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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.