We appreciate any feedback - textusreceptusbibles@gmail.com
- Philemon 1
- 2 John 1
- 3 John 1
- Jude 1
The Urdu Bible is copyright 2016, only to protect it from being stolen and resold for profit. All Rights reserved.
The above is a draft.
Donate here
Showing posts with label TR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TR. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 September 2016
Urdu Bible
We are working on the Urdu Textus Receptus Version, which is a version based upon the 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text and Beza's 1598 Greek Textus Receptus with respect to the King James Version.
We appreciate any feedback - textusreceptusbibles@gmail.com
The Urdu Bible is copyright 2016, only to protect it from being stolen and resold for profit. All Rights reserved.
The above is a draft.
Donate here
We appreciate any feedback - textusreceptusbibles@gmail.com
The Urdu Bible is copyright 2016, only to protect it from being stolen and resold for profit. All Rights reserved.
The above is a draft.
Donate here
Saturday, 3 September 2016
Early attestation to "shalt be / ο εσομενος"
ὁ ἐσόμενος was inserted into the the main body of text in printed editions of the Textus Receptus by Theodore Beza in his 1582 edition. There are about 200 Greek manuscripts in existence containing Revelation 16:5, but ὁ ἐσόμενος is lacking in all of them and the reading ὁ ὅσιος prevails. But only 4 Greek manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century and the 3 earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.
The earliest witnesses to Revelation 16:5 read:
The oldest Greek text of Revelation, P47 is from the 3rd century and contains this passage, but it has a textual variant. It contains the “καὶ” (and) in Beza’s phrase “καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος”. One must ask, “and…” what? What was P47 going on to read? Beza has pointed out that in the manuscript for the Latin Vulgate, the text was “foolish and divisional” because of the “and” but the same issue occurs here in P47, but modern critics reject the early Papyrus reading of “καὶ” here as it caused the sentence to be foolish and divisional.
James White feels that because those who defend the Ecclesiastical Text, or hold to a Textus Receptus position, can easily provide a mountain of textual evidence to prove Textus Receptus readings have a vast majority, that when on the rare occasion this is not the case, we are being inconsistent. But why then does the NA28 text reject the “καὶ” here? Why doesn't White follow the older Papyrus like he tells us to?
The methodology of modern textual critics is to follow the “oldest and best” manuscripts. But they followed the “and” in P47 here they would end up with reading like this:
Jerome confirmed that there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have today.
John Wordsworth revealed (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 “which is, and which was, and which is to come;” sometimes is rendered in Latin as “qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es” instead of the Vulgate “qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est.” (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)
So we can see there have been different Latin translations of the verses involved. Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word “pius” instead of “sanctus.”
Very few readings in finalized Textus Receptus editions, contrary to normally having a vast majority, have very little Greek manuscript support, likely reflecting an inability of believers to renew and preserve true manuscripts due to widespread persecution & martyrdom in early centuries; persecution occurred in the 3rd century, under Roman emperor Decius, and destruction of scripture copies was a major goal of vicious empire-wide persecution in the early 4th century by Diocletian & Galerius, who sent out Roman soldiers to destroy all text copies; this persecution was concentrated in the eastern empire where the Traditional Text, the ancestor of the Textus Receptus, was the standard.
So keep in mind that only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century and the 3 earliest Greek witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.
The phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is directly related to the eternal name of God. Beza himself stated in his footnote on Revelation 16:5:
Later writers would expand or adjust God’s self-declaration when bringing it into another language. The Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 3.14 translates it into a present-future state of being:
Calvin, whom Beza succeeded in Geneva, summarized on this in his Commentary on Genesis - At the first mention of Jehovah is Genesis 2:
Hebrew experts like Immanuel Tremellius, Elias Hutter, and others were contemporaries of Beza. Earlier men knew of the link to Jehovah’s name. Clement of Alexandria, while writing about the Tetragrammaton in the 3rd century, referred to God as “ο εσομενος” in The Stromata, Book V, 6:
Translated as:
Both the Septuagint and Philo (Life of Moses 1.75, written early-first century) translate the phrase in Exodus 3.14 into Greek as:
This may be translated as either 'I am the one', or 'I am he who is'. The phrasing 'ο ων' is identical to the first part of the phrase found in the Revelation.
With this information above, it is highly probable John’s phrase common phrase 'ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος/ἐσόμενος' was intended to be a translation or expansion on God’s self-identification in Exodus 3.14 as Beza pointed out.
Between the original Hebrew phrase, and the Aramaic and Greek translations, the focus is on God’s state of 'being': he is, he was, he will be. In the original narrative of Exodus 3, this leads into the revelation of God’s own name, Jehovah, which has been suggested by scholars to come from the Hebrew verb 'to be'.
