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

[textualcriticism] what is the "Received Text" ? - Stephanus 1550 and Elzevir 1624 flawed definition

Expand Messages
  • Steven Avery
    Hi, We know the phrase Received Text has a few definitions. One that is used in textual circles is exceedingly narrow, like this: Stephanus 1550 in England
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      We know the phrase Received Text has a few definitions. 
       
      One that is used in textual circles is exceedingly narrow, like this:
                                         "Stephanus 1550 in England and Elzevir 1624 on the continent"
       This oversimplification leads to misleading readers.

      Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1912)
      Sir Frederic George Kenyon
      http://books.google.com/books?id=Y18wAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA272
      if the Stephanus of 1550 set up the standard which has been generally followed in England, the Elzevir of 1624 performed the same service for the Continent.

      The Ancestry of Our English Bible: An Account of Manuscripts, Texts, & Versions of the Bible (1906)
      Ira Maurice Price
      http://archive.org/stream/ancestryourengl02pricgoog#page/n278/mode/2up
      Stephanus ... third edition, a Paris folio, issued in 1550, is practically the " Textus Receptus " of the Greek New Testament, which has  held its place in England from that day to this. The "Textus Receptus" on the continent has been the Elzevir edition printed at Leyden in 1624. It was based on Stephanus, revised by the use of texts published by Beza in 1565-1611

      Stephanus' third edition became for many persons, especially in England, the received or standard text of the Greek Testament. (The Text of the New Testament, Metzger, 1968)

      Ira Maurice Price (following Kenyon in his 1897 "Our Bible and the ancient manuscripts: being a history of the text and its translations") is referring to Beza publishing after he was deceased in 1605. His last edition was 1598, anything after that is a reprint. Notice that Kenyon was very mild with his early wording "generally followed".  However today it is often formalized, as if it is ok to say a phrase is not in "the received text" simply if it is not in those two editions.

      We have at least one verse that supplies a very good test, and possible falsification, of the classification.

      1 John 2:23
      Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
      (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

      The second half of the verse was properly in the later Beza editions, but it was not in any Stephanus editions, nor the Elzevirs.  The first Beza edition with the text was 1582. And if we look at Reformation Bible editions, Received Text based, after 1600, generally they have the text.

      include
      English - (1611) Authorized Version (special font)
      French  - of the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s - David Martin and Ostervald and Segond.
      Italian - Diodati (1603)
      Portuguese - Almeida (1681)

      omit
      Dutch Statenvertaling Bible (1637)

      And I am not looking at the 1500s here, since they tend to predate the Beza 1582 inclusion. Thus later Spanish Bibles tend to keep their inclusion from the 1500s, while Luther Bibles tend to keep their omission from the 1500s (Luther using an Erasmus edition).  And, of early GNT editions, only Colineaus had the phrase, so the inclusion decision-making would be a little different, in some cases with more Vulgate influence. 

      Granted, it would be good to know about the Czech and Romanian and Polish and other Bibles, but it is clear that the verse is often included. Here is the type of writing that works with the limited and dubious idea of the Received Text.

      Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography  (1981)
      Bruce M. Metzger 
      http://books.google.com/books?id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA21
      .... In 1 John 2:23 the Textus Receptus, following the later manuscripts, lacks the words
      o omologwn ton uion kai ton patera ecei  —

      However, most people throughout the world reading Bibles from the Received Text do not lack any words.  Any implication of Received Text error does not match up with the facts on the ground.

      So why do most Received Text Bibles not follow what is today called "the Received Text" ?  In some cases, possibly the influence of the Authorized Version as a Received Text exemplar, looking at the Synod of Dort report.  Perhaps the Beza edition was well-known and utilized. The scholars on these Bibles may have simply been rather savvy. 

      Or maybe the term simply never should have been applied to any two editions. Suggestion : the whole idea of making one English Received Text edition and one Continental Received Text edition should simply be scrapped.

       (Unless it can be shown to really match up with many "facts on the grounds", which it surely does not do on 1 John 2:23b.)

