King James & Textus Receptus

  • Thread starter Thread starter peeteyg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

peeteyg

Guest
I am in need of Apologetics arguement for Latin Vulgate and NAB bible. A pastor is convincing a friend of mine that just because Codex Vaticanus is old or because Jeromes Latin Vulgate is old it is not better or even the handed down word of God. He says that the Textus Receptus, which was written by Erasmus (A Catholic) is the divine word of god. Maybe the more learned in this forum can give me the truth to share with my seperated brethern. He even says jesus did not quote from or use the Septuagint. Help…

Pete…
 
I believe your friend is wrong about our LORD’s use of the LXX, but I don’t know for sure.

But elsewhere in the NT, the LXX is definitely quoted. The prophecy from Isaiah concerning our LORD’s virgin birth, reads “virgin” only in the LXX, for example.

ICXC NIKA
 
peeteyg said:
I am in need of Apologetics arguement for Latin Vulgate and NAB bible. A pastor is convincing a friend of mine that just because Codex Vaticanus is old or because Jeromes Latin Vulgate is old it is not better or even the handed down word of God. He says that the Textus Receptus, which was written by Erasmus (A Catholic) is the divine word of god. Maybe the more learned in this forum can give me the truth to share with my seperated brethern. He even says jesus did not quote from or use the Septuagint. Help…

Pete…
Click to expand...
Jesus used books from the Septuagint; the story of the mother and seven children that Jesus quotes is found in the book of Maccabees; the Jews after the destruction of the temple (and many scriptures…) refuse to accept Maccabees since it isn’t found written in Hebrew after 70A.D.; but the story Jesus quotes is only found there, so he clearly knew it.

But, even if you look up references and show this to your friend, I doubt it will really help. In order to understand scripture we have to use many resources which aren’t scripture; eg: We didn’t learn the English language from the bible, but vise versa. All original texts, whether Greek or Hebrew, are inspired; otherwise the new testament has to be thrown out (except perhaps Matthew…); These are things taken for granted by most of us, and sometimes (like your friend) forgotten when a charismatic speaker enters their life.

There is an attitude I could recommend to your friend, though, that might help. Look to see what the enemies of Christianity had to say about it. Anything they admit that is good about their enemy, they had to have said grudgingly, and so it bears a mark of truth. Often, the respect of an enemy is worth more historically than the laziness of a friend.

Peace to you, and God bless your efforts.
 
The Textus Receptus (T.R.) is a Greek translation of the New Testament prepared by a man named Erasmus in the early 1500’s, about the time of the beginning of Luther’s reformation. However, I don’t believe Erasmus had any kind of connection with the reformers. The T.R. became the basis for Luther’s German Bible as well as Tyndale’s English Bible, Calvin’s Geneva Bible, the Anglican Bishop’s Bible and of course the King James Bible. Erasmus based his translation primarily on what is known as the Byzantine Text, an ancient and well regarded text, but alas incomplete. For those parts of the N.T. not found in the Byzantine Text, Erasmus used Jerome’s Vulgate. From this, he translated the Latin back into Greek.

The reason that pastor is so big on the T.R. is that he is a King James Version only person. In evangelical circles these people are known as KJV-only advocates. They really believe that the authentic word of God in English is preserved in the KJV. KJV-only pastors will not permit their members to use any other version. It is a fairly large group and very cultic in its beliefs. The most prominent of their advocates is a man named Peter Ruckman.

The KJV-only movement started in the early 20th Century when the newer translations came on line. First was the American Standard Version in 1901. This caused very little controversy but when the Revised Standard Version was published in 1946 by the National Council of Churches, all hell broke loose. There were two reasons for this. First, was the RSV rendition of Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Of course the KJV (and indeed most modern translations) rendered this as “a virgin shall conceive,” and all fundamentalists railed against it. Maybe they should have.
Bear in mind that there weren’t all the choices then that we have now. It was pretty much the RSV or the KJV and the fundamentalists clung to their KJV.

The other source of controversy was that the RSV was published by the National Council of Churches, who fundamentalists regard as intrinsically evil. Fundamentalists are separatists and don’t associate with any other Christians at all. So this cooperative effort to publish a bible had to be the work of the devil.

As other translations came on line, they were naturally suspicious of them and the KJV-only movement became cultic in nature.

Please understand that the KJV is a good translation, but really no better than several of the others. As you read through them, you will find that certain passages are treated very well in some translations and very badly in others. There is no set pattern.
 
King James also has errors such as Matthew 613] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil**: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.** Amen.

Which is not found in any of the earliest best manuscripts and is in fact a copyist error which includes the doxology from the Didache (English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot) **8:10 for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

**In fact, I understand that the KJV translators used the Vulgate as a reference as well. Tell him if he wants an accurate period English translation to get a Douay-Rheims Bible.

