Is the (AV) Translated from the Textus Receptus (TR)?

Please return to the topic at hand - is the AV translated from the TR?

 

No!

Zero!

Nada!

The question is still mis-identification, even though I fully believe it to be unintentional.

None of the OT or Apoc. is translated from the TR, nor could it have ever been, as the "TR" properly refers ONLY to the NT.

Roughly 1/4 of the 1611 Bible [if one does not count the Apocrypha (1/5 if one does count this)], namely the New Testament, is effectively translated from the 1598 Greek text of Theodore Beza, the several times edited and emended, by that time, critical Greek text compiled by Desiderus Erasmus, initially styled as the "Novum Instrumentum Omne" and in later editions titled as "Novum Testamentum Omne". Because of the textual tradition, this Beza text is styled as Beza 1598 (or alternatively, TR1598), I believe.

The terminology of "Textus Receptus" or "TR" did not exist until the Elzevir Brothers coined it in the preface to the 1633 Edition of the Greek text, which had descended, as edited and emended at least 20 times, from that of Erasmus, who was certainly a giant for the written Word of God, and through such other Biblical giants as Estienne (Stephanus) and Beza.

Although the designation of "TR" has been commonly retroactively applied to the texts of the above, it is still an improper designation, for the Greek texts that underlay the NT for the 1611. Incidentally, it is not an improper designation to reference the TR for the editors of the KJ-1762 (Parris), KJ-1769 (Blaney), and the Cambridge 1873 (Scrivener) Bible editions.

The question in the title sorta' reminds me of the old question of "How many legs does a cow have?"

The usual answer, which is correct, is "Four!" .

Then one asks the follow-up question of "How many legs does a cow have, if you call the tail a leg?"

The usual now incorrect answer one will now get is that of "Five."

The follow-up to this is, "No, the answer is still 'Four.' Just calling the cow's tail a leg, does not make it a leg!"

Likewise, just calling Beza 1598 a "TR" does not make it a "TR!"

Ed

 

You know Ed, I think that was one of the most interesting posts I have ever read on the Baptist board, and you know I have read many

 

Yes, the King James Version was translated (in part) from the TR. The oft-repeated bit about the TR not existing at the time is a red herring.

It is understood that the TR only includes the New Testament.

It is also understood that there the KJV translators did not slavishly follow the TR. If I admit that the KJV has several hundred minor variations from the TR does it follow that I must accept the thousands of variations of the modern versions?

A.F.

 

You and I may understand the term "TR" as representing only certain Greek texts but I have seen many books, tracts, websites, and posts that not only propagate confusion of the term with the Byzantine-Majority Greek text but also with the Masoretic Hebrew text as well. They seem to use "textus receptus" as the catch-all term for their concept of any favored 'received text'.

 

No. As I have stated elsewhere, no common mainstream Bible version is completely a diplomatic edition; that is, the use of more than one source text.

Lacking the king's revisers notes it is difficult to state with absolute certainty but it seems that the AV/KJV has probably been influenced from multiple Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and other sources in both the OT and NT.

 

The KJV sources go like this:

Old Testament: Hebrew Masoretic text compared to the Latin, Greek LXX and the Syriac. With a combination of renderings

Example: Psalms 22:16 reads "they pierced my hands and feet" but the MT and jewish translations read "like a lion [they mauled] my hands and feet. But the LXX rendering was chosen. Lion being the majority MT reading with "pierced" being a minority but Dead Sea Scrolls(Nachal Hever actually) and LXX agree on "pierced" or "dug/bore into"
But here is a great a link on this verse : http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Ps22.16.pdf

And several others the stray from the MT but are found in the Latin and LXX.

New Testament: The four editions posted by EdSutton. Compiled with mss from the 10-13 centuries though some incomplete and back translated from the Latin. Revelations for example. The "TR" also contains readings not found in the majority texts or oldest Alexandrian.

Basically, its was a critical text. Just like modern versions.

 

You may not have intended it to sound like the New Testament utilized only Greek sources. Its pretty obvious that the AV used Latin and perhaps other sources in the NT; the translators certainly had access to German and other foreign versions as well as preceding English versions.

Indeed, those Greek TRs were all critical texts. And when used together they compose an 'eclectic' TR unlike any individual edition.

 

Let's not be childish by exaggerating the small deviations.
You can find KJV translated fairly accurately then current TR available at that time. I don't think TBS TR was re-written after KJV was translated, but it was the basis for KJV and it is still available as it was before KJV, and when we compare between 2, KJV and TR are almost 100% identical.

How many deviations can you point out?

In Psalm 22:16, KJV was wrong again ! It followed LXX.
I noticed this problem more often in OT than in NT.

However, the meaning Psalm 22:16 is the same at the end.

Like Lions, they are (biting) at my hand and feet.

If we look at the other translations thru such microscopic lenses, all the other translations based on WH-NA and BHS ( Biblia Hebraica Sttutgartensia) cannot be read as Bible, sounding like novels, full of errors.

 

Actually the edition of the Textus Receputus that was printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society was one that was first edited and printed by Scrivener in the 1880's or 1890's. Scrivener attempted to produce an edition of the Greek text that matched the KJV as closely as possible, and he took renderings from the various and varying editions of the Greek text edited by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza that he thought were closest to the KJV. Therefore, the TBS TR does not match exactly any one of the actual editions available to the KJV translators. It was not completely "re-written," but it does have some textual differences when compared to any one of the actual editions available to the KJV translators.

 

Perhaps you can find some who are confused somewhere.

We do have to bear in mind that the term "received text" is not limited to this narrow field. Bailey's "On the Received Text of Shakespeare's Dramatic Writings and its Improvement" is an example.

