Frederick von Nolan
From Textus Receptus
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Frederick von Nolan was a 19th century historian who defended the [[Textus Receptus]] and said it was superior to all of other editions of the [[Greek New Testament]]. He also defends the work of[[ Erasmus]] as a “great undertaking”. He spent 28 years attempting to trace the [[Textus Receptus]] to apostolic origins. He argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority. | + | Frederick von Nolan (1784-1864) was a 19th century Greek and Latin scholar, and historian, who defended the [[Textus Receptus]] and said it was superior to all of other editions of the [[Greek New Testament]]. He also defends the work of[[ Erasmus]] as a “great undertaking”. He spent 28 years attempting to trace the [[Textus Receptus]] to apostolic origins. He argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority. |
It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach. | It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:"Nor let it be conceived in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly labored to improve upon his design. With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other." | :"Nor let it be conceived in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly labored to improve upon his design. With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other." | ||
| + | |||
| + | He concluded that it was "indisputable" that Erasmus knew about the Alexandrian documents.<sup>[1]</sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See Also== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | * 1. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 198. Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. 1815, 413-415 (63). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==External Links== | ||
Revision as of 15:42, 18 December 2015
Frederick von Nolan (1784-1864) was a 19th century Greek and Latin scholar, and historian, who defended the Textus Receptus and said it was superior to all of other editions of the Greek New Testament. He also defends the work of Erasmus as a “great undertaking”. He spent 28 years attempting to trace the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. He argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.
It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach.
Regarding Erasmus, Nolan stated:
- "Nor let it be conceived in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly labored to improve upon his design. With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other."
He concluded that it was "indisputable" that Erasmus knew about the Alexandrian documents.[1]
See Also
References
- 1. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 198. Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. 1815, 413-415 (63).
