Did the AV1611 Translators use the TR?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Dec 27, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    It was stated (Metzger. The Text of the New Testament Oxford, 1968)

    " . . the KJV men followed Beza's Greek against Stephanus' Greek in 113 places; Stephanus against Beza in 59 places; the Complutensian, Erasmus, and the Vulgate against both Stephanus and Beza in 80 places."

    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 readings even from the TR.

    When did the TR that we have today (like the 1976 Greek printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society) actually develop its present text/form? Or is it still evolving?

    Thanks.
     
  2. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society was compiled by Frederick Schrivener and publushed in 1894.
     
  3. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TR vs the TR are very minor. Stepanus and Elzevir differ each other in the Gospel of Mark 19 times.

    Compare to the W/H text:

    The W/H text vs the W/H text are not minor. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ each other in Gospel of Mark 652 times!

    The minimum is best! :D
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    How does "perfection" = minor? In my understanding, perfection = perfect.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    askjo,

    You are comparing 2 Macintosh apples from the same tree against 2 Cortlands from a different tree.

    [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  6. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    but who the mickey said "Things That Are Different Cannot Be the Same"?

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..and the TR wasn't even called the Textus Receptus until several years after the AV1611 was completed. (somewhere around 1640, anyone know the exact date?)
     
  8. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    This folly has already been dealt with in another thread.
     
  9. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skan, would you please define why a known fact is called "folly"? :confused: or direct me to this other thread, as I'm not aware of it. thanx
     
  10. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's the fact , the 1633 Elzevir edition was the first edition called Textus Receptus. The 1550 Stephanus edition was the standard used in England, and according to Martin page 81 footnote of "Accuracy of Translation and the NIV" differs in 287 places. i.e. the 1550 Stephanus and the 1633 Elzevir, the first edition actually called the Textus Receptus. ("Unbound Scriptures" Rick Norris, page 14)
     
  11. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why does it matter what something was called?
     
  12. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because dishonest people like to bolster their arguments with fiction rather than fact. The traditional text was in continuous use from at least the 5th century through the 17th century. It was published by Erasmus, Ximenes, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevir's and several others. Even Westcott and Hort wrote that Erasmus simply "passed on the commonly received text." To say that the Textus Receptus did not exist until the publication of the 1633 edition of the Elzevir's is not only incorrect, it is dishonest. It is just as despicable as the KJVOs claiming the Westcott Hort text did not exist until 1881 when, in fact, it existed as far back as the early 4th century.
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And that is simply not true. Dishonest. The "traditional text" is NOT identical with the TR and don't imply it is. That is a 100% untruth.

    It was not "published" by Erasmus. That is 100% false. It was compiled by him from a blend of various Greek and Latin texts, NO TWO OF WHICH WERE CLOSE TO THE SAME!

    It was finally compiled (again from many sources) and adopted 20 years AFTER the AV1611 was translated.

    And even THAT TR is NOT the same as the TR published today (1976 Trinitarian).

    Brother, if you state that folks are "dishonest" and "liars", your obvious errors will be painted with the same brush.
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The TR vs the TR are very minor. Stepanus and Elzevir differ each other in the Gospel of Mark 19 times.

    Compare to the W/H text:

    The W/H text vs the W/H text are not minor. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ each other in Gospel of Mark 652 times!

    The minimum is best! :D
    </font>[/QUOTE]Could that be the difference between the definition of precise and accurate?

    Something can be very precise and yet be extremely inaccurate.
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Because dishonest people like to bolster their arguments with fiction rather than fact. The traditional text was in continuous use from at least the 5th century through the 17th century. It was published by Erasmus, Ximenes, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevir's and several others. Even Westcott and Hort wrote that Erasmus simply "passed on the commonly received text." To say that the Textus Receptus did not exist until the publication of the 1633 edition of the Elzevir's is not only incorrect, it is dishonest. It is just as despicable as the KJVOs claiming the Westcott Hort text did not exist until 1881 when, in fact, it existed as far back as the early 4th century. </font>[/QUOTE]That is the first time I have ever read this. So what is your source of information for this?
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    There has never been any handwritten MSS (unless it was a fragment like "Jesus wept") that was identical to any other.

    The "Traditional Text" was that Text identified as the distilled collective NT text which came out of the apostolic churches of Asia Minor now commonly called the Byzantine text.

    The different TR's (Textus Receptus, or Received Text) were the compiler's choices of variants based upon the individual's collator's assessment of what text (or small group of texts) of the Byzantine family best approximated the originals.

    If you have a good apparatus it will give the names and/or the numbers of the sub-families used by the TR collators.

    Technically speaking the collective descendants of the W&H Text (Based largely on Aleph/B variants) can also be called the "Received Text" because it has now become the text of choice of Christendom at large.

    HankD
     
  17. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TR was called such in 1633. I only make this honest observation since the KJVO's make the claim the KJV NT was based on the TR, when it wasn't called the TR until that year. I've known for over twenty years that the TR was based on the Majority Text, and my point is that I was not aware until fairly recently about the TR and 1633. My guess is most KJVO's are like I was, not aware of this later date, because they were not told, as I was not told, and found out for myself by studying the matter for myself :D . I hope I've clarified my position, without appearing to be dishonest :eek: BTW, for what it's worth, I am a Majority Text man, and at the same time I believe that W/H did some good things with the Critical Text (but not enough to be superior to the Majority Text). Thanks!
     
  18. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because it wasn't named the "TR" until later does NOT mean the KJB was not from it...
     
  19. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...it seems like we are getting off into semantics. I am aware that the AV1611 is based upon the various Greek Texts, that came to be known as the Textus Receptus. My point is, that it simply was called that until 1633. Sorry if I have not been too clear. ;)
     
  20. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nobody said it is. The "TR" is not identical with the TR! No two manuscripts, texts, or printings are identical! But the work of Erasmus, Ximenes, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs are all representative of the traditional text type. To say they are not is, as I said, dishonest! All represented the "commonly received text." That statement is just as true when translated into Latin as it is in English!
    ppub·lish v. pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es. --tr. 1. ***To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.*** 2. ***To bring to the public attention; announce.*** --intr. 1. To issue a publication. 2. ***To be the writer or author of published works or a work.*** To deny that Erasmus did just as the dictionary explains "published" to mean is to deny the simple facts of history!
    And the 1633 edition of the Elzevir's is no more nor less than all the other editions of the Greek text "commonly received by all."
    You may finally be beginning to understand!
    Except mine only exist in your mind while the untruth of saying the text now commonly called the TR did not exist until 1633 is patently false! It is on a par with the Ruckmanite lies!

    If Christians cannot be honest in this discussion then we will never come to understand the position held by others, but will, instead, be reduced to mockery, falsehood, and distorting of facts to further our own prideful ends. That is a disgrace to the Christian.
     

Share This Page

Loading...