Talk:Textus Receptus

Erasmus

-->It was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus for his translation of the Bible into --->Latin, and later used as the basis for the translation of the New Testament --->in the King James Version of the Bible. This is the text that was in use by --->the Eastern Orthodox Church in Erasmus' time (c. 1500).

If Erasmus COMPILED the text (which he did from several texts, including the Vulgate,) then how could it be the text "in use by the Eastern Orthodox Church?"

Did the "Eastern Orthodox church" adopt this text after it was compiled??? or is this because most of the manuscripts he used were late Byzantine?

Part of the Greek in the TR is backtranslated from the Latin Vulgate -- I find it difficult to believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church would accept Eramsus text.

Michael

I agree with this. That the Orthodox Church should adopt this after the fact borders on impossibility. More likely the author meant that the Byzantine Orthodox were responsible for preserving some of the texts Erasmus used. But still--more evidence of the need for citations. Sophy's Duckling 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Given that the Textus Receptus is a controversial topic, I think there should be sources for this article. With some (including Jack Chick) arguing that the textus receptus is the *only* legitimate text around, the claim that Erasmus just made a lot of it up with the help of the Vulgate should be very well verified if it is to appear in a Wiki article. Sophy's Duckling 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

* The wiki article says it was the first edition that was used as a basis for the KJV translation, but there are other sites that say later editions were used as the basis. Is there a more objective source, not necessarily on the internet, that could resolve this dispute?

• Is there a survey of these anonymous "modern scholars" available?
• Is there a list of the bits Erasmus made up? Moreover, is there proof that he fabricated them?

• • Edit, on 02/03/06 by Finlay Campbell

Added qualification and reference to debate over Erasmus' fabricating material - article was phrased too rigidly in favour of anti-Erasmus side of the debate. Also removed claithat "typographical errors abound". This MUST be substantiated if it is to remain in a Wikipedia article - even a few examples would have made it decent. Finally, rephrased statement regarding subsequent use of first editin, for sake of readability - previous version jarred.

Sources indeed

The contention that Erasmus fabricated his Greek text is a charge made often, (by those who do not like Erasmus) but not substantiated. Wiki guidelines specifically state that the information must be "verifiable". Either produce citations and reference that authenticate the points about Erasmus, or change this. The data needs to be...verifiable. Theo5

• the 'Fabricated' (though this word is not fair, a better word would be 'restored' as Erasmus was interested in comparing the Greek to the Latin translation.) text is mostly the last part of Revelation. It seems he did not have a good copy and was forced to back translate from the Vulgate. Anyways, the last part of Revelation is 'unique' to the TR.

I John 5:8 also seems to be unique to the TR. It is not in any of the major text families, NOR was it in the major manuscripts Erasmus used [though, it was in at least one late western manuscript -- Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin. (From Clarke's commentary on I John 5:8)

Michael

"No school of textual scholarship..." source

It is impossible to prove that "No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus". Recently, I added a "source needed" tag to the clause, but had it removed. Something must be done with this sentence, as it is unsourced and unsourcable. Can we at least change it to say that the vast majority of textual scholars no longer defend its priority? --Mister Magotchi 17:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag - as the statement is linked to the textual criticism page; and simply summarises what is referenced there. If you know of a school of Biblical textual scholarship that does defend the priority of the Textus Receptus, then by all means add it to that page, and modify the statement on this one. Surely, it is the function of Wikepedia to summarise all significant scholarly positions on an issue - and then to say that there are no others? Just because this final statement is a negative, and not formally provable, is no reason not to include it. TomHennell 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the passage, "No school of textual criticism now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups opposed to the discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture," is a big diss on these groups. It is basically saying that they have no reasons for what they believe, when, in actuality, they do have reasons (but they may not be valid). And are they actually opposed to textual criticism itself, or to what they believe as "liberal" textual criticism? This sentence has a heavy bias in it. I propose that we leave the sentence as, "No school of textual criticism now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups." What if there was someone with a Ph.D. or D.Div. who defended the Textus Recuptus? Would that count? Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a function of Wikipedia to summaris the state of current published scholarship on a subject; not to pass judgement between schools of scholarly opinion. But this does imply a capacity to differentiate 'scholarship' from 'non-scholarship' in a particular field. It certainly is not enough to say "if it is published by someone with a PhD or D.Div it is scholarship" as scholarly distinction in one field of study by no means assures scholarly status in a cognate field. My own view is that aa 'school of scholarly opinion' requires at least being consistently defended in a peer-reviewed academic journal whose scope is defined as covering the subject, and also being defended by the current occupants of professorial chairs or readerships established at leading academic institutions dedicated to the subject. As far as I am aware, neither of these is the currently case for those who defend the priority of the Textus Receptus, though I wouild not rule it out. By all means point to the contrary evidence.

So far as I am aware, the major recent published defence of the Textus Receptus remains that of Edward Hills. Hills (like Robinson or Pickering) regards the number and range of witnesses supporting a text type as highly significant. But whereas Robinson and Pickering defend this method on text-critical grounds - that where a reading is preserved in a larger number and wider range of witnesses, it is more likely to transmit the archetype; Hills does so on theolgical grounds - that where a reading is preserved ina larger numnber and wider rang of witnesses, it is more likely to demonstrate God's grace of 'special providence'. Since, in Hills understanding, God's 'special providence' is evident in all actions of God's people, he sees it as entirely improper of Robisnon and Pickering to confine their textual assessments to manuscript witnesses (indeed Robinson says that he would be entirely happy to confine it only to winesses of 10th century or earlier). For Hills, every printing imprssion is as much an action of special providence as is every manuscript copying; and so the hundreds of millions of Textus Receptus printed New Testaments far outweigh the mere 5,000 Majority Text manuscripts. Hills' thesis is entirely defensible in theological terms; but it is a religious, not a text-critical principle.

