Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: W-H draft

Expand Messages
  • Maurice Robinson
    ... During the period from 1870-1881 a prepublication draft of the WH text was definitely in the hands of the ERV committee for their consultation. I have
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:

      > When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could
      > share it with others?

      During the period from 1870-1881 a prepublication draft of the WH text was
      definitely in the hands of the ERV committee for their consultation. I
      have never seen a copy of the draft text, and wonder whether all copies
      might have been destroyed after the committee had finished its work. Does
      anyone have any enlightenment on that point?

      _________________________________________________________________________
      Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
      Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    • Maurice Robinson
      ... May we please keep the facts straight? Minton s reference is not to Codex Bezae, but to the Beza 1598 edition of the Greek NT, and yes, the KJV
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:

        > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
        >
        > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
        > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
        > > word on this?
        > >
        > Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT
        > rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16),
        > whereas the KJV team followed the "majority text". This "majority text" is
        > basically the same as the "textus receptus", which, however, was not
        > published by de Beze until 1624, after the Authorized Version of 1611.

        May we please keep the facts straight? Minton's reference is not to Codex
        Bezae, but to the Beza 1598 edition of the Greek NT, and yes, the KJV
        translators probably used that edition more than any other in print before
        the period 1604-1611 (this _teste_ Scrivener).

        Secondly, the Byzantine or "majority text" differs from any early printed
        TR edition in over 1800 places and is not "basically the same" as any of
        those early printed TR editions which basically do agree with each other
        to a much higher degree than they do with the "majority text".

        Finally, the TR 1624 was published by the Elzevirs, not by Theodore Beza.

        _________________________________________________________________________
        Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
        Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      • Ronald L. Minton
        ... Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 10, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:
          > On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:
          >
          > > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
          > >
          > > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
          > > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
          > > > word on this?
          > > >
          > > Yes, there is definitive word on this.

          Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used?


          --
          Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
          Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
        • Mike Arcieri
          ... Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used? Dr. Minton, I don t think they used _any_ Greek MSS whatsoever. They did use
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 10, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            > > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
            > >
            > > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
            > > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive

            > > > word on this?
            > > >
            > > Yes, there is definitive word on this.

            Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used?


            Dr. Minton,

            I don't think they used _any_ Greek MSS whatsoever. They did use Beza's GNT as
            the primary basis (as Robinson correctly pointed out) and they did occasionally
            use Stephanus, the Complutensian and, very rarely, Erasmus. The occasional
            textual ref in the margin obviously came from one of the printed editions. The
            only person I know of who claims the KJV translators used Greek and/or Latin MSS
            (Old Latin at that) is Peter Ruckman - and the evidence he presents for this is
            his own opinion. :-)

            Had the KJV translators used MSS, I suspect they would have made mention of this
            in their "Translators to the Reader" but they only speak about Hebrew and Greek
            texts: the title page does say "Original tongues: & with the former
            Translations diligently compared" (an obvious ref. to the Heb/Greek texts and
            various translations available to them).

            Hope this helps.

            Mike A.
          • Ronald L. Minton
            aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation. I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not seen the
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 11, 1997
            • 0 Attachment
              aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation.
              I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not
              seen the 157. What is the source of the 157, and is it accurate? My
              initial reaction is that it is not accurate, but there may be some
              evidence I do not know of. I have always taught approximately 180 or 190
              as the date. Also, do we have evidence that anyone before Cyprian used
              it? How about Irenaeus?

              --
              Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
              Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
            • willrut@uni-muenster.de
              ... My apologize for late dealing with this post. Without further references I simply fail to assess this date (A.D. 157). Some hold that Tertullian used at
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 14, 1997
              • 0 Attachment
                On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Ronald Minton wrote:

                >aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation.
                >I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not
                >seen the 157. What is the source of the 157, and is it accurate? My
                >initial reaction is that it is not accurate, but there may be some
                >evidence I do not know of. I have always taught approximately 180 or 190
                >as the date. Also, do we have evidence that anyone before Cyprian used
                >it? How about Irenaeus?

                My apologize for late dealing with this post. Without further references I
                simply fail to assess this date (A.D. 157).

                Some hold that Tertullian used at least parts of the Bible in a Latin
                translation, but his testimony is notoriously difficult to assess.

                Irenaeus wrote in Greek (around A.D. 180). Unfortunately, his work *adversus
                Haereses* has been preserved only in a slavish (and therefore poor) Latin
                translation (Greek fragments have been preserved only in one papyrus MS, in
                Euseb's Church History, and in Epiphanius' Panarion). Some ascribe this Latin
                translation to the 3rd century, others to the late 4th century. There seems to
                be some connection between Latin Irenaeus and Cyprian.
                To sum up: Irenaeus has not helped us so far in assessing the date A.D. 157.

                Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
              • William L. Petersen
                Regarding Ronald Minton s query about how the Old Latin is dated to 157 CE, and Ulrich Schmid s post, it suddenly occurs to me that what *may* lie behind the
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 14, 1997
                • 0 Attachment
                  Regarding Ronald Minton's query about how the Old Latin is dated to 157 CE,
                  and Ulrich Schmid's post, it suddenly occurs to me that what *may* lie
                  behind the date is a reference from the *Acts of the Scillitian Martyrs*.
                  They were beheaded in July 180, and during their (gentle) questioning by the
                  Roman governor, they were asked what they had in a basket. They reply "the
                  works/writings of a just man, Paul" (I'm quoting from memory here, so don't
                  hold me to the exact wording). Since the names of the martyrs are Latin,
                  and they are rustics (and Scilli was in the sticks), it is usually assumed
                  that these "writings of Paul" were in Latin translation, since the "locals"
                  probably wouldn't have been Greek-reading (or so the theory goes). This
                  would place the translation into Latin before 180, certainly, at least for
                  part(s) of the Pauline corpus. How one gets 157 *precisely* (and not 158 or
                  156) remains a mystery to me, however.

                  The Scilli evidence is mentioned (with refernces, discussion, and
                  literature) in virtually all of the studies of the NT Versions (Voeoebus,
                  Metzger, as well as the older ones [Kenyon, Souter, Gregory, etc.]), as I
                  recall.

                  --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.