71 Is the Textus Receptus infallible?
Revelation 17:8.
In Revelation 17:8 we have an interesting difference that is not very obvious in translations, yet is perfectly clear in the Greek. It clearly portrays one of the many objections against the Textus Receptus. Should we accept a change in the words of the Word of God that occurred as late as 1516 to be a correction by God Himself? Would God allow a mistake to be present in all Greek manuscripts for almost 1500 years only to be corrected at such a late state? If indeed we do accept the Textus Receptus as the infallible text of the New Testament, should we then accept that an alteration differing from ALL Greek manuscripts to be God’s “providential preserving of the text”? Or should we face the fact that Desiderius Erasmus did in fact make mistakes, and that the Textus Receptus cannot be reckoned as the infallible Word of God? Then the TR should also be taken under objective scientific scrutiny, like every other manuscript or edition of the text of the New Testament to our avail.
Desiderius Erasmus by mistake divided two words written in scriptua continua in the wrong place causing different Greek words to be used. He divided the words to be καιπερ εστιν (kaiper= indeed or nevertheless, and estin= to be.) instead of και παρεσται (kai= and, and pareimi= be near or at hand).”
In translations the difference is not that obvious.
(MKJV) The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
(NIV) The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
(The Latin Vulgate leaves these words out completely, stopping at: “…now is not.” The codex Sinaiticus adds the word “palin” to read και παλιν παρεσται: “…and yet again will come.”)
Erasmus was aware that the New Testament (Greek and Latin) of the polyglot of Ximenes de Cisneros (1437-1517) had already been printed, but that this devout Spanish cardinal was waiting for the sanction of Pope Leo X before he would publish it. (Sell to the public).
Erasmus wanted to beat Ximines by having the first printed Greek text in the eagerly waiting market. In great haste he prepared the script and had it printed, leading to multiple mistakes, many he corrected in succeeding editions. But this particular mistake had never been corrected, causing it to become part of the “canon” Textus Receptus. This is but one of the 2000 places where the TR differs form the standard Byzantine or Majority Text. Of course this reading is not found in any Greek manuscript, only the printed editions of Erasmus’ text and editions derived from it.
We should honestly ask ourselves whether we could make Erasmus to be the final editor of the New Testament. Did this Roman Catholic have Godly sanction to alter, add or omit as he saw fit? Should we elevate this text that he in haste compiled using only five manuscripts for different parts of the New Testament as THÉ Word of God? Should we make texts like that of Nestle Aland and the United Bible Societies subordinate to it – texts that are not compiled by only one man in his haste, but by numerous teams of learned scholars and tested over many decades? Texts that not only take into account the five late manuscripts that Erasmus hastily found in Basil, but more than 5600 Greek manuscripts, more than 18000 manuscripts of ancient translations and the quotations of more than 200 ancient Church Fathers!
These are the facts. You be the judge. What is your opinion?
God bless,
Herman.
Comments at the bottom of this page are welcome.
