Talk:Textus Receptus

message: -->It was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus for his translation of the Bible into --->Latin, and later used as the basis for the translation of the New Testament --->in the King James Version of the Bible. This is the text that was in use by --->the Eastern Orthodox Church in Erasmus' time (c. 1500). 
If Erasmus COMPILED the text (which he did from several texts, including the Vulgate,) then how could it be the text "in use by the Eastern Orthodox Church?"
Did the "Eastern Orthodox church" adopt this text after it was compiled??? or is this because most of the manuscripts he used were late Byzantine? 
Part of the Greek in the TR is backtranslated from the Latin Vulgate -- I find it difficult to believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church would accept Eramsus text.
Michael
: I agree with this. That the Orthodox Church should adopt this after the fact borders on impossibility. More likely the author meant that the Byzantine Orthodox were responsible for preserving some of the texts Erasmus used. But still--more evidence of the need for citations. Sophy's Duckling 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasmus 

message: I believe it would be helpful if we got Erasmus' own annotations to the New Testament.  Hopefully there he would point out how his translation differs from the Vulgate of Jerome, and his reasons for making the differences.  As far as I know the only source for Erasmus' annotations to the New Testament are in The Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 66 pp. 51-60.  I do not know this for sure, it is a reference from a book called The Erasmus Reader.  I am going to check to see if I can find either the annotations online or where there is a copy of the Vol.66.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.68.117.82 (talk • contribs).
Erasmus's Annotations have been published in recent years in facsimile, with an English Introduction.  Most University libraries should have copies.
"The Gospels / edited by Anne Reeve ; introduction by M.A. Screech ; calligraphy by Patricia Payn : facsimile of the final Latin text (1535) with all earlier variants (1516, 1519, 1522 and 1527). 1986."
TomHennell 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasmus Annotations to NT 

message: The author of this article explains that the Erasmus, Luther, King James and all the East, Western and Central Europe, William Tyndale, Church Fathers, the Orthodox and the Catholic churches (Latin Vulgate) are absolutely ignorant. So it is obvious authenticity that the author of this article himself is ignorant. Please read the material with caution, it is not historically correct.
(pov put in article proper in error TomHennell 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Church Fathers, and the Orthodox Church has never used the textus receptus, but the Byzantine text. In many cases the Byzantine text agrees with Alexandrian against the Textus Receptus (Comma Johanneum, Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; Re 22:19). The Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus are not the same. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Amen to that!96.14.149.183 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, IP85, are you arguing for and against?  That is not clear, so please at least state your position.  also, please note that you are responding to a 3 year old comment.Farsight001 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In 1200 cases, not 4. Your 7 000 errors were taken from the oldest Greek manuscripts, and ancient versions. If you prefer 12-15th centuries corrupted copies - more than ancient - it is your problem. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  We have 52 manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and much more from the 4th century. We use also manuscript from the 5th and 6th centuries, and versions. The latest copies are also in disagreement to each other. There is no manuscript, which agrees with Textus Receptus in 100%. Peshitta is closer to the Alexandrian text than to the Byzantine text (except of some parts of the Gospels). But it really does not any matter, the modern editions do not use the Alexandrian text, which is not perfect, but an eclectic (e.g. Pericope Adultera, Signs of the times), by the way Pericopa Adultera is text of minority, and included to the modern editions. Erasm, Estienne, and Beza also created an eclectic text, because they used Vulgate (agrees in 30% with the Alexandrian), Codex Bezae, etc. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely wrong 

