-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why is it called the Texus Receptus (recieved text)?
- Thread starter Comrade
- Start date
"Because in 1633, when the Elsevir published an edition of the Greek New Testament, the preface (written in Latin) included the phrase: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum which, being interpreted means, "Now the reader has the text received by all." Of course, there was no proof at the time that it had been received by anyone. "
''
It is Elsevier not Elsevir, but that is nitpicking. The use of the term Textus Receptus originates in the introduction of the Greek New Testament printed by the brothers Elsevier (a publisher that still exists by the way). The only NT that was translated from the real original (Elsevier) TR is the Dutch Statenbijbel of 1637.
Bragging coming up.
I and Johnv are the only 2 members on this board that study the true TR translated Bible.
WE RULE
''
It is Elsevier not Elsevir, but that is nitpicking. The use of the term Textus Receptus originates in the introduction of the Greek New Testament printed by the brothers Elsevier (a publisher that still exists by the way). The only NT that was translated from the real original (Elsevier) TR is the Dutch Statenbijbel of 1637.
Bragging coming up.
I and Johnv are the only 2 members on this board that study the true TR translated Bible.
WE RULE
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Thank you, Mioque!
I’ve gone through all the scriptural illusions and quotes used by Polycarp (as kindly posted by Ziggy yesterday) to find anything they might tell us about what was the text type of the scripture that Polycarp read and quoted. Here’s what I found (I have only posted the quotes and illusions that referred to verses in which variants between the text types are found):
(In the sort of loose quoting that Polycarp does, possible additions or deletions, and phrases that might have been brought in from other places in scripture are not very convincing evidence, because his usual way of quoting scripture is to take bits and pieces from here and there and put them together as it suits him, leaving out whatever isn't important to whatever point he's making. This makes it pretty difficult to be certain whether his scripture actually reads the way he quotes it, or whether he’s doing his sort of jumbled quoting again.)
There you have it: all the evidence from Polycarp regarding early text types. Two of Polycarps quotes seem to be from either the MT or the NU readings over the readings of the TR; and two of them may possibly be TR readings over the readings of the NU. I’m trying to be as unbiased as possible, and my as-unbiased-as-I-can-make-it opinion is that Mr. Polycarp’s quotes (or allusions) are more or less useless in this discussion. They might be weighted just a little more strongly toward PC having an NU sort of text than a TR sort of text, but the tilt isn’t all that far.
This is just barely an allusion to Matthew 5:44. It’s too loose of an allusion (and it’s in a list of people to pray for--a list gathered from all over scripture) to count as textual evidence of anything.
“Judgment seat of Christ” is used in 2 Corinthians in both NU and the TR, but it’s “judgment seat of God” in the NU in Romans 14. This is a sort of a summary quote, so it’s difficult to know if it’s a more or less direct quote of Romans 14, or if he might be sort of combining the two passages from Romans and 2 Corinthians. This could be evidence that Polycarp’s had a TR reading here, though. Possible, but not all that strong.
The actual quote from polycarp on this is “the secret things of the heart”, rather than what is quoted here. There is a textual variant in this verse, but it doen’t affect this phrase. No evidence either way.
In this case, Polycarp quotes the NU variant, without the word "certain" that is in the TR. From the KJV: For we brought nothing into [this] world, [and it is] certain we can carry nothing out. This could be evidence that Polycarp’s text had the NU reading here. Possible, but it’s also possible, I suppose, that he just forgot to quote the word “certain”.
This one has a textual variant: the TR has the word “may” before “serve” and the NU doesn’t. That seems to be neither here nor there in regards to this quote, and what type of text Polycarp was quoting.
The textual variant here is between the TR, and the MT and the NU. The MT and the NU have “not seen”, and the TR has “not known”. Polycarp’s reading (if it is a reading) is not the TR, but from either of the other two text types. This, I think, is really the strongest evidence of all of them, because it’s not just a word left in or added, but a whole different word. And the word choice is not the variant found in the TR.