"Received text" is also sometimes used (correctly) of the Old Testament text. An example of correct usage is:

"Where the translation supposes the received text--Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be--ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary." (from http://www.usccb.org/nab/prefaceold.shtml )


Maybe we could be clear by distinguishing TR from tr.

We always have to consider the context.

 

It becomes clear now. You find my "yes" to be incomplete because the King James translators used other sources as well as the TR. I, however, find your "no" to be misleading because it suggests that they primarily used something other than the TR.

May I suggest: "The New Testament of the King James translation was based on the Greek text commonly called the Textus Receptus with consideration given to other Greek texts and the Latin Vulgate."(?)

 

That is a nice, clear, well worded explanation.

 

Psalms 22:16 was the correct decision, but I used it to show the "critical text" point. but there are others such as Psalms 8:5 that follow the LXX incorrectly.

 

So, the only correct answers to the OP are "maybe" or "who knows". There is no definite answer.

 

Are you saying or insinuating that KJV existed first. before any Greek Text TR existed? Hope not!

The preface of my TR book says the followings:

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the English Authorized Version of 1611.
.............. The preface to the 1633 Elzvir edition gave a name to this form of the text... "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum.. " The Elzvir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text,....
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.V.L., LL.D., and published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902.

If you have TBS TR, you can check the Preface as mentioned above.

From above, you can confirm the Basis for KJV was the TR with some minor changes by Theodore Beza.
Those changes are very, very minor, compared to the differences between W-H-NA Text and TR.
KJV was based on the TR which existed before Scrivener edited TR.

Textus Receptus was named by Elzvir in 1633.
However, it doesn't mean that TR didn't exist before 1633.
There had been TR since 1516, especially 1524 by Erasmus.
Only the naming was done by Elzvir.
The differences between the editions are nothing but the corrections of the few scribal errors, which is absolutely negligible compared to the huge differences between TR and WH-NA

Therefore, we can clearly understand that KJV was translated from TR ! No Doubt, Sir!

 

There were more differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus that you seem to realize. For example, the first two editions of the Textus Receptus edited by Erasmus did not include Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, and 1 John 5:7 [if compared to the KJV] along with some clauses or phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26. While the third edition edited by Erasmus added 1 John 5:7, it did not add Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36 and some of the other clauses or phrases listed. These same differences in text can also be seen in the English translations by William Tyndale and others that were based on the TR editions edited by Erasmus and in Luther's German Bible's N. T. that was also based on the same editions. Even the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible does not have the Luke 17:36 that is in the KJV since it was still not in the printed Greek N. T. edition available to the Geneva Bible translators.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills also noted that the first three editions of Stephanus also do not have Luke 17:36 (Believing Bible Study, p. 208). Hills also listed a few other differences that he considered "the most important," but he does not claim to have listed all the differences (pp. 208-209).

 

1 John 5:7 is a famous story about the Comma. It was not included there in 1,2 Erasmus, of course.

Then Mk 11:26 is omitted only in B, Aleph only. the other manuscripts over 600 have it. But Stephanus TR 1550 had it, TBS TR has it.

There is no variance in Mk 15:3 at all. Please show me if any.

Lk 17:36 is only in a part of majority texts. Stephanus TR 1550 had it! only the verse numbering was missing, of course TBS TR has it!

Where do you read Erasmus 3rd Edition?

Do you see the exaggeration of that criticism again?


Still I don't see much differences between TR.

If you compare between B and Aleph, they differ in hundreds of spots even though they belong to the same Alexandrian Texts. They differ from the TR in thousands of spots in NT. Many claims there are differences in 7,500 spots in NT between 2 groups.
You may be talking about less than 10 spots between the various editions of TR's.


In any case, again KJV is the translation from TR, TR of Beza 1598 and TR of Stephanus.

 

Psalm 22:16 was not a correct decision. KJV was wrong there, because it departed from the important principle -Word to Word Translation.

When you preach the Gospel to the Jews, they will laugh at Psalm 22:16 by KJV. In meaning the result is the same and it is OK, but a deviation from the Principle of Translation. Actually there are few supporters for KJV among the manuscripts, while over 900 states Ka-Ari, like Lion.

As for Psalm 8:5, we can stay with it unless we claim Hebrews 2:7 is wrong too.

Some Messianic Jews claim that Heb 2:7 and 11:21 might be errors caused by the translators ( They believe Hebrews was written in Hebrew by Paul, then translated by someone like Clement) Mitah of Gen 47:31 might have been mistaken as Mateh when they state Heb 11:21.

I would stay with Elohim as angels unless I get any further proof against it, or it should be God.

 

I have not recommended the Critical Greek Text or an Alexandrian Text; therefore, it does not apply to the information that I posted. I have not claimed that there are as many differences in the various editions of the TR as between the TR and the Critical Text.

There are clearly more than 10 places or spots where the various editions of the Textus Receptus differ.

KJV defender Edward Hills asserted that the KJV "agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus" (KJV Defended, p. 220; see also Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 60). D. A. Waite pointed out that Scrivener found about 190 places where the KJV translators departed from the 1598 edition of Beza (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 71). Kirk DiVietro, a KJV-only advocate, claimed: "The fact that the King James translators left the Beza text and the Stephanus text for other readings in about 25 places shows that they did not consider Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or any other printed text the final authority" (Anything But the KJB, p. 23). Hills acknowledged: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207). Doug Kutilek maintained: "In at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).



Here is the difference at Mark 15:3 as seen in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles compared to the KJV:

Mark 15:3
And the high priests accused him of many things (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's N. T., 1560 edition of Geneva Bible)

And the high priests accused him sore (1535 Coverdale's)

Mark 15:3
And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing (1611 KJV)