What Kind of Manuscripts were the basis for the TR?

[Logos1560]

What kind of Greek New Testament manuscripts actually served as the underlying foundation and basis for the varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus?

According to sound, consistent, just textual measures, were those Greek NT manuscripts actually whole and nearly perfect (nothing added, nothing omitted, nothing changed and with absolutely no significant copying errors involving whole verses, whole clauses, whole phrases, or whole words and with only insignificant spelling variations)?

If any TR-only advocates or KJV-only advocates consider them to be "whole," please name, list, and identify the specific Greek NT manuscripts that can properly and consistently be called "whole" according to sound, consistent, just textual measures.

If those Greek NT manuscripts were "whole," why was there any need for textual physicians or editors such as Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenes, Stephanus, or Beza? Please also list and name the specific, exact textual measures that you would assert were actually used by Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenes, Stephanus, Beza, and others in the making of the printed Textus Receptus editions.

If those actual Greek NT manuscripts which are the basis for the TR editions have any added or omitted verses, clauses, phrases, or words or have any other significant differences involving different words, would they be properly be identified as "whole" Greek NT manuscripts or as "sick" Greek NT manuscripts with some imperfections or copying errors according to sound, consistent, just textual measures?

 

[Yeshua1]

What kind of Greek New Testament manuscripts actually served as the underlying foundation and basis for the varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus?

According to sound, consistent, just textual measures, were those Greek NT manuscripts actually whole and nearly perfect (nothing added, nothing omitted, nothing changed and with absolutely no significant copying errors involving whole verses, whole clauses, whole phrases, or whole words and with only insignificant spelling variations)?

If any TR-only advocates or KJV-only advocates consider them to be "whole," please name, list, and identify the specific Greek NT manuscripts that can properly and consistently be called "whole" according to sound, consistent, just textual measures.

there any need for textual physicians or editors such as Erasmus, [/SIZE]Cardinal Ximenes, Stephanus, or Beza? Please also list and name the specific, exact textual measures that you would assert were actually used by Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenes, Stephanus, Beza, and others in the making of the printed Textus Receptus editions.

If those actual Greek NT manuscripts which are the basis for the TR editions have any added or omitted verses, clauses, phrases, or words or have any other significant differences involving different words, would they be properly be identified as "whole" Greek NT manuscripts or as "sick" Greek NT manuscripts with some imperfections or copying errors according to sound, consistent, just textual measures?

If those Greek NT manuscripts were "whole," why was


was it true that both eramus and the translators for the 1611 Kjv both used latin sources sometimes as much or more than the greek ones avaialble to them?

 

[HankD]

This is the position of John Burgon. Since he seems to be generally accepted as the defender of the Classic TR type texts, this might help.

http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_155.html

HnakD

 

[Yeshua1]

This is the position of John Burgon. Since he seems to be generally accepted as the defender of the Classic TR type texts, this might help.

http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_155.html

HnakD

Interesting article....

Would thst vlurb about them being ONLy true Baptist be nased upon them being KlVO though?

 

[HankD]

Interesting article....

Would thst vlurb about them being ONLy true Baptist be nased upon them being KlVO though?

Strange as it may sound John Burgon was NOT KJVO.

He was on the committee that made the decision to further correct the text of the AD1611-1769 publication. Later however as he saw what Westcott and Hort (who were commissioned to make the corrections) did to the text and the Alexandrian texts to support their variant decisions he became very upset and wrote The Revision Revised as a rebuttal on many issues.

Basically he had a different criteria of canon authority than W&H.


HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Strange as it may sound John Burgon was NOT KJVO.

He was on the committee that made the decision to further correct the text of the AD1611-1769 publication. Later however as he saw what Westcott and Hort (who were commissioned to make the corrections) did to the text and the Alexandrian texts to support their variant decisions he became very upset and wrote The Revision Revised as a rebuttal on many issues.

Basically he had a different criteria of canon authority than W&H.


HankD

So he would be more like those holding to the Bzt/Majority as the best Greek text to use, but not TR/KJVO?

