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

Textus Receptus editions

Expand Messages
  • socius72
    Has anyone ever compiled a list between editions of the Textus Receptus depicting the variants? Particularly involving versions of Stephanus 1550, Elzevirs
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 20, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Has anyone ever compiled a list between editions of the Textus Receptus depicting the variants? Particularly involving versions of Stephanus 1550, Elzevirs 1633, Oxford edition 1873 and Scrivener 1894.

      I would like to know where each of these editions may disagree with one another, particularly in the gospels.

      thanks,
      Joe
    • Jac Perrin - EPAG
      Dear Joe, I have complied lists of variants throughout most of the GNT between the Majority Text and the TR (Stephanus). I can send them to you offline via
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 21, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Joe,

        I have complied lists of variants throughout most of the GNT between the Majority Text and the TR (Stephanus). I can send them to you offline via email if you wish.

        Jac Perrin
      • Jac Perrin
        Here are all the major books. The smaller one are easier done by hand. These were done by computer using COLLATE. JP
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 22, 2010
        • 1 Attachment
        • 3.1 MB
        Here are all the major books. The smaller one are easier done by hand. These were done by computer using COLLATE.

        JP
      • wengurobo
        Some of the information you want is to be found in Appendix B of Hoskier s A Full Collation
        Message 4 of 15 , Nov 22, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Some of the information you want is to be found in Appendix B of
          Hoskier's "A Full Collation"

          http://www.archive.org/stream/afullaccountandc00hoskuoft#page/1/mode/2up

          Appendix C of the same work deals with Elzevir 1633.

          See also Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 1st edition (referred to by
          Hoskier), collation starting at

          http://www.archive.org/stream/aplainintroduct00scrigoog#page/n320/mode/1\
          up

          to which, however, Hoskier apparently made some corrections.

          Tony Pope

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "socius72" <crepuscule30@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Has anyone ever compiled a list between editions of the Textus
          Receptus depicting the variants? Particularly involving versions of
          Stephanus 1550, Elzevirs 1633, Oxford edition 1873 and Scrivener 1894.
          >
          > I would like to know where each of these editions may disagree with
          one another, particularly in the gospels.
          >
          > thanks,
          > Joe
          >
        • schmuel
          Hi Folks, ... Receptus depicting the variants? ....Stephanus 1550, Elzevirs 1633, Oxford edition 1873 and Scrivener 1894. Tony Pope ... Appendix B of Hoskier s
          Message 5 of 15 , Nov 22, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Folks,

            "socius72" (Joe) wrote:
            > Has anyone ever compiled a list between editions of the Textus Receptus depicting the variants? ....Stephanus 1550, Elzevirs 1633, Oxford edition 1873 and Scrivener 1894.

            Tony Pope
             ... Appendix B of Hoskier's "A Full Collation" > http://www.archive.org/stream/afullaccountandc00hoskuoft#page/1/mode/2up    Appendix C of the same work deals with Elzevir 1633. See also Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 1st edition (referred to by Hoskier), collation starting at http://www.archive.org/stream/aplainintroduct00scrigoog#page/n320/mode/1\up ... Hoskier apparently made some corrections. 

            Steven
            One of the more well known variants listed therein the Hoskier Collation is at:
            http://books.google.com/books?id=pigNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA64

            Luke 2:22
            And when the days of her purification
            according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
            they brought him to Jerusalem,
            to present him to the Lord;

            There is a vindication of the Complutensian and Beza Greek text (followed by some or all Geneva editions and the AV) referenced from 1713 ... any assistance in identifying or finding this article would be much appreciated.

            Memoirs of the life and works of the right honorable, and right rev. father in god Lancelot Andrewes, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester (1863)
            Arthur T. Russell
            http://books.google.com/books?id=MtQ5AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA337
            Luke ii. 22. Beza has the days of the purification of Mary, and so the Vulgate, purgationis ejus, followed by the Complutensian. But Stephens, as also Matthaei, Scholz, and Tischendorf, the days of their purification. See this reading vindicated in Surenhusii Liber (Grk)Emacs! , pp. 303, 304. Amsterdam, 1713.

            Can anyone recognize "Surenhusii Liber" ?