message: The introduction to this articles states: "containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament." What is that supposed to mean? If there are no objections, I'll remove this portion of the sentence. Objections should include rewrites to make this more clear. Of course Erasmus text isn't exactly the Textus Receptus, but is that is what is meant? Berend de Boer (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the manuscripts used by Erasmus were lacunose. The last six verses were translated from Vulgate, that is why Textus receptus has "book of life" instead "tree of life" in Revelation 22:14. There are more Vulgate readings, in Revelation it has 17:8 he used καιπερ εστιν (and yet is) instead of και παρεσται (and shall come). Textus Receptus follows Vulgate in John 8:6; Acts 9:6; Rev 17:4 and in twenty other places. According to Edward F. Hills Erasmus was divinely guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text. I think the Introduction needs to be more clearer. If you want to work you can expand section with Westcott and Hort, because the article is still not finished. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tree of life objection is quoted often, but Hoskier writes: "I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies." So if he has more than what you consider to be the NT, the introduction is still wrong as it should say "a bit more than the whole New Testament". The last six verses are 136 Greek words, and 132 in the Critical Text. There are only 18 textual variants when the two texts are compared, something that happens all the time and isn't unusual. So my suggestion is still to remove the last bit. I agree that the introduction sounds a bit weird and needs further work.
It appears as if these words were sneaked into the article by a KJV only proponent who has no basis for them: "In later editions, Erasmus adjusted his text of the last six verses of Revelation in several places once he could consult complete Greek manuscripts[citation needed]." Citation is indeed needed or this should be removed from this article. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It sounds like wishful thinking, without any proof being given. "Book of life" doctrinally changes the Bible. If a person's "part" can be removed from the Book of Life for "taking away from the words of of the book of this prophecy [the book of Revelation]", first it makes no sense as "parts" are not written in the Book of Life; names are. However, just previously in v. 14 the "tree of life" is mentioned, not the Book of Life, which indicates the context for chapter 22 as far as "trees of life" and "books of life" are concerned. Lastly, the Bible is clear in both the OT and NT that salvation is "eternal" (without end) and "not to be repented of" (not to be taken away), and so "book of life" sticks out like a sore thumb as an error of translation either on the part of Erasmus or the Vulgate edition he used with which to translate the last six verses. The "Book of Life" translation contradicts with all other scripture concerning salvation. I'm not sure why KJVO proponents, who are mostly fundamentalist, cannot see this. Thank you all for your time. DollyArtist2013 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I removed this part. Veverve (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not quite the whole New Testament 

message: From reading this talk page, it seemed like these were problems, so I indicated such on the page itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.37.5 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that what the tags say isn't true, but we do need more to go on than the tags themsleves.  What in regards to sourcing and neutrality has a problem?  Without specifics, tags should not be added.  It's called "drive-by" tagging.Farsight001 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources & Neutrality 

message: I accidentally cut off my edit summary, so I figured I should explain why I removed two sentences from the introduction. Two issues: first, there was some clumsy repetition, with two different authors saying the same thing, and I thought the last sentence was much clearer. But, secondly, I guess I think the idea that people "criticize" the Textus Receptus is a bit weird when presented completely out of context, as it was in the introduction. The textus receptus was an impressive work of 16th century scholarship. But, you know, it was in the 16th century, so obviously it's going to be out of date. No one in the scholarly community "criticizes" the textus receptus, they just recognize that it's not the best text, for probably inevitable reasons. A statement in the intro that scholars don't consider it the best text would be totally reasonable, but what was there before seemed kind of silly. Basically - this shouldn't be treated like a live controversy. Obviously there are people who prefer the Textus Receptus, but there is no scholarly debate here. The beliefs of KJV Only types and the like should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it shouldn't be treated like a scholarly debate, nor should it be the central feature of the article. john k (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I have reverted the addition to the list of English Translations of the Textus Receptus, those versions that translate the Byzantine Text or Vulgate.  Those represent entirely different textual traditions (and should not be confused); and have their own articles, where specific English translations may properly be listed.  TomHennell (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority Text / Byzantine Text 

