King James Onlyists frequently argue that the KJV is superior because it is based on the Textus Receptus tradition, and Douay-Rheims Onlyists often argue for the Douay’s superiority from the fact that it is based on the Vulgate. Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. I have major textual and theological problems with the Vulgate. Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. The Textus Receptus (latin, "Received Text") is the Greek text originally compiled by Erasmus around 1516. The Vulgate is the Latin Bible. The Bible of the Western Church at that time was the Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome in the latter part of the fourth century. This is hypocrisy of the highest degree. Some of the verses did not exactly correspond with "the text we have, now received by all": the words from the Elzevier 1633 edition, in Latin, from which the term "Textus Receptus" was derived.. Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. See the Website Links page. Their premise is that the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture requires that the early manuscripts cannot point to the original text better than the later manuscripts can, because these early manuscripts are in the minority.Pickering also seems to embrace such a doctrine. Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text. You state: “I love the KJV—but let me tell you about one even better than the King James—the Douay Rheims.” I have in front of me “The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The title page states: “Translated from the Latin Vulgate—A revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version edited by Catholic Scholars under the Patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.” It is published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company, New York. They say that the Textus Receptus or "Received Text" is the fully accurate one that the KJV is based upon and therefore the KJV is the perfect Bible version. 2 Corinthians 13:12-14, 1 Thessalonians 1:1-2, Revelation 20:8-10 etc.). 16:3-4, 17:14-27, 21:25-26, Mark 2:1-2, 4:40-41, Luke 4:18-19, 6:17-18, 9:42-44, 17:35-36, John 4:13-14, 5:18-19, 6:51-71, 10:41-42, 12:24-25, 16:4-5, From Textus Receptus. Painting of Jerome (340– 420) by El Greco. Erasmus, though a Roman Catholic, was honest with the Greek text, which states that Mary “has found favor with God.”. It shows a verse by verse comparison of This particular text came from the sacred-texts website by J.B. Hare. The last six verses were translated from Vulgate, that is why Textus receptus has "book of life" instead "tree of life" in Revelation 22:14. These are the books of the Latin Vulgate along with the names and numbers given them in the Douay Rheims Bible and King James Bible. If you do not have this font installed on your computer, The Septuagint is the original Old Testament in Greek. where this has not been done properly, then please contact Logos Apostolic Bible College. The Latin, predictably, says that Mary is “full of grace” (ave gratia plena) and reflects this view of grace. General Search for 'Numbers 22:11' within 'New American Standard Version' on StudyLight.org In fact, these critics decry the Textus Receptus for relying on the Latin Vulgate, yet they rely on the same Latin Vulgate in reconstructing the Old Testament. Thank you for your email! It is derived It was a printed text, not a hand-copied manuscript, created in the 15th century to fill the need for a … …” In the Middle Ages, grace was conceived of as a substance, like water, which can be said to fill a glass. A. Hort, first published in 1881. The Greek Textus Receptus used here is the koine Greek, or common Greek in which the New Testament was originally written. Latin Vulgate Greek Textus Receptus English King James; Mark 1:1 Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi, Filii Dei. These pages use the SPIonic font, created by Dr. Jimmy Adair at Scholars Press to show the Greek text. The English text is the modern accepted text of the King James version of the bible which originated in 1611. This bible is an excellent bible study tool for those who like to compare different translations. It shows a verse by verse comparison of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James translation of the New Testament with each verse side by side. Textus Receptus; 191 Variations in Scrivener’s 1881 Greek New Testament from Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus; Books Many Scanned; Agros Church; Matthew 1:1; Unicorn; The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy; New King James Version; List of Omitted Bible Verses; List of Bible verses not included in the ESV; Pure Cambridge Edition; Ephesians 3:9 In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. This makes it easier for anyone to compare the languages. Unfortunately, that’s not quite true. Wycliffe (using a glossed/annotated version of the Vulgate) 1380: Textus Receptus (mostly translated from 10th to 16th century Greek manuscripts, but parts also translated from the Latin Vulgate, including a glossed/annotated version of the Vulgate, as explained above. Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata: “common version”), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome.In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin version of the Bible from the various translations then being used. Latin Vulgate Compared to Textus Receptus. To answer these questions we must keep several things in mind. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels appeared about 383. If you have a website of your own, then please consider linking to this website. … Readings that do not support the KJV are marked with a cross. The table below shows a complete list of differences between the text that underlies the King James version and the texts of Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598 Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus departs from both the Nestle-Aland Text and the Byzantine Majority Text considerably in the Book of Revelation. Jump to: navigation, search. At times Erasmus departed from 2814 and followed the Vulgate (vg), other Andreas texts (M A ), Church fathers and/or other authorities. The structure of this online bible should ensure that all verses line up exactly on every computer, whether the Greek font is installed on it or not. The Textus Receptus is the text which the King James translators used. For example in 196… from data files created by the Clementine Vulgate Project, which has been released into the public domain. In this case you are looking at the Vulgate vs the Masoretic text (KJV)- not the Septuagint. However, the Greek text has the verb “to repent.” The original-language text implies a change that has nothing to do with any ecclesiastical organization. When speaking of the Textus Receptus, one must remember that it is a printed text, not a hand-copied manuscript. In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with … The Latin hierarchy accepts the English language Douay-Rheims Version is an accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate Version. If you find any place There are a number of specific questions contained within this response that Dr. Larry Spargimino gave to a listener via email about the Latin Vulgate as compared to the Textus Receptus. There are a number of specific questions contained within this response that Dr. Larry Spargimino gave to a listener via email about the Latin Vulgate as compared to the Textus Receptus. It is extremely common for King James Only advocates to conflate the “Majority Text” (M-Text) with the “Textus Receptus” (TR), or the tradition of printed Greek texts behind the King James Version. In these instances the Textus Receptus often follows Erasmus' Reuchlin manuscript (2814). There were more than a hundred Greek NT editions published prior to 1611, the date of the KJV, but none matches the KJV 100%. Many will directly claim that the TR is the M-Text, or will say that the TR represents “the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.” Neither of these are true statements. Textus Receptus is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of the Minority Text. Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the citations from scripture by the early church fathers. Then, he polished the Latin, declaring, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin." Acts 3:19-20, 5:39-40, 7:55-60, 8:19-20, 9:6-7, 13:30-34, 13:38-39, 14:6-28, 19:40-41, 23:25-26, 28:1-2, 1 Corinthians 3:4-5, 9:20-21, 15:26-27, You also refer to the front plate from the 1611 Bible and state that it does not refer to “Apocrypha,” “but simply to the Old and New Testaments.” The reason is that the 1611 translators never considered the Apocrypha “Scripture.” Some of the Reformers, such as Luther, quoted from the Apocrypha but not because they thought it was Scripture, but because they considered the Apocrypha to be ancient writings with historical validity, not because they thought the Apocrypha had doctrinal credibility, a point that they made repeatedly. The excellence of the Vulgate as an ancient interpretation of the New Testament is an added advantage. They also claim that the Alexandrian Texts such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt. During the Dark Ages 500-1500AD, Satan used the Roman Catholic Church to kill millions of Christians for using the true Bible, and they burned the bibles. This has been made necessary by a desire to have the version available for liturgical use. John Whiteford. If you have benefited from reading this online bible, then please tell your friends about this website. It became known as the Textus Receptus. Please copy and paste this URL into Facebook and Twitter to all your friends who are interested in a The Latin Vulgate Bible didn’t catch on during that time, because Christians knew it was a fake. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James translation of the New Testament with each verse side by side. Another example, the Latin of Matthew 4:17 states: “Exinde coepit Iesus praedicare et dicere paenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum.” A literal English translation would be “… do penance …” (paenitentiam agite), which assumes the existence of the Roman Catholic penitential system. The “Textus Receptus” is Latin for “Received Text”. In 382, Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the popular Latin translation of the Bible in use since at least 150 AD. It’s close-ish, but the actual path was slightly more convoluted than that. If the Textus Receptus was good enough for the formulators of the Westminster Confession of Faith, ... the main question about Biblical authority was the question of whether or not the Latin Vulgate should be considered authoritative. It is accepted as being the closest text to that used for the English King James translation in 1611. For example, the Latin of Luke 1:28 reads: “et ingressus angelus at eam dixit: ave gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus. There are more Vulgate readings, in Revelation it has 17:8 he used καιπερ εστιν (and yet is) instead of και παρεσται (and shall come). All rights Reserved. This formed the original Old Latin Version (as opposed to the one corrupted by Jerome and adopted by the Catholic Church - the Latin Vulgate). Thank you for your email! Textus Receptus is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of the Minority Text. those of the King James bible, but where these have been detected the verse designations in the Latin text have been altered to make them correspond (Matthew 10:2-3, 1514 Though the earliest work was prepared by Desiderius Erasmus, his work was later revised by Robert Estienne (or, Stephanus) and further revised by Theodore Beza. He collected all the Vulgatemanuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. The two most famous attempts at restoring the original text of the New Testament are the Textus Receptus, dating from the Reformation and post-Reformation era, and the Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. These pages use the SPIonic font, created by Dr. Jimmy Adair at Scholars Press to show the Greek text. by Fr. Textus receptus - Latin Vulgate - KingJames Comparision and give it a Google +. Bible Study Tools Index || Search this website || Finally, the Textus Receptus is what is called a "text type." Answer: The Textus Receptus (Latin for “Received Text”) is a Greek New Testament that provided the textual base for the vernacular translations of the Reformation Period. Here is the Septuagint reading: 17:1 The Lord created man of the earth, and turned him into it again. © 2019 by Southwest Radio Church of the Air. Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. The Latin text presented in this Vulgate is based on the text of the 1598 Vulgate, which was used as the standard text of the Vulgate until 1979. With the rediscovery of Greek, the Vulgate translation was subjected to a critical examination in comparison with the Greek original. For many advocates of the majority text view, a peculiar form of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture undergirds the entire approach. The Clementine edition of the Vulgate is the main source of this revision. First, the name itself: textus receptus is a Latin phrase that can be translated as the received or agreed upon text. But those marks of the culture do not alter or change basic Christian doctrine as articulated in the KJV. Bible Studies Index || Greek Word Studies Index. If you ask most people, the “Textus Receptus” is the Greek text assembled by Erasmus from which the King James Version was translated. If you do not have this font installed on your computer, then you can download the Greek font here. Supposedly the Latin Vulgate is based upon "Alexandrian Texts". then you can download the Greek font here. and has idiosyncrasies unique to the seventeenth century). Such is not true for the Vulgate, or for the Rheims-Douay, nor is it true of the manuscripts upon which they are based. I will admit that every translation bears some connection to the culture out of which it arose, and that is true of the KJV (after all, it is in English! Similarly for the question about the Textus Receptus -- the phrase was first used in 1632 to describe the Elzivir edition of 1624 - but nobody pretends that edition was perfect, nor was it used to work up the KJV.