As I understand it, Hills objection to Robinson and Pickering turns exactly on the phrase that you are questioning: "..opposed to the discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture." Hills agrees with Robinson and Pickering that a study of the transmission of ancient texts via manuscript copying will reveal certain patterns of consistency and regularity in the way that copying errors and changes accumulate in the text. But Hills specifically challenges the contention of Robinson and Pickering that imputing such consistencies and regularities back into the transmission history of the New Testament should lead scholars to favour the Majority Text. For Hills, 'consistencies and regularities' are characteristics of 'general providence'; the underlying order of the created universe. But for that reason, we ought not to expect to find the same regularities and consistencies in events governed by 'special providence'; the actions of God's people through the operation of Grace in God's elect. The outcomes of such events will be necessarily be skewed away from that which we would regularly have expected. That is the whole nature of special providence, it produces an aggegate outcome in the universe that is other than would have occured according to accumulation of events subject to the natural order of general providence. As applied to texts, Hills states that we cannot apply regularities observed in the transmission of the generality of ancient text to the trasmission of Holy Scripture. In the latter, God's special providence is constantly operating, and operating more strongly the more that the persons undertaking the transmission are a concentration of God's elect. So Hills prefers a printer's text from a 16th Century Calvinist, to a manuscript text from a 6th century Syrian monk; even to the extent of prererring the miscopyings of the former to the accurate copyings of the latter.

But what do you find; do you know any defender of TR other than Hills? TomHennell (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits

It's not clear why the square-bracketed phrase "text type" was inserted in the last edit. Suggest removing it if the editor doesn't clarify. The Editrix 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a conjecture on my part, based on the phrase "manuscripts. . .every variety" — in such a context I found it hard to understand "variety" as anything other than "text-type" (or on a long shot, "translation/version"). But those not familiar with textual criticism might have taken it to mean "every copy" or similar, so I attempted to clarify. It turns out I was correct, and text-types are meant rather than versions or anything else, judging from the source you provided:

With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. [. . .] With regard to Versions. . ."

» MonkeeSage « 06:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not my source. I'm just here making grammatical fixes, and was baffled by the term.The Editrix 07:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. In any case, I've added more context to the citation and another citation from the same work so that the bracketed phrase is no longer necessary. » MonkeeSage « 07:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Erasmus Annotations to NT

I believe it would be helpful if we got Erasmus' own annotations to the New Testament. Hopefully there he would point out how his translation differs from the Vulgate of Jerome, and his reasons for making the differences. As far as I know the only source for Erasmus' annotations to the New Testament are in The Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 66 pp. 51-60. I do not know this for sure, it is a reference from a book called The Erasmus Reader. I am going to check to see if I can find either the annotations online or where there is a copy of the Vol.66.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.68.117.82 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 April 2007.

Erasmus's Annotations have been published in recent years in facsimile, with an English Introduction. Most University libraries should have copies.

"The Gospels / edited by Anne Reeve ; introduction by M.A. Screech ; calligraphy by Patricia Payn : facsimile of the final Latin text (1535) with all earlier variants (1516, 1519, 1522 and 1527). 1986."

TomHennell 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong

The author of this article explains that the Erasmus, Luther, King James and all the East, Western and Central Europe, William Tyndale, Church Fathers, the Orthodox and the Catholic churches (Latin Vulgate) are absolutely ignorant. So it is obvious authenticity that the author of this article himself is ignorant. Please read the material with caution, it is not historically correct.

(pov put in article proper in error TomHennell 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

The Church Fathers, and the Orthodox Church has never used the textus receptus, but the Byzantine text. In many cases the Byzantine text agrees with Alexandrian against the Textus Receptus (Comma Johanneum, Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; Re 22:19). The Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus are not the same. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The good example of an untaught thinking and argumentation you can find in: Providential Preservation of the Text of the NT. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that!96.14.149.183 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

- Your "many cases" are 4. So your "text critical" thinking and examples are with no value when compared to the 7 000 substantial errors and fabrications of the so called "textual critics". I insist that the material is historically incorrect, (it is against the historical evidence), and is produced by semi Christian stream known as "Textual criticism". Historically there is not such biblical text in existence as the text produced by their teachers. 85.11.156.3 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Who, IP85, are you arguing for and against? That is not clear, so please at least state your position. also, please note that you are responding to a 3 year old comment.Farsight001 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In 1200 cases, not 4. Your 7 000 errors were taken from the oldest Greek manuscripts, and ancient versions. If you prefer 12-15th centuries corrupted copies - more than ancient - it is your problem. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

- Your "ancient" manuscripts are shamefully small in number - approximately 4. So, again, the "text critical" thinking is of no value compared to 6000 (24 000 with the small pieces) manuscripts. And even more, these "oldest copies" are in severe disagreement with each other. So you have nothing, except their malice against the faith, and against the doctrine of Jesus the Anointed who is called God with us. 85.11.156.3 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We have 52 manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and much more from the 4th century. We use also manuscript from the 5th and 6th centuries, and versions. The latest copies are also in disagreement to each other. There is no manuscript, which agrees with Textus Receptus in 100%. Peshitta is closer to the Alexandrian text than to the Byzantine text (except of some parts of the Gospels). But it really does not any matter, the modern editions do not use the Alexandrian text, which is not perfect, but an eclectic (e.g. Pericope Adultera, Signs of the times), by the way Pericopa Adultera is text of minority, and included to the modern editions. Erasm, Estienne, and Beza also created an eclectic text, because they used Vulgate (agrees in 30% with the Alexandrian), Codex Bezae, etc. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edward F. Hills

