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

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 08:42:25 -0400

Jim:

It's __The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages: The Greek and Hebrew
Texts underlying the Authorised Version_. Published by the Trinitarian Bible
Society. 1998.  It's a nice compact 1894/1902 Scrivener TR bound with a 1894
Massoretic Text edited by David Ginsburg. It's available from

http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/branches/us/us-intro.htm

I don't use the TR but for only $28.50, it's a whole lot less inexpensive
than UBS
Biblia Sacra Utriiusque Testamenti: EditioHebraica et Graeca at $80.99

Kevin
At 10:33 PM 08/02/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>
>
Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
Library Director/Reference Librarian
Professor of New Testament Greek
Cierpke Memorial Library
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
1815 Union Ave. 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
United States of America
423/493-4252 (office)
423/698-9447 (home)
423/493-4497 (FAX)
[email-masked] (preferred)
[email-masked] (alternate)
http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:25:52 -0400

>http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/branches/us/us-intro.htm

Thanks very much Kevin!

j.

---

From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:23:27 -0400

For checking on KJV vs. Majority text differences I use J. A. Moorman,
_When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text_, 2nd edition (Collingswood,
NJ: the bible for Today, 1988).  Moorman, of course, is a strong KJV
advocate.  His "The Manuscript Digest" seems to be a reliable guide to the
evidence. 

Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
1865 Broadway
New York, NY  10023
[email-masked]

---

From: "Douglas F. Salmon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:39:35 -0600

The text referred to as "the Scrivener reconstructio of 1881" is:

_The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in
the Authorised Version together with the variations adopted in the Revised
Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881)

This text is not what is usually referred to as the TR, but rather the
production of the Greek text underlying the the King James' translators
English rendition.  Its modern day analogue would be R. V. G. Tasker, _The
Greek New Testament: being the text translated in The New English Bible_. 
Scrivener started, as the basis of this edition, with Beza's fifth and last
text of 1598, since according to Scrivener, this text "was more likely than
any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted
by them as the best standard within their reach" (preface, vii). 
Scrivener's text was reprinted several times, and also appeared in a
different version from Cambridge University Press: _The Parallel New
Testament Greek and English_, 1892.

Scrivener also produced an edition of Stephanus' edition of 1550, entitled:
_E Kaine Diatheke_ Cambridge, Deighton, Bell, 1860.  This was reprinted at
least eight times, in four editions, the last (4th ed., 1906) being
corrected by Eberhard Nestle.

The TR used for most collation purposes is the Oxford: Clarendon Press
edition of 1873, which is a reprint of Charles Lloyd's Oxford ed. of 1828,
which derives from Mill (1707) which is based on Stephanus (1550).

----------
> From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment
> Date: Monday, August 02, 1999 8:33 PM
>

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 13:27:32 -0400

At 07:31 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote:

>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"!  :-)

Yes- this much I ciphered without too much difficulty... it was the
abbreviation that was unfamiliar to me.

>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.

The American branch of the TBS (not to be confused with Trinity Broadcasting
I presume!!!!!) has it as well- as Kevin pointed out in an earlier post.

>This is a plain text edition, without critical footnotes.

Excellent.

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

And my honor to receive it.
Even though I am no fan of the TR I have ordered a copy just because of the
price.  Who can pass up a book that only costs 28$  ????

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:55:53 -0400

Actually the King James translators used at least four different printed
editions of the Greek test

1. The Stephanus text of 1550

2.The Beza editon of 1589

3.The Complutensian Polyglot of 1514-1522

4. The various editons of Erasmus (1516, 1519 etc.)

According to Scrivener these texts exhibit 128 variants. The King James
translators follwed Beza against Stephanus 81 times, Stephanus agianst Beza
21 times, the Complutensian Polyglot against Stephanus and Beza 19 times,
and erasmus agains Stephanus and Beza seven times. Three times they followed
theLatin Vulgate against all Greek editions and once the inadvertantly
failed to follow any known authority.

The three places that the KJV followed the Latin instead of the TR is:

 Acts 19:20 "the Greek editions read "the word of the Lord:" but the KJV has
the "word of God"

Ephesian 6:24 the KJV 1611 has "in sinceritie" but the Greek editions read "
in sincerity , Amen" (This was later corrected in a subsequent revision of
the KJV)

2 Timothy 1:18 the KJV reads "he ministered unto me. the Greek editions read
"he ministered." the added words remain in the KJV uncorrected, i.e. without
italics.

In one place the KJV translators emended the Greek text without any known
authority. In Hebrews 10:23 the KJV had "profession of our faith" wheas the
Greek editions read" profession of our hope."

In the Hebrew there are at least 228 deviations from the Bomberg's Second
Rabbinic Bible.  Massoretic Hebrew Texts, where the KJV tranlsators prefered
Massoretic notes, the Aramaic Targums,  the Septuagint, the Syraic,  the
Vulgate, or even Jewish traditional readings over the over the Masoretic Text

for more information see the preface to  Scrivener's_The  Cambridge
Paragraph Bible_, Cambridge: Cambridge University press 1873. pages c-ciii.

At 08:24 PM 08/03/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Dave Washburn wrote:
>> Jim West wrote:
>> 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.
>
>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
>> 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.
>
>"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!
>
>> 
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> Dave Washburn
>> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
>> A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
>
>
>-- 
>- Mr. Helge Evensen
>
>

---

From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:02:57 -0400

Helge Evensen wrote:

> I do not yet have a copy of this edition 

>this is the Ginsburg/Bomberg Hebrew Text, the 1894 

> This is a plain text edition, without critical footnotes.

I have not seen this new Hebrew-Greek combination edition, either, but
assuming it is a straight reprint of the TBS Ginsburg edition of 1894, it
does contain footnotes.  Ginsburg presents a "diplomatic edition" of the
Bomberg text and records in the footnotes variants found in  numerous
standard printed editions.  Ginsburg's later multivolume edition has an
expanded apparatus which reports variants in some manuscripts and even more
printed editions. 

Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
1865 Broadway
New York, NY  10023
[email-masked]

---

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 21:28:32 -0400

No problem! (you'll notice only used one exclamation pint :-))

Yours in Christ,

Kevin Woodruff

At 01:23 AM 08/05/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Kevin W. Woodruff wrote:
>> 
>> I have a copy of the Hebrew-Greek bible and it does definitely contain the
>> footnotes by Ginsburg
>
>Sorry for my misinformation regarding this edition not having any 
>critical notes.
>
>-- 
>- Mr. Helge Evensen
>
>