 

[HankD]

So he would be more like those holding to the Bzt/Majority as the best Greek text to use, but not TR/KJVO?

Which TR? Byzantine/Majority and TR (so called (stephanus, beza, etc)) which are for the most part very very close unlike the Alexandrian mss Burgon said didn't even agree that much among themselves.

Read The Revision Revised It's online somewhere.

HankD

 

[franklinmonroe]

...http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_155.html

Thanks, Hank. The article at the link above suggests that there are places in the KJV text that are not supported by any existing Greek MSS but should be considered genuine on the authority of the "earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta."

This seems to be consistent with some KJVO writers. I just recently acquired Jack Moorman's book entitled Forever Settled (1999 DBS). I have only scanned it so far, but I recall seeing two portions that relate to this thread. The first (p.198) --

Strouse states that Erasmus primarily used the following five MSS in his first edition (1516):

11th century _ Manuscript of the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles
15th century _ Manuscript of the Gospels
12-14th cent _ Manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles
15th century _ Manuscript of the Acts and the epistles
12th century _ Manuscript of Revelation​

Erasmus had translated the Greek into a Latin Version in 1505-1506 and presumably had other MSS than these five.​

Note that pro-KJV Moorman admits that only 5 Greek manuscripts "primarily" can be historically confirmed and any others used by Erasmus must be presumed. Shortly afterward Moorman writes (p.202) --

Hence, we may conclude, it was in the special providence of God that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the usage of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus was providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Thus the Textus Receptus was not a blunder or a set-back but a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament text. In it the few errors of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional Greek text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe.​

Notice first that TR-proponent Moorman confesses that there were "errors of consequence" in the "Traditional" Greek texts (after he and so many other KJV/TR advocates have attempted so intensely to prove the TR's purity). Furthermore, repetitive Moorman leans heavily (if not solely) on the "providence" of God to reconcile the indisputable presence of Latin readings in the TR. Can not God act providentially today? Could there have been yet another "further step" in the preservation process? How do we know that Erasmus caught all the errors? I hope Moorman has the answers (but I kinda doubt it).

 

[HankD]

Thanks, Hank. The article at the link above suggests that there are places in the KJV text that are not supported by any existing Greek MSS but should be considered genuine on the authority of the "earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta."

This seems to be consistent with some KJVO writers. I just recently acquired Jack Moorman's book entitled Forever Settled (1999 DBS). I have only scanned it so far, but I recall seeing two portions that relate to this thread. The first (p.198) --

Strouse states that Erasmus primarily used the following five MSS in his first edition (1516):

11th century _ Manuscript of the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles
15th century _ Manuscript of the Gospels
12-14th cent _ Manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles
15th century _ Manuscript of the Acts and the epistles
12th century _ Manuscript of Revelation​

Erasmus had translated the Greek into a Latin Version in 1505-1506 and presumably had other MSS than these five.​

Note that pro-KJV Moorman admits that only 5 Greek manuscripts "primarily" can be historically confirmed and any others used by Erasmus must be presumed. Shortly afterward Moorman writes (p.202) --

Hence, we may conclude, it was in the special providence of God that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the usage of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus was providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Thus the Textus Receptus was not a blunder or a set-back but a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament text. In it the few errors of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional Greek text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe.​

Notice first that TR-proponent Moorman confesses that there were "errors of consequence" in the "Traditional" Greek texts (after he and so many other KJV/TR advocates have attempted so intensely to prove the TR's purity). Furthermore, repetitive Moorman leans heavily (if not solely) on the "providence" of God to reconcile the indisputable presence of Latin readings in the TR. Can not God act providentially today? Could there have been yet another "further step" in the preservation process? How do we know that Erasmus caught all the errors? I hope Moorman has the answers (but I kinda doubt it).

If someone would ask me which is the TR which under-girds the KJV I would say Scrivener's 1894-5 Greek NT. Yet it is a couple hundred years (almost 3) younger.

