The variants within the TR tradition itself expose a fundamental problem for preservation claims: Erasmus’s work was reproduced in four editions by Stephanus and in nine editions by Theodore Beza, with Stephanus’s fourth edition (1551) and Beza’s text differing somewhat from Erasmus’s[1]. The Elzivirs then produced seven editions of the Greek New Testament, mainly taken from Beza’s 1565 edition, beginning in 1624[1].
These differences are not trivial. Stephanus included readings from the Complutensian Polyglot and Codex Bezae, while Beza employed Codex Claromontanus in some readings in his later editions[1]. Yet both of these early manuscripts were used only infrequently because they differed from Erasmus so much[1]—suggesting the editors themselves recognized tensions between their sources.
The scale of divergence between TR editions and the broader Byzantine manuscript tradition is substantial. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus at about 1,800 places, including some places where the Textus Receptus reading is not the majority reading[1]. More specifically, comparing the Textus Receptus with the Majority Text, the number of variants is in the region of 1,300–1,500, about half of which are in the book of Revelation, with most differences being small—case endings and word order, for example[2].
The deeper issue is historical: the Textus Receptus was based in total on fewer than 10 manuscripts[1], yet it claims to represent a tradition spanning centuries. Although differences exist between the printed editions, they are not so great, and this proliferation of a stereotypical text, which originated with Erasmus, was unstoppable[3].
This creates an insoluble dilemma for preservation theology. If God preserved the text, which edition did He preserve? The answer cannot be “all of them equally,” since they demonstrably differ. Yet singling out one edition—whether Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or Elzevir—requires defending that particular choice on grounds other than preservation, since no theological argument explains why divine preservation would produce multiple competing editions of the “preserved” text.
[1] Charles W. Draper, “Textus Receptus,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1577–1578.
[2] Alan Cairns, in Dictionary of Theological Terms (Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 471.
[3] J. Keith Elliott, “The Text of,” in A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Medieval through the Reformation Periods, ed. Alan J. Hauser, Duane F. Watson, and Schuyler Kaufman (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 2:242.
No comments:
Post a Comment