Bennett B. Wethered
02-25-2006, 01:14 PM
I have, as my default working screen, the KJV, NAS, NET, WTT, BGT, SCR, LXE, and TAR as Display versions in my browse window.
My question is this: I have, for a number of years, had the SCR up as the Greek representative of the Textus Receptus, the Greek translation upon which the KJV and NKJ versions are based. I want to quickly and obviously see the Greek differences, explaining and showing the backgrounds of the differences I see in the English texts. I have recently become aware of the BYZ, the Byzantine Text. I suppose I should know this, but which is the better (or is there yet another) representative of that which is known as and called the Textus Receptus?
In advance, I thank any who will educate me.:)
02-25-2006, 03:05 PM
My question is this: I have, for a number of years, had the SCR up as the Greek representative of the Textus Receptus, the Greek translation upon which the KJV and NKJ versions are based. I want to quickly and obviously see the Greek differences, explaining and showing the backgrounds of the differences I see in the English texts.[/quote]
Try the "text comparison settings" among the "tools" in BW. You can set it up to hilight the differences in your Greek texts automatically.
[quote=Bennett B. Wethered]
I have recently become aware of the BYZ, the Byzantine Text. I suppose I should know this, but which is the better (or is there yet another) representative of that which is known as and called the Textus Receptus?
STE is also supposed to be the Textus Receptus.
BYZ isn't the TR. It has many similarities to the TR, but it is closer to the "Majority Text" as opposed to the Alexandrian text type.
02-25-2006, 09:48 PM
I have, for a number of years, had the SCR up as the Greek representative of the Textus Receptus...
Although the NKJ is primarily based on the TR, there are numerous places where the NKJ departs from the TR and follows the Critical Text.
SCR and STE are substantially the same texts, albeit there are a number of insignificant differences between them, eg., Ephesians 1:3 where STE omits en before Cristw at the end of the verse, and other similar differences of this nature.
STE is Stephanus' 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament and served as the base for the editions of Beza and ultimately the Greek Text that the KJV is based on, which is the SCR. Both texts are accurately referred to as the Textus Receptus.
However, it should also be known that F. H. A. Scrivener reverse engineered the SCR text from the KJV, and there are a few places where he might have been in error, for example, in Ephesians 6:24 the KJV ends the verse with "Amen."
This word is not in the SCR, but it is in the STE. In other words, Scrivener apparently overlooked this in this verse when he reverse engineered the text. Et cetera.
Overall, however, the SCR is substantially the Greek Text that underlies the KJV. The SCR is also the text that is put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society in print.
With regard to BYZ, this is called the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpoint, in opposition to the edition of Hodges-Farstaad, which is also called the Majority Text. The latter is not in BW.
This designation by these two groups, however, is artificial and is a misnomer.
Not only do both editions differ slightly from each other, while each professes to be the Majority Text, but they are also based only on the extant Greek manuscripts, and of the extant Greek manuscripts, only those that have been collated, or partially collated.
Moreover, the extant manuscripts of today do not reflect the extant manuscripts of yesteryear. Stephens, Beza, Calvin and others refer to a whole slew of manuscripts which are no longer in existence today.
For example, Stephens catalogued 9 Greek manuscripts that contained the Comma Johanneum, or the "Three Heavenly Witnesses." These manuscripts cannot be found today. I realize there are some who debate this matter regarding Stephens' catalogue, but they are patently and demonstrably wrong.
Likewise, Calvin stated that the best manuscripts contained the Comma Johanneum in his day, and therefore he counted the passage as genuine.
And so forth and so on, for a number of other commentators likewise refer to manuscripts for various passages of the New Testament that are no longer extant.
There was the great fire in London in the latter part of the seventeenth century which no doubt extinguished a whole horde of manuscripts, as well as other happenstances throughout the years whereby manuscripts have dropped out of sight.
Thus, the Majority Text of today, even if one could be agreed upon, almost certainly does not accurately reflect the Majority Text of yesteryear.
The term "Majority Text" is therefore a moving target, and one that no significant Bible version, as far as I am aware, has ever been based on. This is not to say that these texts have no value, because the sheer number of collations provide a table of information. Nevertheless, I doubt this text will ever achieve any degree of real status, and rightly so in my opinion.
The best way to sort out the variations between all these texts is to use the color comparison tool.
I spent years collating Sinaiticus Aleph, Vaticanus B, and other manuscripts before BW came out with this tool. I can tell you from a great deal of intense personal experience, this tool makes manuscript collation infinitely easier.
However, one must still be very careful, for it is very, very easy to make mistakes when collating manuscripts.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.