Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [textualcriticism] Textus Receptus or lux fiat

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: mjriii2003 To: Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:18 PM Subject: [textualcriticism]
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 17, 2005
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "mjriii2003" <mjriii2003@...>
      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:18 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Textus Receptus or lux fiat


      >
      >
      > Greeting all,
      >
      > I found this essay which although slightly dated helps one
      > conceptualize the complexity of the historical genealogy of the NT
      > manuscript tradition.
      >
      > http://www.skepticfiles.org/think/receptus.htm
      >
      > Cordially in Christ,
      >
      > Malcolm
      >
      Although the Elzevir edition (After the KJV) was undoubtedly
      the first to call itself the text received by all, in general scholarly
      usage 'textus receptus' is used indifferently for the (late) editions
      of Stephanus as well as those of Beza and the Elzevirs.

      (When exact precision is necessary, eg collating against the textus
      receptus, it is important to make clear exactly what version of the
      textus receptus one is using.)

      Hence it is IMO pedantic at best to claim that the KJV NT is not
      based upon the textus receptus, merely because it used Stephanus
      rather than Elzevir.

      Andrew Criddle
    • mjriii2003
      Dear Andrew, Thank you for your input. If one wishes to be pedantic, then, as McRae and Newman have pointed out the edition of Stephanus 1550/1 and Elziver
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 17, 2005
        Dear Andrew,

        Thank you for your input. If one wishes to be pedantic, then, as
        McRae and Newman have pointed out the edition of Stephanus 1550/1
        and Elziver differ in 286 places (according to their count). If one
        insists on being pedantic - I have no problem with that - one will
        need to qualify their differentiation appropriately as would befit
        the situation in order to avoid confusion. This hardly needs to be
        stated - unfortunately, as you know the obvious must be stated.

        The battle for the longer or shorter readings as far as they
        represent the original autographs will eventually focus on how far
        back the Byzantine/Koine/Majority text-type(s) can OBJECTIVELY be
        traced back. Irenaeus is not far enough backward in my humble
        opinion (e.g. Acts 8:37 or Erasmus' reinterpolation of the words
        libro vitae "book of life" in Apoc 22,19 - Talk about the lack of
        eternal security! (cf. 1 K 15,33) or Cyprian's apparent reference to
        1 Jn 5,7) - however tenacious these wish to be therein (I have my
        reasons). In addition I still think B.F Wescott's A General Survey
        of the History of the Canon of the New Testament is worthly of a
        careful read.

        The maddening frenzy of some prompted by the avarious driven
        label "textum...nunc ab omnibus receptum" of Elziver (ed. 1633)
        coupled with light weight curiosity seekers of mere proof-texts own
        aberrant understandings of the providence of God, preservation "by
        his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages", pure(ness),
        inspiration, etc. will still be a bigger "blurb" on the scientific
        investigation and restoration toward the autograph text(s) than
        anything a mere - however gifted - printer's family in the
        Netherlands might say. One day one is going to realize that one must
        plow his own field and through out the stones found therein and
        build therewith his own pretty wall.

        As you probably are aware the differentiation between
        Byzantine/Koine/Majority is given in Nestle/Aland. There is a site -
        I give it below - which spells it out pretty well online (in case
        you meet a blurber along the beaten path).

        http://www.dtl.org/versions/e-mails/greek-texts.htm

        Cordially in Christ,

        Malcolm


        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "sarban" <sarban@s...>
        wrote:
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "mjriii2003" <mjriii2003@y...>
        > To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:18 PM
        > Subject: [textualcriticism] Textus Receptus or lux fiat
        >
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Greeting all,
        > >
        > > I found this essay which although slightly dated helps one
        > > conceptualize the complexity of the historical genealogy of the
        NT
        > > manuscript tradition.
        > >
        > > http://www.skepticfiles.org/think/receptus.htm
        > >
        > > Cordially in Christ,
        > >
        > > Malcolm
        > >
        > Although the Elzevir edition (After the KJV) was undoubtedly
        > the first to call itself the text received by all, in general
        scholarly
        > usage 'textus receptus' is used indifferently for the (late)
        editions
        > of Stephanus as well as those of Beza and the Elzevirs.
        >
        > (When exact precision is necessary, eg collating against the
        textus
        > receptus, it is important to make clear exactly what version of
        the
        > textus receptus one is using.)
        >
        > Hence it is IMO pedantic at best to claim that the KJV NT is not
        > based upon the textus receptus, merely because it used Stephanus
        > rather than Elzevir.
        >
        > Andrew Criddle
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.