summary of Textus Receptus editions

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/KJBTR/posts/10162307742564691/

Show Christopher the 1825 Oxford Press - see next post

=============================

Christopher Yetzer

I've never heard of the Oxford Press or the Scholz one. If you are simply talking about reprints with minor changes, probably ever single reprint has minor changes. That is the nature of setting a type letter by letter by hand. Yes there are changes, some minor some more weighty.

Erasmus—1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535. The first edition included Erasmus’ edited Latin text. In 1519 further changes were made to the Latin text. Luther based his translation on this 2nd printing. The 3rd edition added 1 John 5:7. This was the edition used by William Tyndale. For the fourth edition it is said that Erasmus edited about 90 passages based on the finally released Complutensian text. The fifth edition differs only in about 4 places. All of Erasmus’ Greek New Testaments also included his Latin translation and annotations. He also had his Latin text printed separately without the Greek. Reuss notes that “charactersistic signs of the whole Erasmian family (original editions and reprints): Mk. xi. 26 is lacking; xiii. 9: αχθησεσθε; 2 Pet. i. 8: απρακτους; Rev. ii. 13: ημεραις εμαις.”

Aldine—1518, 1524/26, 1545. This was the first published edition of the entire Bible in Greek. Aldus, the famous venetian printer, planned to do a trilingual Bible near the end of the 15th century but it never came to fruition. For his New Testament, he is said to have used Erasmus’ first edition. The text was reprinted in Strassburg in 2 volumes in 1524/26 and then in Basle in 1545 using Erasmus’ fifth edition.

Gerbel—1521. Nikolaus Gerbel\Gerbellius wrote to Erasmus as early as 1515 urging him to publish his Greek text separately. Gerbel’s text was printed by Thomas Anshelm in Strassburg. Gerbel edited Erasmus’ 1519 text.

Köpfel\Cephalaeus\Cephalus—1524, 1526, [1529]. Wolfgang Köpfel\Cephalaeus printed in Strasbourg a Greek New Testament based on Gerbel’s edition.

Bebel\Bebelius—1524, 1531, 1535. The Basel printer Johannes Bebelius printed these editions largely based on Erasmus’ third edition. His editor, Jacob Ceporinus, had removed the Johanian comma from the first two editions but restored it to the third. According to Reuss it has “a small number of peculiar readings and corrections. Characteristic of this class: Rev. xviii. 7; τοσουτον κερασατε; and together with [Gerbel]: Acts xxi. 3: αναφανεντος της κυπρον.”

Colines—1534. Simon de Colines. This was made from Erasmus’ third edition, the Complutensian Polyglot and further changes based on manuscripts found in Paris.

Valderus—1536. Johannes Valderus’ edition was printed in Basel and is said to have used the 3rd edition of Bebel.

Sessa—1538. Melchiorre Sessa had this Greek New Testament printed in Venice by Giovanni Antonio Nicolini da Sabbio. Some have said that this was based on Valderus’ 1536 Basel edition and others that it is a completely new text based on Greek manuscripts while consulting Erasmus’ texts and the Aldine text, while others say it is based solely on the Aldine text.

Platter—1538, 1540, 1543. Thomas Platter’s Basel printed texts are said to reproduce substantially Erasmus’ 1535 edition or the first edition of Bebel.

Brylinger—[1533], 1541, [1542], 1543, 1544, [1548], 1549, 1550, [1553], [1556], 1558, 1562, [1563], [1564], [1566], 1571, 1577, [1582], [1586], [1588]. There are many doubtful or rare printings of this Basil printer’s text mentioned by several sources. In some cases (1550) they represent a whole Bible in Greek based off of the Aldine text. Ruess says that Brylinger follows the first edition of Bebel and agrees more or less with Stephanus’ texts. It may be that his earlier versions were based on Bebel and the later on Stephanus’ 1550 as edited by Crispin in 1553. Some characteristics to the later Brylinger texts are given as Mark 16:8 ταχεως and 2 Peter 2:18 οντας.

Bogardus—1543. Printed in Paris by Charlotte Guillard. Some say that this follows the Greek 1541 edition by “Brylinger and that of Colinaeus” and others that it “is based upon that of Bebel, but intorduces in the Apocalypse several improvementes form the last Erasmian, and has beside a small number of wholly peculiar readings, some of which are found in the Complutensian or in Colines, from an unknown source.”

