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

Re: Textus Receptus or lux fiat

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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).


      Cordially in Christ,


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "sarban" <sarban@s...>
      > ----- 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
      > > 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
      > usage 'textus receptus' is used indifferently for the (late)
      > of Stephanus as well as those of Beza and the Elzevirs.
      > (When exact precision is necessary, eg collating against the
      > receptus, it is important to make clear exactly what version of
      > 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.