Replies

The seven (or eleven) texts you claim were merely Erasmus' primary sources in assembling the first edition. His work went through several subsequent editions prior to any widespread publication or use in translation. I could go back to unearth some of the information previously posted on the subject but you're hardly worth the effort.

Much of what is written against Erasmus' work is artificially arranged to paint it in a poor light. However, there is abundant evidence and the testimony of reliable witnesses to establish that Erasmus was well-acquainted with a far larger number of manuscripts of the ancient Greek church (received text, majority text, traditional text, whichever you prefer to call it). His own notes indicate them and reference them. His research into the writings of the fathers of the ancient church were used to confirm many problematic passages.

More to the point, Erasmus chose the very best of the manuscripts as his primary sources. But these were the best of the modern copies of the ancient texts, namely authentic representatives of over 99% of the ancient manuscripts. And that overwhelming preponderance of surviving manuscripts and their geographical diversity and their attestation by the fathers of the ancient church is sufficient to establish Textus Receptus as the superior Greek text.

As a bit of historical background, I should mention that Erasmus was the foremost scholar in Europe, a man whose company was sought by all the kings and nobles of Europe. He was a man of many talents apparently. His reputation might have been comparable to that of Einstein in our era, a scholar so famous that everyone knew who he was. The point is that Erasmus had access to any source material that he wanted to use. In much the same way we see with any of the great students of scripture in these ages, he travelled and found ways to acquire orginals or faithful copies of a huge amount of material.

By way of comparison, let's look at the modernists Westcott & Hort. I would not even consider them Christian. They were founders of the modern spiritualist movement as their own private writings and as public records attest. They were founding members of the original great spiritualism society whose modern branches are the New Agers. They believed in conjuring the dead and other practices no orthodox Christians have ever engaged in. Although officially Anglican, they had some very strange leanings toward Rome, again, all this is abundantly recorded in their own writings. All in all, they are very similar to their modern counterparts, (Metzger, Bruce, Aland, etc.) in one disturbing respect: none of them believe the Bible is fully inspired and they deny that God has preserved His Word. They believe that the Bible is merely another piece of text, subject to mere literary technique. And the theories they spin to support the supremacy of their texts are among the most convoluted literary arguments one might possibly entertain.

By contrast, Erasmus and his subsequent defenders (men like Burgon, Miller, Hills to cite only the English defenders) each and every one absolutely affirmed God's inspiration of the canon of scripture and His personal preservation of His Word. They approached the text as a living and supernatural testimony of God's revelation to men. They believed the Bible was unique and not some mere literary work. Their approach to the text and their care in their work reflected this attitude.

I will choose the work of godly men who love and revere the Word, whose work is supported by over 99% of the available ancient texts from all over the ancient Roman empire. You can have the sophisticated literary creations of these others.

Erasmus was well-acquainted with a far larger number of manuscripts of the ancient Greek church (received text, majority text, traditional text, whichever you prefer to call it).

I think this statement says it all. You still don't know what you are talking about. The KJV is derived from the Received Text, which is primarily the result of Erasmus' work. Again, it is not an ancient Byzantine manuscript used by Erasmus, the Received Text is the result of Erasmus' work dating to the 16th century.

The Majority Text is not the same as the Received Text, although it closely resembles it. It is also derived from manuscripts dating from medieval times, and it also relies heavily on Erasmus' work. Hodges & Farstad say that their work is representative of the Majority Text. As far as your term "traditional text" that is wide open as to meaning and has different definitions to different users so you need to be more specific.

Erasmus chose the very best of the manuscripts as his primary sources.

The very best he had available to him at the time. And as far as Erasmus, please don't lecture me on his scholarship. I didn't have to go look it up as you just did. I have never doubted his genius.

However, there is abundant evidence and the testimony of reliable witnesses to establish that Erasmus was well-acquainted with a far larger number of manuscripts of the ancient Greek church (recieved text, majority text, traditional text, whichever you prefer to call it). His own notes indicate them and reference them. His research into the writings of the fathers of the ancient church were used to confirm many problematic passages. More to the point, Erasmus chose the very best of the manuscripts as his primary sources. It is just a shame that he could not seem to find one for the last page of Revelation. He was forced to translate the Latin Vulgate back into Greek and use that as his text. The result being that the last six verses of Revelation in the Textus Receptus, which was primarily based upon the work of Erasmus, find witness in no Greek manuscript what-so-ever. While i do believe that God preserved His word, it stretches credibility to believe that He used Erasmus in order to rewrite what He said through the Apostle John. Come now W, that is just a bit beyond don't you think. btw, i could not get this to space properly, how does one insert spaces in HTML?