Hervagius—1545. Printed in Basil, according to Dibdin “this edition follows chiefly the preceeding one of Cephalaeus”, although Reuss says that it follows Erasmus’ fifth with some Bebel readings.

Froben—[1541], 1545. This was printed at Basil and follows 5th edition of Erasmus with some Bebel readings. Reuss gives one variant of this group from Revelation 22:21 as παντων υμων.

Curio—1545. Another Basil printed text following Erasmus or Bebel.

R. Stephanus—1546, 1549, 1550, 1551. Robert Stephanus (his last name in Latin, or Estienne [French], or Stephens [English]). His first edition is known by the first two words of the preface, “O mirificam”. The text follows mostly Erasmus with a mixture of Complutensian readings. The second edition is said to differ in 67 places from the first. The 1550 edition is known as the editio regia. It follows more of Erasmus than the Complutensian while variant readings from the Complutensian and 15 MSS are mentioned in the margin. The 1551 edition was the first to divide the text into verses and included both Erasmus’ Latin translation as well as the Vulgate. The 1550 edition does not have Luke 17:36 but was still held in such esteem “as if an apostle had been its compositor”. Reuss gives 2 Timothy 4:13 φελωνην as a characteristic of the first editions, 1 Peter 3:11’s omission of αγαθον ζητησατω as a characteristic of the 3rd and Colossians 1:20’s omission of δι αυτου as a characteristic of the fourth. Other characteristics of the fourth group are Mark 4:21 καιεται and Revelation 3:12 λαω.

Foschover\Froschauer—1547, 1559, 1566. These texts were printed in Zurich, Switzerland. The first edition is said to be a reprint of Bebel’s first edition and the later a reprint of Crispin’s 1553.

Gryphius 1548 Lugduni.

Dupuis—1549. This is a reprint of the 1543 Bogardus text made for J. Dupuis by Hieronymum and Dionysiam de Marnef in Paris.

Haultin—1549. Another New Testament printed in Paris by Prevot for Birkmann and Haultin. Said to be a reprint of Stephanus’ first edition.

Oporinus—1552. Printed in Basel and based on Stephanus’ 1550 text.

Crispin—1553, 1558, 1564\65, 1604, 1612, 1622. Crispin’s texts were printed in Geneva, Switzerland. The first printing follows Stephens 1550 differing only in several passages. According to Reuss this created a subgroup of the text which several other printers copied. Reuss gives a characteristic of that group as John 1:28 βηθβαρα and 1 Peter 3:7 ζωης. The second printing is said to be based on the Stephens 1551 text.

Tournes—1559. Printed in Lyons, France by Jean de Tournes. The text follows that of Guillard mingled with Stephanic readings.

Barbier and Courteau—1559, 1560. Printed in by Basel by Nicolas Barbier and Thomas Courteau. Includes both Erasmus and Stephanic readings.

Voegelius\Vogelin—1563\1564, [1565], 1570, 1595. These were printed in Leipzig, Germany. Greek of Erasmus or Crispin’s 1553. Ruess groups these with the later Brylinger family.

Part 2:

Beza—folios: 1565, 1582, 1588-89, 1598; octavos: 1565, 1567, 1580, 1589, 1590, 1604. TBS states a 10th edition of Beza’s was published posthumously in 1611. The first edition is sometimes called second based on a 1559 Greek New Testament paired with Beza’s Latin, however the Greek of that edition has nothing to do with Beza. Beza worked directly with John Calvin in Geneva (Calvinist), and was his successor. It is said that the KJB translators used the 1598 version from Beza. Reuss puts the Bezan text into several catagories. 1. The principal edition of 1565 which was reprinted in the 1567 octavo and a 1569 folio. 2. The subsequent large editions: 1582 folio, 1588\89 folio and 1598 folio. Some of the readings introduced by Beza in the first group include, Romans 7:6 αποθανοντος, Revelation 11:1 και ο αγγελος ειστηκει, Acts 9:35 τον σαρωνα; and in the second group 1 Corinthians 15:55 το κεντρον που σου αδη το νικος, and Acts 16:7 πνευμα Iησου, and James 2:18 χωρις.

R. Stephens—1568, 1568-1569. Printed in Paris. This is based on 1546-49 Stephens but in seven places it copies the 1550 edition.

