PDA

View Full Version : The original Greek text Textus Receptus



gilgal
11-24-2011, 03:12 PM
In the beginning I had the understanding that the Textus Receptus was a copy of the original writings. Am I right?
Who's Scrivener?

Richard Amiel McGough
11-24-2011, 06:39 PM
In the beginning I had the understanding that the Textus Receptus was a copy of the original writings. Am I right?
Who's Scrivener?
Well, you are sorta right. The Textus Receptus is a Greek manuscript of the New Testament. But it is far removed from the "original" manuscripts. Indeed, Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek for the last few verses of Revelation because he didn't have a Greek manuscript for that part. And now we have many more mss that he didn't have so the TR is not the best manuscript.

Here's a little blurb about Scrivener: The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version. The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version. This is a useful text for comparison for those with proficiency in Greek.

I wouldn't get lost in the debate over KJVOnly stuff and Greek texts. The folks pushing that stuff are not reliable scholars.

gilgal
11-24-2011, 10:53 PM
Well, you are sorta right. The Textus Receptus is a Greek manuscript of the New Testament. But it is far removed from the "original" manuscripts. Indeed, Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek for the last few verses of Revelation because he didn't have a Greek manuscript for that part. And now we have many more mss that he didn't have so the TR is not the best manuscript.

Here's a little blurb about Scrivener: The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version. The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version. This is a useful text for comparison for those with proficiency in Greek.

I wouldn't get lost in the debate over KJVOnly stuff and Greek texts. The folks pushing that stuff are not reliable scholars.
But I find some things too hard to explain to a new believer that I don't bother explaining it - because I hardly know it myself.

It's good to study to answer more accurately but we're talking about a 2000-year history.

Has any old New Testament manuscripts been found so far?

Charisma
11-27-2011, 09:46 AM
Isn't there any Hebrew in the Textus Receptus? I thought it applies to the whole Bible?


And now we have many more mss that he didn't have so the TR is not the best manuscript.The NT TR is an amalgamation of the best texts Erasmus could find. He improved mistranslations in the Latin Vulgate to present a more accurate text to the Pope, in hope of reforming Catholicism from the inside.

In other words, we may not have any more 'accurate' mss than were available to Erasmus - but only the range (actually, we don't have all of that range any more) from which he selected - and added translations made since then, which may make it seem as if what we have today is better.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-27-2011, 01:09 PM
But I find some things too hard to explain to a new believer that I don't bother explaining it - because I hardly know it myself.

It's good to study to answer more accurately but we're talking about a 2000-year history.

Has any old New Testament manuscripts been found so far?
We don't have the originals. But we have some very early fragments - late first century. The earliest complete copies of the NT are from the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-27-2011, 01:14 PM
Isn't there any Hebrew in the Textus Receptus? I thought it applies to the whole Bible?

The TR refers to the Greek NT produced by Erasmus and others who followed in his footsteps.




The NT TR is an amalgamation of the best texts Erasmus could find. He improved mistranslations in the Latin Vulgate to present a more accurate text to the Pope, in hope of reforming Catholicism from the inside.

In other words, we may not have any more 'accurate' mss than were available to Erasmus - but only the range (actually, we don't have all of that range any more) from which he selected - and added translations made since then, which may make it seem as if what we have today is better.
We have many more older mss than Erasmsus to compare. That's how we determine accuracy. We compare lots of documents and find that a change got introduced at some point in time, and then we know that was an "inaccuracy" and we eliminate it. There were plenty of inaccuracies in the TR that have been eliminated this way.

gilgal
11-27-2011, 02:49 PM
The TR refers to the Greek NT produced by Erasmus and others who followed in his footsteps.



We have many more older mss than Erasmsus to compare. That's how we determine accuracy. We compare lots of documents and find that a change got introduced at some point in time, and then we know that was an "inaccuracy" and we eliminate it. There were plenty of inaccuracies in the TR that have been eliminated this way.
What is the Aleppo codex then?