            ==============================

            Another interesting Luke 2:22 question has to do with ms 76.
            An example of an early reference to the ms is:

            The history of the printed Greek text of the New Testament, with the materials available for its revision considered:
            being a lecture delivered at the Hartley Institution, Southampton, Jan. 30th, 1865, with a supplement (1865)
            Willett L. Adye
            http://books.google.com/books?id=jFQRAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA11
            No. 76 of the Gospels (Acts 43, Paul 49), of eleventh century, alone supports a peculiar reading of the Complutensian and Elzevir Texts at Luke II. 22.

            The William Henry Paine Hatch  article (excellent technically, uneven conceptually and lacking important ECW references and analysis) has the ms 76 details:

            The Text of Luke II:22 (1921)
            http://books.google.com/books?id=qpcWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA380

            This ms 76 misinformation has carried through to articles on all sides of the verse discussion, including the article on the net by Daniel Wallace.

            ==============================

            The Hoskier collation book below is also available at:

            A full account and collation of the Greek cursive codex Evangelium 604 (Egerton 2610 in the British Museum): 
            with two facsimiles : together with ten appendices . (1890)
            Herman Charles Hoskier
            http://books.google.com/books?id=CigNAAAAYAAJ
            Appendix B
            http://books.google.com/books?id=pigNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA60
            Appendix C - Collation of Elzevir 1624 with Elzevir 1633
            http://books.google.com/books?id=pigNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74

            Scrivener 1861 edition collation in google is at:

            A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students (1861)
            Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
            http://books.google.com/books?id=WsMtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA304

            At times these materials are studied in an effort to give arguments against the "Received Text" positions, e.g. the view of the Dean Burgon Socieity (Donald Waite, Kirk DiVietro and others) that the Scrivener 1894 text is the supreme TR exemplar. (One Catholic Apologetics site liked to use these materials.) While Authorized Version defenders like to be familiar with the material for the same reason, showing the weakness of the TR position and also the fine developments within the Reformation Bible editions.

            ==============================

            Edward Hills summarized some of the more important variants.

            The King James Version Defended
            Chapter Eight - The Textus Receptus and the King James Version 
            http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm
            (b) The Editions of the Textus Receptus Compared ­ Their Differences Listed
            The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully listed by Scrivener (1884) and Hoskier (1890). 
            (continues)

            ==============================

            In a 1997 discussion Professor Maurice Robinson, Jim West and some others discussed the TR editions.  There are a number of posts in the discussion.

            Byzantine Editions
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tc-list/message/1411

            ==============================

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Queens, NY
          • TeunisV
            Do not forget to have a look in the apparatus of: http://www.archive.org/stream/hkaindiathknovu00nestgoog#page/n9/mode/1up Teunis van Lopik
            Message 6 of 15 , Nov 23, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Do not forget to have a look in the apparatus of:
              http://www.archive.org/stream/hkaindiathknovu00nestgoog#page/n9/mode/1up

              Teunis van Lopik

              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "socius72" <crepuscule30@...> wrote:
              >
              > Has anyone ever compiled a list between editions of the Textus Receptus depicting the variants? Particularly involving versions of Stephanus 1550, Elzevirs 1633, Oxford edition 1873 and Scrivener 1894.
              >
              > I would like to know where each of these editions may disagree with one another, particularly in the gospels.
              >
              > thanks,
              > Joe
              >
            • TeunisV
              I suppose: Biblos katallagês in quo secundum veterum theologorum Hebræorum formulas allegandi, & modos interpretandi conciliantur loca ex V. in N.T.
              Message 7 of 15 , Nov 23, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I suppose:
                Biblos katallagês in quo secundum veterum theologorum Hebræorum formulas allegandi, & modos interpretandi conciliantur loca ex V. in N.T. allegata. / By Guilielmus Surenhusius
                Amstelædami, apud J. Boom, 1713

                Titlepage: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=stcn:249349973:01