message: ISTM that there is no reason to include various modern printings of the KJV. It seems more appropriate to restrict this list to different translations of the Textus Receptus. Also, a few of these entries are not much more than a title - are they really translations of the Textus Receptus? This list could be more informative with fewer entries.    TomS TDotO (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no justification for listing items which are no more than a title. It is up to the editor to include such obvious information as the publisher and ISBN and some information as to how the item is distinct. I am not going to spend my time tracing down obscure publications which might very well be minor variations of the KJV, not worth the description of "translations of the textus receptus". I'm not going to edit-war this, but observe that it is a disservice to the reader to introduce clutter.     TomS TDotO (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, I think only dominant versions accepted thought out history should be displayed such as Tyndal Bible, KJV, Geneva Bible etc. if you know what I mean — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fully agree: little point in having any more than one KJV edition here (or maybe two, 1611 and 1769, as the latter is the one mostly encountered on the internet).  But otherwise (and even where copies are accessible) this is just a list of English Bible editions, and adds no more information on the Textus Receptus. TomHennell (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. As I haven't heard anything to the contrary, I am just deleting those items which are not sufficiently identified. Perhaps some others could go, too. Perhaps some deserve mention, but without enough information, who can tell?     TomS TDotO (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translations  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Textus Receptus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903143333/http://www.thescripturealone.com/De%20Jonge%20-%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Comma%20Johanneum.pdf to http://www.thescripturealone.com/De%20Jonge%20-%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Comma%20Johanneum.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512023038/http://wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "They are also the text type used in most Protestant denominations consistently throughout history before the 19th century adoption of the Alexandrian priority position within mainstream Biblical scholarship."
This single sentence contains some very confusing links.
Why is "Protestant denominations" being linked to an article that describes the history of the reformation?  How does this inform the reader that the texts described in this article were even used by anybody in this article.  The Reformation article doesn't even contain the word "textus," while the article also clearly states that this reformation ended well before any "19th century adoption."  It would seem to be a disservice to the reader that an article concerning the history of a reformation be linked as "protestant denominations", quantified as most, and linked to the idea of consistent usage of "textus receptus."
The second link to Constantin von Tischendorf, being labelled as "the 19th century" is also quite confusing.  The characters "adopt" are not found anywhere within the Tischendorf article, yet it is clear that the article verifies that he lived in the 19th century.  Since the phrase "the 19th century" is being used adjectively, it seems to be appropriate to look upon the "adoption" action being expressed in the sentence, yet I couldn't clearly find any such adoption in the linked article.
The third link in the sentence to Westcott-Hort, labelled as "adoption of" is also confusing.  It seems that "adopt" in this article is referring to an act taken in the 20th century, rather than the 19th century.  However, the article does seem to confirm that their version of the Greek that they authored closely matches the work of Tischendorf.
It seems that the term "adoption" may best fit the last link in the sentence pointing to Biblical criticism, however, the "19th century" section of the article doesn't seem to mention, Tischendorf, Wescott, Hort, nor an Alexandrian priority.  There is a "Markan priority" mentioned elsewhere in the article on criticism, yet nothing expressly confirms an "alexandrian priority position."  It seems that this sentence is only a sentence that can be adequately understood by experts in the field, rather than curious encyclopedia readers.
Are the authors of the article attempting to portray that an alexandrian priority position is not a natural priority position and must therefore be adopted into such a position?  The common and ordinary meaning of adopt is "to take by choice into relationship" or "to take or receive as one's own what is not so naturally."  Is this sentence intended to imply that the adopted priority position is chosen over a natural priority position?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.30.100.86 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence in the introductory section 

message: "This edition of the New Testament represents the tradition of manuscripts of the New Testament as the one that the Orthodox Church has received and used without interruption since the 4th century."
The "tradition" link seems to refer to an article concerning a recent categorization of manuscripts and doesn't adequately describe a tradition that would help a reader understand the sentence.  What exactly is "the tradition of manuscripts?"  The second link that refers to the article on textual variants seems to refer to an "Alexandrian textual tradition," while the "tradition" link referring to the new categorization article merely mentions "the history of the textual traditions" in the "eclectic" category.  It's quite difficult for a reader to understand what tradition means while referring to the links in the sentence.  45.30.100.86 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing link in introductory section