Click on the question for a detailed answer, at the end of
which a footnote provides a link to the list of resource material.
Why do you use the Textus
Receptus when it was translated by a Roman Catholic, Erasmus? Wasn't Erasmus a
Roman Catholic? Wouldn't this mean that the Textus Receptus and its resulting
Authorized Version is a Roman Catholic translation?The inference is the TR and
hence its subsequent translations are Roman Catholic. Yet the truth is that
Erasmus may have been a professing Catholic but was not a practicing Catholic.
Was Erasmus a Catholic? Yes, but so was everyone else (except the Baptistic
Waldensians) in this day. Erasmus was clearly a Reformer at heart. Erasmus
constantly criticized the doctrinal and practical errors of Rome and its Bible,
the Latin Vulgate, which he rejected. Martin Luther, an anti-Romanist, used
Erasmus to translate his German New Testament. Would Luther have used a Roman
Catholic text to translate a Protestant Bible? Erasmus died among Protestant
friends, outside of the Catholic Church. (1)
If Erasmus was so
"Catholic" and his text so "Catholic," then who were the
enemies of the Roman church? And why was Erasmus' manuscript never adopted by
Rome? Why did Luther refer to Erasmus' second edition as "my wife" if
Erasmus was so Catholic? (2) Erasmus Greek New Testament was placed on Rome's
Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Trent, which meant that it is
forbidden for Catholics to even read it without approval from their bishop upon
pain of mortal sin. (3) A Catholic writer, Hugh Pope, under an official Roman
Catholic imprimatur and nihil obstat, says Erasmus was a heretic from Rome. He
scoffed at images, relics, pilgrimages and Good Friday observances. Pope
suggested Erasmus had serious doubts about every article of Catholic faith: the
mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting,
transubstantiation and abstinence. (4) He also ridiculed invocation of the
saints, reverence for relics and prayers to Mary. There was scarcely any
superstition or abuse in the Roman Church that Erasmus did not denounce. (5) It
is obvious then that Rome certainly has no desire to claim Erasmus. Erasmus was
also a vocal opponent of Roman scholastic theology and of the ignorance of the
monks. (6) Thus, AV critic, Doug Kutilek, is incorrect when he says
"Erasmus did not disapprove of Roman Catholic doctrine." (7) To speak
then of the "Roman Catholic Erasmus" and to try to paint him as a
loyal Romanist is to speak against the facts and slander Erasmus' name.
Hugh Pope continues
regarding Erasmus and Rome: "He seemed to take pleasure in suggesting
doubts about almost every article of Catholic teaching ... Small wonder then
that he came to be regarded as the man who paved the way for the Reformation .
. ." (8)
The Pope offered to make
Erasmus a cardinal but he refused (as did the martyr Savanarola), saying he
would not compromise his conscience. (9) Erasmus was committed to putting the
Bible into the hands of the common man and for the worldwide translation of the
Bible, something no pope ever supported. (10) David Cloud maintains, "It
is a historical fact that Erasmus was strong and public in his condemnation of
Catholic heresies ... Rome did brand him as an 'impious heretic' and the Pope
forbade Catholics to read his works." (11) "Bigoted Catholics,"
according to Philip Schaff, reviled him as "Errasmus" because of his
errors; "Arasmus" because he plowed up old truths and traditions; and
"Erasinus" because he made an *** of himself by his writings. They
even called him "Behemoth" and "Antichrist." The Sorbonne
condemned 37 articles extracted from his writings in 1527. His books were
burned in Spain and long after his death. (12)
The Roman Catholic Diego
Lopez Zuniga wrote a 54 page essay against Erasmus entitled Erasmi Roterodami blasphemiae et impietates
(The Blasphemies and Impieties of Erasmus of Rotterdam) in 1522. How say ye
then that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic? Somebody in Rome didn’t think too
highly of Erasmus!This quote from The
Life and Letters of Erasmus, edited by J. A. Froude, also demonstrates the
animosity between Erasmus and Rome: "Erasmus had undertaken to give the
book to the whole world to read for itself -- the original Greek of the
Epistles and Gospel, with a new Latin Translation -- to wake up the
intelligence, to show that the words had a real sense ... It was finished at
last, text and translation printed, and the living facts of Christianity, the
persons of Christ and the Apostles, their history, their lives, their teachings
were revealed to an astonished world. For the first time the laity were able to
see, side by side, the Christianity which converted the world, and the
Christianity of the Church with a Borgia pope, cardinal princes, ecclesiastical
courts, and a mythology of lies. The effect was to be a spiritual earthquake.
