I have been involved in a study on "Textual Criticism" for going on 6 years now.
Here, I submit, is a blow and nails the coffin shut on the KJV being a "perfectly preserved" word of God.
"Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation.46
1. Codex 1eap, a minuscule containing the entire NT except for Revelation, dated to about the 12th century.
2. Codex 1r, a minuscule containing the book of Revelation except for the last 6 verses (Rev 22:16–21), dated to the 12th century.
3. Codex 2e, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 12th century.
4. Codex 2ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the 12th century or later.
5. Codex 4ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the 15th century.
6. Codex 7p, a minuscule containing the Pauline Epistles, dated to the 11th century.
7. Codex 817, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 15th century.
All of these were the property of the Dominican Library in Basel except for 2ap, which was obtained from the family of Johann Amerbach of Basel.47 Manuscripts 1eap and 1r had been borrowed from the Dominicans by Johannes Reuchlin. Erasmus borrowed them from Reuchlin. Thus Erasmus had 3 manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts; 4 manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles; and only 1 manuscript of Revelation.48 However, the main sources for his text were Codices 2e and 2ap.49 Erasmus did not compile his own Greek text from the manuscripts at his disposal, few as they were; instead, Codices 2e and 2ap themselves served as the printer’s copy for all the NT except Revelation.
They still contain Erasmus’ corrections written between the lines of the text and occasionally in the margins, which came from the other four manuscripts, though he made little use of some of them.50 A comparison between the manuscripts used by the printer and the printed text indicates that the printer did not accept every correction that Erasmus proposed, and that the printer made some revisions not authorized by Erasmus.51
For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1r). Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had a fresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.52 For example, in Revelation 17:4 Codex 1r and all other Greek manuscripts have the word ajkavqarta (“impure”), but Erasmus’ text reads ajkaqavrthto", a word unknown in Greek literature. In a similar fashion, the words kai; parevstai (“and is to come”) in 17:8 were misread as kaivper e[stin (“and yet is”).53 These and other errors produced by the scribe who made the copy of Revelation for the printer are still to be found in modern editions of the TR, such as the widely used version published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.54
Because Codex 1r was missing its last page and thus the last six verses of Revelation (22:16–21), Erasmus retranslated these verses from the Latin Vulgate, and he honestly admitted in the Annotationes that he had done so.55 But again, this produced, by my count, twenty errors in his Greek NT which are still in the TR today.56 They have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever.57 In other parts of the NT Erasmus occasionally introduced into the Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate where he thought his Greek manuscripts were defective. For example, in Acts 9:6 the words trevmwn te kai; qambw’n ei\pe, kuvrie, tiv me qevlei" poih’saiÉ kai; oJ kuvrio" pro;" aujtovn (“And he trembling and astonished said, Lord,what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him”) were inserted by Erasmus at this point because they were in the Vulgate. He frankly admitted in his Annotationes that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14. Though still found in the TR, the words have absolutely no Greek manuscript support.
With so few manuscripts from which to establish his Greek text, Erasmus was bound to adopt a reading which would ultimately, in light of future manuscript discoveries, prove to be in error. This is especially true in the book of Revelation where Erasmus had only one manuscript. Since no two manuscripts agree exactly, it is essential that manuscripts be compared to determine where the errors lie. But since that was not possible in Erasmus’ case, his text in Revelation is limited by the accuracy of his one manuscript. An example of this problem can be seen in Revelation 20:12. Following Codex 1r, the text of Erasmus and the TR read eJstw’ta" ejnwvpion tou’ qeou’ (“standing before God”). However, all other Greek manuscripts read eJstw’ta" ejnwvpion tou’ qrovnou (“standing before the throne”).58
Besides the seven previously mentioned manuscripts which Erasmus used in Basel for his Greek text, his Annotationes indicate that he had examined and collated a few other manuscripts in his various travels. One of these, which can be identified with certainty, is Codex 69, a 15th century manuscript of the entire NT with minor gaps. In a few places Erasmus selected distinctive readings from this manuscript.59"
________________________________________________________________
46 Cornelis Augustijn, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence, trans. J. C. Grayson, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 93; Brown, “Date of Erasmus’ Latin Translation,” p. 364; de Jonge, “Novum Testamentum a Nobis Versum,” p. 404; Yamauchi, “Erasmus’ Contributions,” pp. 10–11; Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, pp. 127–32.
