Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations?

[robycop3]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

What about the latin Vulate renderings eramus took straight into his greek text?

 

[robycop3]

What about the latin Vulate renderings eramus took straight into his greek text?

That's part of why the TR has been revised over 30 times.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's part of why the TR has been revised over 30 times.

Woundn't that make the Vulgate just as legit as the Kjv, as its part of the greek text basis?

 

[rlvaughn]

Should other Greek texts not have conjectural emendations, or only the TR?

 

[Alofa Atu]

I found this helpful - Beza and Revelation 16:5

I also trust God, that He did what He said He would do, and is presently doing. Preserving His words.

I think this thread, pretty much falls under this text's regulation:

1Ti_1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Endless genealogies of mss, applies as well. Trying to figure out who all the 'relatives' of the KJB are, is like trying to figure out who all the relatives and connections of Jesus parentage of flesh are. For instance, in Luke's geneaology (Luke 3), there are people mentioned, listed nowhere else in scripture. It means he had access to a list we do not presently have.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

No, but then I lean towards Burgeon's position on how to properly compile a text.

 

[Logos1560]

D. A. Waite wrote: "How Bible-believing Christians can allow guesswork and conjecture to determine their Bible is beyond me, but they do" (Defending the KJB, p. 30). Waite wrote: “Conjecture or guess is completely out of place in any treating of the New Testament” (Foes, p. 125).

David Cloud asserted: “To think that we are left to conjecture the original text of the Scripture is a blatant denial of divine preservation” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 276).

 

[Logos1560]

John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller indicated that “the determination of the text of Holy Scripture” should not be “handed over” . . . “to the uncertain sands of conjecture” (Traditional Text, p. 229).

Maurice Robinson maintained that “the quantity of preserved evidence for the text of the NT precludes conjectural emendation” (New Testament, p. 554).

 

[rlvaughn]

A conjectural emendation is the guesswork and/or opinion of the reviser(s). They should NOT be in the Textus Receptus

Made what might have seemed a cryptic comment from my phone yesterday. Let me expand a bit. My question to you is whether it is wrong to have conjectural emendation in the Textus Receptus, but OK to have in other Greek texts? Do you know whether the Greek text/texts underlying your preferred version(s) has conjectural emendations?

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite and David Cloud have directly asserted that there should be no textual conjectures in Greek text NT editions, but they ignore and avoid the fact that the varying TR editions had some textual conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza.

Jan Krans' book entitled Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament gives several examples of conjectures in the TR. On the back cover of this book, this is stated: "This study provides a new understanding of the many conjectures on the New Testament proposed by these two renowned scholars as part of their New Testament projects."

KJV-only authors have condemned and attacked the Critical Text for having conjectures, but they will not acknowledge the truth that the Textus Receptus also has some.

Pointing out the fact of any textual conjectures in the Textus Receptus may be intended to show the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in KJV-only assertions and TR-only assertions. I do not advocate any different measures/standards for the varying TR editions than for other Greek text editions.

 

[rlvaughn]

Surprisingly, Krans’s Beyond What Is Written book can be found at Archive.org. Oddly, page 384 in the “Index of Biblical Writings” does not list Revelation 16:5. Perhaps I will be able to search in and find it in the text, though.

Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament - Jan Krans

 

[robycop3]

I found this helpful - Beza and Revelation 16:5

Read it-There's NO legitimacy for ADDING material to a re-write of a Greek Scriptural ms. in Greek.

I also trust God, that He did what He said He would do, and is presently doing. Preserving His words.

Then you shouldn't believe the KJVO myth, as it's Satan-invented & man-made.

I think this thread, pretty much falls under this text's regulation:

1Ti_1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Endless genealogies of mss, applies as well. Trying to figure out who all the 'relatives' of the KJB are, is like trying to figure out who all the relatives and connections of Jesus parentage of flesh are. For instance, in Luke's geneaology (Luke 3), there are people mentioned, listed nowhere else in scripture. It means he had access to a list we do not presently have.

"Genealogy" means exactly THAT. Matthew might've also had such a list. And there's no such thing as a "KJB".

 

[robycop3]

Made what might have seemed a cryptic comment from my phone yesterday. Let me expand a bit. My question to you is whether it is wrong to have conjectural emendation in the Textus Receptus, but OK to have in other Greek texts? Do you know whether the Greek text/texts underlying your preferred version(s) has conjectural emendations?

We don't know who made most of the old Greek texts, or who added what, if anything. But clearly, Beza's TR CE was his own invention & is therefore wrong. I don't believe God changed His word after he finished giving the Rev to John.

 

[rlvaughn]

We don't know who made most of the old Greek texts, or who added what, if anything.

Feel free to explain what you mean, but when I read this I hear, "I don't really care whether there are any conjectural emendations behind any translation I use. This one is a great anti-KJVO bashing tool."

But clearly, Beza's TR CE was his own invention & is therefore wrong.

On what are you basing your conclusion. Did Beza say he invented it, or did he say something else? Do you have any references?

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.

And you got all your information on how the AV makers handled this where?

 

[robycop3]

Feel free to explain what you mean, but when I read this I hear, "I don't really care whether there are any conjectural emendations behind any translation I use. This one is a great anti-KJVO bashing tool."

How could one know if there are any CEs in those ancient manuscripts without knowing who made them from what source(s)?

On what are you basing your conclusion. Did Beza say he invented it, or did he say something else? Do you have any references?

Simple! it's not found in earlier TR revisions, far as I know.

And you got all your information on how the AV makers handled this where?

By simply checking out the TR edition they used against their translation. Pretty self-explanatory.

 

[rlvaughn]

How could one know if there are any CEs in those ancient manuscripts without knowing who made them from what source(s)?

I don't remember which translation you use, but I expect whichever one it is, it uses a critical text of the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland variety. You should be able to find out if it has any conjectural emendations, if you wish to know. And since you said conjectural emendations are the guesswork and/or opinion of the reviser(s), it seems you would want to know.

Simple! it's not found in earlier TR revisions, far as I know.

So earlier TR revisions could not be wrong? And is that also and admission that you have no idea what Beza wrote about it?

By simply checking out the TR edition they used against their translation. Pretty self-explanatory.

So by checking that out, if you have it, you found that in their TR edition that it says the AV makers followed it without verifying it? That did not have the time to verify it? That they had no access to the any mss. to check it against?

 

[Logos1560]

Surprisingly, Krans’s Beyond What Is Written book can be found at Archive.org. Oddly, page 384 in the “Index of Biblical Writings” does not list Revelation 16:5.

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".

Jan Krans asserted: "Beza himself was not always well-informed on the attestation of readings he mentioned or even adopted. Some readings taken over from the Complutensian Polyglot may actually be conjectures, but Beza could not know this" (p. 248).

Jan Krans noted: "A somewhat greater number of conjectural readings are adopted into the Latin translation, even when the Greek text is not changed" (p. 248).

 

[robycop3]

I don't remember which translation you use, but I expect whichever one it is, it uses a critical text of the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland variety. You should be able to find out if it has any conjectural emendations, if you wish to know.

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.

And since you said conjectural emendations are the guesswork and/or opinion of the reviser(s), it seems you would want to know. So earlier TR revisions could not be wrong? And is that also and admission that you have no idea what Beza wrote about it?

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 by checking that out, if you have it, you found that in their TR edition that it says the AV makers followed it without verifying it? That did not have the time to verify it? That they had no access to the any mss. to check it against?

I've read that the AV men had some 20 mss. they worked from, but that the TR was their main one for the NT. How much verification they did is unknown to me. But I DO know the translators didn't spend a vast amount of time making the AV as they had mouths to feed, & they weren't being paid for their translating.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Jan Krans pointed out that Wettstein criticized Beza's use of the Stephanus' material for the following seven reasons:

"Beza exaggerates the number of manuscripts"

"he treats the Complutensian edition as one of Stephanus' manuscripts" when it was an edited, printed edition

"he presents the readings as if he himself consulted the manuscripts"

"he acts as if each manuscript contains the entire New Testament" when they didn't

"he mistakes the absence of a variant readings in Stephanus' collations for proof that all manuscripts go with the edited text"

"he presents Stephanus' manuscript B and his own 'Codex Bezae' as two witnesses that confirm each other's readings" when that Stephanus' manuscript is the same one manuscript--Codex Bezae.

"he cites the readings without Stephanus' sigla"

(Beyond What Is Written, p. 213, footnote 10).