                Teunis van Lopik
              • TeunisV
                This is a way tot the pdf:
                Message 8 of 15 , Nov 23, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  This is a way tot the pdf:
                  http://books.google.nl/books?id=YzY_AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=secundum+veterum+theologorum+1713&source=bl&ots=vx0Ea_jUXV&sig=WvhGIkz1mneTGPf9XBgkA8gjb0s&hl=nl&ei=g97rTO-CJtHqObXAtHk&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q&f=false
                  I hope it will work.
                  Teunis

                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I suppose:
                  > Biblos katallag�s in quo secundum veterum theologorum Hebr�orum formulas allegandi, & modos interpretandi conciliantur loca ex V. in N.T. allegata. / By Guilielmus Surenhusius
                  > Amstel�dami, apud J. Boom, 1713
                  >
                  > Titlepage: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=stcn:249349973:01
                  >
                  > Teunis van Lopik
                  >
                • TeunisV
                  From: The Text of Luke II, 22 Author(s): W. H. P. Hatch Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1921), pp. 377-381 ... Codex 76, a Vienna
                  Message 9 of 15 , Nov 23, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From:
                    The Text of Luke II, 22 Author(s): W. H. P. Hatch
                    Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1921), pp. 377-381

                    Hatch article, p. 380 (copied from the pdf):
                    >>>>>>>>>>>
                    Codex 76, a Vienna manuscript of the twelfth or thirteenth century, is commonly cited as a witness for auths. This, however, is an error; for Gregory, who examined the codex in 1887, reports that it reads autwn in Luke 2, 22 (cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, III, 484). Codex 76 is one of the manuscripts consulted by Alter. He printed auths in Luke 2, 29 without recording the reading of this codex. Griesbach inferred from Alter's silence that abrTs was found in 76, and in order to indicate that the citation was based on inference he enclosed the number 76 in parentheses. It has been pointed out above that this manuscript really has autwn; and Alter failed to indicate this fact through carelessness. His edition is sub- stantially a reprint of 218, a thirteenth century codex in the Imperial Library in Vienna. Professor Karl Beth, of Vienna, has kindly informed me that it reads autwn in Luke 2, 22. Alter, a Roman Catholic scholar, no doubt adopted abtrs from the Complutensian-Elzevir tradition, or possibly from the Vulgate eius. Scholz, with characteristic inaccuracy, omitted Griesbach's parentheses about 76, and thenceforth auths passed into the critical tradition as the true reading of the manuscript.
                    <<<<<<<<<<<>

                    Alter's text of the Gospels is from min. 218 (imperial ms 23). This text is followed by collations of other imperial mss from Vienna. The first is min. 77. In Alter's main text (=218), p. 156: Lk 2.22: auths. At. p. 345 in the collation of min. 77: autwn, Ita Er. Mss. Hieron. Aeth. Goth. Pers. Syr. Orig. In Lat est ejus.

                    Addition to Hatch's data: In Alter's errata to vol. I, p. 1205:
                    ad p. 156: {-} auths, leg. {-} autwn, quae est lectio codicis caesarei 23., & multorum codicum caesorum.

                    So Alter corrected his error in the main text.

                    Another example of Alter's inaccuracy and Griesbach's incorrect conclusions based there upon:
                    Alter is often presenting the text of Stephanus "TR". In the case of 2Petr. 2,2 he offered the Stephanus text apooleiais (= not the text of 218). So Griesbach decided that min 218 reads also apooleiais. In the collation of min 76 Alter did not give a variant. So ex silentio Griesbach deciced: min 76 reads apooleiais too.

                    The lesson from Hatch's and mine examples: do not trust Griesbach when he provided data from Alter.

                    Teunis van Lopik
                  • TeunisV
                    And the other lesson from these examples is, that Alter s errors created two times false mss witnesses for TR variants in literature. See for 2Pet. 2,2: H.J.
                    Message 10 of 15 , Nov 23, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      And the other lesson from these examples is, that Alter's errors created two times false mss witnesses for TR variants in literature.
                      See for 2Pet. 2,2:
                      H.J. de Jonge's dissertation (Erasmus' Apol. ad Ann. Stunicae):
                      https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/1019
                      p. 251 (ad l. 418): "It is possible, then, there is no ms. evidence for Er. apooleiais whatsoever."

                      Teunis van Lopik

                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > From:
                      > The Text of Luke II, 22 Author(s): W. H. P. Hatch
                      > Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1921), pp. 377-381
                      >
                      > Hatch article, p. 380 (copied from the pdf):
                      > >>>>>>>>>>>
                      > Codex 76, a Vienna manuscript of the twelfth or thirteenth century, is commonly cited as a witness for auths. This, however, is an error; for Gregory, who examined the codex in 1887, reports that it reads autwn in Luke 2, 22 (cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, III, 484). Codex 76 is one of the manuscripts consulted by Alter. He printed auths in Luke 2, 29 without recording the reading of this codex. Griesbach inferred from Alter's silence that abrTs was found in 76, and in order to indicate that the citation was based on inference he enclosed the number 76 in parentheses. It has been pointed out above that this manuscript really has autwn; and Alter failed to indicate this fact through carelessness. His edition is sub- stantially a reprint of 218, a thirteenth century codex in the Imperial Library in Vienna. Professor Karl Beth, of Vienna, has kindly informed me that it reads autwn in Luke 2, 22. Alter, a Roman Catholic scholar, no doubt adopted abtrs from the Complutensian-Elzevir tradition, or possibly from the Vulgate eius. Scholz, with characteristic inaccuracy, omitted Griesbach's parentheses about 76, and thenceforth auths passed into the critical tradition as the true reading of the manuscript.
                      > <<<<<<<<<<<>
                      >
                      > Alter's text of the Gospels is from min. 218 (imperial ms 23). This text is followed by collations of other imperial mss from Vienna. The first is min. 77. In Alter's main text (=218), p. 156: Lk 2.22: auths. At. p. 345 in the collation of min. 77: autwn, Ita Er. Mss. Hieron. Aeth. Goth. Pers. Syr. Orig. In Lat est ejus.
                      >
                      > Addition to Hatch's data: In Alter's errata to vol. I, p. 1205:
                      > ad p. 156: {-} auths, leg. {-} autwn, quae est lectio codicis caesarei 23., & multorum codicum caesorum.
                      >
                      > So Alter corrected his error in the main text.
                      >
                      > Another example of Alter's inaccuracy and Griesbach's incorrect conclusions based there upon:
                      > Alter is often presenting the text of Stephanus "TR". In the case of 2Petr. 2,2 he offered the Stephanus text apooleiais (= not the text of 218). So Griesbach decided that min 218 reads also apooleiais. In the collation of min 76 Alter did not give a variant. So ex silentio Griesbach deciced: min 76 reads apooleiais too.
                      >
                      > The lesson from Hatch's and mine examples: do not trust Griesbach when he provided data from Alter.
                      >
                      > Teunis van Lopik
                      >
                    • C.N. Bartch
                      Speaking of the 1873 Oxford edition, is it available online anywhere? Such as on Google books or Archive.org? I did a quick search and didn t come up with
                      Message 11 of 15 , Nov 23, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Speaking of the 1873 Oxford edition, is it available online anywhere? Such as on Google books or Archive.org? I did a quick search and didn't come up with anything (not really looking for a text only option, more of a PDF scan of the original).

                        Thanks!

                        ~Chris Bartch

                        On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, socius72 <crepuscule30@...> wrote:
                         

                        Has anyone ever compiled a list between editions of the Textus Receptus depicting the variants? Particularly involving versions of Stephanus 1550, Elzevirs 1633, Oxford edition 1873 and Scrivener 1894.

                        I would like to know where each of these editions may disagree with one another, particularly in the gospels.

                        thanks,
                        Joe


                      • Mike Holmes
                        Colleagues, I have a vague recollection of having once read an article in which the author attempted to estimate how many NT MSS may have existed in antiquity.
                        Message 12 of 15 , Dec 3, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Colleagues,

                          I have a vague recollection of having once read an article in which the author attempted to estimate how many NT MSS may have existed in antiquity. At present, however, I am unable to locate it. Does anyone know of such an article, or a discussion of this topic?

                          thanks,

                          Michael

                        • Daniel B. Wallace
                          Tim Finney has done some work on this, though I don t recall if it s been published. Dan Wallace ... Sent: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:44:33 -0600 From: Mike Holmes
                          Message 13 of 15 , Dec 4, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Tim Finney has done some work on this, though I don't recall if it's been published.

