tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post4199378398810307782..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: Video Lecture: The Textus ReceptusJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-71761052714362836662023-04-07T22:19:46.974-04:002023-04-07T22:19:46.974-04:00This article also mentions the following about Rom...This article also mentions the following about Romans 12:11: "Erasmus’ text [in Romans 12:11] meant, “serving the Lord.” " It is actually Beza's TR that reflects the reading "Serving the Lord." Both Erasmus and Stephanus had the previous reading, "serving the time," in Romans 12:11.<br /><br />In your examples, it is noteworthy that longer variant of Acts 9:5-6 was also included by Stephanus and Beza as well in their editions of the Textus Receptus. And it's not as though these two were allergic to correcting Erasmus' text where he had made an emendation, such as in your other example of James 4:2. While Stephanus and Beza did not follow Erasmus' 2nd edition in James 4:2, they did agree in Acts 9:5-6.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, every TR edition agreed on Acts 9:5-6, from Erasmus in 1516 to Beza in 1598/1604, and the first two Elzevir editions as well. The main exception to note for this is the Complutensian. The presence of this passage in each independent compilation suggests that they had evidence of their own to individually confirm that Acts 9:5-6 in its long form was, indeed, not an interpolation nor an emendation. Keep in mind that the later TR editors were not afraid to make changes from previous TR editions where they saw the evidence saying otherwise. This is why you see, for example, First John 2:23b and Luke 17:36 being added to the text in most later TR editions. It is not as though Stephanus or Beza were afraid of correcting Erasmus. They did so in several places where the evidence at hand called for it. But when the manuscript evidence supported it, they didn't change it.<br /><br />The same goes for Revelation 22:19 as well. The reading "book of life" is supported by ancient writers such as Ambrose, who wrote the following in response to the Arians:<br /><br />"And you have indeed been able to blot out the letters, but could not remove the faith. That erasure betrayed you more, that erasure condemned you more; and you were not able to obliterate the truth, but that erasure blotted out your names from the book of life." (On the Holy Spirit, Book 3.10)<br /><br />Lastly, this article makes one seemingly unsupported claim. Namely, where it says, "There were some readings that were very poorly attested, such as the reading koinōnia in Ephesians 3:9, and there were some readings that had no Greek manuscript support at all, especially in Revelation."<br /><br />My question is, how can you know what was poorly attested or what had no Greek manuscript support back in the 16th century? Where Erasmus made emendations in his editions, the other compilers of the later editions of the Textus Receptus were under no obligation to follow those emendations. They did not do so in the case of James 4:2. Neither were they obliged to follow each other. So, their inclusion of the above passages without alteration actually denotes that there was direct manuscript support for those readings at the time.<br /><br />You sometimes see differences between Stephanus, Beza and the later TR editors, but not in these places.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-80674744660012528422023-04-07T22:19:37.040-04:002023-04-07T22:19:37.040-04:00Good article and video. You may want to note that ...Good article and video. You may want to note that Beza released one final TR edition in 1604, and this is significant because it contains the KJV reading for Mark 15:3, while his 1598 edition does not.<br /><br />Among the places of significant difference between Beza and Stephanus TR editions, the KJV seems to follow Stephanus slightly above 1/2 as much, among cases where it follows one or the other. This gives a little bit less than a 2:1 ratio in favor of Beza. There are also a smaller number of cases outside of this where the KJV translators seem to have consulted other TR editions besides Stephanus' 1550 or Beza's 1598. One possible example is Elias Hutter's Nuremberg Polyglot of 1599, for its reading in Matthew 2:11 ("saw" instead of "found"), Matthew 10:10 ("staves" instead of "staff"), and John 8:6 (include phrase "as though he heard them not"). Though each of these is also included in both of Stephanus' early editions (1546, 1549) and the Complutensian Polyglot, as well.<br /><br />The Stephanus 4th edition TR of 1551 is probably also worthy of mention. This is due to some of its influence, such as being the source of modern verse divisions. This 1551 edition differs from Stephanus' 1550 edition in a few places, such as his inclusion of Luke 17:36, and presentation of Matthew 23:13-14 in the normally recognized order rather than in reverse order, though the KJV translators could have gotten this verse ordering also from Erasmus' 3rd edition. (continued below)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-62891017700364215742022-09-03T14:50:31.135-04:002022-09-03T14:50:31.135-04:00I found my way back to this page again and noticed...I found my way back to this page again and noticed a detail on your list of manuscripts that Erasmus used. You included "Codex 2105 contains the Pauline Epistles", whereas most lists instead would say "Codex 817 contains the Gospels". (For example, https://crossroadsbible.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/English-Bible-4-Understanding-the-Greek-Text-Behind-the-King-James-Version.pdf .) Is there actually evidence that Erasmus used Minuscule 2105 for his first edition (making five copies of the Pauline epistles) or was this an error and it should have been 817--Gospels?<br />Thanks for publishing a text of your video; the page is much easier to find by a search for things like this.<br />MatthewMatthew Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392983543124826157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-44069271593130583852022-04-22T12:25:38.557-04:002022-04-22T12:25:38.557-04:00Or rather, "label".Or rather, "label". Matthew Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392983543124826157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-82002785863177088932022-04-22T12:12:10.098-04:002022-04-22T12:12:10.098-04:00Very helpful! But I'd have found what I was lo...Very helpful! But I'd have found what I was looking for sooner if the tag "Acts 9:5-6" would have been on this page. (Could also consider the tags "conjectural emendation" and "Comma Johanneum".)Matthew Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392983543124826157noreply@blogger.com