Dr. Hills defended both the Traditional ("Byzantine") Text and the TR. It is wrong to say "Hills rejected text of majority (Byzantine text) and according to him Textus Receptus was the closest text to the autographs." It is true that Dr. Hills held to the TR being the closest thing to the originals but he wasn't alone in this position (per se). Here is a quote from his often cited book The King James Version Defended - "...if we believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts." What say you? Bhardecker (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

a fuller quote from Hills:

It was Burgon's high Anglicanism which led him to place so much emphasis on the New Testament quotations of the Church Fathers, most of whom had been bishops. To him these quotations were vital because they proved that the Traditional New Testament Text found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts had been authorized from the very beginning by the bishops of the early Church, or at least by the majority of these bishops. This high Anglican principle, however, failed Burgon when he came to deal with the printed Greek New Testament text. For from Reformation times down to his own day the printed Greek New Testament text which had been favored by the bishops of the Anglican Church was the Textus Receptus, and the Textus Receptus had not been prepared by bishops but by Erasmus, who was an independent scholar. Still worse, from Burgon's standpoint, was the fact that the particular form of the Textus Receptus used in the Church of England was the third edition of Stephanus, who was a Calvinist. For these reasons, therefore, Burgon and Scrivener looked askance at the Textus Receptus and declined to defend it except in so far as it agreed with the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

This position, however, is illogical. If we believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print. To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give the impression that God's providential preservation of the New Testament text ceased with the invention of printing. It is to suppose that God, having preserved a pure New Testament text all during the manuscript period, unaccountably left this pure text hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue from the printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450 years. Much, then, as we admire Burgon for his general orthodoxy and for his is defense of the Traditional New Testament Text, we cannot follow him in his high Anglican emphasis or in his disregard for the Textus Receptus

I think this supports the summary as stated in the article. Hills only defends the Byzantine text as a stage in God's process of providential preservation, of which the Textus Receptus is the closest text to the divine standard. In this Hills disagrees with Burgon (and every other New Testament Scholar in the last 100 years), who base their preferred text on the manuscript evidence - whereas Hills bases his preferred text on the principle of divine providence acting through Erasmus and the Reformation. TomHennell (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To say that Dr. Hills rejected the Traditional Text is too strong and a bit misleading. I think it would be best to say that unlike Burgon he preferred the TR rather than the Byzantine Text. Is that fair enough? (BTW, Hills is not alone, nor the only scholar in the preferential treatment of the TR against the Traditional Byzantine Text, many other scholars prior to Hills and after Hills were pro-TR). Bhardecker (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by Traditional Text? The Byzantine text was traditional in Constantinople, over 80% manuscripts use this text. Alexandria used another traditional text. TR was traditional in 16th-19th centuries. It will better if we will use terms like "Byzantine text" Textus Receptus" etc. It will more precisse. Traditional text means nothing. There are too much differences between Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text (in the Gospels), several verses were added. In the Pauline epistles differences are not numerous. Textus Receptus is written in late mediaeval Greek (f.e. it uses Δαβιδ instead of Δαυιδ as in Koine Greek). In the ancient time form Δαβιδ did not exist. Dr. Hills is not known as Textual critic and you are wrong in the case of many other scholars. Some of scholars support the Byzantine text, but there are numerous defferences between the early Byzantine manuscripts and late Byzantine manuscripts. There are about 3000 differences between Family Π and Family K^x only in the Gospels. According to Wisse's Profile Method differences between Alexandrian and Western text-types are smaller than between these two Byzantine families. We can support the Byzantine text-type but only in its early stage. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Leszek Janczuk, I agree and will comply with you in citing the particular text type vs. the generic "Traditional Text" terminology. However, a plain reading of Dr. Hills' book leads one to conclude that where he says "Traditional Text" he is refering to the Byzantine text. But I will grant you your point for the sake of clarity. Dr. Hills is not a "Text critic" per se, but he does contribute to the TR/KJV discussion which is why I call into question a line in this article re: Dr. Hills. I am not wrong on many scholars supporting the TR. There are many scholars on both sides of the coin. My point is not to argue who or which scholars are pro- or anti - TR. My point is that I call into question a line in the article about Dr. Hills "rejecting" the Byzantine text. Lets stay on point (as mentioned earlier by TomHennell): Dr. Hills "preferred the TR" upon the TR's inception and also a bigger point is that Dr. Hills viewed the Byzantine as a "stage in the process of providential preservation." That I know is factual. I would like to see a line changed in the article to reflect Dr. Hills' preferance rather than a "rejection." Would that be fair? Bhardecker (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have redrafted the para - does it now satisfy your conerns? Comparing Burgon with Hills; both scholars use critical methods, and both believed in providential preservation. However, for Burgon providential preservation was a principle of reassurance; it validated what he was finding in his application of critical principles to the manuscript tradition. But the true text is to be identified by critical assessment of manuscripts. Hills works the other way round. For him the true scripture is demonstrated in the unvarying and ubiquitous text that underlies the King James Bible - as it reached its culmination in the 1769 Oxford edition, and has scarcely altered in any respect in myriads of editions since; and hence Hill's critical arguments are the reassurance. Hence Burgon and Hills mean differt things by the "Traditional Text"; Burgon refers to a particular text that is witnessed in the most reliable ancient manuscripts, whereas Hills is referring to a particular succession of transmission by which God's providential preservation is eventually to come to fruition some 17 centuries after the autographs were written. TomHennell (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! TomHennell, that is fair enough. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Bhardecker (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with TomHennell. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

TomHennell, what aspects of the article needs citations of Hills' book. I would like to help there. Bhardecker (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhardecker, I think the following statements need to be cited by edition and page:

- that Burgon speculated that Alexandrinus or Ephraemi might be older than Vaticanus/Sinaitacus (this is from Leszek Jańczuk, and I have not found it myself).

