Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations?

[rlvaughn]

Jan Krans suggested that Beza "offers at the same time an astonishingly high number of conjectures" (p. 247), and then Krans noted that it was not possible in his study "to discuss them all".

Thanks. That (with the lack of noting Rev 16:5 in the back) probably confirms that Krans does discuss Revelation 16:5, so I will spend no further time looking for it in Beyond What Is Written.

 

[1689Dave]

A conjectural emendation is the guesswork and/or opinion of the reviser(s). They should NOT be in the Textus Receptus(Hereafter referred to as the "TR" in this thread),

The TR is a Greek-language New Testament copy compiled from a number of ancient Greek Scriptural manuscripts and parts of ms. of the Byzantine manuscript group. Theodore Beza's 1598 revision was the basis for the AV 1611's New Testament. The TR is an earnest attempt to present God's word in Greek as accurately as possible, and thus should stick only to the material which is found in the mss. it was made from. Thus, any conjectural emendations found in it are NOT SCRIPTURE, but are the additions of maker(s) of that particular TR edition in which they're found.

Thus, Beza's conjectural emendation of "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5 is NOT SCRIPTURE, but is a wording created by BEZA. While DOCTRINALLY correct, it's NOT found in any of the mss. used by Beza to make his revision. (which is actually a revision of Stephanus' earlier revision) Thus, it's NOT SCRIPTURE!

The AV makers simply followed the TR without verifying it, most-likely because they didn't have the time, nor access to the mss. that went into making the TR, even though they did use around 20 ancient Greek mss. at least some. Thus, Beza's guesswork/opinion ended up in the KJV's text! While this was unintentional on the part of the AV makers, it's still a GOOF in the KJV.

"hath God said"? Guess who I think of when I read your rants.

 

[robycop3]

"hath God said"? Guess who I think of when I read your rants.

Have you progved any one of them wrong? NEWP !

 

[rlvaughn]

I generally use the NKJV, NASV, & ESV. While I couldn't recognize any CEs in them, I rely on the reviews of others who can read the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. So far, I haven't seen any pointed out by anyone.

Maybe we need to find you some!

Evidently, someone found something wrong in earlier TR editions, or no revisions would've been made. And Dean John Burgon wrote that the TR could stand another thorough revision.

So the answer really is not so simple of its not being found in earlier TR revisions, since you do not hold them as any kind of standard.

How much verification they did is unknown to me.

With that being an unknown on your part, it might be better not to claim, "The AV makers simply followed the TR without verifying it."

But the FACT remains that Beza made the Rev. 16:5 CE on his own. And again, while "and shalt be" is doctrinally-correct, it's not actually a part of that verse.

Without researching this further, one might just think Beza was reading along through Revelation 16:5, didn't like what it says, and decided to change it. That is how what you wrote comes across to me. Further, you say it is "not found in any of the mss. used by Beza to make his revision." However, is that a correct assertion? I am not sure that it is. I have room to learn more about this, especially if Beza wrote about this beyond what is in the Novum Testamentum of 1598. Also, if I could read Latin with better understanding I might feel stronger about this. Nevertheless, I have to muddle through as best I can. Here is the note in his 1598 Novum Testamentum.

​

[In addition to my Latin deficiency, some of it is just hard for my old eyes to read.] I will summarize what I think the note on verse 5 says. Most texts generally read καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, but he thinks that reading is corrupted. Part of his conjecture is that the triadic statement appears in the other four places (Rev. 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17) and he gives a reason why the reading would be ὁ εσομενος (shall be) in Revelation 16:5 instead of ὁ ἐρχόμενος (is to come) as in the other four places. However, there is a relevant statement -- Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui nempe ὁ εσομενος -- that appears to say that he has restored the reading as found in an ancient codex. (My rough translation of that is, "Therefore, I cannot doubt that the correct reading is rather as I have reinstated it, from a trustworthy old codex/manuscript, namely ὁ εσομενος.") To be fair and clear, others apparently do not read it this same way, possibly because we are not presently aware of any such codex.

