Textus Receptus 210241 224630127 2008-07-09T18:59:09Z Kbdankbot 6505923 Robot - move category per [[WP:CFD|CFD]] [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 1|2008 July 1]] '''Textus Receptus''' ([[Latin]]: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed [[Greek language|Greek]] texts of the [[New Testament]] which constituted the translation base for the original German [[Luther Bible]], for the translation of the New Testament into English by [[William Tyndale]], the [[King James Version]], and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and [[Central Europe]]. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in [[Basel]] by the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[Catholic]] scholar and humanist [[Erasmus|Desiderius Erasmus]] in [[1516]], on the basis of some six [[biblical manuscript|manuscripts]], containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the [[Byzantine text-type]], Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text. [[Image:ErasmusText TitlePage.jpg|thumb|180px|right|The first page of the Erasmian New Testament]] == History of the Textus Receptus == Erasmus' first edition of the Greek New Testament was prepared in haste, because his publisher [[Johann Froben]] wished to beat into print the Greek New Testament being prepared in Spain as part of the great [[Complutensian Polyglot Bible]] project. Typographical errors attributed to the rush to complete the work abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of [[Revelation]] and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin [[Vulgate]] in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the [[Church Fathers]]; and consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late [[Byzantine text-type|Byzantine]] text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from standard form of that text-type; as represented by the "[[Majority Text]]" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success; and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected. [[Image:ErasmusText_LastPage_Rev22_8_21.jpg|thumb|180px|right|The last page of the Erasmian New Testament (Re 22:8-21)]] Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants; but he only had six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.<ref>W.W. Combs, Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996), 45. </ref> They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream [[Byzantine text-type|Byzantine]] tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.<ref name="dubious">[[Bruce Metzger]], ''The Text of the New Testament'', p. 99.</ref> With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text ([[1522]]) the [[Comma Johanneum]] was included, because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his ''Annotations''. Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to a flurry of further authorized and unauthorized editions in the early [[sixteenth century]]; almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own. == Textual criticism and the Textus Receptus == Although used in general to refer to the whole series of Greek editions derived from Erasmus; the term "Textus Receptus" also has a specific reference in New Testament [[textual criticism]]—denoting one of two particular New Testament editions: the one produced by [[Paris]]ian [[Robert Estienne|Robertus Stephanus]] in 1550; and another produced by the Elzevir brothers in [[Amsterdam]] in 1624 (reprinted in 1633). The name itself derives from a phrase contained in the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition of the Elzevirs' text, ''textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum'', translated "so you hold the text, now received by all." The two words, ''textum'' and ''receptum'', were modified from the [[accusative]] to the [[nominative]] case to render ''textus receptus''. Where Greek New Testament manuscripts are [[text criticism|collated]] to record their variant readings, it is one of these two printed texts that has generally been employed as the reference standard. The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an [[textual criticism#Eclecticism|eclectic]] approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be [[Alexandrian text-type|Alexandrian]] in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the [[Byzantine text-type]]; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of [[textual criticism|textual scholarship]] now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the [[King-James-Only Movement]], and other [[Protestant]] groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from [[Reformation]] traditions. == Defense of the Textus Receptus == Frederick Nolan, a 19th century historian and Greek and Latin scholar, spent 28 years attempting to trace the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. He was an ardent advocate of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus over all other editions of the Greek New Testament, and argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority. :It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the [Greek] New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach.<ref name="text-types">''An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin'' (London, 1815), [http://mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry1.html ch. 1]. The sequel mentioned in the text is Nolan's ''Supplement to an Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; containing the Vindication of the Principles employed in its Defence'' (London, 1830).</ref> Regarding Erasmus, Nolan stated: :Nor let it be conceived in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly labored to improve upon his design. [. . .] With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other.<ref name="varieties">''ibid.'', [http://mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry5.html ch. 5]</ref> [[Image:Textus receptus.jpg|thumb|]] == Relationship to the Byzantine text == Textus Receptus was established on a basis of the [[Byzantine text-type]], called also 'Majority text', and usually is identified with him by his followers. But Textus Receptus has some additions and variants which did not exist in the byzantine text before the 16th century. The [[Comma Johanneum]] in 1 John 5:8 is well known example, but there are also other texts like: Matt 10:8; 27:35; Luke 17:36; John 3:25; Acts 8:37; 9:5; and some readings ("book of life" instead of "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19) which the Byzantine text did not have. In these cases the majority of manuscripts agree with the [[Alexandrian text-type]] against the Textus Receptus. [[Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener|F.H.A. Scrivener]] (1813-1891) remarked that Matt. 22:28, 23:25, 27:52, 28:3, 4, 19, 20; Mark 7:18, 19, 26, 10:1, 12:22, 15:46; Luke 1:16, 61, 2:43, 9:1, 15, 11:49; John 1:28, 10:8, 13:20 are under the influence of minuscule 1 ([[Caesarean text-type]]). [[Daniel Wallace]] enumerated that in 1,838 places (1005 are translatable) Textus Receptus differs to the Byzantine text-type.<ref>Daniel Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text", Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276. </ref> ==See also== * [[Majority Text]] * [[New Testament]] * [[Byzantine text-type]] * [[Alexandrian text-type]] * [[Western text-type]] * [[Vulgate]] * [[King-James-Only Movement]] == Notes == {{reflist}} *Daniel B. Wallace. 'Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text'. ''[[Bibliotheca Sacra]]'' '''146''' (1989): 270-290. == External links == * [http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html The Textus Receptus at the Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism] * [http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF W.W. Combs, Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53.] * [http://www.martinarhelger.de/textgrundlage.pdf M. Arhelger, Die Textgrundlage des Neues Testaments, 2006] {{de icon}} * [http://www.freewebtown.com/bibletexte/pdf/la_bible_16e_siecle__michel_berger.pdf La Bible au XVI' Siècle] {{fr icon}} * [http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus] from Bible Research * [http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text] Bible Research === Defence Textus receptus === * [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1885 ''Brother, Are You Saved?'' A discourse on Textus Receptus and the origin of scripture by Troy Organ, PhD] * [http://www.aomin.org/kjvo.html The King James Only Movement (Criticism of)] [[Category:Greek New Testament]] [[Category:King James Only movement]] [[Category:New Testament text-types]] [[Category:Early printed bibles]] [[de:Textus receptus]] [[el:Κείμενο του Εράσμου]] [[es:Textus Receptus]] [[it:Textus receptus]] [[nl:Textus receptus]] [[ja:テクストゥス・レセプトゥス]] [[no:Textus Receptus]] [[pl:Textus receptus]] [[pt:Textus Receptus]] [[fi:Textus Receptus]] [[sv:Textus Receptus]]