Replies

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.

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, blah-blah-blah

You have a far narrower definition of the terms received text, majority text, traditional text than do the great scholars. Each one of these terms actually has meant different things to different scholars at different people. For instance, some say "majority text" in reference to the fact that 99% of all ancient manuscripts are in this text type and some use it in the sense that the majority of all ancient Bibles utilize readings from this text type. The origin of the term Received Text is actually pretty obscure as you may be aware. When one looks at the writings of Burgon and others, they repeatedly refer to this series of names as essentially denoting the same thing. I'm sure they were at least as annoyed as any of us that we don't have more precise defined terms for each variant. But then, we're not all scholars.

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.

Sorry, newbie. I have posted a great deal of info on this topic and on this era here at FR, particularly information about Erasmus. Probably you'll get some FReepmail from others telling you "don't get him started on Erasmus". I really should spend more time learning about Tyndale's work and some of the other early translators. I'm not sure we've ever had a Tyndale thread.