(In the sort of loose quoting that Polycarp does, possible additions or deletions, and phrases that might have been brought in from other places in scripture are not very convincing evidence, because his usual way of quoting scripture is to take bits and pieces from here and there and put them together as it suits him, leaving out whatever isn't important to whatever point he's making. This makes it pretty difficult to be certain whether his scripture actually reads the way he quotes it, or whether he’s doing his sort of jumbled quoting again.)
There is a textual variant here, but it’s not clear to me whether it comes into play or not. “Does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” is straight out of the TR, and “is come in the flesh” is not found here in the NU. It is found in verse 2 in the NU, however, and since this whole statement is not really a quote, but a cobbling together of phrases from all three verses--and all the phrases are found in all the variants. It may suggest Polycarp had a TR reading, but then again, there is another plausible explanation, too--cobbled quotes.
There you have it: all the evidence from Polycarp regarding early text types. Two of Polycarps quotes seem to be from either the MT or the NU readings over the readings of the TR; and two of them may possibly be TR readings over the readings of the NU. I’m trying to be as unbiased as possible, and my as-unbiased-as-I-can-make-it opinion is that Mr. Polycarp’s quotes (or allusions) are more or less useless in this discussion. They might be weighted just a little more strongly toward PC having an NU sort of text than a TR sort of text, but the tilt isn’t all that far.
--------------------------------------------------
Actually, the printers took them out. They cut whatever corners they could to save money on costs and increase their profits.
--------------------------------------------------
Did the church accept them? Or reject them? Who in reality is responsible for the word of God? Is it the church, the ground and pillar of truth? Or is it the printers? Ultimately it is God. God saw they were taken out.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Actually, the printers took them out. They cut whatever corners they could to save money on costs and increase their profits.
--------------------------------------------------
Did the church accept them? Or reject them? Who in reality is responsible for the word of God? Is it the church, the ground and pillar of truth? Or is it the printers? Ultimately it is God. God saw they were taken out.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The TR begun with the Apostles right down to the present. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't suppose it would be to much to ask you to actually prove this assertion, would it?
The name "Textus Receptus" did not exist until 1624 and then it was specifically applied to an edition of Erasmus' Greek Text... which contains readings that have no Greek support at all! That pretty much destroys your notion of it being used from the Apostles on down.
The people bought what the printers offered. The only other choice would have been to go without a Bible. Most people then didn't have the luxury of choosing like we have today. They were happy just to have a Bible. I could just as easily say that men took them out and that God seen they were put back in.
--------------------------------------------------
The people bought what the printers offered. The only other choice would have been to go without a Bible. Most people then didn't have the luxury of choosing like we have today. They were happy just to have a Bible. I could just as easily say that men took them out and that God seen they were put back in.
--------------------------------------------------
Besides the fact that it is in God's control and providence over His word of truth, if what the printers did would have had to have been authorized and approved, and accepted by the churches. You make it seem as though it was a money making thing. This is speculation on your part. The churches would not have allowed something like this to happen, if they did not deem it necessary. There would have been an uproar. People then, loved and revered the word of God and believed it was the very pure word of God, unlike many today.
It is easy to say God would take them out to put them back in, but this is not how God works. He doesn't give, only to take away. God fixes or heals. He does not destroy, or make sick.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The people bought what the printers offered. The only other choice would have been to go without a Bible. Most people then didn't have the luxury of choosing like we have today. They were happy just to have a Bible. I could just as easily say that men took them out and that God seen they were put back in.
--------------------------------------------------
Besides the fact that it is in God's control and providence over His word of truth, if what the printers did would have had to have been authorized and approved, and accepted by the churches. You make it seem as though it was a money making thing. This is speculation on your part. The churches would not have allowed something like this to happen, if they did not deem it necessary. There would have been an uproar. People then, loved and revered the word of God and believed it was the very pure word of God, unlike many today.
