PDA

View Full Version : Which Greek NT database is closest to Textus Receptus



Ben Spackman
04-24-2009, 03:53 PM
Here I reveal my Greek ignorance, but which of the Greek NT databases is closest to the Textus Receptus, the underlying Greek text of the KJV?

Is it the BYZ?

Thanks

Adelphos
04-24-2009, 05:17 PM
Here I reveal my Greek ignorance, but which of the Greek NT databases is closest to the Textus Receptus, the underlying Greek text of the KJV?

Is it the BYZ?

Thanks

No. It's the SCR. In fact, with few exceptions, the SCR is the very TR that underlies the KJV.

calvary
04-24-2009, 05:41 PM
Isn't the TCR a TR text, though?

Dave

Adelphos
04-24-2009, 06:13 PM
Isn't the TCR a TR text, though?

I assume you mean SCR, not TCR?

The SCR is a reverse engineered text. F. H. A. Scrivener reverse engineered this text from the KJV in the late nineteenth century. That's why there are a few discrepancies. And that's why it's called SCR, i.e., from SCRivener.

calvary
04-24-2009, 06:16 PM
I assume you mean SCR, not TCR?

The SCR is a reverse engineered text. F. H. A. Scrivener reversed engineered this text from the KJV in the late nineteenth century. That's why there are a few discrepancies.

Oops... my bad (TCR, duh). Oh I see; thank you for the info, Scott.

Blessings to you,
Dave

MBushell
04-24-2009, 07:02 PM
I am not sure I would call Scrivener's reverse engineered. He was certainly aware of variants. But in places where he had no manuscript evidence he did back-engineer it. That's my understanding anyway. Stephanos however, if I understand correctly, though close to Scrivener's, was based purely on manuscript evidence. But others on the list know more about this than me.
Mike

Adelphos
04-24-2009, 07:47 PM
I am not sure I would call Scrivener's reverse engineered. He was certainly aware of variants. But in places where he had no manuscript evidence he did back-engineer it. That's my understanding anyway. Stephanos however, if I understand correctly, though close to Scrivener's, was based purely on manuscript evidence. But others on the list know more about this than me.
Mike

I think your statement is essentially correct. Scrivener followed the manuscripts where he could, but there were a horde of manuscripts that had disappeared by his time, many in the great fire of London in 1666, and many others in other locals as well.

Thus, where a variant was no longer extant, Scrivener improvised. An example of this is Hebrew 10:23 where the word pistos was no longer extant so Scrivener went with elpidos. However, the word pistos was documented by earlier commentators as being extant in the manuscripts of their day.

Thus, Scrivener did essentially reverse engineer the KJV, for he followed the manuscript readings which the KJV reflected, except in those cases where the variant was no longer extant.

Same with the Johanneum Comma, by the way, as well as other variants, i.e., there is mention of them in a number of manuscripts of the earlier times which are no longer extant.

By the way, David, I wasn't sure if you meant SCR or TR, that's why I clarified. Just to expound a bit... the SCR is a text of the TR.

SkipB
04-24-2009, 10:46 PM
The Latin phrase Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus comes from the 1633 printing of the Elzevir brothers. The Elzevirs and Theodore Beza apparently followed closely the text of Robert Estienne (Stephanus). Estienne's 3rd edition (1550) was a critical edition correcting Erasmus' text drawing from more Greek mss as well as the Complutensian Polyglot.
Beza's 1598 edition seems to be the most widely accepted source for the 1611 translation. So actually the edition that "coined" the term Textus Receptus actually came 22 years after the work of the AV translators. The Bibleworks version that most closely represents a Greek text in publication at the time of the translation work is probably the STE.

Adelphos
04-24-2009, 10:58 PM
The Bibleworks version that most closely represents a Greek text in publication at the time of the translation work is probably the STE.

No, we did a comparison on that six or seven years ago. The text of the SCR most closely represents the manuscripts of the 1611 AV. Scrivener's appendices demonstrate in great detail his methodology and the variants he followed.

While the term Textus Receptus wasn't actually coined until later, it was representative of the text in use from Tyndale to then, and thus it was called the Received Text because it had been the text which had been received by the Protestants.

Beza's 1598 edition is the primary edition behind the AV. As the Trinitarian Bible Society states in its forward to the TR --

"The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the English Authorised Version of 1611."

SkipB
04-24-2009, 11:30 PM
Of course, Scrivener does reflect the Greek text "assumed" by the translators, but Scrivener is not a text that existed at the time of translation, it may represent one arguably, but it is a later production. What I meant was, STE is the only BW database that is a transcription of a printed edition contemporary with the AV translators. Based on Scrivener's observations, I believe that textual judgments were made by the translators, and the 1611 does not necessarily reflect an extant single printed edition. Anymore than you could ever find a single historic manuscript that would read like the NIV.
If you are a TR person, a majority text enthusiast, or a Nestle-Aland user, we all have to recognize textual criticism is a necessary tool for the modern expositor. One of the reasons I am looking forward to some of Michael's projects moving ahead. So cool to have a ms based text available to study.