Erasmus opens with a complaint of the neglect of Scripture (in his preface and
notes to each gospel), of a priesthood who thought more of offertory plates
than of parchments, and more of gold than of books: of the degradation of
spiritual life, and of the vain observances and scandalous practices of the
orders specially called religious ...
"His comments on Matthew
23:27 (on whited sepulchres): 'What would Jerome say could he see the Virgin's
milk exhibited for money ... the miraculous oil; the portions of the true
cross, enough if they were collected to freight a later ship? Here we have the
hood of St. Francis, there Our Lady's petticoat, or St. Anne's comb, or St.
Thomas of Canterbury's shoes ... and all through the avarice of priests and
the hypocrisy of monks playing on the credulity of the people. Even bishops
play their parts in these fantastic shows, and approve and dwell on them in
their rescripts. (13) "His comments on Matthew 24:23 (on Lo, here is
Christ or there): 'I saw with my own eyes Pope Julius II, at Bologna, and
afterwards at Rome, marching at the head of a triumphal procession as if he
were Pompey or Caesar. St. Peter subdued the world with faith, not with arms or
soldiers or military engines ...'"His comments on I Corinthians 14:19
(on unknown tongues): 'They chant nowadays in our churches in what is an
unknown tongue and nothing else, while you will months telling people to amend
their lives ...'"His comments on I Timothy 3:2 (on the husband of one
wife): 'Other qualifications are laid down by St. Paul as required for a
bishop's office, a long list of them. But not one at present is held essential,
except this one of abstinence from marriage. Homicide, parricide, incest,
piracy, sodomy, sacrilege, these can be got over, but marriage is fatal. There
are priests now in vast numbers, enormous herds of them, seculars and regulars,
and it is notorious that very few of them are chaste. The great proportion fall
into lust and incest, and open profligacy.'"Such are extracts from the
reflections upon the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church which were
launched upon the world in the notes of the New Testament by Erasmus, some on
the first publication, some added as edition followed edition ... They were
deliberate accusations attached to the sacred text, where the religion which
was taught by Christ and the Apostles and the degenerate superstition which had
taken its place could be contrasted side by side. Nothing was spared; ritual
and ceremony, dogmatic theology ... bishops, seculars, monks were dragged out
to judgment, and hung as on a public gibbet, in the light of the pages of the
most sacred of all books, published with the leave and approbation of the Pope
himself ... The clergy's skins were tender from long impunity. They shrieked
from pulpit and platform ..." (14)
A.T. Robertson calls these
anti-Roman notes in Erasmus text "caustic" and they raised the ire of
the priests. (15) The priests saw the danger and instead of attacking the Greek
Testament and its translation, they attacked Erasmus! Since they couldn't
answer him theologically or critically, they had to resort to their last gasp
-- personal attack and insult of Erasmus. Edward Lee, a staunch papist and
later Archbishop of York, organized a league of Englishmen to oppose Erasmus.
(16) Erasmus literally had the firebrands of hell and Rome hurled at him. They
absolutely hated him because he had dared tamper with the Vulgate.Erasmus was
relatively orthodox in his doctrine, including his soteriology. He wrote in his
Treatise on Preparation for Death: "We are assured of victory over death,
victory over the flesh, victory over the world and Satan. Christ promises us
remission of sins, fruits in this life a hundredfold and therefore life
eternal. And for what reason? For the sake of our merit? No indeed, but through
the grace of faith which is in Christ Jesus Christ is our justification . .
I believe there are many not
absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist, not having been
anointed, not having received Christian burial who rest in peace, while many
who have had all the rites of the Church and have been buried next to the altar
have gone to hell ... Flee to His wounds and you will be safe." (17) How
"Catholic" is this? A good Catholic would tell you to flee to Mary,
the mass or the sacraments, in the hour of death.Philip Schaff, who was a
closet-Catholic, calls Erasmus a "forerunner of the Reformation." He
said that Protestants owed Erasmus a debt of gratitude for enabling Luther and
Tyndale to make their translations. (18) Frank Logsdon, who renounced his
organizational work on the New American Standard Version, said "How could
you speak against a man, claiming that he is a Roman, when he turned down the
offer of a cardinalship and campaigned against monasticism, against the liturgy
of the Catholic Church, and was detested by the Catholic people? Do you know
one of the reasons the Jesuits came into being under Loyola? Their main project
was to supplant the Erasmus text ... Their whole aim ... is to destroy the
Erasmus text, and the Authorized Version, of course, came from the Erasmus
text." (19)
Like most other Reformers,
Erasmus desired to reform the Church from within. He did not desire to leave
the Church. In this, his desire was similar to Luther. Erasmus never did
officially leave the Church, desiring to reform it from within, but it cannot
be denied that he was not a Romanist at heart.
Staunch Catholics were given
to refer to Erasmus as a Lutheran at heart. They considered him and his works
subversive. While Erasmus was not a Lutheran, there can be no serious or honest
doubt that he was in sympathy with the main points of the Lutheran criticism of
the Church. Melanchthon, Luther's right hand man, was quoted once as saying,
"Erasmus nobiscum est," or "Erasmus is with us."
(20)Michael Maynard, in his work A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7-8,
sees a possible motivation for the spread of the lie and slander about Erasmus
being a "good Catholic:"
"The motive behind this
... view of Erasmus being a 'good Catholic' appears to be an attempt to
retaliate (by the editors of the United Bible Society text editors, including
the Jesuit Carlo Martini on its editorial board). Since its advocates (of the
UBS text) can justify neither the recent (1968) inclusion of the Jesuit Carlo
Martini, on the UBS editorial committee, nor their reliance on ecumenical
institutes, nor Roman Catholic involvement in UBS translations, they instead
attempt to create the impression of a Catholic origin of the printed Received
Text ... Meanwhile, Received Text advocates are still waiting for the
fundamentalists minority text advocates to explain why they trust four liberals
and a Jesuit, who is in line to become the next pope, with the identity of the
New Testament." (21) The hypocrisy of the UBS defenders (who are anti-TR
and AV) then becomes clear. In an attempt to justify their reliance on the work
of Jesuit Martini, they try to create a Romanist Erasmus.
Their thinking is, "If
you can rely on the Catholic Erasmus and his work, then we are allowed to
support the work of this Jesuit Martini!" But since Erasmus was a
"bad Catholic" at best, their alibi falls flat. Yet we do recognize
that Erasmus never formally left the church. He was a Puritan within Rome
rather than a pilgrim from it. He was an enigma. You cannot place him in any
niche. David Cloud was quite accurate when he refers to him as "Mr.
Facing-Both-Ways." (22) We do not try to turn him into some sort of
"saint" that he might not have been. Our desire is simply to present
a more balanced picture of his work. We do not seek to justify his outward
neutrality nor his person. We are more interested in justifying his Greek text.
Didn’t Erasmus dedicate his Greek text to the pope?