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Queens, NY
      Queens, NY
    • ron minton
      Since there are hundreds of variations and a number of editions, it only makes sense to say the TR is either: 1. The name that came to be applied to the
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 14, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Since there are hundreds of variations and a number of editions, it only makes sense to say the "TR" is either: 
        1. The name that came to be applied to the Elzevirs' 1633 second edition 
        or
        2. A generic name for any printed Greek NT that was similar to that of Erasmus.  The Elzevir editions differed little, but some.  See below if they come through.

         # Reference 1624 1633
         1 Matt.10:19 λαλήσητε (aor. subj.) λαλήσετε (fut. ind.)
         2 Mark 3:10 αὐτ (dat.) αὐτο (gen.)
         3 Mark 4:18 οτοί εἰσιν omit
         4 Mark 8:24 ὅτι and ὁρ omit
         5 Mark 9:30 ἵνα τὶς τὶς ἵνα
         6 Luke 11:33 κρυπτήν (closet) κρυπτόν (hidden)
         7 Luke 12:20 ἄφρων (nom.) ἄφρον (voc.)
         8 John 3:6 γεγενημένον (2nd) (exists) γεγεννημένον (2nd) (is born)
         9 John 4:8 Οἱ-ἀγοράσωσι omit?
        10 John 4:14 γενήσεται (shall become) γεννήσεται (will beget)
        11 John 4:21 ὅτι (before ἔρχεται) ὅτε
        12 John 5:2 κολυμβήθρα (nom.) κολυμβήθρᾳ (dat.)
        13 John 20:15 ᾀρ ἀρ (fut. of αἴρω)
        14 Acts 5:28 τούτῳ (dat.) τούτου (gen.)
        15 Acts 17:18 τν Στωϊκν Στωϊκν
        16 Acts 27:13 ἄσσον (adv.) (near) Ασσον (city name)
        17 Rom. 6:4 εἰς θάνατον (Some like 1633) εἰς τὸν θάνατον
        18 Rom. 11:31 ἡμετέρῳ (our) ὑμετέρῳ (your)
        19 1 Cor. 9:2 ἀποστολς (apostleship) ἐπιστολς (epistle)
        20 2 Cor. 6:16 ἐν αὐτος καὶ αὐτος 
        21 Col. 1:7 ὑμν (after ὑπέρ) (for you) ἡμν (for us)
        22 Col. 4:7 ὑμν ἡμν
        23 2 Tim. 1:12 παραθήκην παρακαταθήκην
        24 Heb. 9:12 εὑρόμενος εὑράμενος 
        25 2 Pet. 1:1 σωτρος ἡμν σωτρος
        26 Rev. 16:5 ὅσιος (holy one) ἐσόμενος (shall be)

        The 1633 TR had 26 changes from the 1624 - De Jonge, "Jeremias Hoelzlin," pp. 120-21.

        Ron Minton - Ukraine 

        On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Steven Avery <stevenavery@...> wrote: 

        Hi,
        We know the phrase Received Text has a few definitions. 
         
        One that is used in textual circles is exceedingly narrow, like this:
                                           "Stephanus 1550 in England and Elzevir 1624 on the continent"
         This oversimplification leads to misleading readers.

        Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1912)
        Sir Frederic George Kenyon
        http://books.google.com/books?id=Y18wAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA272
        if the Stephanus of 1550 set up the standard which has been generally followed in England, the Elzevir of 1624 performed the same service for the Continent.

        The Ancestry of Our English Bible: An Account of Manuscripts, Texts, & Versions of the Bible (1906)
        Ira Maurice Price
        http://archive.org/stream/ancestryourengl02pricgoog#page/n278/mode/2up
        Stephanus ... third edition, a Paris folio, issued in 1550, is practically the " Textus Receptus " of the Greek New Testament, which has  held its place in England from that day to this. The "Textus Receptus" on the continent has been the Elzevir edition printed at Leyden in 1624. It was based on Stephanus, revised by the use of texts published by Beza in 1565-1611

        Stephanus' third edition became for many persons, especially in England, the received or standard text of the Greek Testament. (The Text of the New Testament, Metzger, 1968)

        Ira Maurice Price (following Kenyon in his 1897 "Our Bible and the ancient manuscripts: being a history of the text and its translations") is referring to Beza publishing after he was deceased in 1605. His last edition was 1598, anything after that is a reprint. Notice that Kenyon was very mild with his early wording "generally followed".  However today it is often formalized, as if it is ok to say a phrase is not in "the received text" simply if it is not in those two editions.

