The KJV has not remained unchanged since 1769

[Yeshua1]

The final KJV text was not established in 1769. While some KJV-only authors have made that claim, it is not true.

While most [not all] of the present varying KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, their varying KJV texts are not 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition text. The editions of the KJV printed in and after 2000 based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener did not follow the 1769 text. The present Cambridge editions edited by David Norton also do not follow the 1769 text. The text of the KJV has been revised and changed since 1769.

There are likely more than thirty editions of the KJV in print today that differ in some places from each other. Even editions of the KJV printed by the same publisher today may have some differences. In 2011, Cambridge printed six varying editions of the KJV [the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text or Emerald edition, the Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton].

There would be as many as 400 differences between the 1769 Oxford edition text and a typical present KJV edition. Examples of some of the actual differences were listed in another thread.

While most Cambridge KJV editions in the 1800's [besides the 1805/1817 Cambridge editions and the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener] were based on the 1769 Oxford edition as revised in the 1800's, the typical 1800's Cambridge KJV text was changed in 1900's Cambridge editions.

If a Cambridge KJV edition printed in 1887 is taken as an example, 1900's Cambridge editions changed the spelling of around 30 proper names as found in the 1769 Oxford edition to the spelling found in the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener. Scrivener went back to the spelling of these proper names in the 1611 instead of the spelling found in the 1769 Oxford.

Another twenty spellings and changes were made to the KJV text as found in this 1887 Cambridge edition.
The 1887 Cambridge in agreement with the 1769 has "travel" at Numbers 20:14 and Lamentations 3:5 while 1900's Cambridge editions have "travail."

The 1887 Cambridge in agreement with the 1769 has "Most High" (Deut. 32:8) while 1900's Cambridge editions have "most High."

At Joshua 19:2, the 1887 Cambridge has "Beersheba, and Sheba" while 1900's Cambridge editions have "Beersheba, or Sheba."

Weren't some versions of the KJV also based upon the 1894 revision TR text though?
Maybe Zondervans was for awhile?

 

[TCassidy]

Weren't some versions of the KJV also based upon the 1894 revision TR text though?
Maybe Zondervans was for awhile?

As far as I know there is not an edition of the KJV based on Scrivener's 1894 Greek New Testament. In fact, the opposite is true.

Here is an excellent recounting of the 1894 text, its purpose, and its value.

https://biblia.com/books/tr1894mr/Mt

When the page loads it will start at the beginning of the Greek text itself. Scroll back up to the Introduction, which is what I referenced above.

 

[rsr]

There is one edition: The NKJV.

 

[Logos1560]

I keep learning new facts about editions of the KJV, and I keep revising and adding to my information about them.

It remains the truth that the text of the KJV has not remained unchanged since 1769.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV text printed in the 1791 edition printed by Isaac Collins in Trenton, New Jersey, and the KJV text in the 1791 edition printed by Isaiah Thomas in Worcester, Massachusetts, is not unchanged from the 1769 Oxford KJV text.

Both of these printers/editors consulted and compared several varying editions of the KJV, and they made editing or printing decisions that differed from each other and from the 1769 Oxford.

 

[Logos1560]

I have several KJV's with Timotheos and one with Timothy. What gives?

There would be more than one KJV edition that would have Timothy in place of Timotheos.


Acts 16:1

Timothy [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (1784 Piguenit) (1843 AFBS) (1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1911 TCE) (1968 Royal) (1970 TN) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (LASB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (KJRLB) (2006 PENG) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) (1851 Cone)

Timotheus (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB}

 

[Yeshua1]

As far as I know there is not an edition of the KJV based on Scrivener's 1894 Greek New Testament. In fact, the opposite is true.

Here is an excellent recounting of the 1894 text, its purpose, and its value.

https://biblia.com/books/tr1894mr/Mt

When the page loads it will start at the beginning of the Greek text itself. Scroll back up to the Introduction, which is what I referenced above.

