Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:33:52 -0400

At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener 
>reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their 
>newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible).

Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents,
etc.  (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence).

Thanks,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- [email-masked]
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:47:00 -0700

> etc.  (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence).

TBS = Trinitarian Bible Society.  My edition of their Greek New 
Testament was printed in London but has no date or ISBN that I 
have been able to find.  It claims that it "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 Authorized Version" by Scrivener.  This they call the Textus 
Receptus.  Of course, when scholars speak of the TR, especially 
for things like collation purposes, they uniformly mean the 
Stephens 1550 edition, but apparently the TBS thinks it can 
unilaterally redefine such things to serve its own purposes.  Every 
so often I blow the dust off this thing and consult it for a reading, 
but in the main it's a curiosity, nothing more.

> Jim

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:10:46 -0500

On 8/2/99, Dave Washburn wrote, in part:

>Of course, when scholars speak of the TR, especially 

I don't think this is quite true. Tischendorf, for instance, defined
the TR as the agreement of Stephanus and Elzevir. Where they disagreed,
he cited both.

Modern collations are usually taken from the 1873 (?) Oxford edition --
which, unfortunately, is out of print. It's a problem.

It would be very nice if we could agree on ONE TR. It would make it much
easier to interpret collations. :-) But it hasn't happened yet. Though
it is perhaps more possible now than ever before, since we could distribute
it electronically, so there would be no issue of typographical errors
in reproducing an edition. 

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:31:45 -0700

> etc.  (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence).

OK. It's very simple: "....the TBS. And I thank God for their....". As 
you will notice, after thorough study of the sentence, the antecedent is 
"the TBS"!  :-)
I do not yet have a copy of this edition (but it's on the way). I do not 
have the ISBN; but this is the Ginsburg/Bomberg Hebrew Text, the 1894 
edition of the Bomberg text of 1524-25. The NT is the Scrivener 
reconstruction, same as their 1976 TR edition. I expect the NT part to be 
in a new and better type, but I am not sure about that. The price is 
£15.95 and can be ordered from the Trinitarian Bible Society, Tyndale 
House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, England.
This is a plain text edition, without critical footnotes.

It's my pleasure to give this information.  :-)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 20:24:23 -0700

Dave Washburn wrote:
> unilaterally redefine such things to serve its own purposes.

The TBS does not "redefine" anything! This *is* an edition of the TR! If 
it's wrong to call it the TR, it is also wrong to call the Stephens 1550 
edition the "TR"! For it was the Elzevirs' edition that was termed the 
"TR"! (Actually, the Elzevirs' intention apparently was not to give a 
"title" to their text. They just declared that "this is the text now 
received by all".) And the Stephens ed. *differs* from it! Today, the 
title "Textus Receptus" speaks rather of a particular form of the text 
and not just the 1633 Elzevir edition! Many other editions which differed 
from the Elzevir text were issued in the 16th and 17 centuries and 
scholars refers to them (at least the form of the text found in them) as 
the "TR" without any problem! It's only when somebody wishes to downgrade 
the integrity of TR defenders one feels "obligated" to raise such points! 
 :-)  :-) (Just observe: "....to serve its own purposes". What purposes? 
The *only* English Bible the TBS is distributing is the KJV. Their 
"purposes" is clearly to have available the Greek text underlying the 
translation they distribute! And, as far as I have been able to observe, 
most scholars do not see any problem with calling the text underlying the 
KJV the "TR"!!

> Every

"a curiosity, nothing more"?? That may be your sincere opinion, but for 
*many* students of the NT this is not so! I for one see it as a 
trustworthy representation of the original autograph text, and also a 
useful tool for detecting the exact text underlying the KJV! And 
admittedly, for most modern TC'ers it may be "a curiosity", lacking, as 
they say, "critical value". But for those that use the KJV, this is not 
the case! They have in this Greek text the *only* edition available today 
which is in (almost) all points the exact Greek text used by the KJV 
translators!! And a great many *still* use the KJV! And isn't it great 
that they have its underlying text available, to consult and study??
Also, isn't it within the scope of "TC" to be able to detect what 
readings were chosen by the KJV translators, and to compare it with the 
other "TR" editions? I have used it for these reasons numerous times!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:01:40 -0700

> The TBS does not "redefine" anything! This *is* an edition of the TR! If 

Whatever...

>  :-)  :-) (Just observe: "....to serve its own purposes". What purposes? 

I honestly don't care.  My point was that the TR as commonly 
spoken of by scholars is a particular edition, not a reconstruction.  
And I'm not out to "downgrade" anybody, and I really wish you 
wouldn't attribute such motives to me.  For whatever it's worth, 
about 20 years ago I was in your camp.  But careful study of both 
sides led me to the conclusion that there are too many fallacies 
built into the pro-TR viewpoint for me to continue taking it seriously.