        We have at least one verse that supplies a very good test, and possible falsification, of the classification.

        1 John 2:23
        Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
        (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

        The second half of the verse was properly in the later Beza editions, but it was not in any Stephanus editions, nor the Elzevirs.  The first Beza edition with the text was 1582. And if we look at Reformation Bible editions, Received Text based, after 1600, generally they have the text.

        include
        English - (1611) Authorized Version (special font)
        French  - of the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s - David Martin and Ostervald and Segond.
        Italian - Diodati (1603)
        Portuguese - Almeida (1681)

        omit
        Dutch Statenvertaling Bible (1637)

        And I am not looking at the 1500s here, since they tend to predate the Beza 1582 inclusion. Thus later Spanish Bibles tend to keep their inclusion from the 1500s, while Luther Bibles tend to keep their omission from the 1500s (Luther using an Erasmus edition).  And, of early GNT editions, only Colineaus had the phrase, so the inclusion decision-making would be a little different, in some cases with more Vulgate influence. 

        Granted, it would be good to know about the Czech and Romanian and Polish and other Bibles, but it is clear that the verse is often included. Here is the type of writing that works with the limited and dubious idea of the Received Text.

        Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography  (1981)
        Bruce M. Metzger 
        http://books.google.com/books?id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA21
        .... In 1 John 2:23 the Textus Receptus, following the later manuscripts, lacks the words
        o omologwn ton uion kai ton patera ecei  —

        However, most people throughout the world reading Bibles from the Received Text do not lack any words.  Any implication of Received Text error does not match up with the facts on the ground.

        So why do most Received Text Bibles not follow what is today called "the Received Text" ?  In some cases, possibly the influence of the Authorized Version as a Received Text exemplar, looking at the Synod of Dort report.  Perhaps the Beza edition was well-known and utilized. The scholars on these Bibles may have simply been rather savvy. 

        Or maybe the term simply never should have been applied to any two editions. Suggestion : the whole idea of making one English Received Text edition and one Continental Received Text edition should simply be scrapped.

         (Unless it can be shown to really match up with many "facts on the grounds", which it surely does not do on 1 John 2:23b.)

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
        Queens, NY

      • bucksburg
        ... 1. The name that came to be applied to the Elzevirs 1633 second edition or 2. A generic name for any printed Greek NT that was similar to that of Erasmus.
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 15, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, ron minton wrote:
          >> Since there are hundreds of variations and a number of editions, it only makes sense to say the "TR" is either:
          1. The name that came to be applied to the Elzevirs' 1633 second edition
          or
          2. A generic name for any printed Greek NT that was similar to that of
          Erasmus. The Elzevir editions differed little, but some. See below if
          they come through.<<

          They came through in email, but not the online forum.

          Definitions are descriptive, not proscriptive. And 'Textus Receptus' as it is used in a current setting (rather than a historical one as you prefer), means one thing and nothing else: Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, which reflects the textual choices of the King James Translators.

          Daniel
        • ron minton
          Actually Daniel, the modern norm is more likely the Oxford 1825, which, I believe, is still the international norm for comparison/collation work. I am sure it
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 15, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually Daniel, the modern norm is more likely the Oxford 1825, which, I believe, is still the international norm for comparison/collation work.  I am sure it is close to  Scrivener's.
            Personally, I never hear anyone refer to the TR as the 1894 text behind the KJV (except for a few KJVO kooks).  That would be a totally artificial text worth nothing since the KJV guys did not follow just one edition of the TR.  Therefore using the term TR for the 1894 text is not descriptive; it is proscriptive.
            Ron Minton


            On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM, bucksburg <bucksburg@...> wrote:

            In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, ron minton wrote:
            >> Since there are hundreds of variations and a number of editions, it only makes sense to say the "TR" is either:
            1. The name that came to be applied to the Elzevirs' 1633 second edition
            or
            2. A generic name for any printed Greek NT that was similar to that of
            Erasmus. The Elzevir editions differed little, but some. See below if
            they come through.<<

            They came through in email, but not the online forum.

