Page 236 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

ERASMUS

adultery (Jn. 7:53—8:11), and the mystery of remained in the Traditional N.T. text of the majority of
godliness (1 Ti. 3:16). ... the Greek manuscripts. ...
“But if Erasmus was cautious in his notes, much more “It is customary for naturalistic critics to make the most
was he so in his text, for this is what would strike the of human imperfections in the Textus Receptus and to
reader’s eye immediately. Hence in the editing of his sneer at it as a mean and almost sordid thing. ... But
Greek N.T. text, especially, Erasmus was guided by the those who concentrate in this way on the human
common faith in the current text. And back of this factors involved in the production of the Textus
common faith was the controlling providence of Receptus are utterly unmindful of the providence of
God” (Hills, The King James Version Defended). God. For in the very next year, in the plan of God, the
Latin Vulgate Readings in the Textus Receptus Reformation was to break out in Wittenberg, and it
“The God who brought the N.T. text safely through the was important that the Greek N.T. should be published
first in one of the future strongholds of Protestantism
ancient and medieval manuscript period did not by a book seller who was eager to place it in the hands
fumble when it came time to transfer this text to the of the people, and not in Spain, the land of the
modern printed page. This is the conviction which Inquisition, by the Roman Catholic Church, which was
guides the believing Bible student as he considers the intent on keeping the Bible from the people” (Hills, The
relationship of the printed Textus Receptus to the King James Version Defended).
Traditional N.T. text found in the majority of the Greek
N.T. manuscripts. Three charges are commonly made pertaining to
“These two texts are virtually identical. Kirsopp Lake Erasmus. First, that his manuscript evidence was
and his associates (1928) demonstrated this fact in insufficient. Second, that he was a humanist. Third, that
their intensive researches in the Traditional text (which he resisted the Reformation. The first charge has been
they called the Byzantine text). Using their collations, answered by Hills. As to the second charge, while it is
they came to the conclusion that in the 11th chapter of true that Erasmus was sympathetic to the writings of
Mark ‘the most popular text in the manuscripts of the certain pagan philosophers, it is not true that he was a
tenth to the fourteenth century’ differed from the humanist in the sense that this term is used today.
Textus Receptus only four times. This small number of Third, while it is true that Erasmus was in the Catholic
differences seems almost negligible in view of the fact church and that he did not join the Reformation, is it
that in this same chapter Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus), B also true that he openly opposed many of Rome’s errors
(Codex Vaticanus), and D (Codex Bezae) differ from
the Textus Receptus 69, 71, and 95 times respectively. and that he laid the groundwork in many ways for the
Also add to this the fact that in this same chapter B Reformation. The following facts help balance the
differs from Aleph 34 times and from D 102 times and picture:
that Aleph differs from D 100 times. The Term “Humanist” Has Changed Meaning Since the
“There are, however, a few places in which the Textus Sixteenth Century
Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the The term “humanist” meant something entirely
majority of the Greek N.T. manuscripts. The most different in the 16th century than it means today. In
important of these differences are due to the fact that December 1984, I wrote to Andrew Brown, then the
Erasmus, influenced by the usage of the Latin-speaking
Church in which he was reared, sometimes followed Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and
the Latin Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek asked about the charge of Erasmus being a humanist.
text. Brown’s reply was most enlightening:
“Are the readings which Erasmus thus introduced into Erasmus was a thoroughgoing ‘Christian humanist’
the Textus Receptus necessarily erroneous? By no from his youth to his death. The use of the word
means ought we to infer this. For it is inconceivable ‘humanist’ in the Renaissance and Reformation period
that the divine providence which had preserved the does not in any way share the atheistic connotations
N.T. text during the long ages of the manuscript period which that word now has in popular usage. A ‘humanist’
should blunder when at last this text was committed to in that period was simply someone who was interested
the printing press. According to the analogy of faith, in classical literature, culture and education, as a means
then, we conclude that the Textus Receptus was a
further step in God’s providential preservation of the of attaining a higher standard of civilised life.
N.T. text and that these few Latin Vulgate readings Stephanus, Calvin and Beza were all humanists in this
which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus sense, and it is these ‘humanist’ ideals which have
were genuine readings which had been preserved in largely shaped Western culture in the succeeding
the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus, we centuries, blended with the teachings of the Christian
may well believe, was guided providentially by the Gospel.
common faith to include these readings in his printed Erasmus was both a Catholic and a Reformer at the
Greek N.T. text. In the Textus Receptus God corrected same time. He criticised many of the worst abuses and
the few mistakes of any consequence which yet
corruptions of the Catholic church, but he thought that

236 Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity