It's called Beyond What Is Written, Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament.

Beyond what is written, Erasmus and Beza as conjectural critics of the New Testament.

Beyond what is written Erasmus and Beza as conjectural critics of the New Testament.

Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament.

It's called Beyond What Is Written, Erasmus and Beza's Conjectural Critics of the New Testament.

The King James Translators chose to use published editions of the Greek New Testament, seven of them,

I had thought about and thought about, I was reading this obscure book on conjectural emendation, and

Was Erasmus inspired. Now Erasmus was a pretty neat guy. I've written a number of papers on Erasmus I've taken a number of classes relevant to his work and things like that and Erasmus was a was a was a very insightful fellow but he was also a Roman Catholic priest and he wrote in defense of such things as transubstantiation, so most of us would have a problem with this theology and if you're going to Determine someone's worth in their work on the New Testament and the biblical text based solely upon things like that then you'd want to definitely check out what Erasmus did and In fact, I would think we'd all want to know something about the people that we are trusting to do textual critical work and that would require that we ourselves know some Something about the subject so that we would at least know what questions to ask.

Erasmus produced five editions, Stephanus had a couple, Beza had his number of editions, but they weren't

That is Scrivener took the 1598 Beza, the Stephanus text, the Erasmus versions, the five that he did

Theodore Beza creates his own version, again, sort of in the stream using the same source material largely, but he made different choices than Erasmus did. So then you take the seven editions that these men did, five of Erasmus, one from Stephanus, one from Beza, and that is collectively considered the Textus Receptus.

Specifically, the works of Erasmus, the works of Stephanus, and the works of Beza.

It wasn't a process of textual criticism. Now, Erasmus did engage in textual criticism in producing his text, but he made errors and he admitted that. He himself said that the first edition was precipitated rather than edited, and he never did fix the many problems in the Book of Revelation, the fact that he only had one manuscript and had to translate from the Latin into Greek for the last few verses, the last chapter, because the last page of the one manuscript he had borrowed from his friend Johannes Reuchlin had fallen off.

Revelation these are all problems that developed in the production of The early printed editions the Greek New

Theodore Beza did an edition in 1598.

I have studied his life very in -depth. I've written a number of graduate papers on Erasmus, and the first edition of his New Testament was based upon that many manuscripts. He did make changes. And in fact, the whole reason that 1 John 5, 7 -8 appears in the Texas Receptive, as I'm sure you're aware, is due to the fact that he came under great fire under the first two editions.

Erasmus engaged in textual criticism. And may I remind you, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. Just in case those who follow Sam Gipp want to argue, oh, well, your modern text is infected with Romanism and so on and so forth.

means there's differing methodologies that were used in comparing the printed editions from, from, uh, Erasmus

For example Jan Krohn's was written a book called beyond what's what is written Erasmus and Bayes as

That's why I said, when last year, when I started reading sections out of the book on, on Erasmus and