Most of the verses containing the Trinitarian formula in Revelation do not say God is, was, and will be, it says that God is, was, and is to come. The third verb isn’t about God’s state of being, but is an action in itself. Revelation 16:5 is the purest form of the formula.
This phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (one who is, was, and is to come) is used to create a unique identification, along with the other phrases of Alpha/Omega, first/last, beginning/end, each as identity names for the “oneness” of the Father and the Son who is the express image of God the Father (Heb 1:3). So God the Father through the Son is also ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, just as the Son is also Jehovah.
Tyconius’ commentary of Revelation in 380 AD was translated by Beatus of Liebana (786 AD) in his commentary of Revelation which uses the Latin phrase:
qui fuisti et futures es.
So in 380 & 786 AD. shalt be / ο εσομενος was known to exist. This reading is not exactly the same as Beza’s, but as in Beza’s reading the future aspect is included in the address to God.
Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century referred to Christ as “ο εσομενος” in On the Baptism of Christ:
Translated:
It is unknown to us whether Beza knew of any of these reference, or that there were other such references that he simply did not mention. In the age of Beza, the Reformation Bible scholars were very deep readers of the early church writers. If Beza did know of it, then it would be wrong to simply call this a conjectural emendation, since that reference would source as one of the oldest extant on Revelation 16:5. On the other hand, if the Beatus/Tyconius reference was discovered later, and was unknown to Theodore Beza, then this later discovery can be seen as a truly remarkable confirmation of the strength of his textual thinking on Revelation 16:5.
Wordsworth confirms to us that Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es.” This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza. Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, there was an old Latin text which reads as Beza’s Greek text does.
Although Daniel Wallace is flawed many levels concerning his understanding of textual criticism, he provides this excellent example that fits here:
A great resource for information concerning another quote by Haimo Halberstadensis and issues of Nomina Sacra in Revelation 16:5 is KJV Today.
Donate here
We can see early Greek corruption
ο ων και ος ην και οσιος (Papyrus 47 3rd Century)
ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος (Sinaiticus fourth century*)
ο ων και ο ην οσιος (Alexandrinus fifth-century)
* (Although this date has been hotly contested Sinaiticus.net)It seems the phrase got shorter with the passage of time. We can see from these three early witnesses that corruption set in early. “Lord” is also missing in some mss, yet is present in many Reformation Bibles. This is reflected in modern versions, but none seem to follow the “and” of Papyrus 47.
και οσιος in Papyrus 47
The oldest Greek text of Revelation, P47 is from the 3rd century and contains this passage, but it has a textual variant. It contains the “καὶ” (and) in Beza’s phrase “καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος”. One must ask, “and…” what? What was P47 going on to read? Beza has pointed out that in the manuscript for the Latin Vulgate, the text was “foolish and divisional” because of the “and” but the same issue occurs here in P47, but modern critics reject the early Papyrus reading of “καὶ” here as it caused the sentence to be foolish and divisional.
James White feels that because those who defend the Ecclesiastical Text, or hold to a Textus Receptus position, can easily provide a mountain of textual evidence to prove Textus Receptus readings have a vast majority, that when on the rare occasion this is not the case, we are being inconsistent. But why then does the NA28 text reject the “καὶ” here? Why doesn't White follow the older Papyrus like he tells us to?
δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, (omitted καὶ) ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,
(NA28 online)Certain Critical Text advocates believe in a mythical Lucianic Recension in which almost all traces of a manuscript family can disappear, so why is it hard for them to concede that one word, which was probably preserved as a rare nomina sacra, became corrupted or missing entirely?
The methodology of modern textual critics is to follow the “oldest and best” manuscripts. But they followed the “and” in P47 here they would end up with reading like this:
“Righteous art Thou, the Being One, and the One who was, and the Holy One.”Papyrus 47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5.
We can see early Latin corruption
John Wordsworth revealed (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 “which is, and which was, and which is to come;” sometimes is rendered in Latin as “qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es” instead of the Vulgate “qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est.” (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)
So we can see there have been different Latin translations of the verses involved. Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word “pius” instead of “sanctus.”
Many manuscripts were destroyed
So keep in mind that only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century and the 3 earliest Greek witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.
So is there other evidence for shalt be / ο εσομενος?
“But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly “και ο εσομενος,” for why would he pass over it in this place?”The phrase in the Revelation is John’s expansion of 'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh ('I am who I am’) from Exodus 3:14. In Exodus 3 God identified Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and gave Moses His name:
'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh (אהיה אשר אהיה)This is usually translated as something like ‘I AM THAT I AM' (KJV) literally 'I am who I am', though some arguments have been made for 'I will be who I will be'.
