Sat Jan 4 09:36:11 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sat Jan  4 09:36:11 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA12306; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 09:34:50 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: <1.5.4.16.19970103223640.26473e56@mail.sunbelt.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 08:31:53 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Byz Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1873

Maurice Robinson , responding to Jim
West, wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote:
>
>> Yes, I found it.  The publisher is AMG Publications.  
>> 
>> The title is "he kaine diatheke" subtitled "the Greek text underlying the
>> english version of 1611".  Trinitarian Bible Society.
>> the intro says that this text follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition and is
>> identical to scrivener's edition.
>
>That is a "TR", but it most emphatically is NOT the Oxford 1825 TR which
>had previously been reprinted by Dallas Seminary.  Instead, that is the
>Scrivener 1894 TR which was artificially created by him to reflect the
>text purportedly underlying the KJV.  That text also is useless for
>text-critical purposes, and I do not recommend it, especially for
>collation, since it has over 220 differences from the Stephens 1550 text.

This reminds us of an important point: Not all TRs are the same. Yes,
they are highly similar. But not identical! Extreme editions may differ
in hundreds of places.

The Berry edition, which Robinson mentioned earlier, cites differences
between Stephanus and Elzevir (based on the comparison by Scrivener).
So do several editions of Tischendorf.

The problem is not finding editions of the TR; I have two (the Berry
edition and Scrivner's KJV reconstruction). The problem is finding
a *specific* edition of the TR. I can't remember the reading, but
I remember spending hours trying to figure out what appeared to be
a nonsensical reading in a collation. The problem turned out to be
that I was using the wrong TR edition at one of the places where the
editions split.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                  Robert B. Waltz
               waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

Back