            Definitions are descriptive, not proscriptive. And 'Textus Receptus' as it is used in a current setting (rather than a historical one as you prefer), means one thing and nothing else: Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, which reflects the textual choices of the King James Translators.

            Daniel
          • Steven Avery
            Hi, While we are discussing what is the TR . Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener s (1813-1891) TR-AV edition (sometimes called a reconstructed edition) is often
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 15, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi,

              While we are discussing "what is the TR".

              Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener's (1813-1891) TR-AV edition (sometimes called a reconstructed edition) is often dated to 1894, by many authors.  Which is simply not the original publication date.  Not even close, as Scrivener had been deceased three years and the text had been published time and again before 1894. Rarely is the text given the proper date, except occasionally in bibliography works.

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


              Scrivener TR Given as 1894

              First, an early listing from 1908.

              Bibliography for study of New Testament Greek (1908)
              Archibald Thomas Robertson  (1863-1934)
              http://books.google.com/books?id=16cUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18
              Scrivener (1894) gives Textus Receptus with variations of the Revised Version.

              Now a generally accurate site.

              The Textus Receptus - Robert Waltz
              http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html
              Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894

              The next five are specialty books and articles about the AV. 
              None of them, pro and contra the AV, gets the original year or editions right.

              Trinitarian Bible Society - Quarterly Record
              The Received Text - A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus (1999)
              by G. W. and D. K. Anderson
              http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.pdf
              In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.
               
              Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (2000)
              Thomas Holland
              http://books.google.com/books?id=Lr-9GG3y6dMC&pg=PA7
              The Textus Receptus used by the translators of the King James Version was that of Theodore de Beza (1589 and 1598). The basic text of this edition has been reproduced by The Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) and is entitled. The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 16II. This was based on the work by F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version (Cambridge University Press, 1894 and 1902).

              One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (2001)
              Frequently Asked Questions on the Translation Controversy - Appendix A
              Kevin T. Bauder
              http://books.google.com/books?id=uQWTxDdIO6IC&pg=PA174
              It is based on the work of Frederick Scrivener, who compiled a new edition of the Textus Receptus in 1894 (it was reprinted in 1902). 

              King James Onlyism: A New Sect (2006)
              James D. Price
              http://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA261
              The eclectic Greek text underlying the Authorized Version remained imprinted until the middle of the nineteenth century when it was edited and published by Oxford Press; the text was again edited by F. H. A. Scrivener and published by Cambridge Press. 
              26  F. H. A. Scrivener, ed.. The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed by the Authorized Version (London: Cambridge University Press. 1894 and 1902).

              John Kohlenberger is the only one earlier than 1896, and he had it as 1890

              Translation that Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible (2009)
              The Textual Sourees of the King James Bible
              John R Kohlenberger III
              http://books.google.com/books?id=l8ZO1RryaLoC&pg=PA44
              .. F H. A. Scriveners voluminous nineteenth-century editions of the KJV (Cambridge Parallel Bible, 1873) and its presumed New Testament Text (The New Testament in Greek, Cambridge, 1890,1893,1894 editions).


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

              Scrivener TR-AV Editions

              However, all this should be corrected.
              The first year was 1881:

              1881
              The New Testament in the original Greek: according to the text followed in the Authorized version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised version (1881)
              Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - 656 pages - Cambridge University Press
              http://books.google.com/books?id=bqA9AAAAYAAJ

              Note that the 1894 simply keeps the earlier Preface.  The appendix in both editions starts on p. 648. A quick check indicates the difference is the type-setting in the appendix. 

              1894
              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 (1894) -
              Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - 658 pages - Cambridge University Press
              http://books.google.com/books?id=Ih43AAAAMAAJ
              http://archive.org/details/newtestamentinor00scri

              Here is the internal difference, which does not change the text:

              NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION
              In this edition it has not been thought necessary to indicate variations from Beza by the mark *, the Appendix, which is retained, sufficiently shewing the passages in question; moreover in lieu of using thicker type to indicate readings which have not been used by the Revisers spaced type has been adopted.

              (pic of note) - http://archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00scri#page/n15/mode/2up
              Emacs!

              Next, previous editions are listed in 1908.  Incompletely, note the 1894 is missing, probably also 1882 and 1902.  And they took out "the original", likely in deference to the Hortians.

              1908
              The New Testament in Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised version (1908) - 656 pages
              Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - Cambridge University Press
              http://books.google.com/books?id=z5hUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP8
              (1881x3) (1883) (1884) (1886) (1890) (1908)

              In a reprint edition, Cambridge University Press got the original date right in 2010 (the rest of the description is awkward).

              2010
              The New Testament in Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version (2010)
              http://books.google.com/books?id=vxienv9wHYAC
              This volume, first published in 1881, is an edition of the Greek text underlying the Revised Version of the New Testament, also published in 1881
               
              The Logos software, Maurice Robinson morphology, edition, has the misleading 1894 date, which is not when the text first appeared.

              This text first appeared under the editorship of F. H. A. Scrivener as �The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version� (Cambridge: University Press, 1894, rep. ed. 1902). Scrivener�s text has been reprinted in the Greek New Testament published by the Trinitarian Bible Society as � : The New Testament. The Greek Text underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977).
              http://library.logos.com/article/LLS$1.0.326?ArticleId=FRONT&contentType=html

              Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) With Morphology
              by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Maurice A. Robinson
              http://www.logos.com/product/1801/scriveners-textus-receptus-1894-with-morphology

              Scrivener's editorship was clearly earlier, and the text first appeared in 1881.

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


              Question, solution:
              Is there any reason this should not be called the Scrivener 1881 TR-AV edition ?

              TR-AV is my designation, substitute as desired.
              And if you really want 1894, then designate 2nd edition, and preferably also mention the 1881 date.

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


              Additional Notes

              From the research so far (gone over on a web forum or two), all of these are distinct from the Palmer editions, which use the earlier Scrivener-Stephanus edition, and have titles like this:

              The parallel New Testament Greek and English : The New Testament of our lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, being the authorized version set forth in 1611, arranged in parallel columns with the revised version of 1881 and with the original Greek according to the text followed in the authorised version, with the variations adopted in the revised version (1882)
              http://archive.org/details/parallelnewtesta00scri

              It is easy to get confused between the Stephanus-Scrivener editions, starting with:

              He Kaine Diatheke (1860)
              http://books.google.com/books?id=nZ0NAAAAYAAJ

              the Palmer editions, and the TR-AV editions. My hope is that this post will clarify one significant part of this discussion, the genesis of the TR-AV edition, and its history in the first decades.

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


              Purpose of Scrivener TR-AV Edition

              As a sidenote, I think it should be recognized that this Scrivener TR-AV edition was done for the Revision.

              PREFACE
              The special design of this volume is to place clearly before the reader the variations from the Greek text represented by the Authorised Version of the New Testament which have been embodied in the Revised Version.  

              While TR defenders might like the text, as a crisp Greek edition, they should recognize that the purpose of the text was to act as a kind of crutch to the Revision, to give the appearance that the Revision was still in a sense based on the historic Greek text. The purpose was not to present the pristine, autographic Greek text that might be lifted up by a TR defender.

              In this context, the position of Edward Freer Hills (1912-1981) is interesting, both because of the bypassing of the Scrivener edition, and how he defines the AV a TR edition (per our current discussion).

              The King James Version Defended
              Chapter Eight - The Textus Receptus and the King James Version
              http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm
              (a) The King James Version a Variety of the Textus Receptus
              The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot.... the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

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

              Gold Star

              Note, I just found one site that noticed this problem, and uses the proper date.  I'll contact them with the additional info above, and my compliments to the site.

              Theopedia - An Encyclopedia of Christianity.
              Textus Receptus
              Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881)
              http://www.theopedia.com/Textus_Receptus
              This Scrivener 1881 text is supposedly identical to the 1894 edition which was published posthumously and has been reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

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

              Your thoughts appreciated.

              Shalom,
              Steven Avery

              Bayside, NY
            • Johnny Hawkins
              Is all this info collected somewhere more permanent than this e-mail? It s very informative! Johnny ... From: Steven Avery Subject:
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 16, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Is all this info collected somewhere more permanent than this e-mail? It's very informative!
                Johnny

                --- On Wed, 8/15/12, Steven Avery <stevenavery@...> wrote:

                From: Steven Avery <stevenavery@...>
                Subject: [textualcriticism] TR-1894 edition better listed as: 'Scrivener 1881 TR-AV edition'
                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2012, 11:25 PM

                 

                Hi,

                While we are discussing "what is the TR".

                Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener's (1813-1891) TR-AV edition (sometimes called a reconstructed edition) is often dated to 1894, by many authors.  Which is simply not the original publication date.  Not even close, as Scrivener had been deceased three years and the text had been published time and again before 1894. Rarely is the text given the proper date, except occasionally in bibliography works.

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


                Scrivener TR Given as 1894

                First, an early listing from 1908.

                Bibliography for study of New Testament Greek (1908)
                Archibald Thomas Robertson  (1863-1934)
                http://books.google.com/books?id=16cUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18
                Scrivener (1894) gives Textus Receptus with variations of the Revised Version.

                Now a generally accurate site.

                The Textus Receptus - Robert Waltz
                http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html
                Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894

                The next five are specialty books and articles about the AV. 
                None of them, pro and contra the AV, gets the original year or editions right.

                Trinitarian Bible Society - Quarterly Record
                The Received Text - A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus (1999)
                by G. W. and D. K. Anderson
                http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.pdf
                In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.
                 
                Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (2000)
                Thomas Holland
                http://books.google.com/books?id=Lr-9GG3y6dMC&pg=PA7
                The Textus Receptus used by the translators of the King James Version was that of Theodore de Beza (1589 and 1598). The basic text of this edition has been reproduced by The Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) and is entitled. The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 16II. This was based on the work by F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version (Cambridge University Press, 1894 and 1902).

                One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (2001)
                Frequently Asked Questions on the Translation Controversy - Appendix A
                Kevin T. Bauder
                http://books.google.com/books?id=uQWTxDdIO6IC&pg=PA174
                It is based on the work of Frederick Scrivener, who compiled a new edition of the Textus Receptus in 1894 (it was reprinted in 1902). 

                King James Onlyism: A New Sect (2006)
                James D. Price
                http://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA261
                The eclectic Greek text underlying the Authorized Version remained imprinted until the middle of the nineteenth century when it was edited and published by Oxford Press; the text was again edited by F. H. A. Scrivener and published by Cambridge Press. 
                26  F. H. A. Scrivener, ed.. The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed by the Authorized Version (London: Cambridge University Press. 1894 and 1902).

                John Kohlenberger is the only one earlier than 1896, and he had it as 1890

                Translation that Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible (2009)
                The Textual Sourees of the King James Bible
                John R Kohlenberger III
                http://books.google.com/books?id=l8ZO1RryaLoC&pg=PA44
                .. F H. A. Scriveners voluminous nineteenth-century editions of the KJV (Cambridge Parallel Bible, 1873) and its presumed New Testament Text (The New Testament in Greek, Cambridge, 1890,1893,1894 editions).


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

                Scrivener TR-AV Editions

                However, all this should be corrected.
                The first year was 1881:

                1881
                The New Testament in the original Greek: according to the text followed in the Authorized version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised version (1881)
                Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - 656 pages - Cambridge University Press
                http://books.google.com/books?id=bqA9AAAAYAAJ

                Note that the 1894 simply keeps the earlier Preface.  The appendix in both editions starts on p. 648. A quick check indicates the difference is the type-setting in the appendix. 

                1894
                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 (1894) -
                Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - 658 pages - Cambridge University Press
                http://books.google.com/books?id=Ih43AAAAMAAJ
                http://archive.org/details/newtestamentinor00scri

                Here is the internal difference, which does not change the text:

                NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION
                In this edition it has not been thought necessary to indicate variations from Beza by the mark *, the Appendix, which is retained, sufficiently shewing the passages in question; moreover in lieu of using thicker type to indicate readings which have not been used by the Revisers spaced type has been adopted.

                (pic of note) - http://archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00scri#page/n15/mode/2up
                Emacs!

                Next, previous editions are listed in 1908.  Incompletely, note the 1894 is missing, probably also 1882 and 1902.  And they took out "the original", likely in deference to the Hortians.

                1908
                The New Testament in Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised version (1908) - 656 pages
                Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - Cambridge University Press
                http://books.google.com/books?id=z5hUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP8
                (1881x3) (1883) (1884) (1886) (1890) (1908)

                In a reprint edition, Cambridge University Press got the original date right in 2010 (the rest of the description is awkward).

                2010
                The New Testament in Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version (2010)
                http://books.google.com/books?id=vxienv9wHYAC
                This volume, first published in 1881, is an edition of the Greek text underlying the Revised Version of the New Testament, also published in 1881
                 
                The Logos software, Maurice Robinson morphology, edition, has the misleading 1894 date, which is not when the text first appeared.

                This text first appeared under the editorship of F. H. A. Scrivener as “The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version” (Cambridge: University Press, 1894, rep. ed. 1902). Scrivener’s text has been reprinted in the Greek New Testament published by the Trinitarian Bible Society as “ : The New Testament. The Greek Text underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977).
                http://library.logos.com/article/LLS$1.0.326?ArticleId=FRONT&contentType=html

                Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) With Morphology
                by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Maurice A. Robinson
                http://www.logos.com/product/1801/scriveners-textus-receptus-1894-with-morphology

                Scrivener's editorship was clearly earlier, and the text first appeared in 1881.

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


                Question, solution:
                Is there any reason this should not be called the Scrivener 1881 TR-AV edition ?

                TR-AV is my designation, substitute as desired.
                And if you really want 1894, then designate 2nd edition, and preferably also mention the 1881 date.

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


                Additional Notes

                From the research so far (gone over on a web forum or two), all of these are distinct from the Palmer editions, which use the earlier Scrivener-Stephanus edition, and have titles like this:

                The parallel New Testament Greek and English : The New Testament of our lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, being the authorized version set forth in 1611, arranged in parallel columns with the revised version of 1881 and with the original Greek according to the text followed in the authorised version, with the variations adopted in the revised version (1882)
                http://archive.org/details/parallelnewtesta00scri

                It is easy to get confused between the Stephanus-Scrivener editions, starting with:

                He Kaine Diatheke (1860)
                http://books.google.com/books?id=nZ0NAAAAYAAJ

                the Palmer editions, and the TR-AV editions. My hope is that this post will clarify one significant part of this discussion, the genesis of the TR-AV edition, and its history in the first decades.

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


                Purpose of Scrivener TR-AV Edition

                As a sidenote, I think it should be recognized that this Scrivener TR-AV edition was done for the Revision.

                PREFACE
                The special design of this volume is to place clearly before the reader the variations from the Greek text represented by the Authorised Version of the New Testament which have been embodied in the Revised Version.  

                While TR defenders might like the text, as a crisp Greek edition, they should recognize that the purpose of the text was to act as a kind of crutch to the Revision, to give the appearance that the Revision was still in a sense based on the historic Greek text. The purpose was not to present the pristine, autographic Greek text that might be lifted up by a TR defender.

                In this context, the position of Edward Freer Hills (1912-1981) is interesting, both because of the bypassing of the Scrivener edition, and how he defines the AV a TR edition (per our current discussion).

                The King James Version Defended
                Chapter Eight - The Textus Receptus and the King James Version
                http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm
                (a) The King James Version a Variety of the Textus Receptus
                The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot.... the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

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

                Gold Star

                Note, I just found one site that noticed this problem, and uses the proper date.  I'll contact them with the additional info above, and my compliments to the site.