[Note: Beza's 1598 Greek text is available online, but I have lost the link. It was on a page where you could download it, which I did, but have now lost the url. If I can find it, I will post it here. The work is presented in 3 columns, Greek on the left, Beza's Latin translation in the middle, and the Latin Vulgate on the right.]

 

[rlvaughn]

Gave up too soon. Here is the link.
Bibliothèque de Genève
Scroll down for free download of PDF or RIS.

 

[1689Dave]

Have you progved any one of them wrong? NEWP !

My faith proves you wrong. It comes from hearing the Word you doubt.

 

[robycop3]

Maybe we need to find you some!
So the answer really is not so simple of its not being found in earlier TR revisions, since you do not hold them as any kind of standard.
With that being an unknown on your part, it might be better not to claim, "The AV makers simply followed the TR without verifying it."
Without researching this further, one might just think Beza was reading along through Revelation 16:5, didn't like what it says, and decided to change it. That is how what you wrote comes across to me. Further, you say it is "not found in any of the mss. used by Beza to make his revision." However, is that a correct assertion? I am not sure that it is. I have room to learn more about this, especially if Beza wrote about this beyond what is in the Novum Testamentum of 1598. Also, if I could read Latin with better understanding I might feel stronger about this. Nevertheless, I have to muddle through as best I can. Here is the note in his 1598 Novum Testamentum.

View attachment 4908​

[In addition to my Latin deficiency, some of it is just hard for my old eyes to read.] I will summarize what I think the note on verse 5 says. Most texts generally read καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, but he thinks that reading is corrupted. Part of his conjecture is that the triadic statement appears in the other four places (Rev. 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17) and he gives a reason why the reading would be ὁ εσομενος (shall be) in Revelation 16:5 instead of ὁ ἐρχόμενος (is to come) as in the other four places. However, there is a relevant statement -- Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui nempe ὁ εσομενος -- that appears to say that he has restored the reading as found in an ancient codex. (My rough translation of that is, "Therefore, I cannot doubt that the correct reading is rather as I have reinstated it, from a trustworthy old codex/manuscript, namely ὁ εσομενος.") To be fair and clear, others apparently do not read it this same way, possibly because we are not presently aware of any such codex.

[Note: Beza's 1598 Greek text is available online, but I have lost the link. It was on a page where you could download it, which I did, but have now lost the url. If I can find it, I will post it here. The work is presented in 3 columns, Greek on the left, Beza's Latin translation in the middle, and the Latin Vulgate on the right.]

Thing is, the ONLY thing that would prove Beza didn't simply use "artist's license" & ADD the words to the verse in question would be for someone to produce at least one ancient ms. with those words in that verse. Nothing else serves as evidence Beza's wording was correct.

 

[robycop3]

My faith proves you wrong. It comes from hearing the Word you doubt.

Your "faith" is largely guesswork.

 

[Logos1560]

My faith proves you wrong. It comes from hearing the Word you doubt.

You fail to demonstrate that your faith is in what the Scriptures state. You do not cite or quote anything from the word of God that proves that disagreeing with human KJV-only reasoning is wrong. The word of God does not state your opinions concerning the KJV.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. The KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

Blind or misplaced faith in assertions that are not true or in assumptions based on fallacies such as begging the question cannot properly be considered biblical faith in the word of God. Believing an assertion that is not true is being deceived concerning that assertion.

 

[1689Dave]

Thing is, the ONLY thing that would prove Beza didn't simply use "artist's license" & ADD the words to the verse in question would be for someone to produce at least one ancient ms. with those words in that verse. Nothing else serves as evidence Beza's wording was correct.

How do you know an ancient MS does not exist? Try to prove that.

 

[1689Dave]

You fail to demonstrate that your faith is in what the Scriptures state. You do not cite or quote anything from the word of God that proves that disagreeing with human KJV-only reasoning is wrong. The word of God does not state your opinions concerning the KJV.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. The KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

Blind or misplaced faith in assertions that are not true or in assumptions based on fallacies such as begging the question cannot properly be considered biblical faith in the word of God. Believing an assertion that is not true is being deceived concerning that assertion.

