Did the AV1611 Translators use the TR?

The TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society was compiled by Frederick Schrivener and publushed in 1894.

 

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!

 

How does "perfection" = minor? In my understanding, perfection = perfect.

 

askjo,

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



HankD

 

but who the mickey said "Things That Are Different Cannot Be the Same"?

 

..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?)

 

This folly has already been dealt with in another thread.

 

Skan, would you please define why a known fact is called "folly"? or direct me to this other thread, as I'm not aware of it. thanx

 

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)

 

Why does it matter what something was called?

 

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.

 

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! </font>[/QUOTE]Could that be the difference between the definition of precise and accurate?

Something can be very precise and yet be extremely inaccurate.

 

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?

 

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

 

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 . I hope I've clarified my position, without appearing to be dishonest 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!

 

Just because it wasn't named the "TR" until later does NOT mean the KJB was not from it...

 

...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.

 

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.