Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Bible Study Greek New Testament/Textus Receptus/Scrivener Textus Receptu
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
A quote from http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/ ... tr-art.asp
Are the variations between the editions of the Textus Receptus significant?
No. These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences. As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense".5
Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?
In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.
How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?
F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.
How many differences are found between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus and Beza texts?
There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences -- many of which are quite substantial -- between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.
______________________________________________________________
I found a free edition of both the TR and the S TR from esword.
Thanks again jg.
Are the variations between the editions of the Textus Receptus significant?
No. These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences. As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense".5
Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?
In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.
How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?
F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.
How many differences are found between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus and Beza texts?
There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences -- many of which are quite substantial -- between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.
______________________________________________________________
I found a free edition of both the TR and the S TR from esword.
Thanks again jg.
O
Oscar3
Guest
JM
I wish I could help but I don't have a clue.
I wish I could help but I don't have a clue.
Hi JM,
It seems to me the issue depends upon which greek NT and that in turn upon which manuscripts etc it was based upon. After that is agreed upon only then can we begin to talk about translated versions. Early on in the piece - going back to Erasmus's GNT - he in fact compiled the first 'critical edition'. Those after him by the nature of the exercise have done the same thing.
The differences between (Greek) editions - with software that lists any two or more versions side by side - the differences can be 'compared'. Translations from these result in second order differences.
Within the TR, KJV, NKJV and AV - there appears to be a world within a world even if all other versions were left out of the equation. I am not convinced that 'the differences are small in number and insignificant in nature within this group based upon what I have heard thus far.
blessings: stranger
It seems to me the issue depends upon which greek NT and that in turn upon which manuscripts etc it was based upon. After that is agreed upon only then can we begin to talk about translated versions. Early on in the piece - going back to Erasmus's GNT - he in fact compiled the first 'critical edition'. Those after him by the nature of the exercise have done the same thing.
The differences between (Greek) editions - with software that lists any two or more versions side by side - the differences can be 'compared'. Translations from these result in second order differences.
Within the TR, KJV, NKJV and AV - there appears to be a world within a world even if all other versions were left out of the equation. I am not convinced that 'the differences are small in number and insignificant in nature within this group based upon what I have heard thus far.
blessings: stranger
cyberjosh
Member
I found a long article that talked about some of this. Here is a short excerpt which I hope is relevant to you inquiry:
"The King James Bible translators did not consult merely a single edition of the Textus Receptus but several editions that were available in their day (Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, cf. The Text of the New Testament Oxford, 1968, pg. 105). In Scrivener's collation, the KJV men followed Beza's TR against Stephanus' TR in 113 places; Stephanus against Beza in 59 places; the Complutensian, Erasmus, and the Vulgate against both Stephanus and Beza in 80 places (F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Version of the Holy Bibleâ€â€1611, Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives Cambridge, 1884, pg. 60). This reveals clearly that the KJV men did not hold to the perfection of any single edition of the TR, but practiced their own form of textual criticism by translating a variety of TR readings.
Scrivener, therefore, in 1894 produced a single TR edition that matched the Greek readings chosen by the KJV translators from a variety of TR editions. It was truly a "King-Jamesed TR," allowing the student to have a handy tool for checking the precise Greek of the KJV. This TR edition is the one published today by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London. It is usually in hardback with a dark blue cover. Remember, the D.B.S. makes this TR text the standard for its membership.
To make all the verses of Scrivener's 1894 TR replicate the autographs is purely an arbitrary assumption. There is no real basis for believing such a notion other than the fact that it is, in detail, the Greek chosen by the KJV translators. "
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/burgon.htm
So it seems that the Scrivner text is a synthetic recreation of the TR that reflects only the readings that the KJV used! Most interesting. I didn't know that. So the Scrivner text isn't a real historical text, but a text that takes the diverse readings from different historical, extant copies of the TR, and makes a new critical text created by Scrivner himself by only putting the Greek readings that the KJV based its readings on amongst all the different copies of the TR.
I wonder too what the differences would be, and if any are significant....and if any TR manuscripts even agree with the Alexandrian texts in places against the KJV/Scrivner! Wow, this might be worth looking into...
"The King James Bible translators did not consult merely a single edition of the Textus Receptus but several editions that were available in their day (Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, cf. The Text of the New Testament Oxford, 1968, pg. 105). In Scrivener's collation, the KJV men followed Beza's TR against Stephanus' TR in 113 places; Stephanus against Beza in 59 places; the Complutensian, Erasmus, and the Vulgate against both Stephanus and Beza in 80 places (F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Version of the Holy Bibleâ€â€1611, Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives Cambridge, 1884, pg. 60). This reveals clearly that the KJV men did not hold to the perfection of any single edition of the TR, but practiced their own form of textual criticism by translating a variety of TR readings.
Scrivener, therefore, in 1894 produced a single TR edition that matched the Greek readings chosen by the KJV translators from a variety of TR editions. It was truly a "King-Jamesed TR," allowing the student to have a handy tool for checking the precise Greek of the KJV. This TR edition is the one published today by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London. It is usually in hardback with a dark blue cover. Remember, the D.B.S. makes this TR text the standard for its membership.
To make all the verses of Scrivener's 1894 TR replicate the autographs is purely an arbitrary assumption. There is no real basis for believing such a notion other than the fact that it is, in detail, the Greek chosen by the KJV translators. "
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/burgon.htm
So it seems that the Scrivner text is a synthetic recreation of the TR that reflects only the readings that the KJV used! Most interesting. I didn't know that. So the Scrivner text isn't a real historical text, but a text that takes the diverse readings from different historical, extant copies of the TR, and makes a new critical text created by Scrivner himself by only putting the Greek readings that the KJV based its readings on amongst all the different copies of the TR.
I wonder too what the differences would be, and if any are significant....and if any TR manuscripts even agree with the Alexandrian texts in places against the KJV/Scrivner! Wow, this might be worth looking into...
JM wrote:
Are you saying Scrivener translated parts from different English versions back to obtain his (synthetic) greek? Erasmus was reputed to have translated parts of the book of revelation from the Latin back into the greek- and the end product had no manuscript support. (This is like a doping test that has been tampered with to validate the end result!) If the manuscripts are not clear at some point in the text - then doesn't it make sense to simply acknowledge it and accept that as God's providence?
JM wrote:
What is coming through is that the 'Textus Receptus' is itself a 'Critical Text'. The Greek NT is a Critical compiled text in every instance.
When you compare Greek NT's compiled from differring manuscript traditions, or the translations based on these manuscript families - the large number of differences are easily explained. Conversly - if translations from a common manuscript family base are compared - one would expect less variation. This in and off itself begs the question of the established text.
Again a reminder that 'english versions' are translations only. It is a big non english speaking world out there.
blessings: stranger
Are you saying Scrivener translated parts from different English versions back to obtain his (synthetic) greek? Erasmus was reputed to have translated parts of the book of revelation from the Latin back into the greek- and the end product had no manuscript support. (This is like a doping test that has been tampered with to validate the end result!) If the manuscripts are not clear at some point in the text - then doesn't it make sense to simply acknowledge it and accept that as God's providence?
JM wrote:
What is coming through is that the 'Textus Receptus' is itself a 'Critical Text'. The Greek NT is a Critical compiled text in every instance.
When you compare Greek NT's compiled from differring manuscript traditions, or the translations based on these manuscript families - the large number of differences are easily explained. Conversly - if translations from a common manuscript family base are compared - one would expect less variation. This in and off itself begs the question of the established text.
Again a reminder that 'english versions' are translations only. It is a big non english speaking world out there.
blessings: stranger