                Theopedia - An Encyclopedia of Christianity.
                Textus Receptus
                Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881)
                http://www.theopedia.com/Textus_Receptus
                This Scrivener 1881 text is supposedly identical to the 1894 edition which was published posthumously and has been reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

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

                Your thoughts appreciated.

                Shalom,
                Steven Avery

                Bayside, NY

              • Daniel Buck
                From:Steven Avery  The first year was 1881: 1881 The New Testament in the original Greek: according to the text followed in the
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 16, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: Steven Avery <stevenavery@...> The first year was 1881:

                  1881
                  The New Testament in the original Greek: according to the text followed in the Authorized version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised version (1881)
                  Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - 656 pages - Cambridge University Press
                  http://books.google.com/books?id=bqA9AAAAYAAJ

                  Note that the 1894 simply keeps the earlier Preface.  The appendix in both editions starts on p. 648. A quick check indicates the difference is the type-setting in the appendix. 

                  1894
                  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 (1894) -
                  Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - 658 pages - Cambridge University Press
                  http://books.google.com/books?id=Ih43AAAAMAAJ
                  http://archive.org/details/newtestamentinor00scri

                  Here is the internal difference, which does not change the text:

                  NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION
                  In this edition it has not been thought necessary to indicate variations from Beza by the mark *, the Appendix, which is retained, sufficiently shewing the passages in question; moreover in lieu of using thicker type to indicate readings which have not been used by the Revisers spaced type has been adopted.

                  (pic of note) - http://archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00scri#page/n15/mode/2up
                  Emacs!

                  Next, previous editions are listed in 1908.  Incompletely, note the 1894 is missing, probably also 1882 and 1902.  And they took out "the original", likely in deference to the Hortians.

                  1908
                  The New Testament in Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised version (1908) - 656 pages
                  Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener  - Cambridge University Press
                  http://books.google.com/books?id=z5hUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP8
                  (1881x3) (1883) (1884) (1886) (1890) (1908)

                  In a reprint edition, Cambridge University Press got the original date right in 2010 (the rest of the description is awkward).
                  ================================================================= 
                  Gold Star

                  Note, I just found one site that noticed this problem, and uses the proper date.  I'll contact them with the additional info above, and my compliments to the site.

                  Theopedia - An Encyclopedia of Christianity.
                  Textus Receptus
                  Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881)
                  http://www.theopedia.com/Textus_Receptus
                  This Scrivener 1881 text is supposedly identical to the 1894 edition which was published posthumously and has been reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society.
                  Your thoughts appreciated.
                   =================================================================

                  My thoughts are, THANKS!  I was also aware that 1894 was the 2nd edition, but I'd seen conflicting dates for the 1st edition (going back,  as I recall, to the time of the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which Scrivener was also involved with), and didn't notice that he was dead by then. So thanks for clearing up the 
                  (paratextual) differences between the two Scrivener editions.
                • Daniel Buck
                  From:ron minton    
                  Message 8 of 8 , Aug 16, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: ron minton <ronminton@...> 

                     
                    <<Actually Daniel, the modern norm is more likely the Oxford 1825, which, I believe, is still the international norm for comparison/collation work.  I am sure it is close to  Scrivener's.
                    Personally, I never hear anyone refer to the TR as the 1894 text behind the KJV (except for a few KJVO kooks).  That would be a totally artificial text worth nothing since the KJV guys did not follow just one edition of the TR.  Therefore using the term TR for the 1894 text is not descriptive; it is proscriptive.>>


                    Ah, I'd almost forgotten about the use of the TR in collation. But is that not also a historical usage by now? Ever since the R-P Majority Text came out, it makes much more sense to collate to it, since any given manuscript (at least outside of Revelation) is going to be much closer to RP2005 than to any edition of the TR. 

                    Finally, were it not for the enduring nature of the King James Only controversy, I doubt the term "textus receptus" or collations using some form of it would be of any more interest to textual critics than the letters and numbers used to identify manuscripts prior to the Gregory-Aland standard.
                     
                    Daniel Buck






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