found to avail nothing. A reading is to be adopted not because of it is old, but because it is the best attested, and therefore the oldest. (Burgon, The Traditional Text, p.29)Yet, while Burgon wanted the oldest manuscripts possible, he knew that the oldest may not always be the best,
And precisely in that first age it was that men evinced themselves least careful or accurate in guarding the Deposit,-least critically exact in their way of quoting it; -whilst the enemy was most restless, most assidous in procuring its depravation...Stange as it may sound-distressing as the discovery must needs prove when it is first distinctly realized-the earliest shreds and scraps-for they are first no more-that come into our hands as quotations of he text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, their vaguenees, but they are often demonstrably inaccurate (Ibid,p.30)
You have two lines of Bibles, the line found in the Received text (the Bible of the Reformation) or the bible found in the critical text, Rome's bible and all the modern versions (check the readings if you do not believe me).
It is just that simple-WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S BIBLE!
I have supplied plenty of facts in numerous posts, as have others. You just discount them. I think both sides have been adequately represented here, so anyone unfamiliar with the issues can research them and come to a conclusion.
Here are some facts from Samuel's Gipps, the Answer Book http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp
QUESTION: The Textus Receptus didn't appear until 1633 so how can the King James Bible, which was translated in 1611, be translated from it? ANSWER: Wrong. EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.
Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries (sic) to come.
Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551. Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.
Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ei "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.
So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus" was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.
(For your convenience, Appendix #2 in the back of this book lists the many names used to describe both the Antiochian and Alexandrian texts.)
Appendix #2 GLOSSARY OF TEXT NAMES
ANTIOCH Antiochian Text, Byzantine Text, Syrian Text, Majority Text, Universal Text, Reformation Text, Imperial Text, Traditional Text, Textus Receptus,
ALEXANDRIA Alexandrian Text, Egyptian Text, Local Text, Hesychian Text, Minority Text,
Now, the term 'Alexandrian text' did not exist until the 19th century,(coined, I believe by Bengal) but it did not mean that it did not exist as a text.
Which or how many of the uncials and miniscules have surfaced since 1611? And of those that have surfaced, how do we know that Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and KJV translators had not read, and were not aware of them? They may be new to us, but what makes us think they were not known by them.
Of these newly surfaced miniscules/uncilas, how many are just simply verification of the ErasmusBezaStephanus Text, and thus not really new, merely vindication of the manuscripts that they relied upon?
Even if Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the KJV scholars had all these newly surfacing miniscules, uncials, papyrus in their hands, would their work look much different than it does now? 90% of the new evidence vindicates these men and their choice of manuscripts. Is that right?
If Westcott and Hort had all this new evidence at their disposal, then why did they use basicly only two warmed over corpses that were not new.? Why didn't they use all that evidence? Is it because 90% of it verified the KJV?
If White, Metzger, and the new version propagators are so enamored with new evidence, why do they reject 90% of it? Why don't they value it? Why do they keep going back to the warmed over corpses of Westcott and Hort in 1881, and those same debunked manuscripts Aleph and B? Why do they have such an affinity for "aberrant" manuscripts and reject all that new evidence? Perhaps it is because there is nothing new under the sun ----
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.