Re: [textualcriticism] Re: what is the "Received Text" ?
- 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.