Erasmus did dedicate his
first edition Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X, but as a patron of learning
and not on a theological basis. (1) Leo also had done numerous favors for
Erasmus, such as freeing him from his monastic vows and removing the
disabilities of his bastardy. This Erasmus never forgot. (2)
In this day, it would have
been nearly hopeless to think that a Bible or a Greek text could be accepted without
the approval of the pope. Another reason why Erasmus dedicated his text to the
pope was so that it would be accepted. (3)
Was Erasmus qualified to
edit a Greek Text? Wasn't his Greek education substandard?
There are also attacks upon
Erasmus' education and preparation. Without a doubt, Erasmus was the most
brilliant of the Reformation-era scholars. Every king wanted him in his court
for the intellectual prestige he would bring. Yet charges abound that Erasmus
was not very proficient in the Greek. This is not true for Erasmus had the best
Greek education that could be had in 16th century Europe. He spent most of 1506
improving his Greek with study in Bologna, Rome, Florence and Padua under the
best Greek teacher of the day. (1) In 1505, he edited Valla's Annotations on
the New Testament. Some of his Greek learning may have been individual, but not
all of it. It is difficult to imagine a man of Erasmus' talents and
scholarship, who was dedicated to a study of the Greek classics, being
deficient in his knowledge of Greek!
Another attack against
Erasmus was that he was not proficient in Hebrew. But this is an unimportant
point. Why would he need to be when the was interested in Greek and Latin
classics and New Testament manuscripts? Erasmus never tried to translate the
Old Testament, so why would he need to study Hebrew?
Wasn't Erasmus' Greek text "hastily prepared" and "fraught with errors?"
The main complaint against
Erasmus' Greek text is that it was prepared "hastily" and that he had
only a few late manuscripts to work with. Again, these statements need to be
clarified. His first edition was done hastily, but not because Erasmus was
careless in his work, but because he had to meet the deadline established by
his publisher. (1) He finished the work in about a year, which is a testament
to his vast scholarship in that he was able to complete such a project in so
short a time. If Erasmus' first Greek edition was done in haste, the four later
editions were not! Erasmus spent the rest of his life (20 years) editing,
revising and correcting that "hastily done" first edition. Besides,
most first editions have printer's errors and mistakes in them that are
corrected in later editions. The errors in Erasmus' first edition were of a
minor nature anyway. (2)
Yet on his
"errors," Erasmus wrote "I did my best with the New Testament,
but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee (Archbishop of York) pretended to
have discovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to
have found bushels of them. Every dinner table rang with the blunders of
Erasmus. I required particulars and could not have them." (3)
The point is the first
edition may have been somewhat careless, but so what? Nobody used that first
edition for any translation purposes and nothing was translated from that first
edition. Luther used a corrected and improved second edition to translate his
German New Testament, not the first. Let the enemies of the AV name one
translation of any importance that was based solely on the first edition of
Erasmus.
The Stephanus text,
translated by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), third edition, which is part of the
TR/AV stream, was translated from Erasmus' 4th and 5h editions, not the first.
heodore Beza produced 9 editions of the Greek New Testament between 1565 and
1604. The most important are the 1565, 1582, 1588-9 and 1598 editions. Beza's
texts differ little from Stephanus' 4th edition of 1551. The AV translators
made large use of Beza's editions 1588-9 and 1598. In 1624, the Elzevir
brothers published a text based on Beza's 1565 edition. (4)
We thus agree with Dean
Burgon, who says, "to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the
first published edition of the NT, to make sport about the copies which he
employed, all this kind of thing is the preceding of one who seeks to mislead
his readers to throw dust in their eyes, to divert their attention from the
problems actually before them." (5) The AV is not affected by that first
edition at all. To whine about the first edition and then try to somehow tie
the AV in with it is dishonest scholarship and a smokescreen in an attempt to
obscure the facts.
Did Erasmus have access to
modern manuscripts as did modern translators? If he did, did he make use of
them?
Erasmus had access to most
of the same set of manuscripts as did modern translators with the obvious
exception of Codex Sinaiticus, which was not rescued from the trash can at St.
Catherine's monastery until the mid-19th century.
Robert Sumner, an opponent
of the AV, is only partially correct when he states, "Erasmus himself had
no knowledge of the Alexandrian manuscripts. The Sinaiticus was not discovered
at the monastery of St. Catherine's on Mt Sinai until the mid 19th century
(that's true, although Erasmus certainly had access to the Sinaitic-type
readings) and the Vaticanus, while in the Vatican library at Rome since about
the 15th century, was not available for use by outsiders until the dawn of the
20th century." (1)
That's false!
Erasmus did have access to
Codex B readings (2) and rejected them because he knew how corrupt they were.
After all, B is the Pope's manuscript, and since Erasmus was anti-Catholic, he
rejected it. Paulus Bombasius discovered the neglected Codex B in the Vatican
library in 1521 and in June of that year sent Erasmus its readings from I John
4:1-3 and I John 5:7. (3)
These same readings of
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the scholars in the 1611 AV as
represented in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus was a personal friend of Leo X (from
his earlier days) and had access to every library in Europe (because of his
reputation as a scholar), including the Vatican. Erasmus had access to
Vaticanus if he wanted it. He didn't need the manuscript itself because Paulus
Bombasius, who was in Rome, was sending him B readings. (4)
Its readings were then known
as early as the 17th century. Sumner is just plain wrong to say that no one had
access to B before the 20th century.Erasmus was furnished with 365 readings of
B by Sepulveda, who was in possession of them as early as 1521. (5) Frederick
Kenyon points out that the preface and dedication to Ximenes' text state that
the text was derived from manuscripts loaned by Leo X from the Vatican library.
(6) If Ximenes has these manuscripts made available to him, then certainly must
have Erasmus (especially if he was such a "good Catholic" as his
enemies claim!)
Again! The controversy over
I John 5:7 forced an appeal to Codex B in 1522! (7) So what does Sumner mean
when he said no one had access to it at this time? How could it be introduced
into a 1522 controversy over I John 5:7 unless people knew of its readings?
When Cardinal Ximenes was preparing his Greek New Testament in the mid-1510's,
he had access to Codex B. If he had such access then so certainly must have
Erasmus. (8)
The AV 1611 translators also
had the readings of Codex B before them and rejected them as did Erasmus.
Neither was ignorant of them. Erasmus also had access to Codex D, Codex Bezae
but also rejected it. The AV translators also had these variant readings and
rejected them. In 1675, John Fell put out a Greek text based on the Elzevir
1633 text with variant readings for Codex B. (9) If "no one had access to
Codex B until the 20th century," as Sumner wrongly insists, how did Fell
get his B readings?
Was Erasmus familiar with
the critical problems and the variant readings in the manuscripts?
Yes, Erasmus was very well
informed concerning the variant readings. Erasmus, in his writings and
research, dealt with such problem passages as:
The closing of the Lord's Prayer – Matthew 6:13.
The interview of the rich young man with Jesus – Matthew 19:17-22.
The ending of Mark – Mark 16:9-20. He defended the traditional ending. (1)
The angelic song – Luke 2:14.
The omission of the angel, agony and bloody sweat – Luke 22:43, 44.
The woman taken in adultery – John 7:53-8:11.
He defended its inclusion. (2)
The mystery of Godliness – 1 Timothy 3:16. (3)
Through his study of Jerome
and other Fathers, Erasmus was well-versed in the variant readings. (4) He
edited and published works of Jerome, Cyprian, Pseudo-Arnobius, Hilarius,
Irenaeus, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Basil and Origen (5) showing he would
have been familiar with their Scriptural quotations. In 1505, he edited Valla's
Annotations on the New Testament, which was a pioneer work for Biblical
criticism."
What about Erasmus spiritual state? Was he a spiritual man?
Erasmus never recorded any
profound religious convictions or experience in his own life. (1) Luther saw
the weakness and spiritual poverty of Erasmus, but this remark may have been
influenced by Luther's opposition to Erasmus' position on the free will of man,
over which Luther bitterly attacked Erasmus. (2) But some of Erasmus' writings
are highly spiritual. Tyndale thought much of his Enchiridon (Manual of a
Christian Soldier) and translated it into English. Enchiridon was a short,
handy, Scripture-based call to Christian morality in lay people that was
moderately critical of practices of the Church. Tyndale also thought much of
Erasmus' Treatise on Preparation for Death. (3)
Erasmus did write an
interesting passage in the Preface to his Greek Testament which shows a
reverence and love for Scripture that surpasses the average textual critic:
"These holy pages will summon up the living image of His mind. They will
give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a
word; they will give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less
visible to you if He stood before your eyes." (4)
This passage again reveals
the anti-Romanism of Erasmus. No Romanist looks for Christ in the Scriptures.
They look for Him in the sacraments or in the rituals of the Church. No
Romanist has a high love for Scripture, but Erasmus clearly did.
Here is a major attack and a
very deceptive one. Was he a humanist? Not by our standards but, in Renaissance
meaning, was simply one who studied the classics, classical culture and
education. Andrew Brown, of the Trinitarian Bible Society, gives the proper
definition of a humanist in this context: "Erasmus was a thoroughgoing
'Christian humanist' from his youth to his death. The use of the word
'humanist' in the Renaissance and Reformation period does not in any way share
the atheistic connotations which that word now has in popular usage. A
'humanist' in that period was simply someone who was interested in classical
literature, culture and education, as a means of attaining a higher standard of
civilized life. Stephanus, Calvin and Beza were all humanists in this sense,
and it is these 'humanist' ideals which have largely shaped Western culture in the
succeeding centuries, blended with the teachings of the Christian Gospel."
(1)
There is nothing wrong with
this kind of humanism! Edward Hills also defines Renaissance humanism:
"The humanistic view was well represented by the writings of Laurentius Valla
(1405-57), a famous scholar of the Italian renaissance. Valla emphasized the
importance of language. According to him the decline of civilization in the
dark ages was due to the decay of the Greek and Latin languages. Hence, it was
only though the study of classical literature that the glories of ancient
Greece and Rome could be recaptured. Valla also wrote a treatise on the Latin
Vulgate, comparing it with certain Greek New Testament manuscripts which he had
in his possession. Erasmus, who from his youth had been an admirer of Valla,
found a manuscript of Valla's treatise in 1504 and had it printed the following
year. In this work, Valla favored the Greek New Testament over the Vulgate. The
Latin text often differed from the Greek, he reported. Also, there were
omissions and additions in the Latin translation, and the Greek wording was
generally better than that of the Latin." (2)
DeLamar Jensen, in his
Reformation Europe, defines Christian humanism as "emphasizing historical
study and a 'return to sources,' meaning the Bible. They placed more devotion
to Scripture than did the Italian humanists." (3)
Renaissance humanism was
decidedly anti-Romanist. Europe was still emerging from the Satanic millennium
(500-1500) in which Rome ruled Europe with an iron hand. Culture and education
had suffered under Rome and the humanists were dedicated to reviving them.
That Erasmus rejected the
Vulgate is a historical fact. There are several reasons why he rejected it. He
detected the 4th century corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts on which the
Vulgate was based, including the Vaticanus. He also opposed the obvious Roman
bias in the translation of various passages. (1)
To oppose the Vulgate was a
very un-Romanist thing to do in this day. "To question the fidelity of the
Vulgate was a crime of the greatest magnitude in the eyes of the Roman Catholic
Church." (2) A good Catholic of the Reformation era would not have dared
to question or tinker with the Vulgate, but Erasmus, the "bad Catholic"
did and was condemned for it.
Didn't Erasmus only have a few late manuscripts to work with?
