The above paragraph is not altogether factful.
There are about 15000 early versions of the Greek, and most of these are in Latin (due to the change in the lingua franca), and yet, they read closer to the Alexandrian text-type of the Aleph (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus) than the much later Byzantine (Textus Receptus) text-type of the eastern Catholic/Orthodox Church.
Catholics have, for the most part, contributed greatly to the preservation of the word of God, and this is shown by the extensive use of the Vulgate by the scribes of the Textus Receptus themselves. Even the King James translators themselves made use of the Douay Rheims Bible. Take note: "many of the improved translations of the Rheims NT were introduced into the
AV [Authourised King James Version], e.g., "converted" (convertantur) for "turn" (Mk 4, 12); "founded" (fundata) for "grounded" (Eph 3, 17); "centurion" (centurio) for "captain" (Acts 10, 22); "sign" (signum) for "badge, token" (Mt 26, 48); "clemency" (clementia) for "courtesy" (Acts 24, 4). Not only did the Rheims NT introduce such Latin words into the English language but it also influenced the AV in the direction of modernization, e.g., "moisture" for "moistness" (Lk 8, 6); "what man is there" for "what man is it" (Acts 19, 35); "distresses" for "anguishes" (2 Cor 12, 10)." New American Bible w/Revised New Testamant and Revised Psalms, p.1456
To also prove that the KJV/Textus Receptus is basically Catholic is proven by the background of Erasmus himself. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol 3, pp. 42, 43, states that he was an Augustinian friar who was ordained a priest in 1492, but he was granted a dispensation by Pope Leo X to live in the world. The aforesaid work says that Pope Paul III wanted to make him a cardinal, and that may have accounted for his refusal to leave the Church of Rome. It also says that Erasmus remained within the Church, and told Luther,
"I always freely submit my judgement to the decisions of the Church whether
I grasp or not the reasons which she prescribes."
Erasmus died a faithful Roman Catholic! (see The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. [1997], Vol. 26, p. 887, and Schaff, History, Vol. VII, p. 411, 423)
And what of his Greek New Testament? It was dedicated to the pope! (see New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 5 [1967], pp. 509, 510) The Catholic influence was so heavy, that the King James Version, 1611 edition contained a calendar of Catholic holy days and the Catholic Apocryphal/Deutero-Canonical Books.
Additionally, the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavors agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.
Take note:
Luke 2:22: "her purification" KJV, Vulgate, but Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text has "their purification"
Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left" KJV, Vulgate, but omitted by Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text
Romans 12:11: "serving the Lord" KJV, Vulgate, Aleph etc, while the Erasmus 2-5 and Stephanus has "serving the time"
1 Timothy 1:4: "godly edifying" KJV, Vulgate, while Stephanus and the Majority Text has "dispensation of God"
Hebrews 9:1: "first tabernacle" KJV, Stephanus, while "tabernacle" is omitted by Erasmus, Beza
James 2:18: "without thy works" KJV, Vulgate, while Erasmus, Beza (1st ed) and Stephanus has "by thy works"
Will the real TR please stand up. Is it Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed/eclectic text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. ( the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, states that Scrivener’s edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text.
When we look at the many early versions, alone with the quotations of the early church fathers, we see that these agree with the earlier, more superior Alexandrian Text-type. The early Church Fathers almost always use the older Alexandrian text type. In fact, Gordon Fee, who is one of the leading patristic authorities, wrote:
"Over the past eight years I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and John for the International Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found one invariable: a good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father's text of the NT away from the TR and closer to the text of our modern critical editions. In other words when critical study is made of a church father's text or when early copies of a church father's writings are discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers had a text that keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority text." as quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
It is not “TWO” manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), but a wealth of evidence that supports the newer versions based on the older texts.
No comments:
Post a Comment