Oh…and remind him that all these “1611 King James onlyists” aren’t even using a 1611 KJB, because the authentic 1611 editions have the Deuterocanon in them. 1611 King James Bible
 
Here is a pretty decent bio on Desiderius Erasmus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus

Yes, I know its wiki, but it looks pretty solid to me. The point is, Erasmus was a man, a Catholic man, and far from infallible. He made several decisions (reverse translating, a wager to include a text, rushing to meet a deadline) that were not the best way to maintain infallibility. Thus, we have the KJV-only people with no reason to invest such infallibility to T.R., except faith. It is hard to argue against faith, although I question whether it is proper to have faith in a man, or a thing.
 
GEddie said:
I believe your friend is wrong about our LORD’s use of the LXX, but I don’t know for sure.
Click to expand...
As an Aramaic-speaking Jew talking to other Aramaic-speaking Jews, Jesus would not have switched to Greek to quote the LXX. The gospel writers, transcribing Jesus’ monologues into Greek, in effect put the words of the LXX into Jesus’ mouth when relating what he said. But Jesus himself would have either quoted the Hebrew, or (more likely) spoken an Aramaic paraphrase.
Huiou_Theou said:
Jesus used books from the Septuagint; the story of the mother and seven children that Jesus quotes is found in the book of Maccabees; the Jews after the destruction of the temple (and many scriptures…) refuse to accept Maccabees since it isn’t found written in Hebrew after 70A.D.; but the story Jesus quotes is only found there, so he clearly knew it.
Click to expand...
Can you give a citation? I have read the gospels completely through more than 100 times, and I don’t recall ever seeing that story printed in red. Of course, I could be wrong. I have been wrong before, and doubtless I will be wrong again. But I want to see chapter and verse where Jesus cited that story.
2Rollin_Stoned said:
Oh…and remind him that all these “1611 King James onlyists” aren’t even using a 1611 KJB, because the authentic 1611 editions have the Deuterocanon in them. 1611 King James Bible
Click to expand...
👍 😉
 
Most recently had same issue on “different” forum, and the topic is still going on…so I did some real studying up!

The best, Magesterial teaching on this subject…is from a web site, called Agape Bible Study…by Micheal Hunt…

it is almost too much of a wealth of information, informative info. on exactly “how” the textus receptus came to be…in other words the lines of Scholarly work that was “used” by Scholars that was actually based on a faulty re-translation of the Septuagint…

Wealth of history on this site…and you will find yourself referring to it over and over…

If you go to the site…click under Church History…documents…

or simply google agapebiblestudy catholic old testament…

you’ll see!!!👍
 
Huiou_Theou said:
Jesus used books from the Septuagint; the story of the mother and seven children that Jesus quotes is found in the book of Maccabees; the Jews after the destruction of the temple (and many scriptures…) refuse to accept Maccabees since it isn’t found written in Hebrew after 70A.D.; but the story Jesus quotes is only found there, so he clearly knew it.
Click to expand...
DaveBj responded:
Can you give a citation? I have read the gospels completely through more than 100 times, and I don’t recall ever seeing that story printed in red. Of course, I could be wrong. I have been wrong before, and doubtless I will be wrong again. But I want to see chapter and verse where Jesus cited that story.
Click to expand...
Jesus did not quote from or otherwise relate the story of the mother and seven children. However, the Sadducees, hoping to trick Jesus, approached Him with a question about seven brothers who died one by one, each leaving his wife to the next brother. The episode is related in all three of the synoptics. Here is the one from Mark 12:
18 Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) *came to Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying, 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that IF A MAN’S BROTHER DIES and leaves behind a wife AND LEAVES NO CHILD, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER. 20 There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. 21 The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and the third likewise; 22 and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.”
Click to expand...
Did the Sadducees have in mind the story from 2 Maccabees? Hard to say because there were seven brothers who died but very little else in common between the two stories.
 
Hey DENNYINMI ! Where exactly is the Textus Receptus stuff. I loooked at site but cannot seem to find TR stuff. I appreciate everyones help so far and I appreciate any further help you scholars can give me.

Pete…
 
2Rollin_Stoned said:
King James also has errors such as Matthew 613] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil**: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.** Amen.

Which is not found in any of the earliest best manuscripts and is in fact a copyist error which includes the doxology from the Didache (English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot) 8:10 for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

In fact, I understand that the KJV translators used the Vulgate as a reference as well. Tell him if he wants an accurate period English translation to get a Douay-Rheims Bible.