Later writers would expand or adjust God’s self-declaration when bringing it into another language. The Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 3.14 translates it into a present-future state of being:
I am he who is and who will beIn Deuteronomy 32:29 of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan later has a present-past-future state of being:
I am he who is and who was, and I am who I will be.So experts in Hebrew are revealing to us that 'I AM THAT I AM' has the meaning that most commentators agree is alluded to in Rev 1:4 is a reference from John, 1:8 from Jesus, 4:8 the four living creatures, and 11:17 from the 24 elders of v.16. Beza and others knew their languages. One of Beza’s friends Immanuel Tremellius, who lke Elias Hutter, was an expert in Hebrew, Syriac and many other middle eastern languages, co authored books with Beza. In the 1639 Biblia Sacra of Immanuel Tremellius, he has the reading:
& Qui erisTranslated as
and shalt beAlthough this is from a 1639 edition and Tremellius died in 1580, and I am yet to confirm it as a pre 1580 reading, it still shows that those scholars working on these editions agreed with Beza. We see an ever growing list of experts who agreed with Beza.
Calvin, whom Beza succeeded in Geneva, summarized on this in his Commentary on Genesis - At the first mention of Jehovah is Genesis 2:
Consequently, it is to be traced to “a Hebrew etymology.” We need not follow him into the discussion on the right pronunciation of the word, and the use of the vowel points belonging to, (Adonai); it may suffice to state, that he deduces the name (Jehovah,) from the future of the verb or , to be. Hence the meaning of the appellation may be expressed in the words, “He who is to be (for ever).” This derivation of the name Jehovah he regards as being confirmed “by all the passages of Scripture, in which a derivation of the name is either expressly given or simply hinted.” And, beginning with the Book of Revelation, at the title ὁ ὡν καὶ ὁ ἤν καὶ ὁ ερχόμενος, “who is, and was, and is to come,” he goes upward through the sacred volume, quoting the passages which bear upon the question, till he comes to the important passage in Exodus in. 13-16, in which God declares his name to be, “I am that I am.” “Everything created,” he adds, “remains not like itself, but is continually changing under circumstances, God only, because he is the being, is always the same; and because he is always the same, is the being.”
Hebrew experts like Immanuel Tremellius, Elias Hutter, and others were contemporaries of Beza. Earlier men knew of the link to Jehovah’s name. Clement of Alexandria, while writing about the Tetragrammaton in the 3rd century, referred to God as “ο εσομενος” in The Stromata, Book V, 6:
ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ Ἰαού, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος.
Translated as:
Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, “Who is and shall be.”
(Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
Both the Septuagint and Philo (Life of Moses 1.75, written early-first century) translate the phrase in Exodus 3.14 into Greek as:
egō eimi ho ōn (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν)
This may be translated as either 'I am the one', or 'I am he who is'. The phrasing 'ο ων' is identical to the first part of the phrase found in the Revelation.
With this information above, it is highly probable John’s phrase common phrase 'ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος/ἐσόμενος' was intended to be a translation or expansion on God’s self-identification in Exodus 3.14 as Beza pointed out.
Between the original Hebrew phrase, and the Aramaic and Greek translations, the focus is on God’s state of 'being': he is, he was, he will be. In the original narrative of Exodus 3, this leads into the revelation of God’s own name, Jehovah, which has been suggested by scholars to come from the Hebrew verb 'to be'.
Most of the verses containing the Trinitarian formula in Revelation do not say God is, was, and will be, it says that God is, was, and is to come. The third verb isn’t about God’s state of being, but is an action in itself. Revelation 16:5 is the purest form of the formula.
This phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (one who is, was, and is to come) is used to create a unique identification, along with the other phrases of Alpha/Omega, first/last, beginning/end, each as identity names for the “oneness” of the Father and the Son who is the express image of God the Father (Heb 1:3). So God the Father through the Son is also ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, just as the Son is also Jehovah.
So is shalt be / ο εσομενος an early reading?
Tyconius’ commentary of Revelation in 380 AD was translated by Beatus of Liebana (786 AD) in his commentary of Revelation which uses the Latin phrase:
qui fuisti et futures es.
Justus es, qui fuisti, & futurus es SanctusTranslated:
Just are you, which hast been and wilt be the Holy One
Beatus of Liebana (from KJV Today site)
So in 380 & 786 AD. shalt be / ο εσομενος was known to exist. This reading is not exactly the same as Beza’s, but as in Beza’s reading the future aspect is included in the address to God.
Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century referred to Christ as “ο εσομενος” in On the Baptism of Christ:
Κοσμήτωρ δὲ πάντως τῆς νύμφης ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν καὶ πρόων καὶ ἐσόμενος͵ εὐλογητὸς νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων͵ ἀμήν.
Translated:
And verily the Adorner of the bride is Christ, Who is, and was, and shall be, blessed now and for evermore. Amen.
(Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
It is unknown to us whether Beza knew of any of these reference, or that there were other such references that he simply did not mention. In the age of Beza, the Reformation Bible scholars were very deep readers of the early church writers. If Beza did know of it, then it would be wrong to simply call this a conjectural emendation, since that reference would source as one of the oldest extant on Revelation 16:5. On the other hand, if the Beatus/Tyconius reference was discovered later, and was unknown to Theodore Beza, then this later discovery can be seen as a truly remarkable confirmation of the strength of his textual thinking on Revelation 16:5.
Wordsworth confirms to us that Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es.” This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza. Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, there was an old Latin text which reads as Beza’s Greek text does.
Although Daniel Wallace is flawed many levels concerning his understanding of textual criticism, he provides this excellent example that fits here:
“Imagine we came across an early manuscript copy of the Constitution of the United States, and the preamble said, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect onion …” If we were to see that line, we would know that “union” was the original word, not “onion”.”
Is the Original New Testament Lost? Ehrman vs Wallace (Debate Transcript)
A great resource for information concerning another quote by Haimo Halberstadensis and issues of Nomina Sacra in Revelation 16:5 is KJV Today.
Donate here
Sunday, 28 August 2016
The Modern English Version
The Modern English Version (MEV) is a great disappointment. They claim on their website that it has been translated by 47 men "produced in the King James tradition". I will show you how this is a fabrication. The 47 number is used because some old figures thrown about concerning the King James Version's history has 47 as the official number of translators; more recent figures are somewhere between 57 - 60. The '47 translators' sales pitch is merely to create a nostalgic association with the KJV so that people would assume that it went through the same cross checking filtration processes the 1611 did, which was at least 14 times according to Bancroft's translation rules. I doubt it even went through two cross checks in this verse below...
In Isaiah 58:8 they change the KJV's "rereward (pronounced rear-ward)," which is often modernized as "rear guard," into "reward," revealing that the MEV's 47 translators totally misunderstood the correct meaning of the archaic rereward, and also that they really didn't do real checks and balances like the men in 1611.
It is clearly an error and reveals their incompetence. It appears that they just saw the KJV's rereward and assumed it was reward not even checking the NKJV. It also reveals that they didn't go into the Hebrew at all.
Think about it. Did all 47 get it wrong here? Did they even read the final draft?
With all the glowing endorsements by religious leaders across the globe, this version demonstrates the lack of decent scholarship within popular Christianity. It is far worse than the NKJV in many places.
There are many hundreds of errors in the MEV of which I will continue to document here, but lets look at just one more verse:
Hebrews 3:16
For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. KJV
for who were they who heard and rebelled? Was it not all of those who came out of Egypt, led by MEV Moses?
The MEV changes the wording of the KJV from a statement to a question. They changed the KJV and made an untruth, because we know from the Old Testament that Joshua and Caleb didn't rebel and came out with Moses. The KJV clearly says that "some" i.e. most of the older generation of Israel, "howbeit not all" meaning Joshua and Caleb, "did provoke." The MEV says that everyone who came out of Egypt rebelled. This is clearly mistranslated and ruins the basic Old Testament historical narrative. This error is also in the NKJV.
These two examples alone reveal the MEV is just another modern trash version designed to fill the shelves of bookshops and the pockets of publishers. But what do we expect? The ecumenical Committee on Bible Translation (Committee) is composed of 47 American and English scholars from the three major branches of Christendom: Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic. hmmm
Compare the King James Version 2016 Edition at Hebrews 3:16 below (also here)
For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.(KJV)
Because some, having heard, did provoke. However not all who came out of Egypt by Moses. (KJV 2016)
Donate here
Saturday, 27 August 2016
Welcome to Textus Receptus
Welcome to Textus Receptus
Textus Receptus is a Christian apologetics organisation, based in Byron Bay, Australia. I am Nick Sayers, director of Textus Receptus PTY LTD, and run the website Textus Receptus. I am currently living in Pakistan working on an Urdu bible translation from the Textus Receptus. I am the primary translator of the King James Version 2016 Edition New Testament and am presently working on the Old Testament. In this blog I will examine various topics in the field of apologetics particularly biblical textual criticism, translations, manuscripts, preservation, inspiration, history, insights, and also errors in the critical text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)