Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Which Greek NT database is closest to Textus Receptus

  1. #1

    Default Which Greek NT database is closest to Textus Receptus

    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
    Ben

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Spackman View Post
    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.

  3. #3

    Default

    Isn't the TCR a TR text, though?

    Dave
    David Spear
    Calvary Chapel of Manassas
    Manassas, Va. 20110
    http://www.calvarychapelmanassas.org/
    KJV Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without (apart from) the deeds of the law.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by calvary View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 04-24-2009 at 05:20 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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
    David Spear
    Calvary Chapel of Manassas
    Manassas, Va. 20110
    http://www.calvarychapelmanassas.org/
    KJV Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without (apart from) the deeds of the law.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,087

    Default Scrivener's

    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 04-24-2009 at 06:55 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    219

    Default "Textus Receptus" from preface of Elzevirs 1633

    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.
    SkipB

    "Ambitious to be well-pleasing unto him"
    RJ Blackburn
    Reformed Episcopal Seminary

    http://www.reseminary.edu



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkipB View Post
    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."
    Last edited by Adelphos; 04-24-2009 at 10:01 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    219

    Default "represents"

    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.
    SkipB

    "Ambitious to be well-pleasing unto him"
    RJ Blackburn
    Reformed Episcopal Seminary

    http://www.reseminary.edu



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •