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

tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment

Expand Messages
  • Kerry Gilliard
    ... Robert, Normally, I d agree with your comments. In this case, I think it would be unfair to turn a discussion on the majority text into a TR discussion,
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      >------------------------------
      >
      >From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@...>
      >Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:30:42 -0500
      >Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16
      >
      >I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one
      >comment:
      >
      >On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part:
      >
      >
      >>Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence!
      >
      >Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century!
      >An amazing panoply of non-evidence.
      >
      >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
      >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
      >manuscript.
      >
      >All I will say on the subject.

      Robert,
      Normally, I'd agree with your comments. In this case, I think it would be
      unfair to turn a discussion on the majority text into a TR discussion, since
      many Majority Text advocates (ala Maurice Robinson for example) are not
      advocates of the TR, but of the Byzantine text-type (the TR is 'Byzantine'
      but the Byz is NOT the TR). This is the same error that a certain Jehovah's
      Witness made on my apologetics list recently when discussing this same issue
      (1 Tim. 3:16), unfairly lumping Byz/Maj text advocates in with KJV Only
      Advocates.
      :)


      "The man who hears Christ's words and yet builds his life
      on a rejection of that revelation is a fool (Matt. 7:26),
      and the man who suppresses God's general revelation in the
      created realm is also described as a fool (Romans 1:18).
      It is quite clear, then, that a fool is one who does not make
      God and His revelation the starting point (presupposition)
      of his thinking. Fools depsise the preaching of the cross,
      refuse to know God, and cannot recieve God's word (1 Cor. 1-2).
      The self-proclaimed autonomous man, the unbeliever, will not
      submit to the word of God or build his life and thinking upon it.
      Disbelief and ignorance of God's will, therefore, produce foolishness
      (1 Cor. 15:36; Eph. 5:17)." - Dr. Greg Bahnsen 1948 - 1995
      -----------
      Kerry Gilliard
      Founder-Director
      W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries
      e-mail: blufunk195@..., info@...
      http://apologetics.hypermart.net
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... What you say is correct -- and you ll note that I spoke of Dr. Robinson with some approval. However, Evenson is not an advocate of the Byzantine Text. He
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On 8/1/99, Kerry Gilliard wrote:

        >Robert,
        >Normally, I'd agree with your comments. In this case, I think it would be
        >unfair to turn a discussion on the majority text into a TR discussion, since
        >many Majority Text advocates (ala Maurice Robinson for example) are not
        >advocates of the TR, but of the Byzantine text-type (the TR is 'Byzantine'
        >but the Byz is NOT the TR). This is the same error that a certain Jehovah's
        >Witness made on my apologetics list recently when discussing this same issue
        >(1 Tim. 3:16), unfairly lumping Byz/Maj text advocates in with KJV Only
        >Advocates.
        >:)

        What you say is correct -- and you'll note that I spoke of Dr. Robinson
        with some approval.

        However, Evenson is not an advocate of the Byzantine Text. He is
        an advocate, specifically, of the King James Version. My comments
        were an explicit attempt to refute the TR. The Byzantine Text
        is a much different issue. Evenson invokes the Byzantine Text
        when convenient -- but what he is defending is the TR.


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

        Robert B. Waltz
        waltzmn@...

        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)
      • Jim West
        ... 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,
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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- jwest@...
          web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
        • Dave Washburn
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim West 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).

            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.


            >
            > Thanks,
            >
            > Jim
            >
            > +++++++++++++++++++++++++
            > Jim West, ThD
            > email- jwest@...
            > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
            >


            Dave Washburn
            http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
            A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
          • Mr. Helge Evensen
            ... One correction: I am NOT an advocate, SPECIFICALLY, of the KJV on THIS list! On a Bible *translation* list I may be an advocate, specifically, of the King
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Robert B. Waltz wrote:
              >
              > On 8/1/99, Kerry Gilliard wrote:
              >
              > >Robert,
              > >Normally, I'd agree with your comments. In this case, I think it would be
              > >unfair to turn a discussion on the majority text into a TR discussion, since
              > >many Majority Text advocates (ala Maurice Robinson for example) are not
              > >advocates of the TR, but of the Byzantine text-type (the TR is 'Byzantine'
              > >but the Byz is NOT the TR). This is the same error that a certain Jehovah's
              > >Witness made on my apologetics list recently when discussing this same issue
              > >(1 Tim. 3:16), unfairly lumping Byz/Maj text advocates in with KJV Only
              > >Advocates.
              > >:)
              >
              > What you say is correct -- and you'll note that I spoke of Dr. Robinson
              > with some approval.
              >
              > However, Evenson is not an advocate of the Byzantine Text. He is
              > an advocate, specifically, of the King James Version. My comments
              > were an explicit attempt to refute the TR. The Byzantine Text
              > is a much different issue. Evenson invokes the Byzantine Text
              > when convenient -- but what he is defending is the TR.

