Thursday, November 28, 2019

Latin Vulgate readings found in the Textus Receptus compared with the Complutensian Polyglot

Image: Complutensian Polyglot open to the Gospel of John (source)

This article concerns the Latin Vulgate readings found in the Textus Receptus (TR) as compared with the Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglot (CP) New Testament.

Of the nine (most important and familiar) Latin readings found in the Textus Receptus listed by E. F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended (pp. 200-202) the CP agrees with only two: John 3:25 and Romans 16:25-27.

With regard to these particular readings, I’m of the opinion that the scholars who produced the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot New Testament likely did a better job of going back to the original Greek of the New Testament than did those scholars who compiled later editions of what became known as the Textus Receptus. Hills believed these Latin readings were the true readings; that they had become lost in the Greek but had been preserved (by God's providence) in the Latin.

My studies of the Complutensian Polyglot will continue. I've not been able to find much information about the CP thus far, which has been rather disappointing.

++++

Most Greek manuscripts and the CP are missing “raise the dead” at Matthew 10:8, whereas the Vulgate and TR include this passage.

Most Greek manuscripts and the CP are missing “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots” at Matthew 27:35, whereas the Vulgate and the TR include this passage.

Most Greek manuscripts, the CP, the Vulgate, and the TR read “the Jews” (Ἰουδαίων) as opposed to “a Jew” (Ἰουδαίου) at John 3:25.

Most Greek manuscripts and the CP are missing Acts 8:37 “And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, whereas the Vulgate and the TR include this passage.

Most Greek manuscripts and the CP are missing “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” at Acts 9:5, whereas the Vulgate and the TR include it.

Most Greek manuscripts and the CP are missing “And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” at Acts 9:6, whereas the Vulgate and the TR include this.

Most Greek manuscripts and the CP at Acts 20:28 read “church of our Lord and God” as opposed to “church of God,” which is the reading found in the Vulgate and the TR.

The Vulgate, the TR, and the CP include the doxology at Romans 16:25-27. In the majority of Greek manuscripts this doxology is placed at the end of chapter 14.

All the Greek manuscripts, except possibly one or two, and the CP have “tree of life” at Rev. 22:19 whereas the Vulgate and the TR have “book of life.”

++++

E. F. Hills (The King James Version Defended pp. 200-202) on the Latin readings found in the Textus Receptus…

The following are some of the most familiar and important of those relatively few Latin Vulgate readings which, though not part of the Traditional Greek text, seem to have been placed in the Textus Receptus by the direction of God's special providence and therefore are to be retained. The reader will note that these Latin Vulgate readings are also found in other ancient witnesses, namely, old Greek manuscripts, versions, and Fathers.

Matt. 10:8 raise the dead, is omitted by the majority of the Greek manuscripts. This reading is present, however, in Aleph B C D 1, the Latin Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus.

Matt. 27: 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots. Present in Eusebius (c. 325), 1 and other "Caesarean" manuscripts, the Harclean Syriac, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus. Omitted by the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

John 3:25 Then there arose a questioning between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. Pap 66, Aleph, 1 and other "Caesarean" manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus read the Jews. Pap 75, B. the Peshitta, and the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, a Jew.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. As J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested, this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, "as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century." Hence the verse is absent from the majority of the Greek manuscripts. But it is present in some of them, including E (6th or 7th century). It is cited by Irenaeus (c. 180) and Cyprian (c.250) and is found in the Old Latin and the Vulgate. In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.

Acts 9:5 it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. This reading is absent here from the Greek manuscripts but present in Old Latin manuscripts and in the Latin Vulgate known to Erasmus. It is present also at the end of Acts 9:4 in E, 431, the Peshitta, and certain manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. In Acts 26:14, however, this reading is present in all the Greek manuscripts. In his notes Erasmus indicates that he took this reading from Acts 26:14 and inserted it here.

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him. This reading is found in the Latin Vulgate and in other ancient witnesses. It is absent, however, from the Greek manuscripts, due, according to Lake and Cadbury (1933), "to the paucity of Western Greek texts and the absence of D at this point." In his notes Erasmus indicates that this reading is a translation made by him from the Vulgate into Greek.

Acts 20:28 Church of God. Here the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, Church of the Lord and God. The Latin Vulgate, however, and the Textus Receptus read, Church of God, which is also the reading of  Aleph B, and other ancient witnesses.

Rom. 16:25-27 In the majority of the manuscripts this doxology is placed at the end of chapter 14. In the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus it is placed at the end of chapter l6 and this is also the position it occupies in Aleph B C and D.

Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. According to Hoskier, all the Greek manuscripts, except possibly one or two, read, tree of life. The Textus Receptus reads, book of life, with the Latin Vulgate (including the very old Vulgate manuscript F), the Bohairic version, Ambrose (d. 397), and the commentaries of Primasius (6th century) and Haymo (9th century). This is one of the verses which Erasmus is said to have translated from Latin into Greek. But Hoskier seems to doubt that Erasmus did this, suggesting that he may have followed Codex 141.

++++

Screen grabs from the Complutensian Polyglot New Testament, which can be found online at the Library of Congress here: https://www.wdl.org/en/item/10636/

CP Matthew 10:8
Matthew 27:35



John 3:25


Acts 8:37

Acts 9:5-6

Acts 20:28

Roman 16:25-27

Revelation 22:19







4 comments:

CC said...

Hoskier seems divided on his 141 (now 2049). He expresses uncertainty about it when he discusses it, but throughout the rest of his work he says it is a copy of a printed text and should be given no weight whatsoever. Even looking at his info, it and 57 (296) are almost always alone when the TR has no Greek mss support, although it may have Latin, Ethiopic, Arabic, Sahadic, Bohairic, Armenian, Syriac, or patristic support. With book of life, there are what you listed as well as the Arabic version, the margin of 2067, and Montfortianus, which is rarely mentioned due to spelling.

Jeffrey T. Riddle said...

Hi AJ, thanks for sharing. My question would be what is the basis for your assessment that the CP"likely did a better job of going back to the original Greek of the New Testament" than the TR editors. Another problem, from a preservation perspective, would be the fact that the CP did not come into dominant use nor was it ever used as the base text for a vernacular translation (Were any vernacular translations produced based on the CP?).

Thanks again for your labors, JTR

A. J. MacDonald, Jr said...

Pastor Riddle, It's just my opinion (as of now) but I would say they likely did a better job of going back to the Greek because it seems they didn't feel the need to inject as many Latin readings into the Greek text as Erasmus and others apparently did. They gave us the Greek text as they found it, preserved by God through the usage of the Greek-speaking church. This having been said, I consider the CP to be in the TR family of printed Renaissance-Reformation era texts. Variant readings from the CP could be placed in the margins a new critical edition of the TR. For a base text I would prefer Elzevir 1624 or Stephanus 1550.

Steven Avery said...

Hi, On Acts 8:37 the Latin text of the CP included the verse, and it was omitted on the Greek text. Afaik, the editions of Erasmus never allowed this divergence. Was this the only verse where this was done on the CP?

Some of these issues are recently discussed on"

Evangelical Textual Criticism
On the Comma Johanneum in printed editions, “Which TR?” and working from inaccurate data
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/12/on-comma-johanneum-in-printed-editions.html

Additional info at post #5:

Pure Bible Forum
Complutensian Polyglot as a Textus Receptus edition - Evangelical Textual Criticism discussion
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/complutensian-polyglot-as-a-textus-receptus-edition-evangelical-textual-criticism-discussion.2376/