This isnt really so much about Erasmus and the "Received Text" as about how our nature is to cling to what we have accepted as true despite evidence to the contrary, especially when it comes to what we believe is inspired. Towards the end of the fourth century, when Jerome revised the Old Latin version, he wrote in the preface to the Gospels : "Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume in his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane person for having had the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein?" And so it was and has continued to be.
What was the "Textus Receptus"? The phrase, meaning "Received Text", is used to describe the standard Greek text which was the basis of the Authorised Version of 1611. The expression came from an advertisement for an edition of the Greek text published in 1633 by the Elzevirs, a family of Dutch publishers in Leiden. In the preface it proclaimed : "Therefore you have the text now received by all: we offer it free of alterations and corruptions." Since that time it has been used to refer to the 1633 Elzevir edition in Europe, and to a 1550 edition of the Greek text (by the French printer Robert Stephanus) in England.
As there are many differences between that and the underlying text of modern versions such as the NWT it is important to know just how reliable the "Received Text" is. Where did it come from and on what was it based? If people are to claim that its formation was God-guided, and the text is therefore a trustworthy reproduction of the original as the Dean Burgon Society seems to do, it will be of interest to trace its origins.
Desiderius Erasmus was one of the greatest scholars in Europe in the early sixteenth century. He largely taught himself Greek and was the first to publish a Greek NT, which was printed in Basle in 1516. He subsequently produced another four editions (1519, 1522, 1527, 1535). For the first time a copy of the NT in the language in which it was written was available to all in a cheap and convenient form. More than three thousand copies of the first two editions were sold. It was dedicated to Pope Leo X and so had official approval (although not all officials approved). But its main advantage, which both Erasmus and his printer recognised, is that it was first in the hands of the public.
There had been a Greek NT printed in Spain in 1514. But it was not published until 1522 as it was part of a larger Bible (Complutensian Polyglot) containing Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin of which 600 sets were finally printed. Although it had better credentials than Erasmus edition, its six volumes were bulky to carry and by the time it was published Luther had made his translation (using Erasmus Greek text), the Protestant Reformation had begun, and scholars were occupied with the great theological issues of the day.
To what extent did Erasmus Greek text influence subsequent editions, including the "Received Text"?
The next player in the game was Robert Estienne (which name he Latinized as Stephanus) who was a famous printer in Paris who produced four editions (1546, 1549, 1550, 1551) of the Greek NT. His printing was of a very high quality with type cast at the expense of the French Government. He was the first to introduce a critical apparatus to the text (in his third edition), providing variant readings in the margin, which gave it such authority that this version became known as the "Received Text" in England. In his fourth edition, which he printed after moving to Geneva in 1551 (the HQ of the reformation at that time), he divided it into the verses we still have today. Stephanus numbered the verses with the idea of providing a Greek concordance, which was finally completed by his son in 1594.
What was the basis for his editions of the Greek NT? His first and second editions were compounded from Erasmus fourth edition, the Complutensian Polyglot, fourteen manuscripts (mostly recent miniscules in the Paris Library) and probably the codex Bezae. However, in his third edition in which he included the critical apparatus, he stuck more closely to Erasmus edition in the text and presented the various readings of the Complutensian and the manuscripts in the margin. He even used Erasmus text in several places where there was no manuscript support. Why did he give such priority to Erasmus? Probably because that was the Greek text with which people were familiar despite its problems. Ironically, his provision of marginal readings created a false sense of security and resulted in Erasmus text becoming the basis of the English bible until the nineteenth century.
Also in Geneva at this time was Theodore de Beze, an eminent theologian and scholar, who published nine editions of the Greek NT between 1565 and 1604, although five of them were simply smaller-sized reprints. On what did he base his editions? Although he was the owner of two important codices, the codex Bezae and codex Claromontanus, his editions do not embody much work of a textual kind. His first edition followed the text of Stephanus 1550 edition with a few minor changes, amounting to less than a hundred, and the Greek text of subsequent editions did not differ widely from this. As noted above this was the text of Erasmus fourth edition.
While Stephanus had improved the text with marginal readings and verses, Beza provided the reformers stamp of approval to a text which had originally been dedicated to the Pope! In the publishers world there was simply nothing to touch it. The world of textual criticism is another thing as we shall see.
Bezas edition was the one most often followed by the translators of the Authorised Version and was also the basis of the Elzevir editions.
The Elzevirs were a family of well-known Dutch publishers at Leiden who produced seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and 1678. These editions were commercial, not critical or literary and have little textual value in themselves. There are about fifty minor differences between their editions and that of Beza. Their edition of 1633 became the "Received Text" in Europe and is best known for the phrase "textus receptus" in the preface referred to earlier.
There is a further influence that Erasmus had on the Authorised Version.
The first English NT translated by William Tyndale in 1525 was based on Erasmus Greek text and influenced by Luther (whose German translation was based on Erasmus). This is again relevant because by the time the Authorised Version was produced English readers had become accustomed to phrases in existing translations which were heavily influenced by Tyndale. And the AV was simply a revision of existing translations, not a new translation in itself.
There is further evidence of the links between the different editions of the Greek New Testament.
Edouard Reuss was a scholar (and rector) at the university of Bonn in the late nineteenth century. In 1872 he wrote a bibliography of editions of the Greek New Testament and drew up a list of 1000 test-passages to identify similarities in these editions.
He states that in Stephanus first edition, 656 of his 1000 test-passages agrees with both the Complutensian and Erasmus. In the remaining 344 the editor generally follows Erasmus. There are only nine passages where Stephanus adopts an independent reading.
He also says that Elzevirs first edition is substantially the same as Bezas and agrees with it in all 1000 test-passages except eight, in which the reading adopted is taken from some other of Bezas testaments.
Having established the direct and indirect reliance placed on the Greek text of Erasmus for the production of the AV I would like to give some detail of the manuscripts available to him.
He spent the years 1511-1513 in Cambridge, England where he was teaching and writing. While there he collated the text using four Greek manuscripts which he got from the Franciscan community in Cambridge. One of these has been identified as the Leicester Codex. This late manuscript (cursive 69) was written in the fifteenth century by Emmanuel of Constantinople, a Greek scribe employed by George Neville, Archbishop of York.
When Erasmus moved to Basle in 1514 he took these manuscripts with him but hoped to find older and more complete manuscripts in Basle to publish the Greek New Testament. It was not to be. He was able to obtain five manucripts left in the monastic library by Cardinal John of Ragusa, who had been sent on a mission to the Greeks by the Council of Basle (1431), and probably brought them back from Constantinople. None were ancient or particularly valuable except one (of the eleventh century) which he didnt use much as he (erroneously) believed its text had been tampered with to conform to the Latin Vulgate. They can all still be found in the University Library in Basle. He also borrowed a twelfth-century miniscule from his friend John Reuchlin as none of the manuscripts had the book of Revelation.
Of these manuscripts he primarily used:
Codex Basiliensis 2e. (14th or 15th century). This was used by Erasmus for the Gospels with press corrections by his hand , and scored with red chalk to suit his pages!
Codex Basiliensis 2ap (13th or 14th century). Once belonged to the Preaching Friars then to Amerbach, a printer of Basle. Erasmus used the text for the Acts and Epistles.
Codex Johannis Reuchlini 1r (12th century). The text and commentary are so mixed up as to be indistinguishable in parts. This cursive was rediscovered in 1861 by Franz Delitzch in a library at Mayhingen in Bavaria.
The other manuscripts were not used much.
Codex Basiliensis 1eap. (11th or 12th century). The only cursive of any value was only used on rare occasions as Erasmus believed it had been altered to conform with the Vulgate text.
Codex Basiliensis 7ap.
Codex Bailiensis 4ap. (13th or 14th century) Badly written by several hands, and full of contractions. Erasmus made some use of this copy and of its marginal readings.
Codices Laurentii Vallae 15r. Seven unknown Greek manuscripts of St John, cited in Laurentius Vallas "Annotation in N.T.", edited by Erasmus in Paris, 1505. Erasmus retrieved verse 20 of the last chapter of Revelation which was missing from codex Reuchlini.
The additional manuscripts he had available for his second edition of 1519 were:
Codex Corsendonck (twelfth century) Two manuscripts from the Austin Priory of Corsendonck. They are now in the Imperial Library at Vienna.
A Greek manuscript lent to him by the Monastery of Mount St. Agnes, near Zwolle.
Codex Aureus (6th 8th century). A Latin manuscript lent to him by Matthew Corvinus, King of Hungary.
The additional manucripts he had available for his third edition of 1522 were:
Two manuscripts he consulted at the library of St. Donation, Brussels.
A manuscript at the Abbey of St. James at Liege. It was left there in the fourteenth century by Radulphus of Rivo.
What improvements did Erasmus make to his first edition?
In his second edition of 1519 he corrected a large portion of the typos and a few readings, chiefly on the authority of a twelfth century manuscript, codex Corsendonck.
In his fourth edition of 1527 Erasmus was able to take advantage of better readings in the Complutensian Polyglot (1522) to improve the text, especially in the Apocalypse, where he amended at least ninety readings. However, although the editors of the polyglot Bible had access to some Vatican manuscripts there is no evidence they were much older than those available to Erasmus.
Prior to his fifth edition of 1535 he arranged for his friend, Paulus Bombasius, to check the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in the Codex Vaticanus.
In John Mills edition of the Greek NT (1707), in which he noted variations in the Greek text, he states that Erasmus second edition contains 400 changes from the first - 330 for the better, 70 for the worse.
That the third edition differs from the second in 118 places.
That the fourth differs from the third in 16 or 23 places, in addition to the ninety referred to above.
That the fifth differs from the fourth only four times.
So the facts are that none of the Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus which we have been able to identify are earlier than the eleventh century and the actual alterations which he made in his Greek text appear to be inconsiderable. That although both Stephanus and Beza had the codex Beza available to them it was relegated to marginal readings in the editions accepted as "Received Text". That the father of the English Bible (Tyndale) relied directly on Erasmus Greek text and that is largely what we see when we read the AV. The question facing all of us who admire the work of Erasmus and his colleagues is whether we will imitate their spirit. Erasmus wrote to a critic, Martin van Dorp: "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospel. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."
Earnest
"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson
Edited by - Earnest on 7 July 2002 19:9:29