It is easy to say God would take them out to put them back in, but this is not how God works. He doesn't give, only to take away. God fixes or heals. He does not destroy, or make sick.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
askjo, it wasn't that long ago that michelle argued that "Christ = God".
--------------------------------------------------
But the scriptures make it quite clear that there is the judgement seat of Christ, for christians, and the judgement seat of God for all men. To indicate God in that verse, confuses this truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
askjo, it wasn't that long ago that michelle argued that "Christ = God".
--------------------------------------------------
But the scriptures make it quite clear that there is the judgement seat of Christ, for christians, and the judgement seat of God for all men. To indicate God in that verse, confuses this truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Well “the church” accepted them at first along with the Apocrypha under penalty of imprisonment, dismemberment and even death.
This is terribly flawed logic michelle. God was able to "inspire" the English words of the translators but unable to keep them from including margin notes, footnotes and the dreaded fount of heresy, the Apocrypha. So He struggled for several hundred years or so to correct the problem and remove these blotches on His Word.
Not very convincing (to me anyway).
HankD
There was indeed an uproar, from the dissenters and Anabaptists who objected to the manifested results of King James The Rules of Translation. many were imprisoned (some were given a life sentence) some tortured, some had their ears cut off and even put to death.
So you pick and choose when “Christ = God” and where it does not? According to what it “quite clear”.
Is it true or not “Christ = God” in every passage of the Scriptures or not?
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
This is terribly flawed logic michelle. God was able to "inspire" the English words of the translators but unable to keep them from including margin notes, footnotes and the dreaded fount of heresy, the Apocrypha. So He struggled for several hundred years or so to correct the problem and remove these blotches on His Word.
Not very convincing (to me anyway).
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
If I had a dollar, for every time someone here, has put words in my mouth, or painted a false assumption of what I believe, or twisted my words, I would be financially rich today. Hank, you always seem to do this right at the point where the truth is very obvious, and you turn it and try to twist it, but doing such like the above. I have NEVER SAID, nor do I believe the KJB translators were INSPIRED. Please stop putting words in my mouth, making it seem as though I believe such.
You are avoiding the obvious, and that is God has control and providence concerning his word of truth. End of story. This is the truth. God saw to it, that those footnotes were taken out. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, I don't go with human reasoning and logic first. I go with FAITH in God concerning his word of truth, and concerning me and all his faithful first.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
This is terribly flawed logic michelle. God was able to "inspire" the English words of the translators but unable to keep them from including margin notes, footnotes and the dreaded fount of heresy, the Apocrypha. So He struggled for several hundred years or so to correct the problem and remove these blotches on His Word.
Not very convincing (to me anyway).
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
If I had a dollar, for every time someone here, has put words in my mouth, or painted a false assumption of what I believe, or twisted my words, I would be financially rich today. Hank, you always seem to do this right at the point where the truth is very obvious, and you turn it and try to twist it, but doing such like the above. I have NEVER SAID, nor do I believe the KJB translators were INSPIRED. Please stop putting words in my mouth, making it seem as though I believe such.
You are avoiding the obvious, and that is God has control and providence concerning his word of truth. End of story. This is the truth. God saw to it, that those footnotes were taken out. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, I don't go with human reasoning and logic first. I go with FAITH in God concerning his word of truth, and concerning me and all his faithful first.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
There was indeed an uproar, from the dissenters and Anabaptists who objected to the manifested results of King James The Rules of Translation. many were imprisoned (some were given a life sentence) some tortured, some had their ears cut off and even put to death.
--------------------------------------------------
Like I said Hank, you need to study that period of History a little bit better, and without bias. The fact of the matter is, that the KJB translation was the one God chose and willed. He has made this evident, regardless of your biased outlook on it.