Unless you understand what biblical faith is, and its spiritual nature that is foreign to human faith, you will continue making false assumptions.

 

[1689Dave]

Your "faith" is largely guesswork.

Is it because your's is? And you can only assume we are alike?

 

[robycop3]

How do you know an ancient MS does not exist? Try to prove that.

Try to prove they DO, by showing them to us.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thing is, the ONLY thing that would prove Beza didn't simply use "artist's license" & ADD the words to the verse in question would be for someone to produce at least one ancient ms. with those words in that verse. Nothing else serves as evidence Beza's wording was correct.

“Thing is,” you think you found a “bird’s nest on the ground” with Revelation 16:5, and you do not appear to care about evidence. I suspect you would simply change your story if the manuscript was found. This is what you always appear to do when confronted with evidence that chars your theories. (Such as your claim that “The AV makers simply followed the TR without verifying it,” then admitting “How much verification they did is unknown to me.” You just move on without acknowledging your error.)

However, notice I am not claiming this proves that Beza was right, but that it shows Beza seems to say that he found it in a manuscript. So, it shows that Beza claimed a bit more than “artist’s license,” as you say. And ultimately, isn’t your claim also based on the thin air of your not having any evidence that he just made it up, beyond your saying so? Ultimately, we know it is there in Beza 1598, but not in any Greek manuscripts that we know of. Barring other information, I accept what I understand of his explanation why he put it there.

 

[robycop3]

Is it because your's is? And you can only assume we are alike?

My faith is Scripture-based, free of man-made doctrines of faith/worship, such as your KJVO myth. ALL TRUE doctrines of faith/worship come from God's word, either directly,or by clear implication, such as that of the Holy Trinity.

 

[1689Dave]

Try to prove they DO, by showing them to us.

It's your challenge. You say they do not exist, so prove it. BTW you are claiming to be like God, knowing all.

 

[Yeshua1]

My faith is Scripture-based, free of man-made doctrines of faith/worship, such as your KJVO myth. ALL TRUE doctrines of faith/worship come from God's word, either directly,or by clear implication, such as that of the Holy Trinity.

The very ones that SHOULD have been KJVO would be the 1611 translators, and yet they were not!

 

[1689Dave]

My faith is Scripture-based, free of man-made doctrines of faith/worship, such as your KJVO myth. ALL TRUE doctrines of faith/worship come from God's word, either directly,or by clear implication, such as that of the Holy Trinity.

But you doubt scripture when you reject it based on your limited knowledge.

 

[robycop3]

“Thing is,” you think you found a “bird’s nest on the ground” with Revelation 16:5, and you do not appear to care about evidence. I suspect you would simply change your story if the manuscript was found. This is what you always appear to do when confronted with evidence that chars your theories. (Such as your claim that “The AV makers simply followed the TR without verifying it,” then admitting “How much verification they did is unknown to me.” You just move on without acknowledging your error.)

However, notice I am not claiming this proves that Beza was right, but that it shows Beza seems to say that he found it in a manuscript. So, it shows that Beza claimed a bit more than “artist’s license,” as you say. And ultimately, isn’t your claim also based on the thin air of your not having any evidence that he just made it up, beyond your saying so? Ultimately, we know it is there in Beza 1598, but not in any Greek manuscripts that we know of. Barring other information, I accept what I understand of his explanation why he put it there.

Now, do we see any evidence of the AV men disputing the TR? More than once, their text was simply copied from Tyndale's version, or from the Geneva. But it seems they simply translated Beza's TR edition most of the time.

And if Beza had had a ms. with the words in question in it, he wouldn't've needed to have made any explanation of why he put them in his TR.

 

[robycop3]

It's your challenge. You say they do not exist, so prove it. BTW you are claiming to be like God, knowing all.

Round and round we go. My statement that they don't exist stands as true unless & until someone proves it wrong by showing us such a ms.