Antwerp Polyglot—1569-72. Printed by Christopher Plantin, also called Plantin Polyglot (in eight volumes folio). Dibdin states it is a reprint of the Complutensian Polyglot, but with additions of a Chaldee OT paraphase, a Syriac NT and Latin translation of it. However, the editor Arias Montanus is said to have diligently compared the Greek, Latin and Chaldee. He also printed just a Greek text in 1573, 74, [83], [90] and a parallel Greek\Latin text in 1574(octavo), 83(octavo), and 84(folio).

Perna—1570. This Basel printed text follows Stephens 1551.

H. Stephens—1576, 1587, 1604. Printed in Geneva by Henry Stephens. Reads much like Beza.

Steinmann—1578, 1582, 1588. Another Leipzig printed text. Reuss groups this in with the later Brylinger family.

Selfisch—1583. Printed by Samuel Selfisch in Wittenberg, Germany. The text is said to follow Stephens’1551.

Castalionis—1583. Venice in 1583, Antverp 1584, Lipsiae 1591.

Vignon—1584, 1587, 1590, 1598, 1604, 1611, 1613, 1615. Eustace Vignon was son-in-law of Crispin. His follows 2nd Crispin edition, except the 1590 and later editions which Reuss says reads more like Beza.

Osten—1588 Basle Reuss lists this with they Brylinger family as having both Erasmian and Stephanus readings.

Lanzenberger —1591, 1594, 1599 Leipzig. Reuss groups this in with the later the Brylinger family.

F. Rapheleng —1591, 1601, 1612, 1613 in Lyden follows Antwerp.

D. Wolder Hamburg Lucius, —1596 Polyglott follows 1551 Stephens.

Palthen— 1596 Frankfurt. Reuss groups this in with the later Brylinger family.

Wechelh Haered. —1597, 1600. Frankfort According to the preface the text of the New Testament “is taken from the two first editions of R. Stephens, and from that of his on Robert, in 1569, the readings of which, along with those of R. Stephen’s edit. of 1550, the Complutensian, and other editions, are arranged in a very dilignet and judcious manner.”

Roussin— 1597 Lyons copies De Tournes Lyons 1559.

Nürnberg Polyglot—1599

Heidelberg H. Commelin —1599, 1602,

Vincent, —1599 Lyons same as Heidelberg 1599. Also an edition labeled Geneva 1599.

Elzevir Brothers—1624, 1633, 1641. (O’Reilly p.13 claims there were 5 editions published between 1633 and 1678 in addition to the first two [7 total]), one place cites one extra in 1679. These were Dutch brothers Bonaventure and Matthew. This is the text (the 1633 edition) by which they started calling them all Textus Receptus from a sentence in the preface, “You have therefore the text now received by all (textum ab omnibus receptum) in which we give nothing changed or corrupt” (Hills p.208). It was not simply an advertising ploy as some allege, but an appropriate way to designate all from this line prior to it, and the term thereafter stuck.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The most important info is that James Price made some of his many blunders, (e.g. claiming it was an AV-mirror edition) and the BVDB poster summarized the situation with a droll understatement:

"It does not appear that Dr. Price seems to be very reliable in this matter."

The 1825 is a textual irrelevancy to the AV position. Even if the date is right, its only significance is that it was reprinted and used at DTS as some sort of TR teaching aid. And some people working on the NKJV may have had it in hand, especially before the Scrivener reprint of 1976.

The 1825 reprint edition may have been used by Hodges and Farstad as a way to show Majority Text – Textus Receptus differences, as an available modern printed edition of a TR text.

From what was written, it appears to be generally a Stephanus 1550 with some modifications.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

===============

That edition, in the 1820s, is probably originally a Charles Lloyd (1784-1829) edition, which was meant to be John Mill (1742 edition derived from Mill's NT) which is meant to be Stephanus 1550. See next post for some documentation.

Discussed by Burgon en passant in the preface to Revision Revised.

Here is Charles Lloyd, 1828.

He Kaine Diatheke (1828)
http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=j0MAAAAAYAAJ
https://archive.org/details/hkaindiathknovu00lloygoog

Charles Lloyd
http://books.google.com/books?id=GSYJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA411
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lloyd_(bishop)

Note that another Charles Lloyd is 1766-1829, a unitarian. And our Lloyd was in the anti-evangelical faction in Oxford.
http://books.google.com/books?id=guwRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA456

Here Metzger mentions that the 1825 Charles Lloyd edition was used for collation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA52

1825 may be a misprint for the 1828, as described here, and this is the pic below.

The Bibliographer's Manual of English Literature Containing an Account of Rare, Curious, and Useful Books, Published in Or Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, from the Invention of Printing (1834)
http://books.google.com/books?id=QQcCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1791&

So far the evidence is strong that 1825 so-called really is the 1828 Charles Lloyd edition.

1702990532334.jpeg


Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

============================================================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The actual Charles Lloyd edition details are given by Nestle :

Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 5 (1904)
The Present Greek Testaments of the Clarendon Press, Oxford
Eberhard Nestle, final note by William Sanday, follow-up EH on p. 461-2
http://books.google.com/books?id=SDtKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA274
p. 274-280

1702990770634.jpeg


Matthew 16:9
Mark 1:21
Mark 4:18
Mark 6:29
Mark 8:3
Mark 11:22
Mark 16:20
John 18:24
1 Corinthians 15:33
1 Thessalonians 1:9
2 Timothy 1:5
Revelation 11:2

I'll summarize chronologically:

1550 - Stephanus
1707 - John Mill edition of Stephanus with gazillion apparatus entries
1740 - Edinburgh edition - some differences from John Mill
1742 - Gambold, Mill - follows Edinburgh 1740
1828 - (or Dec 1827) Charles Lloyd follows Gambold
1836 - Lloyd revised closer to John Mill 1707
1859 - begin Lloyd reprints, date 1825, "anno M. DCCC. XXV. editum"
1872 - Reuss shows Lloyd-Gambold edition of 1742 differs from Mill
1873 - Stephanus ed, used, reprinted by IGNTP (text = 1550 or 1551?)
1885 - online, identical to "1825" (1828) per Maurice Robinson
1889 - Lloyd "Sanday" (1894, 6th ed) - last ed till DTS reprints
1900 - Mill's Testament edition by Clarendon, says from 1792
c.1970 - DTS said to have reprinted Lloyd

===


blunders that contributed to confusion:

James Price
"In 1825 Oxford Press published a Greek text containing the words that underlie the English of the Authorized Version." (2004)

- error published by Doug Kutilek, same error in 2006 Price book.

"It is true, however, that an effort was made to provide a Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament that underlies the KJV. This was first undertaken by Oxford Press in 1825, and subsequently revised and edited by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1894. This was done by back-translating from the KJV, selecting from the various available printed editions those Greek words that underlie the English of the KJV." (James Price, Response to Jeffrey Khoo, Khoo's review had been early 2007)

these blunders are still online, uncorrected.

===

You can see the Lloyd 1828 is very close to Gambold, 1742, which is why Maurice Robinson noted some differences from Lloyd to Stephanus 1550.

The date on editions showing the original that was being reprinted, maybe starting in 1859, likely led to the dubious "1825 ":

Hē Kainē Diathēkē: Novum Testamentum. (Secundum exemplar Oxoniense anno M. DCCC. XXV. editum).


Gambold began to be more closely associated with the Moravians in 1742.

Ross Purdy has some of the editions as described here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/7372


The decrepit revision is said to have 5,257 NT changes (p. 461, EH), making the text inferior that many times.

[textualcriticism] Oxford 1825 and Oxford 1873 -
Teunis van Lopik - August 20, 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/7372
"Lloyd reprinted not Stephanus' 1550 as in Mill's NT 1707, but a text of Oxford 1742. That text was edited by Gambold, who followed the NT of Edinburgh 1740. In the "Sanday edition" of Lloyd 1889 the Stephanus/Mill is presented."


Reuss had a lot of information, e.g. here is the 1840 Edinburgh:

Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas ... collegit digessit illustravit Eduardus Reuss (1872)
Eduard Wilhelm E. Reuss (1804-1891)
http://books.google.com/books?id=iRECAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA159


Maurice Robinson made a solid observation in 1997:
"Even if the Oxford 1825 TR might be available in print (it is a public
domain text in any case), there really is _no_ reason for anyone to use it for collation or other purposes, since it does not conform to the Stephens 1550 or Elziver 1633 TR, let alone to the IGNTP's Oxford 1873 edition which -- if anything -- should be the "standard" TR for text-critical purposes. I would not myself recommend anyone to obtain the Oxford 1825 edition, since no collation or other data will be based upon such, even if made in the 1800s."
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tc-list/conversations/topics/1411