47 Brown, “Date of Erasmus’ Latin Translation,” pp. 364–5. Amerbach (c. 1445–1513) was the first humanist printer in Basel and Froben’s predecessor and teacher. See Bloch, “Erasmus and the Froben Press,” p. 112.
48 Clinton Branine (The History of Bible Families and the English Bible [Greenwood, IN: Heritage Baptist University, n.d.], p. 12) makes the fantastic claim that Erasmus used 2nd century manuscripts of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and 5th century manuscripts of the Gospels.
49 K. W. Clark, “Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2,” Texte und Untersuchungen 73 (1959): 749–56; Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, p. 127. Tarelli (“Erasmus’s Manuscripts of the Gospels,” pp. 159ff.) suggests that Erasmus may have also consulted Codex E, which was also the property of the Dominicans at Basel, but, as Bentley has shown (Humanists and Holy Writ, pp. 129–30), the evidence points in the opposite direction.
50 Clark, “Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2,” p. 751; Bo Reicke, “Erasmus und die neutestamentliche Textgeschichte,” Theologische Zeitschrift 22 (July–August 1966): 259.
51 Clark, “Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2,” p. 755.
52 Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament, p. 38. Some of these errors can conveniently be found in Frederick H. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1874), pp. 382–83, n. 2.
53 The marginal note in the old Scofield Reference Bible corrects this error (p. 1346).
54 H KAINH DIAQHKH. This version is subtitled The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611. My copy is not dated, though it was published in 1976. See Andrew J. Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations: A Brief History of the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1831–1981 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981), p. 130.
55 Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament, p. 193, n. 15.
56 v. 16: insertion of tou’ before Dauivd and ojrqrinov" instead of prwi>nov"; v. 17: aorist tense e[lqe twice instead of the present e[rcou, aorist tense ejlqevtw instead of the present ejrcevsqw, insertion of kaiv after ejrcevsqw, present tense lambanevtw instead of the aorist labevtw, and insertion of tov before u{dwr; v. 18: summartuvromai gavr instead of marturw’ ejgwv, present tense ejpitiqh’/ instead of the aorist ejpiqh’/, pro;" tau’ta instead of ejp¾ aujtav, and omission of tw’/ before the last occurrence of biblivw/; v. 19: present tense ajfairh’/ instead of the aorist ajfevlh/, omission of tou’ before the first occurrence of biblivou, ajfairhvsei instead of ajfelei’, biblivou instead of tou’ xuvlou, insertion of kaiv before tw’n gegrammevnwn, and omission of tw’/) before the last occurrence of biblivw/; v.21: insertion of hJmw’n before ÆIhsou’ and insertion of uJmw’n after pavntwn. See Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 382, n. 2; Metzger, Text of
the New Testament, p. 100, n. 1.
57 Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 382.
58 Again, the old Scofield Reference Bible corrects this error (p. 1351).
59 See Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, p. 126; Brown, “Date of Erasmus’ Latin Translation,” p. 368."
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, William Combs, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring 1996, pp. 35-53, specifically pp. 45-48
So, what did we learn?
1. Even though Erasmus' text was never called "Textus Receptus", every version afterwards traces it roots back to Erasmus and his work.
2. While compiling his Greek text, Erasmus actually had very few Greek MSS at his disposal.'
3. When Erasmus was finished, and sent his work to be published, we can show that the publisher did not accept Erasmus' text, and added to his text.
4. Erasmus had only one (1) Greek MSS for Revelation, and it was almost unreadable. Having a new one re-wrote, the copist misread, and thus, a number of "errors" was introduced.
5. Erasmus introduced a Greek word, that at the time, was previously unknown.
6. Rev. 17 contains at least two (2) errors that to this day, are still to be found in the text.
7. The last six (6) verses of Revelation 22 cannot be found in ANY Greek MSS. Thusly, Erasmus has to "back translate" from the Latin to the Greek. And here again, just in these six (6) verses, some 20 errors are introduced.
8. In various places prior to the book of Revelation, it is clear also that Erasmus did not accept every reading from the Greek. At least two (2) places in the book of Acts, Erasmus changed the readings. And as shown: "Though still found in the TR, the words have absolutely no Greek manuscript support."
And no matter what the KJVonly crowd says, every version except the NWT, traces its roots back to Erasmus' work.
The death nail for the KJVO crowd!
God Bless
Till all are one.
