Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/
Christopher Yetzer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1430514297794428
Yes. Erasmus clearly noted in his annotation that he used the Vulgate.
Quamque in calce huius libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adiecimus.
There are at least 5 Latin manuscripts which have the TR reading, "Book of Armagh (9th cent.), a 10th century Beatus manuscript, De Rosa (11th cent.), Latin 588 (12/13th cent.), and Takamiya MS 104 (13th cent.)."
Secondarily, he is said to have used Valla's Annotations. See here on page 17
https://www.academia.edu/.../Erasmus_and_the_Text_of...
Here is Valla's statement: Eriam venio cito amen veni domine Iesu. Graece non solum ante verbum venio e etiam: sed & ante verbum veni ναὶ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, ἀμήν. ναί, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.
https://hardenberg.jalb.de/image//theol20095/00000093.jpg
So, yes he used outside sources. Is it possible that there are others that we don't know about? Why not?
Christopher Yetzer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1430535481125643
The KJV translators certainly used the church fathers, especially Chrysostom. I think they also made at least one textual decision based on his text. I'll try to check on the Rev. 1:8 in Valla.
1527 Erasmus Annotation where he mentions Tertullian.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=844950567100040&set=p.844950567100040&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1430744584438066 Wi2rdl2ZykDjPQ9OxxHGM5j5xRWN8zAlCmWr7RIuBsRoJ5sRCkaMQPVdOduKUG5LhqQZ2btmDGjm0vxWgjki3y_8wDOyUJv34gv7YrHbokKaWVUcApkkF207Y_5qm9YRMIQX4Zmx&__tn__=R]-R
I didn't see Origen mentioned in that section at the end of Revelation. I will note though that in his Annotations from 1527 Erasmus changed his footnote at Revelation 1:8 and compared his text to the Complutensian Polyglot.
"Qui primus est in re quapiam, etiam proverbio Graecis dicitur Alpha, ut apud Martialem, alpha penultatorum, & w... extrema est in ordine literarum. Qua de re copiosius aliquanto diximus in Chiliadibus nostris. Caeterum principium & finis non erat in Hispaniensi (Polyglott). Et rursum, Qui est, qui erat, & qui venturus est, totidem syllabis Graece scriptum est hic, ut paulo ante." (I haven't filled in the Greek words here.)
I will also note that in his annotation on a previous verse he mentions "Sic enim est in Graecis exemplaribus". So, if we are going by what Erasmus says, he is using more than one Greek text.
Christopher Yetzer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...79061121285&reply_comment_id=1430786461100545
Robert Lee Vaughn The manuscript currently suggested has some interesting similarities (It and Erasmus are missing “τη καλουμενη” and “δια” from Revelation 1:9). However there also appear to be some differences. I might have to spend some more time with it.
Posts on 2814 and 1516 and Timothy Berg not copied
Hefin Jones
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...79061121285&reply_comment_id=1430941934418331
Christopher Yetzer I would presume he had access to his own edition of Valla (thanks for the links) and if Henk de Jonge is right it's probable that he carried a printed edition of the vulgate that served as his collation base + his notebooks. The best guess based on his own comments in his annotations and letters is that he may have seen a Revelation manuscript in Engliand but that he clearly didn't have a full transcription of it (otherwise he wouldn't have had to ask Reuchlin for his Revelation). In which case GA 2814 would have been the base, with the Vulgate, his own notes and collations, and his Valla serving as further sources.
Nick Sayers
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/?comment_id=1430506951128496
It is a common anecdote that Erasmus only used one mss for Revelation.
The mss Delitzsch found is pretty probably not the one Erasmus used anyway. That was six verses missing at the end whereas Erasmus only amended a “few words” from the Latin, (not 136 words).
He also spotted parablepsis in verse 19 in the Greek which would be impossible if he lacked 16-22.
So it is suspect from the start which leads to illogical conclusions.
More on Reuchlin and the Revelation manuscript
Christopher Yetzer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/?comment_id=1430768727768985
1. Erasmus used more than 1 Greek text. (What I mean by that is that he used more sources.) It seems fair enough from his quotes that he had only one full Greek manuscript.
2. In an annotation on Revelation 1, he mentions plural Greek examples with the words, “Sic enim est in Graecis exemplaribus” This seems to conflict with his communication. See:
https://research.vu.nl/.../port.../portal/2424542/218636.pdf
3. There are some late Greek manuscripts which are said to be missing the word “God” (2926 is one that some people have mentioned). Whether this is a direct copy of a printed TR or not needs to be determined. I have a few pictures of manuscript 296 (one which is claimed to be a TR copy) which in Revelation 22:19 uses ἀφέλοι instead of the Erasmus' αφαιρησει.
4. Erasmus said he used the Latin. “Quamque in calce huius libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adiecimus.” [Annotations on Revelation 1516] . “Proinde nos, ne hiaret lacuna, ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca.” And “Eos nos addidimus, secuti Latinos codices.”
https://research.vu.nl/.../port.../portal/2424542/218636.pdf
5. He is said to have used Valla. In his notes, he does mention Valla several times (See the appendix in his New Testament).
https://research.vu.nl/.../port.../portal/2424542/218636.pdf
6. There are at least 5 Latin manuscripts which have the TR reading, "Book of Armagh (9th cent.), a 10th century Beatus manuscript, De Rosa (11th cent.), Latin 588 (12/13th cent.), and Takamiya MS 104 (13th cent.)." [per Luke Carpenter]
7. Possibly the earliest evidence to Revelation 1:8 is a quote by Tertullian where he does not quote “God”. "let this be my immediate answer to the argument which they adduce from the Revelation of John: I am the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; and from all other passages which in their opinion make the designation of Almighty God unsuitable to the Son."
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm...
8. After the first edition, Erasmus checked Revelation 1:8 against the Complutensian and could have made changes if he wanted to (and possibly did double check his work with other Greek texts as well). “Qua de re copiosius aliquanto diximus in Chiliadibus nostris. Caeterum principium & finis non erat in Hispaniensi (Polyglott).” This shows that he was not careless.
9. It is just as plausible that Erasmus made a mistake in his Latin translation copying too closely from the Vulgate and corrected it later as it is that he made a mistake in his Greek and didn’t realize it.
10. Valla’s Annotations
https://hardenberg.jalb.de/display_dokument.php...
Freddy Castanda
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...8727768985&reply_comment_id=1430856151093576'
Freddy Castaneda
Author
Christopher Yetzer 1. Of the Greek texts that Erasmus is known to have used, they all say "Lord God". GA2814 and Complutension Polyglot.
2. The full extent of what those Greek examples are is unknown. Of those that are known, "Lord God" is used.
3. 2926 is far too late to be taken into account and most likely was out of Erasmus's reach as it resides in Jerusalem while Erasmus lived in the Netherlands.
4. Of the major Latin Vulgate editions and manuscripts, all say "Dominus Deus". Codex Amiatinus 8th century, Codex Fuldensis 545, Gutenberg Bible 1455, and those after Erasmus.
5. I've looked at Valla's annotations, and nothing in his notes directly addresses Rev. 1:8
6. It seems more of a minority reading to omit "Deus" in Latin.
7. You fail to mention that Origen of Alexandria, Tertullian's contemporary also quoted Rev. 1:8 with "Lord God". Thus both readings are very early.
8. Careless or not, it seems he was not thorough enough with his sources or at least very limited in what he had.
9. Speculation, as we have seen both readings in both Greek and Latin were in existence at the time of Erasmus.
10. Valla added no insight.
Will Kinney
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/?comment_id=1430545311124660
Nick Sayers
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/?comment_id=1431029007742957
I did some vids on Erasmus and the anecdote that he back translated from Latin in the last 6 verses of Revelation.
https://
youtube.com/playlist.
Luke Carpenter
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/?comment_id=1430582341120957
I think the TR is in error here, but for what it's worth there are actually a few scattered pieces of versional evidence that agree with the TR:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/...TQXUaaWYrpYbqdAllR4HgHlDHBBGvKSedZEvYTt8N6VmM
Revelation 1:8
Beginning and Ending:
In:
300s: 01
900s: 2074, 2329, 2351
1000s: 2050, 2344
2053 adds at the end: και κύριος της κτισεως (and Lord of creation)
Lord vs Lord God:
Follows TR:
Book of Armagh moves it to v11 making it say, "Write what thou seest in a book and send it unto the 7 churches saith the Lord, which is and was and is to come, the almighty, to Ephesus, Smyrna…"
De Rosa (f210)
Tertullian Against Praxaes chapter 17: Meanwhile, let this be my immediate answer to the argument which they adduce from the Revelation of John: I am the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; [ Revelation 1:8 ] and from all other passages which in their opinion make the designation of Almighty God unsuitable to the Son. As if, indeed, He which is to come were not almighty; whereas even the Son of the Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.
Hoskier's 187
All
Armenian
A 10th century Beatus manuscript
Latin 588
Takamiya MS 104 (Latin, 13th cent.)
Does not follow TR:
Colbertinus
Ambrose on the Christian Faith 2.4 (35): Behold, He comes, says the Scripture, with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they which pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn because of Him. Yea, amen. I am Alpha and Omega, says the Lord God, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty.
Alcuin of York: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come.
Origen De Principiis book 1 chapter 2 section 10: And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: Thus says the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. For who else was He which is to come than Christ?
Christopher Yetzer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...82341120957&reply_comment_id=1430751641104027
Luke Carpenter I appreciate your work on this. I think it is also important to note that Erasmus later looked at the Complutensian specifically in this verse, "Caeterum principium & finis non erat in Hispaniensi(Polyglott)." I think it is just as likely that he was convinced of his Greek reading, had made an error in the Latin by translating too closely to the Vulgate and corrected it in his later editions.
I think I read in other places that this verse is what made you change your mind (or something to that effect). Did you mean, change your mind away from the TR or something else?
Luke Carpenter
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...82341120957&reply_comment_id=1430910194421505
Christopher Yetzer Thanks. Yes, this is one of the places that made me change my mind away from the TR. Well not quite, it was more a shift in my mindset about how providential preservation works (meaning that it isn't finished yet, although I still think it's mostly finished), and then this became a really good talking point that is difficult to explain otherwise. There are a good number of places like this in the TR that often go unnoticed, but it becomes very difficult to explain how providential preservation applies when it becomes entirely disconnected from evidence. I used to say, "evidence is not irrelevant, it's just secondary and not determinative," but that's basically a fancy way of saying "I have a priori ruled out evidence that disagrees with my conclusion." With Revelation 1:8 specifically, there was no way of logically reproducing the TR's text without changing my attitudes toward the evidence in different parts of the verse. In order to keep the longer reading of "the beginning and ending," I could appeal to parts of the evidence like the Andreas tradition, but with "Lord God," I had to a priori reject pretty much all evidence there. There is no Greek evidence that I'm aware of that follows the TR (and I've checked pretty thoroughly), and it's very minor and scattered in the versions and fathers.
Christopher Yetzer
Top contributor
Luke Carpenter Thank you for the explanation.
Christopher Yetzer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/?comment_id=1430953911083800
Erasmus' Vulgate from his 4th edition vs. Eramsus' own translation from his 1516:
V: Ego sum Alpha & ω: principium & finis, dicit dn̄s deus qui est & qui erat:
E: Ego sum alpha & Ω, principium & finis, dicit dn̄s deus, ꝗ est, & ꝗ erat
2814 Greek vs. Erasmus' 1516 Greek
M: λεγει κυριος ο θεος ο ων
E: λεγει ο κυριος ο ων
Explain how any reasonable person would assume Erasmus made a mistake in his Greek but meant his Latin translation, instead of him making the mistake in his Latin by simply having copied the Vulgate? His Greek doesn't even match the Greek of 2814 if he did use it (he added an o before κυριος.) From the sources available I think the latter is far more likely and logical.
===============================================
Steven Avery
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1431092444403280
Christopher Yetzer - good job, Christopher.
What is fascinating is that the Tertullian quote has commentary with the text that MATCHES "Lord" as the text and not "Lord God".
(You put that in on this thread, and it goes with the Erasmus confirmation of using Tertullian.)
Is this Tertullian-Erasmus-Rev-1:8 connection something that has been noted before? Or did you flesh it out now?
Thanks!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1430498764462648/?comment_id=1430505461128645
Yw, this is my central Lorenzo Valla page
Lorenzo Valla
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/lorenzo-valla.3419/
Christopher Yetzer
1527 Erasmus Annotation where he mentions Tertullian.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1430538844458640
Christopher Yetzer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1430744584438066
Freddy Castaneda I didn't see Origen mentioned in that section at the end of Revelation. I will note though that in his Annotations from 1527 Erasmus changed his footnote at Revelation 1:8 and compared his text to the Complutensian Polyglot.
"Qui primus est in re quapiam, etiam proverbio Graecis dicitur Alpha, ut apud Martialem, alpha penultatorum, & w... extrema est in ordine literarum. Qua de re copiosius aliquanto diximus in Chiliadibus nostris. Caeterum principium & finis non erat in Hispaniensi (Polyglott). Et rursum, Qui est, qui erat, & qui venturus est, totidem syllabis Graece scriptum est hic, ut paulo ante." (I haven't filled in the Greek words here.)
I will also note that in his annotation on a previous verse he mentions "Sic enim est in Graecis exemplaribus". So, if we are going by what Erasmus says, he is using more than one Greek text.
Freddy Castaneda
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1430810351098156
Christopher Yetzer So I checked Valla's notes on Revelation and I found nothing that directly addresses Rev. 1:8, but I did see that Origen was mentioned among many other names on the third page I think at the beginning of his book.
As far as the Greek examples that we know Erasmus has used, all contain "Lord God".
GA2814 and Complutension Polyglot.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...05461128645&reply_comment_id=1430914857754372
Steven Avery
Top contributor
For readers, my belief is that Greek is a good possibility, as well as Hebrew and Aramaic, which was translated to Greek and Latin.
There are also possibilities of dual editions.
And I happily acknowledge no certainty on the question.
. Lots has been “suggested”, nothing proved.
=======
There are some who believe that Greek originality certainty is an imperative for an AV perfection position, I see it as unwarranted and only creating difficulties.