Adelphos
04-24-2009, 11:41 PM
Of course, Scrivener does reflect the Greek text "assumed" by the translators, but Scrivener is not a text that existed at the time of translation, it may represent one arguably, but it is a later production. What I meant was, STE is the only BW database that is a transcription of a printed edition contemporary with the AV translators. Based on Scrivener's observations, I believe that textual judgments were made by the translators, and the 1611 does not necessarily reflect an extant single printed edition. Anymore than you could ever find a single historic manuscript that would read like the NIV.
If you are a TR person, a majority text enthusiast, or a Nestle-Aland user, we all have to recognize textual criticism is a necessary tool for the modern expositor. One of the reasons I am looking forward to some of Michael's projects moving ahead. So cool to have a ms based text available to study.

The STE is no more reflective of a single manuscript than the SCR is. Both are compiled texts of the TR.

And it can easily be demonstrated that the SCR is far closer to the AV than the STE.

Take Revelation 11:1, for example. The STE omits and the angel stood, which both the AV/SCR contain.

In the very next verse the STE is once again opposite the AV/SCR in the without/within distinction.

Another type of example is Colossians 2:13 where the AV/SCR have forgiven YOU all trespasses, where the STE has forgiven US all trespasses.

These are just a couple of example types off the top of my head that occur throughout the NT, and which demonstrate that the SCR is far closer to the AV than the STE.

Adelphos
04-24-2009, 11:49 PM
I believe that textual judgments were made by the translators, and the 1611 does not necessarily reflect an extant single printed edition.

Well of course that's true. But the same is also true of the STE, only in reverse. IOW, it is true that SCR came much later, which is why I said it was reverse engineered, as Scrivener in his methodology demonstrates over and over.

But the AV was clearly taken from not one, but several printed Greek texts, including the STE, but the STE was not the only text, as Beza's 1598 edition was more closely followed than STE, and so forth.

Adelphos
04-25-2009, 12:13 AM
Maybe we're saying essentially the same thing...

The AV was taken from several Greek texts, not a single Greek text.

The STE was only one of the texts that the AV drew from. There were other editions of Stephanus, as well as five or six editions of Beza, and so on.

The only Greek text in BibleWorks that was extant when the AV was produced is the STE.

The SCR, also in BibleWorks, was produced almost three hundred years after the AV, but since the SCR attempted to strictly follow the AV, it is closer to the AV than the STE or any of the other texts which the AV drew from.

Having said all that, it is clear that even the SCR is not an exactly identical Greek text to that which the AV based its translation on.

Perhaps that's what we're both saying.

SkipB
04-25-2009, 01:03 AM
I think so...

Adelphos
04-25-2009, 02:06 PM
For those who may be further interested, the SCR is a replica of the TBS TR. Here is the last paragraph in the Preface of the TBS TR printed edition...

"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. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version," edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., and published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902."

In Scrivener's work cited above, Scrivener goes into great detail as to his methodology and the variants he followed, in case anyone is interested in dissecting the text verse by verse.

In essence, Scrivener attempted to reconstruct the Greek Text followed by the AV by comparing manuscripts and texts with the reading of the AV. He then constructed his Greek text, i.e., the SCR, based on that information.

SCSaunders
06-28-2009, 08:33 PM
... the Trinitarian Bible Society....Just received their Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament. Got it to me lightning fast, like three days, maybe four. Only $6.50. Some of their other Hebrew items look promising. Certainly can't beat the prices, nor the service.

I wanted thier Delitzch in hard copy to go with the hard copy Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew New Testament I purchased from "The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures."

I like unplugging sometimes and going with hard copies, with print books. Plus, when I read in bed at night, as I doze off at times, my laptop keeps falling and smacking my nose, my face, my forehead, my teeth that my folks spent a lot of Orthodontist money on, etc. Bibles in print hurt much less. Bibles in print wound much less.

ISalzman
06-28-2009, 09:32 PM
Ah yes, how's my old friend Tom Atwood, the General Secretary?

SCSaunders
06-29-2009, 10:31 AM
Ah yes, how's my old friend Tom Atwood, the General Secretary?I'm not sure. I was interacting with a very nice lady (I forget her name - my bad! I ordered way back in September 2008). She was very patient. I was asking her Hebrew word processor software questions and other questions. Could very well have worn out my welcome. They were super nice, in spite of my pestilence. Light For Israel (http://www.lightforisrael.org/)

EDIT ---------------------------------------------------
Jackie. The very nice lady's name was "Jackie." Does that ring a bell?

ISalzman
07-07-2009, 07:06 PM
No, the name Jackie doesn't ring a bell, actually. But I wonder if you dealt with their office in the Cleveland, OH area or their offices in England. I just remembered that the American branch split off from the parent society a few years ago. The Cleveland office now goes by just the name 'Hebrew Scriptures' as opposed to the longer "The Society for Distributing the Heb Scr.' The American branch is technically no longer affiliated with the Society,' though they still distribute the product. Tom Atwood is the General Secretary of the American work.

By the way, I love having both the Delitzch and the Salkinson Ginzburg New Testaments. They are gems!

You might be interested to know that there currently exists a new translation of the New Testament into Modern Hebrew. It seems to have gained quite a following in Israel today. I don't believe BibleWorks has it, but it is available from Logos.

Shalom uvrachah!