ESV interview: Textus receptus #2 and a doctine example

How did you determine the Greek text used for translation did the Textus Receptus play any role?

Watch Vern Poythress respond (Windows Media format). Previous | Next

<!– D(["mb","rnrn

Sometimes people worry about what's called thernTextus Receptus. That's a technical term for the first printed edition ofrnthe Greek Bible that was done by Erasmus. It was revolutionary because mostrnpeople until that time either had no access to a Bible, or they had access tornthe Vulgate, which was the Latin translation from the Greek. To go back to thernGreek revealed nuances and revealed meanings that were exciting to people. Forrninstance, in the Greek it said, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is itrnhand. In the Vulgate, it says, "Do penance. Well, that justrndidn't communicate. So people were able to see that the Greek had a morernprofound message than was there in the Latin.

rnrn

It was revolutionary, but when Erasmus printed hisrnGreek New Testament, it was only from a very few manuscripts that he happenedrnto have access to, not necessarily the best. So the Textus Receptus designatesrnthat Erasmus text. And actually, that Erasmus Greek New Testament wentrnthrough four different editions, and there are slight differences between them.rnSo the Textus Receptus, even, is not really one completely uniform thing.

rnrn

At any rate, some people expect that becausernErasmus Greek New Testament is the basis on which the King JamesrnVersion, our familiar old English version, it was the basis for that version.rnNow, however, we are in a position where we can access thousands of Greekrnmanuscripts and compare them to one another. There are very slight differences.rnWe can thank the Lord that all of the manuscripts are very close to thernoriginal. But when there are slight differences, we want to weight that andrnsay, "What can we infer about what was the original writing from whichrnall these manuscripts descend? ",1] ); //–>

Sometimes people worry about what’s called the Textus Receptus. That’s a technical term for the first printed edition of the Greek Bible that was done by Erasmus. It was revolutionary because most people until that time either had no access to a Bible, or they had access to the Vulgate, which was the Latin translation from the Greek. To go back to the Greek revealed nuances and revealed meanings that were exciting to people. For instance, in the Greek it said, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is it hand. In the Vulgate, it says, “Do penance. Well, that just didn’t communicate. So people were able to see that the Greek had a more profound message than was there in the Latin.

It was revolutionary, but when Erasmus printed his Greek New Testament, it was only from a very few manuscripts that he happened to have access to, not necessarily the best. So the Textus Receptus designates that Erasmus text. And actually, that Erasmus Greek New Testament went through four different editions, and there are slight differences between them. So the Textus Receptus, even, is not really one completely uniform thing.

At any rate, some people expect that because Erasmus Greek New Testament is the basis on which the King James Version, our familiar old English version, it was the basis for that version. Now, however, we are in a position where we can access thousands of Greek manuscripts and compare them to one another. There are very slight differences. We can thank the Lord that all of the manuscripts are very close to the original. But when there are slight differences, we want to weight that and say, “What can we infer about what was the original writing from which all these manuscripts descend?We want the very best when we do the ESV the best representation of that original writing from God and not simply the copies. That’s why we don’t follow the Textus Receptus the Textus Receptus is good, but it’s not the best. <!– D(["mb","

",1] ); D(["mb","rnrn

Commentrnon this post for your chance to win a freernESV Bible.

",1] ); D(["mb","rnrn

rnrn

#10

rnrn

rnrn

Otherrntranslations gave their reasons on why the chose to translate YHWH asrn'the LORD instead of Yahweh. The introduction of the ESV made nornmention on why you choose the LORD instead of Yahweh. Some mightrnargue that this is not a literal translation although it is clearly arntraditional one. What are your reasons for continuing this?

",1] ); //–>

My response to this post
This is a fascinating answer as it possibly gives the exception that proves my rule that translations tend to have minimal influence on doctrine. Can you think of any other examples? Comment on this post for your chance to win a free ESV Bible.

About Adrian Warnock

Adrian Warnock has been a blogger since April 2003, and a member of Jubilee Church, London since 1995, where he seves as part of the leadership team alongside Tope Koleoso.

Together they have written Hope Reborn - How to Become a Christian and Live for Jesus, published by Christian Focus.

Adrian is also the author of Raised With Christ - How The Resurrection Changes Everything, published by Crossway.

Read more about Adrian Warnock or connect with him on Twitter, Facebook or Google+.

**********************************

You are warmly invited to comment on this blog. By doing o you demonstrate that you accept Adrian's comment policy.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X