The Textus Receptus is not a single, fixed text but a dynamic "succession of printed editions" that evolved significantly over four centuries. While many of its editors and advocates have historically claimed the variations are minor and inconsequential, a careful collation reveals hundreds of substantive differences.
Here is a comprehensive overview of the major editions and the evidence of their differences.
The Primary Editions and Their Editors
The Textus Receptus tradition is defined by the work of four primary editors:
| Editor 1: Desiderius Erasmus | Editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535
| The first printed Greek New Testament. Created in haste, relying on a handful of late manuscripts. |
| Editor 2: Robert Estienne (Stephanus) | Editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551
| His 1550 edition is a foundational "standard" text, more closely conformed to Erasmus's later editions. |
| Editor 3: Theodore Beza | Editions: 1565, 1582, 1588, 1589, 1598
| His 1598 edition was the primary text used by the King James translators. |
| Editor 4: House of Elzevir | Editions: 1624, 1633, 1641, etc.
| The 1633 edition is the one that gave the text its name, "Textum ... ab omnibus receptum". |
A final, significant edition is that of "F.H.A. Scrivener (1881, 1894)", which was an attempt to reconstruct the exact Greek text underlying the King James Version.
Evidence of Differences: From the First to the Last
The variations between these editions can be categorized into several types, from the most significant to the more superficial.
1. Major Doctrinal and Textual Differences
These are differences that affect the actual wording and, in some cases, the meaning of the text.
- Revelation 22:16-21: Erasmus’s first edition (1516) was missing the final six verses of Revelation because his sole Greek manuscript was defective. He famously back-translated these verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, creating readings not found in any Greek manuscript. This act introduced unique readings into the TR tradition, some of which persisted.
- Revelation 22:19: In this verse, Erasmus’s back-translation produced the reading "book of life" (βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς). Later editors, like Stephanus, corrected this to "tree of life" (ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς), which is the reading found in all Greek manuscripts. This is a significant textual alteration between editions.
- The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8): This is the most famous example. Erasmus omitted the Trinitarian formula ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost...") from his first two editions (1516, 1519) because he could find no Greek manuscript that contained it. He only included it in his third edition (1522) under pressure, after being shown a Greek manuscript that had been "forged" to include it.
2. Quantitative Differences Between Editions
The number of variants between different editions is substantial, demonstrating that they are not identical texts.
- Between Scrivener's 1881 text and Stephanus's 1550 text, there are 283 differences.
- Between Scrivener's 1881 text and Beza's 1598 text, there are approximately 190 differences.
- The Elzevir 1624 text is considered a reprint of Beza's 1565 text, but still contains about fifty minor differences.
- Even between the first and second Elzevir editions (1624 and 1633), which were subjected to careful scrutiny, scholars have noted seven or eight variations.
3. Variations in Spelling, Accents, and Punctuation
While often dismissed as minor, these changes are numerous and serve as clear evidence of an evolving text.
- Matthew 1:8-9 (Ozias): This is a classic example. Beza’s 1598 text uses a "rough breathing" mark (Ὁζίας), while Stephanus’s 1550 and 1551 editions, as well as Scrivener’s 1881 text, use a "smooth breathing" mark (Ὀζίας). This diacritical difference changes the pronunciation.
- Matthew 7:5: Beza’s 1588 and 1598 editions contain a "non-sensical spelling", printing "ἀθελφοῦ" instead of the correct "ἀδελφοῦ" (brother). This is a clear typographical error that persisted in his editions.
- Matthew 7:25: Erasmus's five editions consistently use the spelling προσέπεσαν, while later editions like Stephanus's use προσέπεσον. These are orthographic variants.
- Revelation 1:4 and 8:13: Erasmus's text shows dependence on variant readings he had encountered in other manuscripts during his travels, which differ from the text of later editors.
Conclusion
The historical record is clear: the Textus Receptus is a "fluid textual tradition" that was subject to continuous revision. From Erasmus's original, error-laden, and incomplete 1516 edition to Scrivener's 19th-century reconstruction, the text underwent hundreds of changes. These changes were not merely cosmetic; they included "major back-translations from the Latin" and "over 280 documented variations" between prominent editions. The very existence of these numerous and varied editions proves that the Textus Receptus was never a single, fixed, or unchangeable text.
No comments:
Post a Comment