You really need to get past this bias that you have because of your trying to show or prove something that doesn't exist - a false man made label. Why spend all your time and effort fighting the truth, rather than defending it, and exposing and warning of those things that have altered it?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
There was indeed an uproar, from the dissenters and Anabaptists who objected to the manifested results of King James The Rules of Translation. many were imprisoned (some were given a life sentence) some tortured, some had their ears cut off and even put to death.
--------------------------------------------------
Like I said Hank, you need to study that period of History a little bit better, and without bias. The fact of the matter is, that the KJB translation was the one God chose and willed. He has made this evident, regardless of your biased outlook on it.
You really need to get past this bias that you have because of your trying to show or prove something that doesn't exist - a false man made label. Why spend all your time and effort fighting the truth, rather than defending it, and exposing and warning of those things that have altered it?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
No more speculative than you are. Other than King James, who disliked the Geneva Bible footnotes because they went against his divine right of kings belief, and modern KJVO's, I have not found one person that spoke against foot notes pointing out textual issues or alternate words that could have been used or literal meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words in question. In fact, history shows that people put extensive notes in their Bibles so they could have all the study material needed in one place. The Geneva Bible is a perfect example of this. The GB footnotes didn't start out that large, but became so when differing people studied the text and added more footnotes over time.
I see you have trouble reading. I said that men took them out and that God put them back in. Men do give and take back. For example, King James wanted to get rid of the Geneva Bible footnotes lest someone read them and question his divine rights as king. He who controls the flow of information controls the masses. So, it is men who take away and restrict information so they can remain in control. But God in His grace, gave the information back to us so we don't have to blindly follow the masses like a herd of cattle. He wants us to study and think for ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the scriptures make it quite clear that there is the judgement seat of Christ, for christians, and the judgement seat of God for all men. To indicate God in that verse, confuses this truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you pick and choose when “Christ = God” and where it does not? According to what it “quite clear”.
Is it true or not “Christ = God” in every passage of the Scriptures or not?
--------------------------------------------------
Since you seemed to have missed it, I will point it out in bold for you:
--------------------------------------------------
But the scriptures make it quite clear that there is the judgement seat of Christ, for christians, and the judgement seat of God for all men. To indicate God in that verse, confuses this truth.
--------------------------------------------------
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the scriptures make it quite clear that there is the judgement seat of Christ, for christians, and the judgement seat of God for all men. To indicate God in that verse, confuses this truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you pick and choose when “Christ = God” and where it does not? According to what it “quite clear”.
Is it true or not “Christ = God” in every passage of the Scriptures or not?
--------------------------------------------------
Since you seemed to have missed it, I will point it out in bold for you:
--------------------------------------------------
But the scriptures make it quite clear that there is the judgement seat of Christ, for christians, and the judgement seat of God for all men. To indicate God in that verse, confuses this truth.
--------------------------------------------------
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
No more speculative than you are. Other than King James, who disliked the Geneva Bible footnotes because they went against his divine right of kings belief, and modern KJVO's, I have not found one person that spoke against foot notes pointing out textual issues or alternate words that could have been used or literal meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words in question. In fact, history shows that people put extensive notes in their Bibles so they could have all the study material needed in one place. The Geneva Bible is a perfect example of this. The GB footnotes didn't start out that large, but became so when differing people studied the text and added more footnotes over time.
--------------------------------------------------
Well, the fact of the matter is, God must not have liked them, because He saw to it they were taken out.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
No more speculative than you are. Other than King James, who disliked the Geneva Bible footnotes because they went against his divine right of kings belief, and modern KJVO's, I have not found one person that spoke against foot notes pointing out textual issues or alternate words that could have been used or literal meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words in question. In fact, history shows that people put extensive notes in their Bibles so they could have all the study material needed in one place. The Geneva Bible is a perfect example of this. The GB footnotes didn't start out that large, but became so when differing people studied the text and added more footnotes over time.
--------------------------------------------------
Well, the fact of the matter is, God must not have liked them, because He saw to it they were taken out.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle