In refuting Jeffrey Stivason’s article Erasmus & the Final Verses of Revelation, it is crucial to address not only the historical inaccuracies but also the selective presentation of evidence that undergirds the popular claim of Erasmus’ back-translation of Revelation 22:16-21 from Latin into Greek. The predominant narrative, embraced by many 19th-century scholars and repeated by Stivason, fails to consider the broader context of Erasmus’ work and the rigorous methodology he employed in compiling his Greek New Testament. Here, I will systematically refute Stivason’s arguments, drawing upon key evidence and clarifying the nuanced nature of Erasmus’ editorial choices.
The Purpose of Erasmus’ New Testament: A Fresh Greek Text
It is essential to understand that Erasmus’ primary goal in publishing his Greek New Testament was to produce a fresh Greek text based on the best available manuscripts, avoiding the influence of the Latin Vulgate. At the time, the Latin Vulgate held a dominant position in the Western Church, yet Erasmus sought to offer a resource for scholars that would allow them to reference the Greek text directly. This effort was part of a broader humanist emphasis on returning to the original sources (ad fontes), allowing scholars to critically engage with the text in its original language.¹
Examining the Alleged Back-Translation Claim
Stivason begins by citing scholars like Roland Bainton, Samuel Tregelles, Frederick Scrivener, and Edward F. Hills, all of whom perpetuated the view that Erasmus back-translated the final verses of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. However, Stivason’s reliance on these sources reflects an uncritical acceptance of 19th-century assumptions, which were often based on limited historical knowledge and selective readings of Erasmus’ writings. Contrary to these assertions, there is no definitive evidence that Erasmus consciously engaged in back-translating these verses in order for them to be printed as part of his Greek text. Erasmus’ editorial methodology was grounded in transparency and scholarly rigor, and he explicitly acknowledged the limitations of the Greek manuscripts available to him. The notion that he would deliberately insert a back-translated Greek text into his published edition contradicts both his stated principles and his actions in rejecting inferior Latin-derived readings.
Erasmus’ Rejection of Latin-Derived Readings from Codex Vaticanus
One of the most significant pieces of evidence against the back-translation claim is Erasmus’ handling of manuscript readings from Codex Vaticanus (B). Erasmus was presented with these readings by the humanist Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda but rejected them on the grounds that they were back-translations from the Latin Vulgate. In a 1534 letter to Sepúlveda, Erasmus expressed his view that certain Greek manuscripts had been altered during the union of the Greek and Roman churches to align with the Latin Vulgate. He specifically referred to a document known as the Golden Bull, which confirmed that such textual corrections were made to ensure harmony between the Greek and Latin texts.²
Erasmus’ rejection of these readings illustrates his discerning approach and his commitment to maintaining the integrity of the Greek text. He believed that the Greek readings should be sourced from the best Greek authorities rather than from manuscripts influenced by Latin traditions. This critical stance demonstrates that Erasmus was highly cautious about relying on Latinized texts, further discrediting the notion that he would deliberately introduce a Latin back-translation into his Greek New Testament. Stivason’s narrative overlooks this critical aspect of Erasmus’ editorial decisions.
Misinterpretation of Erasmus’ Correspondence: Contextual Analysis
Stivason heavily relies on Erasmus’ correspondence with Edward Lee, where Erasmus states, “I added them, following the Latin codices.” Stivason interprets this as an admission of back-translation from Latin to Greek. However, this reading oversimplifies the context of Erasmus’ remarks and ignores his broader editorial approach. Erasmus’ use of the phrase “added them” reflects an acknowledgment of gaps in his Greek source material, which he addressed provisionally until better evidence could be obtained. Moreover, Erasmus’ reliance on Latin codices in cases of missing Greek text does not imply a deliberate act of back-translation. Instead, it reflects his adherence to established textual traditions while he sought out Greek sources to confirm or correct his editorial choices.³
The Aldine Edition and Misplaced Chronological Critique
Stivason criticizes me for supposedly making an anachronistic argument regarding Erasmus’ access to the Aldine edition. He claims that my argument implied Erasmus had access to the Aldine edition before publishing his first edition in 1516, which would be impossible since the Aldine edition was published in 1518. However, Stivason misrepresents my argument. I did not claim that Erasmus used the Aldine edition for his first publication in 1516. Instead, my point was that Erasmus referred to the Aldine edition for corrections in later editions of his Greek New Testament. Erasmus’ willingness to consult newer Greek editions as they became available highlights his commitment to refining his text over time—a commitment that is overlooked by Stivason’s critique.
Erasmus’ Annotations: Transparency in Scholarly Practice
Stivason’s claim that Erasmus’ annotations constitute a “confession” of back-translating from Latin to Greek misrepresents the purpose of these annotations. Erasmus’ annotations were not admissions of guilt but rather transparent acknowledgments of his editorial challenges. He documented the limitations of his Greek manuscripts and called upon readers to review his choices critically, reflecting the humanist principles of transparency and scholarly collaboration. Erasmus’ annotations should not be interpreted as admissions of wrongdoing, but rather as an invitation to scholars to engage in collaborative refinement of the Greek text. This practice aligns with the broader Renaissance approach to textual criticism, which prioritized openness and scholarly integrity.
Erasmus’ Intent and Principles: A Greek-Centered Text
The very purpose of Erasmus’ project was to produce a Greek New Testament independent of the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus sought to provide scholars with the Greek text as a basis for understanding and refining Latin translations. This goal was in line with the humanist principle of ad fontes, or returning to the original sources. Erasmus’ commitment to this principle can be seen throughout his editorial decisions, as he consistently prioritized Greek sources over Latin-influenced readings. The idea that Erasmus would deliberately incorporate a back-translation from Latin contradicts this core purpose of his project.
The Position of the Trinitarian Bible Society and Edward F. Hills
Stivason emphasizes that even the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), known for its support of the Textus Receptus, acknowledges the back-translation narrative. He also relies heavily on Edward F. Hills, who argued that Erasmus’ Greek text retained some Latin-derived translations. While TBS has historically accepted the back-translation narrative, Confessional Bibliology has shown that this acceptance is based on assumptions inherited from 19th-century critics like Tregelles and Scrivener. Edward F. Hills, despite his defense of the Textus Receptus, based his conclusions on these assumptions rather than on firsthand examination of Erasmus’ writings. A more comprehensive analysis of Erasmus’ correspondence and annotations reveals a complex editorial process that does not support the simplistic back-translation narrative.
Defending the Text: Preservation and Textual Integrity
In his concluding remarks, Stivason critiques defenders of the Textus Receptus for relying on what he terms “a handful of manuscripts,” advocating instead for the majority of extant Greek manuscripts. However, his critique overlooks a significant irony. The foundation of the modern Critical Text, represented by the Nestle-Aland, relies heavily on only two primary manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. In total, it consults around 50 Greek manuscripts, a small fraction of the thousands available. This narrow basis contrasts with the Textus Receptus, which was informed by the broader witness of Scripture.
Furthermore, the selection of variants for the Textus Receptus was not merely a mechanical comparison of manuscripts but was guided by theological and logical consistency, aiming to preserve the broader integrity of the biblical text. This is evident in several passages where the Critical Text introduces problematic readings:
- Matthew 1:7-8
Authorized Version (AV): “And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias.”
English Standard Version (ESV): “and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah,” - Matthew 1:10
AV: “And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;”
ESV: “and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah,” - Matthew 5:22
AV: “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…”
ESV: “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…” - Matthew 5:44
AV: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”
ESV: “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”
The choices made by the compilers of the Textus Receptus aimed to reflect the textual and doctrinal unity of Scripture. The absence of essential clarifiers and blessings in the Critical Text’s readings raises issues of logical and theological coherence that defenders of the Textus Receptus argue are better addressed by their text. Thus, critiquing the Textus Receptus for its manuscript basis while ignoring the similarly narrow foundation of the Critical Text is inconsistent and fails to recognize the holistic criteria that guided the former’s development.
Conclusion
Jeffrey Stivason’s article, Erasmus & the Final Verses of Revelation, relies heavily on a narrative shaped by 19th-century assumptions and fails to account for the complexity of Erasmus’ editorial decisions. By critically examining Erasmus’ correspondence, annotations, and revisions, we gain a clearer understanding of his commitment to preserving the integrity of the Greek New Testament and his discernment in rejecting inferior Latin-derived readings. Erasmus’ rejection of readings from Codex Vaticanus, which he deemed to be back-translations from the Latin Vulgate, further discredits the claim that he would deliberately insert a Latin-derived Greek text into his edition. This fact, combined with Erasmus’ transparent documentation of his editorial challenges, demonstrates a commitment to integrity and accuracy inconsistent with the simplistic back-translation narrative embraced by Stivason.
Confessional Bibliology remains committed to presenting an accurate and balanced account of Erasmus’ work and to challenging historical claims that compromise our understanding of God’s providence in preserving His Word. By reevaluating these claims in light of the available evidence, we can more faithfully uphold the integrity of the Textus Receptus and the doctrine of preservation.
Addendum: The Origins of the Back-Translation Myth
It is crucial to address the origins of the claim that Erasmus back-translated the final verses of Revelation from Latin into Greek, a claim often used to undermine the credibility of the Textus Receptus. This myth can be traced back to Johann Albrecht Bengel, an 18th-century Lutheran pietist and textual critic. Bengel was an influential figure in textual studies and theology, and his critique of Erasmus’ work was tied to his broader eschatological and theological interpretations.
Bengel sought to promote an alternative view of the Greek text to align with his interpretations of prophecy and eschatology, even predicting the return of Christ in 1836. By discrediting Erasmus’ Greek New Testament through the allegation of back-translation, Bengel aimed to elevate critical editions that better fit his theological framework. This narrative gained traction due to Bengel’s scholarly influence and was carried forward by 19th-century textual critics such as Samuel Tregelles and Frederick Scrivener Confessional Bibliology Christian Hospitality
Footnotes
- “Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus,” Confessional Bibliology. This article discusses Erasmus’ rejection of readings from Codex Vaticanus and his correspondence with Sepúlveda, highlighting his concerns about Latin influences. Available at: https://confessionalbibliology.com.
- H. J. De Jonge, quoted in Confessional Bibliology, “Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus,” describing Erasmus’ dismissal of Codex Rhodiensis based on its alignment with the Vulgate.
- Erika Rummel, Collected Work of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005). This source includes Erasmus’ annotations and correspondence with Edward Lee, providing context for Erasmus’ editorial decisions.