The usual complaint, voice
by Doug Kutilek, an opponent of the AV, goes something like this: "Erasmus
had the feeblest of manuscripts. He chiefly used one manuscript from the
Gospels from the 12th century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles also
from the 12th century ... It was hastily produced ... There is no ground
whatsoever for accepting the Textus Receptus as the ultimate in precisely
representing the original text of the New Testament ... It was in fact the
most rudimentary and rustic, at best only a provisional text
...The Greek texts of
Griesbach, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford and Westcott and Hort were ... a
great improvement over the text of Erasmus because they more accurately
presented the text of the New Testament in the form it came from the pens of
the apostles." (1) This is very inaccurate and misleading.What of the
manuscripts he used? Erasmus was ever at work, ever collecting, comparing,
publishing. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the Fathers.
By his travels he was
brought into contact with all the intellectual currents of his time. (2) He
looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and he borrowed them from
everyone he could. His text was mainly based on the Basel manuscripts, but
included readings from others to which he had access. He had collated many
Greek manuscripts of the NT and was surrounded by all the commentaries and
translations by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom,
Cyril, Jerome and Augustine. (3) Erasmus had access to Codex Vaticanus, but
rejected its readings that were at variance with the Byzantine text. He also had
access to D, Codex Bezae, but also rejected it. (4)
The AV translators also had
these variant readings and rejected them. (5) The readings of these much
boasted manuscripts recently made available are largely those of the Vulgate.
The Reformers knew of these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate.
(6) The pedigree of Erasmus' "late minuscule manuscripts" thus date
back to antiquity. (7) The text Erasmus chose had an outstanding history in the
Greek, Syrian and Waldensian churches. (8) The texts used by Erasmus for his
first edition:
1 - 11th century, contained the Gospels, Acts,
Epistles. Erasmus did not rely very much on 1 because it read too much
like Codex B/Vaticanus. (9)
2 - 15th century, contained the Gospels. 2ap -
12th-14th century, contained Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus depended upon 2 and 2ap because they were the
best and most accurate texts. (10)
4ap - 15th century, containing Revelation.
Erasmus mainly used 2 and
2ap, occasionally used 1 and 4ap. (11) Erasmus may have had as many as 10
manuscripts at his disposal, 4 from England, 5 at Basle and one loaned to him
by John Reuchlin. (12)
Thomas Strouse mentions that
the earliest of his manuscripts went back to the 5th century,
"advisedly." (13) Bishop Charles John Ellicott, Chairman of the
Revision Committee, said about the Received Text: "The manuscripts which
Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details
from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text
is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried
up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus.
That pedigree stretches
back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least
contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any
one of them." (14)
So the question is not,
"How old were those manuscripts that Erasmus used?" but rather
whether those "late manuscripts" accurately preserve the originals.
We state the Erasmus manuscripts were part of that Traditional stream of
manuscripts that have always been accepted by God's people. The age of the
individual manuscripts is not important, but rather their accuracy in
preserving the older manuscripts which contained the very Word of God
Yes. In 1505, he made his
own Latin translation of the New Testament while at Oxford. (1) In 1524, he
published paraphrases and comments on the gospels and epistles which were widely
received. (2)
Why did Erasmus insert I John 5:7,8 into his text? Is there sufficient manuscript evidence to support it?
Yes, there is overwhelming
evidence for it. We may say indeed that if anyone doubts whether I John 5:7,8
belongs in Scripture, thy are wholly ignorant of the textual support in favor
of it. First John 5:7,8 is an integral part of Scripture.
The earliest references to
it would be Tertullian (160-230), Cyprian (200-258), Priscillian (d. 385),
Cassiodorus (480-570), Augustine (5th century), Athanasius (4th century) and
Jerome (4th century). (1) It appears in the Vulgate. (2) It also appears in
Manuscript 61 and Codex Ravianus. Stephanus found it in 9 of his 16
manuscripts. (3) Its attack and deletion from some manuscripts no doubt arises
from the heresies in the early church, especially Arians. Those who oppose the
inclusion of I John 5:7 are supporting the Unitarians and Jehovah Witnesses
while ignoring the overwhelming mass of manuscript evidence.