> most scholars do not see any problem with calling the text underlying the 

Call it whatever you wish.  I really don't care.

> useful tool for detecting the exact text underlying the KJV! And 

The original autograph text?  That pretty well terminates any 
interest I had in this discussion.  

> that they have its underlying text available, to consult and study??

Is it?  The KJV needs to go the way of all things, partly because of 
its inferior text and partly because of its frequently-indecipherable 
language.  To be bluntly honest, I really don't care what the text 
was that underlay the KJV because the KJV is one translation 
among many, nothing more.  If you want to use it, fine.  But trying 
to push it as the original autograph text or the best translation or 
whatever has nothing to do with the scholarly purposes of this list.

> other "TR" editions? I have used it for these reasons numerous times!

So what?  That's not what I do.  I switched to the NIV about 16 
years ago and never looked back.  When my children were younger 
and in AWANA, the other kids were still forced to memorize their 
verses in KJV and most of them didn't have a clue what the 
gibberish meant.  I refused to go along and had my kids memorize 
in NIV.  They know and understand what they read and memorized. 
The TC that I do is related directly to manuscripts, not to varying 
editions of a hopelessly flawed text, the originator of which himself 
described his first edition as "precipitated rather than edited."  It's a 
non-issue with me.  I would just point out one other thing, though, 
and that is your profuse over-use of exclamation points.  What is 
that supposed to accomplish?  It doesn't make the points any 
more valid, nor does it sound scholarly or reasoned.  It is 
reminiscent of the famous preacher's note in the margin of his 
sermon: "theology weak here.  Yell like crazy!"  If you want to be 
taken seriously, the first thing to do is lose all the extraneous 
punctuation.  This kind of visual extremism is typical of KJV-only 
advocacy writings, and it's counterproductive.

Dave Washburn

---

From: Steven Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:50:42 +0100

I have a review of Thiede's book 'Eyewitness to Jesus' by Professor
J.K.Elliott of Leeds University at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/thiede.htm

-- 
Steven Carr [email-masked]

 http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 03:18:30 -0700

Dave,
I appreciate that my post stirred you up!!!!!  :-)
What I did accomplish *with* my "profuse over-use of exclamation points", 
you managed to accomplish *without* them!!!!!  :)  :)
No, you really didn't stir *me* up, for me this is just plain fun. I only 
post messages or comments to this list when I do not have *better* things 
to do or when I have time left over!!!!    :-)))))

> spoken of by scholars is a particular edition, not a reconstruction.

Yes, I see that, but I just didn't see why it has to be a "redefining" on 
the part of the TBS to call their edition the "TR" when most scholars 
(and most others as well) are referring to the text underlying the KJV 
as the TR! (No big issue, though!)

> wouldn't attribute such motives to me.

Let me apologize for indicating that your motive was to downgrade 
TR-advocates. Of course, I cannot know each individual's motives. When 
this is said, I cannot help but observing an *inconsistency* in this: 
"apparently the TBS thinks it can unilaterally redefine such things TO 
SERVE ITS OWN PURPOSES." (From your post, which I commented on. My 
emphasis.)
Maybe I should say: "I really wish you wouldn't attribute such and such 
motives to the TBS!"
So, are you asking *me* to desist from attributing such motives to *you* 
while you allow yourself to attribute doubtful motives to the TBS??!!!
(I'm sorry, but I'm not about to "lose all the extraneous
punctuation").  :-)))

> For whatever it's worth,

I have not been in any "camp" yet (other than when I am on vacation). :)
But "careful study" of both sides led me to the conclusion that the 
"pro-TR view" is the only view that fits into the Bible's teaching on 
providential preservation! (I suggest that all ye out there dost not 
answer me on that particular point, for it mayest causeth me to reply 
which in turn may resulteth in me being cast out of this list, and that 
price I am not willing to payest!)  :))))

> Call it whatever you wish.  I really don't care.

But if you really don't care about that, why did you comment on the TBS' 
"wrong" use of the title "TR" in the first place???

> I for one see it as a

So I trust that you will not comment further......
At least, it may not be any fun to do so when the interest is terminated! 
 :-)

> And isn't it great
> language.

"its inferior text"? Again, many disagree with you!
"its frequently-indecipherable language"? MANY disagree with you there!!
(even MANY *children*!)  :)¤<

> But trying

As to "the scholarly purposes of this list", I fail to see what the 
following statements from you have to do with "the scholarly purposes of 
this list":

> I switched to the NIV about 16

This *may* be relevant on a Bible *translation* list, maybe.  :)

> a hopelessly flawed text, 

"good godly men differ"

> Yell like crazy!" 

You know, it's possible to do that in writing *without* exclamation 
points, as you have proved! :)

> If you want to be

Maybe, but actually, I'm "TR-only". (We even have a Norwegian translation 
based on the TR now! But the KJV is still a favourite.)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen