Calfskin TBS TR released

[NaphtaliPress]

Question: did Scrivener document the AV translators' reliance on the Latin in spots or do we know historically that they did so (i.e., it is in their marginal notes)?

 

[danekristjan]

Question: did Scrivener document the AV translators' reliance on the Latin in spots or do we know historically that they did so (i.e., it is in their marginal notes)?

He did. In an appendix he listed which reading were taken from which TR's and which readings he felt were based only upon Latin readings. I have examined in-depth some of the Latin examples and have usually found Greek support in the TR's for them. So I think his list is inaccurate in that regard.

 

[Logan]

He did. In an appendix he listed which reading were taken from which TR's and which readings he felt were based only upon Latin readings. I have examined in-depth some of the Latin examples and have usually found Greek support in the TR's for them. So I think his list is inaccurate in that regard.

I admit I have a little trouble following his appendix. Maurice Robinson wrote a preface where he talks a little about it:

Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894) with Morphology

The Bible, and much more. Biblia is an online Bible study tool with dozens of Bibles for your Bible Study needs. It is a service of Faithlife / Logos Bible Software.

biblia.com

 

[danekristjan]

Question: did Scrivener document the AV translators' reliance on the Latin in spots or do we know historically that they did so (i.e., it is in their marginal notes)?

 

[Logan]

Question: did Scrivener document the AV translators' reliance on the Latin in spots or do we know historically that they did so (i.e., it is in their marginal notes)?

The very last page on this link (page 656) says the following (beginning on page 655)
"In the following places the Latin Vulgate appears to have been the authority adopted in preference to Beza. The present list is probably quite incomplete, and a few cases seem precarious. It is possible that some of the readings for which Compl. Vulg. have been cited above, were derived from Vulg. rather than from Compl. The same may be said of Col. Vulg. in 1 Cor xiv. 10; 1John i.5."

Then he lists the instances. Probably about 30 or so and it looks like a lot were influenced by Tyndale's rendering.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Brother Alexander, what did I say that would undermine trust in the KJV? That certainly was not the intent. I've never been opposed to the KJV. I've never tried to undermine someone's faith it it. I'm comfortable using it as a faithful translation. Don't confuse criticism of bad arguments with criticism of the KJV.

I also held my tongue for 10 days after this was posted so it's not like I'm always trying to attack anybody. I have no quibble with using Scrivener's TR or appreciating a fine new edition. But once the subject of Scrivener's purpose in developing it had been brought up, I thought it helpful to include some general remarks. If we can't have an open dialogue without assuming ill-intent, then I don't know that we can have dialogue at all.

My criticism is that a thread which was started as, essentially, an advert for TBS' new calfskin edition of the Greek NT became another discussion of the TR position and the "discrepancies" between different editions. I don't think it's necessary to bring up such issues every time the TR is mentioned, particularly when the purpose of the thread was merely to draw interested parties' attention to this reprint. I don't see why it was necessary for you to unbind your tongue in this instance. And considering there is already a very active thread discussing these issues, they should have been left out of this discussion.

I have no problem with you, or others, raising these questions. But when a thread can't even promote a reprint of the TR Greek NT without debate intruding then things are getting a bit much.

 

[danekristjan]

My criticism is that a thread which was started as, essentially, an advert for TBS' new calfskin edition of the Greek NT became another discussion of the TR position and the "discrepancies" between different editions. I don't think it's necessary to bring up such issues every time the TR is mentioned, particularly when the purpose of the thread was merely to draw interested parties' attention to this reprint. I don't see why it was necessary for you to unbind your tongue in this instance. And considering there is already a very active thread discussing these issues, they should have been left out of this discussion.

I have no problem with you, or others, raising these questions. But when a thread can't even promote a reprint of the TR Greek NT without debate intruding then things are getting a bit much.

I'm sure if a CT guy posted and advert for the 29th edition of the Nestle Aland it would be rife with TR guys debating it also.

 

[Taylor]

I have come to the conclusion that the TR position is more about a canonical shape of the text rather than literally having no variants to decide between.

This is an excellent comment and says very well what I myself have concluded of my own position.