Erasmus' role in the debate
over these verses had been distorted by enemies of the AV. The standard
position that liberals assume reads something as follows, given by AV-critic
James White: "When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 . .
. (I John 5:7,8) was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found
in any Greek manuscript of I John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the
phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it
in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, 'In
the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there
are three witnesses, spirit, water and blood.' ' His reliance upon the Greek
manuscripts caused quite a stir ... Since Erasmus had promised, in his
response to Edward Lee, to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be
found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third
edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed
phrase." (4)
This is furthered by Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University:
"Now Erasmus made a
rash promise. He said, 'If you can show me a Greek manuscript that has the text
in it, I will print it there' ... They went back and summoned their scribes
and got them to translate the Latin Vulgate into Greek and put that verse in.
(It) came right back to him. The ink was hardly dry on the manuscript ...
those two manuscripts are 61 ... the date is 16th century, the time of
Erasmus. The other one is 629 ... Those are the only two manuscripts out of
those 5000 that have verse 7 in it ... Told him frankly that if he didn't put
that verse in, they'd excommunicate him. He, being a good Roman Catholic, put
it in." (5)
Both White and Custer are in error! Now for the facts:
On the "fact" that
Erasmus made a rash promise, this was demonstrated to be false. This remark is
one of the cherished legends about the history of New Testament scholarship. It
is no more than a legend. Erasmus did not put the verses in his third edition
on the basis of any supposed promise to Edward Lee. (6). Even Bruce Metzger
admitted that Erasmus' "promise" needs to be corrected in the light
of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies, who finds
no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion. (7)
Was the ink hardly dry on
61, as Custer claimed? Erasmus didn't see it until a year after it was
produced. Custer simply exaggerated. (8) What of Custer's claim that there were
only 2 manuscripts that contained the verse? R.E. Brown said a year earlier
than Custer (1982) that there were 8 manuscripts. And it wasn't
"5000" manuscripts as Custer claimed for, as of 1982, only 498 Greek
manuscripts had been examined and in eight of them, the verses are found. (9)
How could Custer assume the other 4500 manuscripts did not have the verses?
Was Erasmus threatened with
excommunication? No evidence exists of it (10) because by the time of the third
edition, he had found sufficient evidence to include it. Erasmus initially
defended his omission of the verses as late as October, 1524. He had changed
his views sometime between 1522-1527. (11)
Why did Erasmus insert some Vulgate readings into his text?
This was done because those
readings simply happened to be the correct reading. As corrupt as the Vulgate
is, it is not entirely correct. Occasionally it is correct. Edward Hills lists
the major Vulgate readings in the Erasmus text as:
Matthew 10:8
Matthew 27:35
John 3:25
Acts 8:37
Acts 9:5,6
Acts 20:28
Romans 16:25-27
1 John 5:7 (1)
This fact is not as damaging
as it may sound. These Vulgate readings do not make the TR a Catholic
manuscript. After all, the modern Catholic translations (such as the Jerusalem
Bible or the New American Bible) often agree with the Authorized Version. Does
this make those Catholic translations Protestant? Does it make the AV a
Catholic Bible? Of course not. Generally speaking, the various translations
will agree among themselves more often than not. The issue is over the places
where they disagree against the AV!
What was Erasmus' attitude
toward the Anabaptists, Bohemian Brethren and other Reformation-age Baptistic
groups?
Erasmus was a supporter of
the Anabaptists, the forerunners of the modern Baptists, who were savagely
persecuted by both Catholic and Protestants. (1)
Erasmus was also a supporter
of the doctrines and practices of the Bohemian Brethren.
They gave Erasmus a copy of
their Apologia, or defense of their articles of faith in 1507, and requested
that he read it through and give his comments. Erasmus said he saw no error in
their doctrines. Erasmus did not come out in public with his support of the
Brethren because he feared the consequences. (2)