- Hills theology of providential preservation ch 4.1.c. - Hills assertion that providential preservation finds its culmination in printing ch 4.3.d. - Hills rejection of readings in the Byzantine text that are not maintained in the Textus Receptus ch 8.1.c. - Hills assertion that the Greek underlying the KJV is the closest to the orignal autograph ch 8.5.d.

Incidentally, neither of the links given to Hill's book seem to work on my browser; maybe this is better: http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/books/kjv-defended/index.html TomHennell (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few websites that indeed do a better job than the ones I cited, however the only two that are legally approved by Dr. Hill's daughter (who has the rights to his books) are the two that I cited. Personally, as long as they don't change the content and/or make a profit, it is of no consequence to me, but then again, I am not the copyright holder. I will get back to you and the articles that need improvement. Thank you. Bhardecker (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the context; but I still find error messages when I click the links. This site also claims the approval of the copyright holder, I think. TomHennell (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC) http://www.scribd.com/doc/7255829/The-King-James-Version-Defended-by-Dr-Edward-F-Hills

My apologies. I believe the links are now corrected, at least the Old Paths link is. Bhardecker (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but who exactly is Edward Hill, what is his doctorate in, and how, exactly does he qualify as a WP:RS?Farsight001 (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Daniel B. Wallace Edward F. Hills is the first and only one textual critic who defends the Textus Receptus. "Although others have defended the TR per se, they are either not acknowledged textual critics (e.g. Theodore Letis) or their works are not on a scholarly level (e.g., Terence H. Brown of the Trinitarian Bible Society or D. A. Waite of the Dean Burgon Society" (Daniel Wallace, The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique, in: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, Wm. Eerdmans 1995, p. 301). Because Hills is only one, he should be mentioned in section "Defense of the Textus Receptus". Actually he is quoted enough. We need more Burgon, Hort, Scrivener, Hoskier, Metzger, Aland, Wallace, etc. We need also to expand section about editions of Elzevirs (book of Hills can help for us?). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Being the only person that defends it does not automatically make someone an RS. Notable, yes, but not an RS. Furthermore, if he IS the only scholar speaking up in defense of the Textus Receptus, then I want to know why the article is not properly weighted that way. If he's the only one defending the Textus, then the section on defense of it should, according to NPOV policy, get no more than a setence or two spoken in actual defense of it.Farsight001 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In book of Metzger (The Text of the New Testament..., p. 219) he is quoted only twice - "(Hills, e.g., argued for the genuineness of even the Comma Johanneum of the John 5:7-8)". On the page 182 in footnote: "The anachronistic views of Burgon were resuscitated by Edward F. Hills in his booklet The King James Version Defended! A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts (Des Moines, IA, 1956), in which the author outdid Burgon in defending the Textus Receptus, arguing even for the genuineness of the Comma Johanneum of John 5:7-8. See also Hills' introduction Dean Burgon in the Light of Criticism in the 1959". In Aland's The Text of the New Testament... Hills is not mentioned. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's the point you're trying to make? I don't see it.Farsight001 (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

He is not recognizable for all textual critics. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

TomHennell, I checked out the references which needs cited and here's what I found:

• Hills theology of providential preservation ch 4.1.c. - 4th Edition, Copyright 1984, pages 90-91.
• Hills assertion that providential preservation finds its culmination in printing ch 4.3.d. - 4th Ed., pages 106-107.
• Hills rejection of readings in the Byzantine text that are not maintained in the Textus Receptus ch 8.1.c. - 4th Ed., pages 192-193 (although it seems that he didn't reject any Byzantine readings per se, only that he preferred the TR which distinguishes him from Burgon's high Anglican view of the Byzantine).
• Hills assertion that the Greek underlying the KJV is the closest to the orignal autograph ch 8.5.d. - Can't find this assertion. Hills obviously believes that the KJV is the providentially appointed English Bible based on his "logic of faith." But that is the strongest assertion I have found him to make. Dr. David O. Fuller (in re-working Ben Wilkinson's work) is whom I know claims that the KJV is the closest to the original autographs. I have that pamphlet as well. Bhardecker (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Felt need to silence critics

Author states, "Although others have defended the TR per se, they are either not acknowledged textual critics (e.g. Theodore Letis) or their works are not on a scholarly level (e.g., Terence H. Brown or D. A. Waite).[19]"

This statement is biased. Who "acknowledges" textual critics or their scholarly level? How much agreement must there be with current "mainstream" textual critics to find acceptance?

Simply citing another biased author statement does not alleviate this author's responsibility for neutrality.

It smacks of poisoning-the-well and devalues the scholarly nature of the article.

Aulservant (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Read this D._A._Waite#Defence_of_the_Textus_Receptus. Almost in every line error. Some of them:

Peshitta (150 A.D.) - only Old Testament of Peshitta

Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus

The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus

Wycliffe used Textus Receptus (Wycliffe translated text of Vulgate)

85% of papyri used Textus Receptus

only 9 uncial used text of WH

So many errors. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is about the author's biased statement, not his conclusions. (I am not afraid of the truth, if he could arrive at it.)

If he could truly quote a study that states "...XXX % of all doctorates in textual criticism believe that......", then he has objective evidence.

Surely you see the difference.

However, the author has an obvious agenda, which would otherwise be okay if he could stick with objective facts followed by subjective conclusions.

But "poisoning the well", by characterizing his detractors as not as smart as those who believe as he, does not help anyone arrive at truth.

70.246.227.120 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people believe that we have never reached the Moon, but their opinion is not mentioned in the article Apollo Program. Is it not neutral? In professional literature authors like Waite are mentioned only in footnotes (if they are mentioned). He is even against Textual criticism. According to him and other "defendors" we can not examine Bible in the same way as works of Aristotle or Shakespeare. In books of Waite we can find a lot of errors, e.g. "The Samaritans were a mixed people who had a different translation of the Old Testament". (D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible (2004), p. 30.) Unfortunatelly the Samaritan Pentateuch is not a translation, it is written in original Hebrew language. Do you think scholar can do this kind of errors. Impossible. There are thousands these kind of errors in his books. I do not know why so many. Actually about 25% of the wikipedia article devoted to Defense of the TR. In professional literature only 5% or nothing. German scholars usually ignore TR defendors. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been quicker for you to just say, "I don't understand the difference between subjective and objective statements?"

Aulservant (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum

Leszek Jańczuk keeps changing this article, inserting a link to information that scholars consider obsolete, also making a contradiction in Wikipedia itself. The Comma_Johanneum article states:

The story of Erasmus' promise has been accepted as fact by scholars, repeated by even so eminent an authority as Bruce M. Metzger. Nevertheless, it can be traced back no further than the first decades of the 19th century, and a 1980 paper by Professor H.J. De Jonge concludes that no such promise was ever made by Erasmus, and that he never suspected the fraudulent Codex Britannicus (MM 61, the text prepared by the Franciscan) of having been written with the express purpose of forcing him to include the Comma

Exactly right. But Leszek Jańczuk keeps linking to an old reference from Metzger which he in a later edition said "needs to be corrected". How can we stop this person from inserting obsolete information? He clearly has a non-neutral point of view Berend de Boer (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now inserted the exact quote from De Jonge's work as used in the Comma Johanneum Wikipedia article. Berend de Boer (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In every case Metzger, Ehrman, and Aland are more important than de Jonge, but you do not quote Jonge correctly. Jonge wrote that Erasmus did not gave promise that he will include Comma if Greek manuscript will find. It does not mean that "Erasmus had become convinced it was in the original Greek" as you wrongly think. According to you "Quote of Metzger is irrelevant because he admits in a footnote later in the book his story on the Comma Johanneum needs correction (see p291 in the third edition); please don't peddle false info". Unfortunately you are wrong, because Metzger wrote in the footnote:

"It should, however, be noted that Henk Jan de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies, could find no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion concering a specific promise made by Erasmus, see his "Erasmusm and the Comma Johanneum," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovasienses, LXVI (1980), pp. 381-389.

It is all. De Jonge did not write "Comma did not belong to the original text of l John." If you quote Jonge give a full data - number of page. Jonge do not believe in authenticity of Comma Johanneum. I see you have changed your point of view. You wrote: "chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy, even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John". It is different. Now you see you were wrong. But you should give full data in reference (number of page). I want to see this statement in the article of de Jonge.

Why did you delete "though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations"? It is true, see: "Erasmus' annotations on the New Testament: Galatians to the Apocalypse", Brill 1993, p. 770. If you never read this book you can not delete this phrase. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Because that is the whole point of de Jonge's article: showing that Erasmus did not express such doubt. He writes "Erasmus is not thinking of the possibility that he would have to insert the Comma Johanneum, for he regarded it as completely out of the question that the Comma should turn up in any Greek manuscript." The former sentence in this article with a reference to Erasmus' annotations is a code word for "Erasmus included it because someone fooled him, or he added it because he felt bound by a promise he made." I agree that my statement "included because Erasmus was convinced" is not found in de Jonge's article, so that's why I changed it to quote exactly de Jonge's opinion. We'll leave the reasons why Erasmus included it for another day. BTW, thanks for typing in that footnote from Metzger. And on "more important than de Jonge": it's not importance, but who is right, and in this case Metzger peddled an error, which de Jonge corrected. I think we agree that what we have now is supported by up-to-date references Berend de Boer (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the whole New Testament

The introduction to this articles states: "containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament." What is that supposed to mean? If there are no objections, I'll remove this portion of the sentence. Objections should include rewrites to make this more clear. Of course Erasmus text isn't exactly the Textus Receptus, but is that is what is meant? Berend de Boer (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It means the manuscripts used by Erasmus were lacunose. 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. 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). Textus Receptus follows Vulgate in John 8:6; Acts 9:6; Rev 17:4 and in twenty other places. According to Edward F. Hills Erasmus was divinely guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text. I think the Introduction needs to be more clearer. If you want to work you can expand section with Westcott and Hort, because the article is still not finished. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The tree of life objection is quoted often, but Hoskier writes: "I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies." So if he has more than what you consider to be the NT, the introduction is still wrong as it should say "a bit more than the whole New Testament". The last six verses are 136 Greek words, and 132 in the Critical Text. There are only 18 textual variants when the two texts are compared, something that happens all the time and isn't unusual. So my suggestion is still to remove the last bit. I agree that the introduction sounds a bit weird and needs further work.

It appears as if these words were sneaked into the article by a KJV only proponent who has no basis for them: "In later editions, Erasmus adjusted his text of the last six verses of Revelation in several places once he could consult complete Greek manuscripts[citation needed]." Citation is indeed needed or this should be removed from this article. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It sounds like wishful thinking, without any proof being given. "Book of life" doctrinally changes the Bible. If a person's "part" can be removed from the Book of Life for "taking away from the words of of the book of this prophecy [the book of Revelation]", first it makes no sense as "parts" are not written in the Book of Life; names are. However, just previously in v. 14 the "tree of life" is mentioned, not the Book of Life, which indicates the context for chapter 22 as far as "trees of life" and "books of life" are concerned. Lastly, the Bible is clear in both the OT and NT that salvation is "eternal" (without end) and "not to be repented of" (not to be taken away), and so "book of life" sticks out like a sore thumb as an error of translation either on the part of Erasmus or the Vulgate edition he used with which to translate the last six verses. The "Book of Life" translation contradicts with all other scripture concerning salvation. I'm not sure why KJVO proponents, who are mostly fundamentalist, cannot see this. Thank you all for your time. DollyArtist2013 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@DollyArtist2013: I removed this part. Veverve (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Veverve! DollyArtist2013 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources & Neutrality

From reading this talk page, it seemed like these were problems, so I indicated such on the page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.37.5 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what the tags say isn't true, but we do need more to go on than the tags themsleves. What in regards to sourcing and neutrality has a problem? Without specifics, tags should not be added. It's called "drive-by" tagging.Farsight001 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Chronology

Since Tyndale's translation (1525) predates Luther's (1534), it would be more appropriate to reverse the order of names in the first sentence. Pamour (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, the translations would be in chronological order. Then, Protestantism was founded in Germany before it reached England.

Erasmus NT (2nd ed) 1519 -> Luther NT 1522 (Septemberbibel) -> Tyndale NT 1525; Tyndale OT - never completed; Luther OT: 1534 Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction

I accidentally cut off my edit summary, so I figured I should explain why I removed two sentences from the introduction. Two issues: first, there was some clumsy repetition, with two different authors saying the same thing, and I thought the last sentence was much clearer. But, secondly, I guess I think the idea that people "criticize" the Textus Receptus is a bit weird when presented completely out of context, as it was in the introduction. The textus receptus was an impressive work of 16th century scholarship. But, you know, it was in the 16th century, so obviously it's going to be out of date. No one in the scholarly community "criticizes" the textus receptus, they just recognize that it's not the best text, for probably inevitable reasons. A statement in the intro that scholars don't consider it the best text would be totally reasonable, but what was there before seemed kind of silly. Basically - this shouldn't be treated like a live controversy. Obviously there are people who prefer the Textus Receptus, but there is no scholarly debate here. The beliefs of KJV Only types and the like should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it shouldn't be treated like a scholarly debate, nor should it be the central feature of the article. john k (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Majority Text / Byzantine Text

I have reverted the addition to the list of English Translations of the Textus Receptus, those versions that translate the Byzantine Text or Vulgate. Those represent entirely different textual traditions (and should not be confused); and have their own articles, where specific English translations may properly be listed. TomHennell (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

English translations

ISTM that there is no reason to include various modern printings of the KJV. It seems more appropriate to restrict this list to different translations of the Textus Receptus. Also, a few of these entries are not much more than a title - are they really translations of the Textus Receptus? This list could be more informative with fewer entries. TomS TDotO (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for listing items which are no more than a title. It is up to the editor to include such obvious information as the publisher and ISBN and some information as to how the item is distinct. I am not going to spend my time tracing down obscure publications which might very well be minor variations of the KJV, not worth the description of "translations of the textus receptus". I'm not going to edit-war this, but observe that it is a disservice to the reader to introduce clutter. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree, I think only dominant versions accepted thought out history should be displayed such as Tyndal Bible, KJV, Geneva Bible etc. if you know what I mean — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree: little point in having any more than one KJV edition here (or maybe two, 1611 and 1769, as the latter is the one mostly encountered on the internet). But otherwise (and even where copies are accessible) this is just a list of English Bible editions, and adds no more information on the Textus Receptus. TomHennell (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As I haven't heard anything to the contrary, I am just deleting those items which are not sufficiently identified. Perhaps some others could go, too. Perhaps some deserve mention, but without enough information, who can tell? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Textus Receptus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903143333/http://www.thescripturealone.com/De%20Jonge%20-%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Comma%20Johanneum.pdf to http://www.thescripturealone.com/De%20Jonge%20-%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Comma%20Johanneum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512023038/http://wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in the introductory section

"They are also the text type used in most Protestant denominations consistently throughout history before the 19th century adoption of the Alexandrian priority position within mainstream Biblical scholarship."

This single sentence contains some very confusing links.

Why is "Protestant denominations" being linked to an article that describes the history of the reformation? How does this inform the reader that the texts described in this article were even used by anybody in this article. The Reformation article doesn't even contain the word "textus," while the article also clearly states that this reformation ended well before any "19th century adoption." It would seem to be a disservice to the reader that an article concerning the history of a reformation be linked as "protestant denominations", quantified as most, and linked to the idea of consistent usage of "textus receptus."

The second link to Constantin von Tischendorf, being labelled as "the 19th century" is also quite confusing. The characters "adopt" are not found anywhere within the Tischendorf article, yet it is clear that the article verifies that he lived in the 19th century. Since the phrase "the 19th century" is being used adjectively, it seems to be appropriate to look upon the "adoption" action being expressed in the sentence, yet I couldn't clearly find any such adoption in the linked article.

The third link in the sentence to Westcott-Hort, labelled as "adoption of" is also confusing. It seems that "adopt" in this article is referring to an act taken in the 20th century, rather than the 19th century. However, the article does seem to confirm that their version of the Greek that they authored closely matches the work of Tischendorf.

It seems that the term "adoption" may best fit the last link in the sentence pointing to Biblical criticism, however, the "19th century" section of the article doesn't seem to mention, Tischendorf, Wescott, Hort, nor an Alexandrian priority. There is a "Markan priority" mentioned elsewhere in the article on criticism, yet nothing expressly confirms an "alexandrian priority position." It seems that this sentence is only a sentence that can be adequately understood by experts in the field, rather than curious encyclopedia readers.

Are the authors of the article attempting to portray that an alexandrian priority position is not a natural priority position and must therefore be adopted into such a position? The common and ordinary meaning of adopt is "to take by choice into relationship" or "to take or receive as one's own what is not so naturally." Is this sentence intended to imply that the adopted priority position is chosen over a natural priority position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.30.100.86 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC) 45.30.100.86 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Confusing link in introductory section

"This edition of the New Testament represents the tradition of manuscripts of the New Testament as the one that the Orthodox Church has received and used without interruption since the 4th century."