But that 1894 is considered to be the closest to the original texts in the TR then?

 

[TCassidy]

But that 1894 is considered to be the closest to the original texts in the TR then?

I am not sure what you mean. The 1894 IS a TR. But it is quite different from the 1516 edition of Erasmus if that is what you are referring to when you say "the original texts in the TR."

If you are talking about the Byzantine textform, then, no, no TR could be said to be close. All TRs show the inherent dangers of uncorrected transcription.

 

[rsr]

Scrivener's compilation was an attempt to identify the Greek text underlying the KJV, which came from different sources. Thus it represents a variation of the TR, but only that which the KJV translators decided to use. Scrivener in his 1881 edition noted that the translators had, in some places, apparently used the Vulgate or the Rheims as the basis for renderings..

 

[HankD]

Actually "quite different" is an objective statement.

Scriveners has no variants or apparatus as it is not a "critical" work but as rsr has said - "an attempt to identify the Greek text underlying the KJV".

Take a Nestle-Aland (NA) to see the NT text reconstructed from the major Greek Texts and manuscripts.
Even 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) is in the NA apparatus footnotes in Greek and Latin.

If you don't already know how, you will have to learn how to read the critical apparatus.

There is an English tutorial section (at least in my NA) in the beginning of the work with keys to the apparatus codes used in the body of the text.

Take your time, practice using it and soon you won't need to flip back and forth.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Scrivener's compilation was an attempt to identify the Greek text underlying the KJV, which came from different sources. Thus it represents a variation of the TR, but only that which the KJV translators decided to use. Scrivener in his 1881 edition noted that the translators had, in some places, apparently used the Vulgate or the Rheims as the basis for renderings..

It was an attempt to give in final form the textual basis used by the Kjv translators, the best that could show where they got version off from, correct?

 

[TCassidy]

Scriveners has no variants or apparatus as it is not a "critical" work but as rsr has said - "an attempt to identify the Greek text underlying the KJV".

But it is a critical edition which includes a textual apparatus indicating the source for the variants. That was its original purpose. To indicate the differences between the ERV of 1881 and the KJV of 1611/1769 and the source of those differences.

Most people forget, or didn't know, that Scrivener was on the translation committee for the ERV of 1881.

 

[Yeshua1]

But it is a critical edition which includes a textual apparatus indicating the source for the variants. That was its original purpose. To indicate the differences between the ERV of 1881 and the KJV of 1611/1769 and the source of those differences.

Most people forget, or didn't know, that Scrivener was on the translation committee for the ERV of 1881.

So there is still no real TR Only text that can be used to support KJVO based upon these revisions and amendings to the textual basis used for the Kjv itself....

 

[TCassidy]

So there is still no real TR Only text that can be used to support KJVO based upon these revisions and amendings to the textual basis used for the Kjv itself.

There is no textual basis for KJVO, of any sort. Scriveners TR did not exist prior to 1881. The KJV is an eclectic revision of the Bishops' Bible. There is no singular source text underlying the NT. (The OT is more cohesive and tends to, for the most part, reflect Bomberg's Hebrew text.)

As best as we can discern Erasmus used 7 manuscripts to produce his first edition of 1516.

Minuscule 1eap, which contained all of the NT except Revelation.
Minuscule1rK, which contained the Book of Revelation.
Minuscule 2e, which contained the Gospels.
Minuscule 2ap, which contained the Acts and Epistles.
Minuscule 4ap, which contained the Pauline epistles.
Minuscule 7p, which also contained the Pauline epistles.
Minuscule 817, which contained the Gospel.

But none of Erasmus's 5 editions of his TR follows any of those manuscripts entirely.

For the second edition of 1519 he also used Minuscule 3 (entire NT except Revelation) but his 1519 edition differed from the 1516 edition in about 400 places.

For the third edition of 1522 he added Codex Montfortianus to his group of manuscripts (famous for the fact it contained the Johnnine Comma). Montfortianus contains a scribal error in Revelation 2:13. The third edition differs from the second edition in 118 places.

His fourth edition differed from the third edition in about 20 places.

And his fifth edition differed from the fourth edition in only 4 places.

But it was his third edition that was the most popular and the most used of his 5 editions and was the basis of later editions by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs (not brothers, as is commonly thought, but uncle and nephew).

 

[HankD]

But it is a critical edition which includes a textual apparatus indicating the source for the variants. That was its original purpose. To indicate the differences between the ERV of 1881 and the KJV of 1611/1769 and the source of those differences.

Most people forget, or didn't know, that Scrivener was on the translation committee for the ERV of 1881.

My apologies to all for misinformation.

Mine does not have a critical apparatus.

Who is the publisher Tom?

Thanks

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Today, Scriveners TR is published, primarily, by the Trinitarian Bible Society, without the textual apparatus. I am not aware of anyone printing or making available online the Scrivener text including the apparatus.

If anyone knows where either of those can be found please let me know.

 

[HankD]

Today, Scriveners TR is published, primarily, by the Trinitarian Bible Society, without the textual apparatus. I am not aware of anyone printing or making available online the Scrivener text including the apparatus.

If anyone knows where either of those can be found please let me know.

OK, I am currently making a scan and an inquiry of others.
I really want an edition with an apparatus.
I'll let everyone know if I succeed.

Thanks
HankD

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Today, Scriveners TR is published, primarily, by the Trinitarian Bible Society, without the textual apparatus. I am not aware of anyone printing or making available online the Scrivener text including the apparatus.

If anyone knows where either of those can be found please let me know.

I have had a quick scan of one or two articles on the T.B.S. website and have not found any reference to Scrivener, let alone his apparatus. But I'm sure I have read something about Scrivener in a T.B.S. publication. You might find something here http://www.tbsbibles.org/articles or, failing that, contact the TBS and see what they have.

In fairness to the TBS, they do faithful translations of the Bible into quite a large number of languages. I am not a Portuguese speaker, but I'm told that the translation in that language is both faithful and readable. It is the one used by the Gideons.

 

[HankD]

No success yet but I did find an informative blurb about him:

The Reverend Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, LL.D. (September 29, 1813, Bermondsey, Surrey – October 30, 1891, Hendon, Middlesex) was an important text critic of the New Testament and a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee which produced the Revised Version of the Bible. He was prebendary of Exeter, and vicar of Hendon.

Graduating from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1835 after studying at Southwark,[1] he became a teacher of classics at a number of schools in southern England, and from 1846 to 1856 was headmaster of a school in Falmouth, Cornwall. He was also for 15 years rector of Gerrans, Cornwall.

Initially making a name for himself editing the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Ambrose edited several editions of the New Testament and collated the Codex Sinaiticus with the Textus Receptus. For his services to textual criticism and the understanding of Biblical manuscripts, he was voted a Civil list pension in 1872. He was an advocate of the Byzantine text (majority text) over more modern manuscripts as a source for Bible translations. He distinguished, as the first, the Textus Receptus from the Byzantine text. Scrivener compared Textus Receptus in editions of Stephanus (1550), Theodore Beza (1565), and Elzevier (1633) and enumerated all differences. Moreover he enumerated differences between Textus Receptus and editions of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf. Scrivener doubted in the authenticity of spurious texts like Matthew 16:2b–3, Christ's agony at Gethsemane, John 5:3.4, Pericope Adulterae.

In 1874, he became prebendary of Exeter and vicar of Hendon, where he remained for the rest of his life.

https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Testament-Scrivener-1894-Annotated-ebook&tag=baptis04-20

This URL wont work because it's tagged with an elaborate Adware app.

No reference notes were given.

scan for:
Greek New Testament (Scrivener 1894) (Annotated) Kindle Edition

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

I just bought the Kindle edition to take a look at. It does not contain the apparatus.