                            Dan Wallace


                            ----- Start Original Message -----
                            Sent: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:44:33 -0600
                            From: Mike Holmes <holmic@...>
                            To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: [textualcriticism] Article on estimated number of NT MSS in antiquity?

                            > Colleagues,
                            > I have a vague recollection of having once read an article in which the author attempted to estimate how many NT MSS may have existed in antiquity. At present, however, I am unable to locate it. Does anyone know of such an article, or a discussion of this topic?
                            > thanks,
                            > Michael

                            ----- End Original Message -----
                          • John McChesney-Young
                            ... See _The Freer biblical manuscripts_ by Larry Hurtado, in Finney s section on manuscript markup:
                            Message 14 of 15 , Dec 4, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mike Holmes <holmic@...> wrote:

                              > > I have a vague recollection of having once read an article in which the author attempted to estimate how many NT MSS may have existed in antiquity. At present, however, I am unable to locate it. Does anyone know of such an article, or a discussion of this topic?>>

                              And on Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Daniel B. Wallace <csntm@...> wrote:

                              > Tim Finney has done some work on this, though I don't recall if it's been published.

                              See _The Freer biblical manuscripts_ by Larry Hurtado, in Finney's
                              section on manuscript markup:

                              http://books.google.com/books?id=7h-R8A9Ws0EC&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284#v=onepage&q&f=false

                              John

                              --
                              John McChesney-Young ** Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
                              JMcCYoung~at~gmail.com ** http://twitter.com/jmccyoung **
                              http://jmccyoung.blogspot.com/
                            • yennifmit
                              Hi Mike, I wrote a paragraph on the question here: Finney, Timothy J., Manuscript Markup in _The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American
                              Message 15 of 15 , Dec 5, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Mike,

                                I wrote a paragraph on the question here:

                                Finney, Timothy J., "Manuscript Markup" in _The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove_ ed. Larry W. Hurtado; SBLTCS 6 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 284.

                                There is also this:

                                http://purl.org/TC/downloads/simulation/ReadMe.html

                                Paragraphs 6 and 7 talk about my preferred way of estimating the number of MSS at a particular date (i.e. logistic function; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function ).

                                This may be more helpful:

                                http://www.tfinney.net/Hebrews/index.html

                                Part 1 of the lectures ("History: How did we get Hebrews?") is based on one set of guesses concerning numbers. Here, I assume that there was one copy of Paul's letters per church, 1000 Christians per church, a Christian population of 5000 in 33 CE, 5 million in 300 CE (i.e. 10% of the Empire's population), and a growth rate of 5% per year.

                                After doing some more work with the logistic equation, I now think that the average growth rate would have been just over 2% per year. I haven't moved much from the guess of a 10% Christian component at 300 CE. That doesn't mean that I am sure of it, just that roughly half of the people I ask think it is too high and the other half think it is too low (with due weight given to whether they know what they're talking about). Some even guess 10% when I ask. The initial population is not terribly critical: halving or doubling it doesn't make much difference to the resulting estimated total number of MSS. What does make a big difference is the guess concerning the average number of Christians per church. I don't know whether it should be 50, 500, or some other number. The estimated total is directly related to this number, meaning that my estimates could easily be out by a factor of ten.

                                I think I may have talked about numbers of copies on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog once.

                                One of these days I plan to write another copying simulation, this time using the R statistical programming language. It will be associated with chapter six of my "Analysis of Textual Variation" book:

                                http://purl.org/tfinney/ATV/

                                I need to revise chapter five first, partly because of new insights gained by the multivariate analysis results presented here:

                                http://purl.org/tfinney/Views/

                                Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to write the discussion section of the "Views" article yet but you can get an idea of my current thinking in the note at the end of section 2.11, here:

                                http://www.tfinney.net/General/intro.html

                                Best,

                                Tim Finney

                                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mike Holmes <holmic@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Colleagues,
                                > I have a vague recollection of having once read an article in which the author attempted to estimate how many NT MSS may have existed in antiquity. At present, however, I am unable to locate it. Does anyone know of such an article, or a discussion of this topic?
                                > thanks,
                                > Michael
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.