              One correction: I am NOT an advocate, SPECIFICALLY, of the KJV on THIS
              list! On a Bible *translation* list I may be an advocate, specifically,
              of the King James Version! :-)
              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).
              As to the statement "Evenson invokes the Byzantine Text
              when convenient", It's not the whole truth! What I am doing is using
              evidences that are applied to that text, for the Byz/TR texts is
              identical in so many places! So much of the Byz evidence CAN be applied
              also to the TR!

              --
              - Mr. Helge Evensen
            • Kevin W. Woodruff
              Jim: It s __The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages: The Greek and Hebrew Texts underlying the Authorised Version_. Published by the Trinitarian Bible
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                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- jwest@...
                >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)
                Cierpke@... (preferred)
                kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
              • Robert B. Waltz
                ... 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.
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 8/2/99, Dave Washburn wrote, in part:

                  >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.

                  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
                  waltzmn@...

                  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)
                • Harold P. Scanlin
                  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
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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
                    scanlin@...
                  • Jim West
                    ... Thanks very much Kevin! j. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 08:42 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
                      >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
                      >

                      Thanks very much Kevin!


                      j.

                      +++++++++++++++++++++++++
                      Jim West, ThD
                      email- jwest@...
                      web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                    • Douglas F. Salmon
                      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
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 <jwest@...>
                        > To: tc-list@...
                        > Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment
                        > Date: Monday, August 02, 1999 8:33 PM
                        >
                        > 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- jwest@...
                        > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                        >
                        >
                      • Jim West
                        ... Yes- this much I ciphered without too much difficulty... it was the abbreviation that was unfamiliar to me. ... The American branch of the TBS (not to be
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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

                          +++++++++++++++++++++++++
                          Jim West, ThD
                          email- jwest@...
                          web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                        • Kevin W. Woodruff
                          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
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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:
                            >> > 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).
                            >>
                            >> 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
                            >> >
                            >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++
                            >> > Jim West, ThD
                            >> > email- jwest@...
                            >> > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                            >> >
                            >>
                            >> Dave Washburn
                            >> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                            >> A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
                            >
                            >
                            >--
                            >- Mr. Helge Evensen
                            >
                            >
                            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)
                            Cierpke@... (preferred)
                            kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                            http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                          • Harold P. Scanlin
                            ... 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
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Helge Evensen wrote:

                              > I do not yet have a copy of this edition

                              >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.

                              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
                              scanlin@...
                            • Kevin W. Woodruff
                              I have a copy of the Hebrew-Greek bible and it does definitely contain the footnotes by Ginsburg ... Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I have a copy of the Hebrew-Greek bible and it does definitely contain the
                                footnotes by Ginsburg


                                At 03:02 PM 08/03/1999 -0400, you wrote:
                                >Helge Evensen wrote:
                                >
                                >> I do not yet have a copy of this edition
                                >
                                >>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.
                                >
                                >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
                                >scanlin@...
                                >
                                >
                                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)
                                Cierpke@... (preferred)
                                kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                                http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                              • Dave Washburn
                                ... Whatever... ... 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
                                Message 15 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Dave Washburn wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Jim West 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).
                                  > >
                                  > > 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

                                  Whatever...

                                  > 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?

                                  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.

                                  > 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"!!

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

                                  > > 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

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

                                  > 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??

                                  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.

                                  > 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!

                                  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
                                  http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                                  A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
                                • Steven Carr
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 steven@...

                                    http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
                                  • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                    ... 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 !
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Jim West 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).

                                      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
                                    • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                      ... 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
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Aug 3, 1999
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dave Washburn wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Jim West 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).
                                        >
                                        > 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
                                        > >
                                        > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                        > > Jim West, ThD
                                        > > email- jwest@...
                                        > > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > Dave Washburn
                                        > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                                        > A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.


                                        --
                                        - Mr. Helge Evensen
                                      • Kevin W. Woodruff
                                        No problem! (you ll notice only used one exclamation pint :-)) Yours in Christ, Kevin Woodruff ... Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Aug 4, 1999
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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
                                          >
                                          >
                                          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)
                                          Cierpke@... (preferred)
                                          kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                                          http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                                        • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                          ... Sorry for my misinformation regarding this edition not having any critical notes. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Aug 5, 1999
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            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
                                          • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                            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
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Aug 5, 1999
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              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!!!! :-)))))


                                              Dave Washburn wrote (in part):

                                              > I honestly don't care. My point was that the TR as commonly
                                              > 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!)

                                              > And I'm not out to "downgrade" anybody, and I really wish you
                                              > 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,
                                              > 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.

                                              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!) :))))

                                              > > 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"!!
                                              >
                                              > 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
                                              > > trustworthy representation of the original autograph text, and also a
                                              > > 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.

                                              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
                                              > > 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.

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

                                              > 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.

                                              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
                                              > 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.

                                              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
                                              > 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.

                                              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
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.