Oh…and remind him that all these “1611 King James onlyists” aren’t even using a 1611 KJB, because the authentic 1611 editions have the Deuterocanon in them. 1611 King James Bible
Click to expand...
Was about to start a new thread, when I came across this. Just to clear up, I think the 1611 version available to day has the Deuterocanon between the Old and New testaments. Fair enough I suppose. What I was really wondering was, back in 1611, was the Deuterocanon included in the original/catholic order of the books, (in the first edition) rather than at the end and separate from the OT? Think I heard that somewhere, but haven’t been able to verify it since.:confused:
 
Pilgrim1701 said:
Was about to start a new thread, when I came across this. Just to clear up, I think the 1611 version available to day has the Deuterocanon between the Old and New testaments. Fair enough I suppose. What I was really wondering was, back in 1611, was the Deuterocanon included in the original/catholic order of the books, (in the first edition) rather than at the end and separate from the OT? Think I heard that somewhere, but haven’t been able to verify it since.:confused:
Click to expand...
The one copy that I have had in hand had them between the testaments, however that was a more modern edition, so I am unsure about the actual 1611 edition itself.
 
Can someone tell me what books exactly were in the Textus Receptus? I know it was the base text for many Reformation books but what is list of books in the TR itself?
 
peeteyg said:
Can someone tell me what books exactly were in the Textus Receptus? I know it was the base text for many Reformation books but what is list of books in the TR itself?
Click to expand...
New Testament: Matthew - Revelation.
 
Pilgrim1701 said:
Was about to start a new thread, when I came across this. Just to clear up, I think the 1611 version available to day has the Deuterocanon between the Old and New testaments. Fair enough I suppose. What I was really wondering was, back in 1611, was the Deuterocanon included in the original/catholic order of the books, (in the first edition) rather than at the end and separate from the OT? Think I heard that somewhere, but haven’t been able to verify it since.:confused:
Click to expand...
Nope, they were placed in a separate section.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7884/kjvcanon1611.jpg

  1. ]I. Esdras*
    ]II. Esdras*
    ]Tobit*
    ]Ivdeth*
    ]The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde*
    ]The Wisedome of Solomon*
    ]The Wisdome of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Or Ecclesiasticus*
    ]Baruch* (with The Epistle of Ieremie)
    ][And Nabuchodonosor.]*
    ]The historie of Susanna, set apart from the beginning of Daniel, because it is not in Hebrew, as neither the narration of †Bel and the Dragon* † Gr. Bels Dragon]
    ]The history of the destruction of †Bel and the Dragon † Gr. Bels Dragon], cut off from the end of Daniel**
    ]The prayer of Manasses King of Iuda, vvhen he vvas holden captiue in Babylon
    ]    The first booke of the Maccabees*
    ]The second booke of the Maccabees*
 
peeteyg said:
Can someone tell me what books exactly were in the Textus Receptus? I know it was the base text for many Reformation books but what is list of books in the TR itself?
Click to expand...
The various editions of the Textus Receptus are basically the New Testament in Greek. You can read more about the TR texts here.

Oh, an unrelated trivia: did you know that the original KJV had (limited) marginal annotations?

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1966/footnote.jpg

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1966/footnote.jpg

As a result of King James’ directives against marginal notes, there are no lengthy side material as in former translations. Instead, the original 1611 edition gives alternative (oftentimes more literal) renderings of the Hebrew or Greek in the margins, something the translators believed to be very important.
 
patrick457 said:
As a result of King James’ directives against marginal notes, there are no lengthy side material as in former translations. Instead, the original 1611 edition gives alternative (oftentimes more literal) renderings of the Hebrew or Greek in the margins, something the translators believed to be very important.
Click to expand...
. . . and I still do.

OP might consider reminding his friend (who prefers the much later TR to the more ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts) of the Gossip Game that we used to play in grade school. We all stood around the perimeter of the classroom, and the first person would whisper something once into the ear of the second person. The second person would tell the third, the third → the fourth, and so on. By the time the statement got to the last person, it didn’t sound anything like what the first person had said. The storal of the mory is that, all other things being equal, the closer you can get to the original, the greater chance you have of getting an accurate version.
 
peeteyg said:
Hey DENNYINMI ! Where exactly is the Textus Receptus stuff. I loooked at site but cannot seem to find TR stuff. I appreciate everyones help so far and I appreciate any further help you scholars can give me.

Pete…
Click to expand...
Hey Pete…go to…agapebiblestudy.com>>>>click on “Documents”>>>>click on “Church History”>>>>click on “Is The Catholic Old Testament Accurate”…

Wealth of info. Good Luck
 
DENNYINMI said:
it is almost too much of a wealth of information, informative info. on exactly “how” the textus receptus came to be…in other words the lines of Scholarly work that was “used” by Scholars that was actually based on a faulty re-translation of the Septuagint…
Click to expand...
The Textus Receptus is a critical edition of the Greek New Testament and as such has nothing to do with the Septuagint per se.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top