A revision of the Textus Receptus - Gospel of Luke

I uploaded today to academia.edu a revision of the TR that I put together for the gospel of Luke. The idea behind this work has been to produce a critical edition of the TR. So, the variant apparatus shows where the text is already well supported by antiquity and diversity, considering Greek manuscripts, the versional evidence and patristic writings. Nevertheless, I have chosen to maintain some minority readings in the text such as Luke 17:36 as this verse may have been accidentally lost by parablepsis in the Alexandrian and Byzantine transmission lines. I’m not convinced that this verse was imported from Matthew 24:40 once the wording is different and the sequence of events is in transposed order. Similarly, I preserved Luke 9:55-56 in the text because of its early patristic attestation (going back at least to the 200’s with Cyprian and possibly the 100’s with the Diatessaron) and the risk of parablepsis or intentional removal to avoid the idea that Elijah and Jesus are somewhat in opposition to each other, being of “different spirits”. I also made textual corrections where the evidence clearly supports it like Luke 2:22 where “their purification” is overwhelmingly attested in Greek manuscripts, the versions and patristic writings against “her purification” plus improvements in other texts with translational impact like Luke 1:75, 2:21, 3:2, 3:19, etc.

 

I’ve double-checked everything, but I welcome any feedback regarding errors in the Greek text, the English translation, or the critical apparatus. This work is dedicated to the public domain, and it can be accessed through the link below:

 

https://www.academia.edu/130371259/A_Revision_of_the_Textus_Receptus_Gospel_of_Luke

 

Stats so far:

 

Book	Corrections to the TR with translational impact	Corrections without translational impact	Number of variants assessed.
Matthew	97	110	842
Mark	96	104	937
Luke	84	176	1172

 

 

A revision of the Textus Receptus - Gospel of Mark

Today I uploaded to Academia.edu a revision of the TR for the Gospel of Mark. It follows the same principles I applied in my earlier work on the Gospel of Matthew.

Stats so far:

Book	Corrections to the TR with translational impact	Correction without translational impact	Number of variants assessed.
Matthew	97	110	842
Mark	96	104	937

At first glance, 200 corrections may seem excessive, but most are minor, involving the addition or omission of pronouns, conjunctions, shifts in word order, verb tense changes, or slight word variations that do not alter the text’s meaning. From my corrections, I think that only one significantly changes the sense: in Mark 7:19, replacing an omicron with an omega shifts the meaning from “thus purifying all foods” to “He thus declared all foods clean.” For example, “birds” in Mark 4:4 makes more sense in the main text as it is better supported than “birds of the air,” but the sense remains unchanged. Similarly, harmonizations like adding “as healthy as the other” in Mark 3:5 do not affect the text’s meaning. The main text reading “his hand was restored” conveys the same sense as the previous “his hand was restored as healthy as the other”. Word transpositions, such as “tombs, and in the mountains” instead “mountains, and in the tombs,” are trivial and have no impact on the meaning of the text.

I’ve double-checked everything, but I welcome any feedback regarding errors in the Greek text, the English translation, or the critical apparatus. This work is dedicated to the public domain, and it can be accessed through the link below:

 

https://www.academia.edu/129396778/A_Revision_of_the_Textus_Receptus_Gospel_of_Mark

A revision of the Textus Receptus - Gospel of Matthew

The first edition of the Textus Receptus, dedicated to Pope Leo X on February 1, 1516, was compiled by Erasmus, primarily using the Gospel text from Minuscule 2, a 12th-century Byzantine manuscript of von Soden’s Kx family. Erasmus published four subsequent editions through 1535. Robert Stephanus later issued four revisions of Erasmus’ text, incorporating a variant apparatus and consulting approximately 15 manuscripts, including Codices D, L, and the Complutensian Polyglot. Theodore Beza’s 1589 revision, based on Stephanus’ work, served as the primary text for the King James Version translators. The Elzevir brothers published revisions in 1624 and 1633, favoring Stephanus’ text. The 1624 edition’s preface proclaimed, “textus ergo habes textus habes nunc ab omnibus receptum”, thus solidifying the term “Textus Receptus.” In 1894, F.H.A. Scrivener reverse engineered the King James Bible’s text by comparing its readings with prior Textus Receptus editions, contrasting them with Westcott and Hort’s Critical Text of 1881. 

This month, I uploaded my revision of the Textus Receptus for the Gospel of Matthew to Academia.edu. The footnotes document all variants between the Nestle-Aland (NA) Text, the Majority Text (M-Text) of Hodges and Farstad, and the M-Text of Robinson and Pierpont. Additionally, I’ve included historically significant textual decisions by Hort, Tregelles, and Tischendorf, as well as references to Wilbur Pickering’s text and the Vulgate of Stuttgart when they align with the primary variant.

The footnotes also highlight potential alternative readings and robust variants not adopted in the main text, along with internal weaknesses of the selected readings. My methodology, primarily based on external evidence, considers four factors: antiquity, diversity, internal coherence, and preservation. For details, please refer to the preface.

I welcome feedback on any errors in the Greek text, translation, or apparatus. This work is dedicated to the public domain and can be downloaded via the link below:

https://www.academia.edu/130375395/A_Revision_of_the_Textus_Receptus_gospel_of_Matthew

Welcome to the Church History & Theology

This blog will explore the scriptures, textual criticism, patristic writings, systematic theology, and traditions within the historical boundaries of the catholic church. By "catholic", I refer not to Roman Catholicism but to the framework established by early church fathers like Irenaeus, Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Jerome. We will learn from their teachings, respecting their authority as probable and revering their contributions, but scripture will hold ultimate authority when their writings diverge from its clear meaning and intent, as the word of God is certain and supreme.

Scripture will be approached in two layers. The first layer comprises the 66 books of the Bible, which establish the doctrines of God's word. The second layer includes the apocryphal or deuterocanonical books, received as God’s word where they align with the primary canon and valued for their historical role in fostering godliness and piety. Following St. Jerome’s distinction, I view the first canon as doctrinal and the second as instructive for piety, potentially referring to the latter as sacred scripture when it agrees with the former.

The scriptures in their original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament) carry greater authority than translations in cases of discrepancy. After studying textual variants among the Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and Nestle-Aland text, I am convinced that the Textus Receptus is a masterpiece given to the Western church, requiring only some adjustments to align with textual evidence rather than replacement.

My goal is to expound Christian truths as revealed in scripture, church tradition, and historical creeds, avoiding sectarianism. I aim to highlight areas where every tradition needs reformation, encouraging Christians across denominations without suggesting that salvation hinges on joining a specific group. May the Lord guide me to bless His people and protect me from causing harm to His sheep.