Scrivener Textus Receptus

[Phillip]

What's the story on the Scrivener Textus Receptus. Is it considered an accurate compilation of the Textus Receptus? When was it compiled? etc. etc.?

 

[HankD]

Here is a quote from a website selling Scrivener's TR. It sums it up nicely.

The Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus edition, with complete parsing information for all Greek words. Morphological analysis provided by Dr. Maurice A. Robinson.

The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version. The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version. This is a useful text for comparison for those with proficiency in Greek.
Found online at http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/TR1894MR

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

" . . to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version."

Know that many KJVonly are trying to back away from the extreme position and become TRonly.

I sure would not want to be a TRonly and have this MV (modern version in 1895) be the "artificial" TR text. Hard to live with that.

 

[HankD]

I sure would not want to be a TRonly and have this MV (modern version in 1895) be the "artificial" TR text. Hard to live with that.

For me TRonly (actually, I'm TR strongly prefered) does not demand an exact duplicate of the original NT mss (how could we know anyway?). However, I treat the Scrivener TR as the virtual restoration of the NT (although there are a few places which perhaps need "perfecting" (tree vs book of life) being the end product of several centuries of the refinement of the "Traditional Text".

If and when Alexandrian and/or papyrii discoveries increase and then lend more credibility to the differences between the TR and Aleph and B, then I would rethink my position.

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

I'm confused on this one, Hank. The KJVo crowd says they are TR because we have differences in the Greek texts used by the modern versions. (And by implication, they don't)

Yet they admit THEY have a great variety of texts that parade as the TR (or Stephens or Elzivar or . . ). The Scrivener is, by admission, ARTIFICIAL.

Want to help me define "artificial"??

 

[HankD]

Want to help me define "artificial"??

Sure.

From Merriam-Webster online: (Upper case words are theirs).

Main Entry: ar·ti·fi·cial
Pronunciation: "är-t&-'fi-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : humanly contrived often on a natural model : MAN-MADE <an artificial limb> <artificial diamonds>
2 a : having existence in legal, economic, or political theory b : caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency <an artificial price advantage> <artificial barriers of discrimination -- R. C. Weaver>
3 obsolete : ARTFUL, CUNNING
4 a : lacking in natural or spontaneous quality <an artificial smile> <an artificial excitement> b : IMITATION, SHAM <artificial flavor>
5 : based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships <an artificial key for plant identification>

From the Merriam-Webster online Dictionary.
At http://www.m-w.com

For our purposes (1) and partially (5) would be our definition.

Scrivener found that the KJV matched no single distillation of the Byzantine Traditional Text but it was a pick-and-choose from Beza (mostly), Stephanus and yes the Vulgate and even other sources.

Practically speaking, he matched His TR against the AV 1611 English and chose from the variants of the different sources they (KJV translators) used.

Personally I don't believe that he had a direct hot-line to heaven for his choices.
I do feel his work is probably the best restoration of the true text but fully respect the view of those who feel that W/H did a better job.

Even at that, there are a few (less than 10) places where he differs from the AV (so I have read).

I can understand why this doesn't sit well with the "almost" KJVo (the real KJVO doesn't care about the Greek/Hebrew) or TRo.

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

Hank wrote: "Practically speaking, he matched His TR against the AV 1611 English and chose from the variants of the different sources they (KJV translators) used."

This is called "reverse translation" where folks start with the KJV (whichever revision) and make the Greek match.

We had a pastor (now teaching at a KJVO college in Oklahoma) who actually changed the Greek word order, etc, to match the KJV perfectly.

I do not subscribe to such destruction or rewriting of the Greek.

 

[skanwmatos]

The Scrivener text is compiled using a variety of Greek manuscript and textual sources, just as every other Greek text. It is not "reverse translated." It is a text with an eclectic background, just as all texts should be. Any text which slavishly follows a single ms is bound to be in error as all such mss suffer from scribal errors.

 

[Phillip]

Skan,
In your opinion, what would be the best compilation of Greek texts in our possession today?

 

[HankD]

For the most part Scrivener's is the Beza.

Where the English of the KJV indicated that the KJV translators departed from the Beza for Stephanus or the Vulgate, Scrivener simply integrated that variant into his text.

In other words he did what collator/compilers had done for centuries.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Skan,
In your opinion, what would be the best compilation of Greek texts in our possession today?

I like Stephens 1551 but also use Scrivener's.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I opt for St Stephans 1551 as well. Don't care for or use Scrivener.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
I opt for St Stephans 1551 as well. Don't care for or use Scrivener.

Dr. Bob, Is this what you feel is the best, or just the best of the TR series?

Is it possible to obtain this on the internet? I'm sure books are available with it.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I feel it best of the TR series. I prefer the modern eclectic texts overall (UBS - although I still use my 1966 ABS American Bible Society text as it is all marked up with my notes!)

 

[Phillip]

Thank you, I appreciate your answer.