Richard Amiel McGough
11-27-2011, 02:54 PM
What is the Aleppo codex then?
It's the oldest complete Hebrew Bible (OT). Tenth century! (That's not very old in this context.)

gilgal
11-27-2011, 03:05 PM
It's the oldest complete Hebrew Bible (OT). Tenth century! (That's not very old in this context.)
Even if there are lost manuscript from the first century maybe there are many quotes included in epistles from disciples of the apostles.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-27-2011, 05:24 PM
Even if there are lost manuscript from the first century maybe there are many quotes included in epistles from disciples of the apostles.
There are lots of bits and pieces found in Qumran. They've got the whole book of Isaiah! Unfortunately, it contains extra words in Isaiah 53:11 which ruins one of my favorite identities:


Lord Jesus Christ
= 3168 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_3168.asp)=
Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall
my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.


I was just reminded about this because when you mentioned the Aleppo Codex I went and looked at the mss online here (http://www.aleppocodex.org/) (great site!) and found it had an extra letter that also ruined the pattern. So now I am wondering how it finally got "refined" to the "correct" numerical value.

TheForgiven
12-01-2011, 01:02 PM
I personally would stick with the TR manuscript. I know it's not an original, but what else can we do? The older manuscripts scholars do have may not be reliable, despite their older age. The two primary ancient manuscripts modern English Bibles depend heavily upon are the Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sainaticus (spelling). Unless I'm mistaken, both manuscripts are of the same age, and came from within the same regional territory; Alexandria. This of course was inhabited by the rising group called "Gnostics". When you compare both manuscripts, both contain excessive verse omissions, and word changes, and neither manuscripts match other despite their origin and time-setting. For instance, in the book of John chapter 1, we read, "No one has seen God at any time; the only Begotten Son who came from the Father, He has seen Him..." The Codex manuscripts read, "No one has seen God at any time; the only Begotten God (or the only son of God), He has seen Him..." This verse appears to be an alteration from the Gnostic leaders who had a difficult time understanding that God was incarnated into human flesh. And flesh, according to the Gnostics, is inherently evil. I believe it was Iranaeus who condemned some of the alterations made by them; I'll have to go back and find what he writes.

As it stands, age is not necessarily better. I have a bible that's more than 30 years old, and another one more than 100 years old; both are in bad shape, and that's because of their extensive use. The Codex manuscripts were found in a vase, probably stored as heretical documents to be kept in the Vatican library or something. But the fact that they were not used thus explains their excellent shape.

So when we consider their lack of use, the missing verses, and the location they originated, it's quite clear that those documents cannot be trusted. The TR is not perfect, nor is the Majority Text (MT), but I trust them a heck of a lot more than I would the Codex manuscripts. Therefore, when it comes to Bible selection, I avoid the English bibles which rely heavily upon the codex manuscripts. These are:

1. New Living Translation
2. New International Version
3. New American Standard
4. Amplified Bible
5. Revised Standard Version
6. English Standard Version (ESV)

These are the primary English Bibles available for purchase. The two primarily used, and based on the TR or MT are:

1. 1611 King James Version
2. New King James Version (two revisions)
3. World English Bible
4. Greek Orthodox Study Bible

To the best of my knowledge, there are no other English bibles translated from the MT or TR manuscripts.

On a side note, option #4 is my favorite as it is the first English Bible to contain the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, translated into English. The Old Testament in the other Bibles are based on the Hellenistic alterations of the Masorites. Traditional Old Testament Bibles from the MT (Masoretic Text) contains excessive omissions. Quite a few of the New Testament quotes are not found in the traditional Old Testament; that's because the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, as did the early church. It was Jerome of the 4rth century who wanted to rely on the Torah as it was passed down to him. The Church of course objected to him doing this.

So I myself really love the Greek Orthodox Bible which uses the Old Testament Septuagint, and the TR/MT for the New Testament.

Fun discussion.

Joe