Many people believe Scrivener backtranslated the KJV to arrive at the Greek, but I am satisfied in my research to see that rather he "quilted" together the several portions and sources which he supposed the KJV translators used to knit together their own translated text (which unified singular text has strangely disappeared).

Last time I said that I received the wrath of a couple of critics but I don't care anymore.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

If someone would ask me which is the TR which under-girds the KJV I would say Scrivener's 1894-5 Greek NT. Yet it is a couple hundred years (almost 3) younger.

Many people believe Scrivener backtranslated the KJV to arrive at the Greek, but I am satisfied in my research to see that rather he "quilted" together the several portions and sources which he supposed the KJV translators used to knit together their own translated text (which unified singular text has strangely disappeared).

Last time I said that I received the wrath of a couple of critics but I don't care anymore.

HankD

Do you regard that Greek text as being the definte on ethen, closest to the original manuscripts?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks, Hank. The article at the link above suggests that there are places in the KJV text that are not supported by any existing Greek MSS but should be considered genuine on the authority of the "earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta."

This seems to be consistent with some KJVO writers. I just recently acquired Jack Moorman's book entitled Forever Settled (1999 DBS). I have only scanned it so far, but I recall seeing two portions that relate to this thread. The first (p.198) --

Strouse states that Erasmus primarily used the following five MSS in his first edition (1516):

11th century _ Manuscript of the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles
15th century _ Manuscript of the Gospels
12-14th cent _ Manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles
15th century _ Manuscript of the Acts and the epistles
12th century _ Manuscript of Revelation​

Erasmus had translated the Greek into a Latin Version in 1505-1506 and presumably had other MSS than these five.​

Note that pro-KJV Moorman admits that only 5 Greek manuscripts "primarily" can be historically confirmed and any others used by Erasmus must be presumed. Shortly afterward Moorman writes (p.202) --

Hence, we may conclude, it was in the special providence of God that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the usage of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus was providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Thus the Textus Receptus was not a blunder or a set-back but a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament text. In it the few errors of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional Greek text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe.​

Notice first that TR-proponent Moorman confesses that there were "errors of consequence" in the "Traditional" Greek texts (after he and so many other KJV/TR advocates have attempted so intensely to prove the TR's purity). Furthermore, repetitive Moorman leans heavily (if not solely) on the "providence" of God to reconcile the indisputable presence of Latin readings in the TR. Can not God act providentially today? Could there have been yet another "further step" in the preservation process? How do we know that Erasmus caught all the errors? I hope Moorman has the answers (but I kinda doubt it).

Basically, one would have to hold to the 1611 translators as being inspired by the Holy Spirit to have an infallible transation to hold with KJVO!

 

[HankD]

True , they wern't (at least I don't believe they were inspired of the Holy Spirit) they were neither prophets or apostles for one thing.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Do you regard that Greek text as being the definte on ethen, closest to the original manuscripts?

Yes, I consider it a virtual reproduction of the inspired text.
But that's my opinion of course.
Please note I said "virtual" not "actual".

HankD

 

[beameup]

I understood that it was best to stay away from anything coming out of Egypt, (where Gnosticism was rampant).

 

[franklinmonroe]

I understood that it was best to stay away from anything coming out of Egypt, (where Gnosticism was rampant).

Sometimes good things come from Egypt (Matthew 2:15, KJV) --
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Many people believe Scrivener backtranslated the KJV to arrive at the Greek, but I am satisfied in my research to see that rather he "quilted" together the several portions and sources which he supposed the KJV translators used to knit together their own translated text (which unified singular text has strangely disappeared). ...

I concur that Scrivener to the best of his ability found vintage Greek texts that could have supplied the necessary foundation for the KJV translations. This does not prove that the king's men actually derived their renderings from those same sources. Scrivener only demonstrated that it may have been possible.

 

[Rippon]

To Answer The OP...

Late, weak and inferior.

But good enough to communicate the message.

 

[Yeshua1]

Late, weak and inferior.

But good enough to communicate the message.

True, for to me, even more important then what the textual basis being used to trabslate off from is what is the philosophy of translation itself...