The "tradition" link seems to refer to an article concerning a recent categorization of manuscripts and doesn't adequately describe a tradition that would help a reader understand the sentence. What exactly is "the tradition of manuscripts?" The second link that refers to the article on textual variants seems to refer to an "Alexandrian textual tradition," while the "tradition" link referring to the new categorization article merely mentions "the history of the textual traditions" in the "eclectic" category. It's quite difficult for a reader to understand what tradition means while referring to the links in the sentence. 45.30.100.86 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The Meaning of the term "Textus Receptus"

To whom it may concern: I have worked for years as a professional translator (from Hebrew into English) and as an amanuensis, and during this period of work, I have often come across the use of the term "Textus receptus" when referring to a manuscript's original form, rather than to its later redaction or interpolation. The term, although Latin, can also apply to old and original Hebrew manuscripts. It is not limited to only Greek Christian texts. As we see in this dictionary's definition here, the word "such as" (used here as an example) is not meant to be exclusive, but may include other examples. Davidbena (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Davidbena. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it is an encyclopedia. So when a word has several applications, only one such application is applied for any one article. It may well be that 'textus receptus' is a term of art amongst professional translators; but amongst scholars generally, it refers to a particular tradition of printed New Testament editions. Which is the subject of this article. TomHennell (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, as we can all see in the articles Mikraot Gedolot, Masoretic Text, Damascus Pentateuch, and Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll, the term "textus receptus" is used for ancient Hebrew manuscripts as well. What's more, they all link to this article! The term is broadly used and is NOT restricted only to Greek Christian texts. Giving its broader definition in the lede does not take away from the general scope of this article.Davidbena (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

As written above, WP is not a dictionary. Maybe in the disambig, not here. AddMore-III (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@AddMore-III:, shalom. The solution may, indeed, be to start a "disambiguation" page entitled Textus receptus, as something must be done to alleviate this problem where Hebrew manuscripts are being linked to this article. In my humble opinion, the problem can be solved by adding a short and broader description, followed by what is covered in this article. Perhaps we can get a larger feedback from other editors, let's say in a WP:RFC. What do you think?Davidbena (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestions Davidbena; I do know how easy it is to link in Wikipedia to an article that you think corresponds to a particular item under discussion; when it is actually linking to something else entirely. What is commonly done is to have a tag below the title; to the effect that 'This article discusses .....; for discussion of ..... go to the disambiguation page ***. TomHennell (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently there is no disambiguation page. Besides, even if there were, there is no separate article entitled "Textus receptus." Again, in my humble opinion, the term can easily be defined in its broader sense in the lede of this article, and - zbang! - the problem is rectified. Having a short definition of this term would not take away from the general scope of this article. Anyway, I'm all for public consensus here.Davidbena (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

One article, one topic. If the topic of texti recepti in general is noteworthy, start an article on it, called perhaps Textus receptus (note the minuscule, indicating that it's a generic term, not a name), and correct the links in the other articles. Or perhaps there is already a suitable discussion of this on the textual criticism or some other page, so you can just have the Textus receptus article redirect to Textual criticism#Appropriate section -- I haven't looked. Of course the two articles should refer to each other. --Macrakis (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion is also a good one. If, let's say, we have a sub-section entitled "Other usages" (where we explain textus receptus in minuscule), wouldn't it just be better to have that sub-section at the bottom of this article, with that new section linked to those Hebrew articles? After all, the same term has a double meaning.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not ideal. This article is about a specific Textus Receptus, not about the general concept. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for how we handle this sort of thing in general. --Macrakis (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The guideline here suggests that its broader term should be described in this article, perhaps though at the very bottom under a separate section entitled "Other usages." Both of the editors who commented in the RfC seem to be fine with a short description in a separate section at the very bottom of the article.Davidbena (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambig, nothing more. AddMore-III (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Davidbena, the section you point to is about "broad-concept articles". An example of that might be a (hypothetical) textus receptus article -- that is currently a redirect to this article. This case is the opposite -- Textus Receptus is a narrow article about one thing, namely Erasmus's edition. I was going to start that textus receptus article, but I quickly realized that I didn't know even enough to write a stub. For example, some sources say that the Textus Receptus in "OT textual criticism" denotes Ben Hayyim's edition.[1] But I don't even know if that is considered receptus only by Christian ("Old Testament") scholars or also by Jewish ("Hebrew Bible/Tanakh") scholars. And though there is an article on New Testament textual criticism, I wasn't sure what the corresponding article for the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament would be. Textual criticism#Hebrew Bible gives Documentary hypothesis as its "main article", but that seems wrong; perhaps Composition of the Torah is better?

This new textus receptus article should discuss the general concept of received texts, and then list various editions which have been considered recepti in their domains.

Now, it could be argued that the present article should be called something like Textus Receptus (Erasmus) since there are many other things called "the" Textus Receptus in their own domains. But I'm pretty sure that the Erasmian one is by far the most common thing that people have in mind (cf. Wikipedia:Article titles).

Perhaps you (Davidbena) could start the textus receptus article to replace the redirect that's currently there? --Macrakis (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion to start a new article, Textus receptus, based purely upon the term's most common meaning, namely, "a text of a work that is generally accepted as being genuine or original [1855-60]" (according to Random House Webster's College Dictionary), I find to be somewhat bizarre. The plain definition as defined above can be found, I would think, in most dictionaries. The contributors at WP:RFC have already discussed what is best to do in this case. They agree with you that it should not be mentioned in the lede paragraph, but that a link to the more broad definition can be made at the bottom of this article, under a new section "Other uses." Frankly, I find it hard to understand why you are so opposed to this idea.Davidbena (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment about lede paragraph containing a broad definition of term

A question has come to the fore as to whether Wikipedia policy permits us to add a broad definition of "Textus Receptus" to the lede paragraph, a phrase defined in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary as: "a text of a work that is generally accepted as being genuine or original [1855-60]." Some editors here have felt that since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a broad definition of the term cannot be used, particularly since the article treats of ancient Greek Christian texts. The problem, however, is that other articles also make use of this term when referring to ancient Hebrew texts (e.g. Mikraot Gedolot, Masoretic Text, Damascus Pentateuch, and Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll). As can be seen, the term "textus receptus" is used for ancient Hebrew manuscripts as well. What's more, they all link to the article "Textus Receptus"! Since the term is broadly used, should it be restricted only to Greek Christian texts? If we should give its broader definition in the lede, would it take away from the general scope of this article?Davidbena (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• As the lede is supposed to only summarize the text body, the mention would see a little out of scope at the moment. Suggestion: add a section at the end of the article, named "Other uses", where this meaning of the term is explained (sourced, natch). Then retarget the incoming links from the other articles to that specific section. Then one might consider a sentence in the lede noting that there are other uses; but even if that is not done, the information would at least be present. I agree that there is no reason to omit it because "WP is not a dictionary". If it's valid sourceable information, it should go somewhere, and this article is the obvious place in absence of a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a reasonable one. Thanks. If all else fails, we'll do as you suggest. If, however, we were to add a short definition in the lede, such as the following edit, would it actually subtract from this article?

“Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is an original version of a text, usually one of a religious nature, whether among Jews, Christians or Muslims. In Christianity, it is an edition of the Greek texts of the New Testament established by Erasmus in the 16th century. It was the most commonly used text type for Protestant denominations until mainstream textual criticism largely adopted the Alexandrian text type in the 19th century.” (END QUOTE)Davidbena (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the general thrust of Elmidae's suggestion above. I think, however, that there are a few more things that we should consider. One is that there appears to be a distinction between Textus Receptus and textus receptus, with the former referring to the Greek Christian text and the latter referring to the more generic usage. On this premise, it would be a bit inaccurate to say that Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is an original version of a text, usually one of a religious nature, whether among Jews, Christians or Muslims... because that's only true of textus receptus. Seeing as the Textus Receptus was the textus receptus of Protestant Christianity for a few centuries, I would bet that one of these terms directly influenced the naming of the other, so one alternative to Elmidae's Other uses section would be to have an Etymology section. Since the topics are distinct, the ideal scenario would be if we could find enough sources to establish the notability of textus receptus and create separate articles disambiguated with hatnotes, but finding such sources may be hard. Another option would be to update the wiktionary entry to reflect its usage in religious studies scholarship and put a link to that at the top of the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Elmidae and Rosguill. @Davidbena:, please read all the comments above and in this section. We all agree that it does not make sense to start the article this way, and we've said it in Edit summaries, in the discussion above, and here in the RFC comments; why are you insisting? The clean solution is to have a Textus Receptus article, capitalized because it is "the" Textus Receptus, and a textus receptus article for the generic concept, if there is anything to say about the generic concept. It could just be a redirect to a section of another article, e.g., textual criticism, as I suggested above. --Macrakis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, I am not insisting on anything. I wrote the above suggestion before Rosguill responded, and before you had even responded. As for your suggestion in the earlier Talk-Page section, it is a good one. If, let's say, we have a sub-section entitled "Other usages" (where we explain textus receptus in minuscule), wouldn't it just be better to have that sub-section at the bottom of this article, with that new section linked to those Hebrew articles? After all, the same term has a double meaning.Davidbena (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally agreed with most of the above, but move to lowercase. The normal solution to something like this is to move the article to textus receptus, and treat the subject broadly and generally; then in a section on Greek Christian texts explain that the term is often capitalized in that context, and when capitalized it usually refers to that context. We neither should have two separate articles, nor keep an over-specific article that then generalizes in a section as an afterthought (that's backasswards article structure).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• But that would be the tail wagging the dog. There is a lot to say about Erasmus's Textus Receptus as witness the existing article. There is very little to say about the generic concept of textus receptus, other than disambiguating its customary use in different areas of scholarship, and referring to the textual criticism article. --Macrakis (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

First, there's absolutely no place for clouding the definitions in this article, which is to be devoted solely to the Erasmus-Elzevier editions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At most, a single sentence along the lines "TR may refer to any traditionally canonical version of a text, particularly of scripture" may be added. BTW, I don't see any need for an article about such a broad term, which will be mainly strewn with examples of TR's in various religions, for there is little to say solely about the term itself. The far preferable solution is to create a disambig. page, with the sentence I wrote before and several examples of prominent TR's, like the Masoretic Text of the Pentateuch. AddMore-III (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be to have a small reference to the broader term of textus receptus appended at the bottom of this article, and which would not, in any way, shape or form, "cloud the definition" of this article, seeing that it refers specifically to Erasmus's Textus Receptus.Davidbena (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I see in the discussion above, and in fact it doesn't really solve the problem of the Hebrew Texti Recepti which was the original problem you brought up. It makes more sense to have a disambiguation article at lowercase textus receptus which points to the various things called Textus Receptus in various fields as well as to the textual criticism article. Normally, other articles shouldn't be pointing at DAB articles anyway. --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it would, indeed, solve the problem if we link the Hebrew articles named above to this new section in this article. The new section will, of course, have its other definition spelled-out in laymen's terms. If you should have any questions about the intent of the above contributors' comments, you should write them, specifying what exactly may be unclear to you. They'll be happy, I'm sure, to respond to your questions.Davidbena (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)