Also, some background:

"The problem is that for many years Dallas Seminary itself reprinted and used the Oxford 1825 TR, and that is what H/F used. Virtually no one else (including myself) can find a copy of that specific edition anywhere, since Dallas Seminary no longer prints it. Note that the IGNTP uses its own reprinted fascicles of the Oxford 1873 TR, which itself would be difficult to locate apart from IGNTP making its own reprints for internal use."
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tc-list/conversations/topics/1408
.
============================
.
Maurice Robinson also helps with a:

1742 Gambold ==
1825 (really 1828) Lloyd Oxford ==
1885 reprint edition - discussion and text.


Confusion about Majority Text and TR - April 2011
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/57000/Confusion-about-Majority-Text-and-TR#

leading to this text said to be 1825 and 1885 identical:

Novum testamentum: Novum Testamentum (1885)
http://www.archive.org/stream/novumtestamentu00sidngoog#page/n5/mode/2up


Notice the 1885 page, said to be a reprint of 1742 (next page). Maurice Robinson says this 1885 is word-for-word (reprint) identical to 1825.

The main tweaks are that we know that "Oxford 1742 edition (of Mill)" is not pure Mill having Edinburgh 1840 differences and is a Gambold edition.

And that historically what was called 1825 was published in 1828. We could ask Maurice Robinson, though, if his edition has an 1825 date (and if that was the date of publication or the date placed on the reprint, remember, 1825 was being placed as a date by 1859, so a reprint could claim to be 1825 inaccurately by telephone chain.)

============================
.
Moving to related topics:


"Probably the most common and continuing as available TR edition is the Stephens 1550 text as found in the George Ricker Berry interlinear Greek NT (originally published in 1897, but still in print from various reprint houses). That is the specific Stephens 1550 TR edition utilized in the Online Bible program, along with the artificial TR supposedly underlying the KJV prepared by Scrivener in 1894."
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tc-list/conversations/topics/1408

On Scrivener, Robinson says 1881 and 1894 are identical:

"If you own a Scrivener text (whether 1881 or 1894), the text is identical and it is NOT a mere reprint of Beza 1598. ... The 1894 text and the 1881 text are identical. I suspect that Scrivener's 1894 edition simply contained the Greek text of the 1881 edition without the boldfaced main text variants from the Greek underlying the ERV or the footnotes showing such variant readings. I.e., I suspect the 1894 to be the bare text only in a "Reader's edition" type of text (with or without the Appendix as well)."... My guess is that the 1894 edition was merely a separate printing which did NOT emphasize in bold type the differences between the KJV and ERV as did the 1881 edition, but merely presented the reconstructed text of the underlying KJV Greek from the 1881 edition." - Maurice Robinson, Oct 14, 1995
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1995-10/10910.html


============================

Steven Avery
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
.
The post was filling up.
.
=====================
.
Here is some research history.
And in 2009 I pointed out the James Price blunder:
http://kjvonlydebate.com/2009/08/27/testing-the-textus-receptus-rev-165/
"As for James Price and the 1825 Oxford, I have often found his work to be unreliable, both in methodology and specific textual claims."

And I have a post in June, 2012 on a forum called FFF (Fighting Fundamental Forum)
"KJVOs, which TR should I purchase?" - thread p. 10
"the misinformation campaign of James Price" - post
.
that discusses whether this 1881 == 1882 and also goes into the Palmer edition. I leave out the url because on occasion it triggers a malware alarm, although I do not think there is any problem, at least for a secure system.
.
And then to the textual forum:
.
[textualcriticism] Oxford 1825 Received Text ? - Oxford 1873 IGNTP edition, and more
Steven Avery - Aug. 16, 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversation
.
The last one has some urls to Stephanus 1800 editions online.
.
Steven

==============

.
And we can compare editions online.
.
=====================================
.
1828 (called 1825) original Charles Lloyd edition,

uses 1742 John Gambold which uses 1740 Edinburgh that modifies John Mill that is based on Stephanus 1550.
.
He- Kaine- Diathe-ke- (1828)
Charles Lloyd
http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=j0MAAAAAYAAJ

or

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044073425514;view=1up;seq=5
and
https://openlibrary.org/works/OL131..._parallela_S._Scripturae_loca_necnon_vetus_..
leads to

https://archive.org/download/hkaindiathknovu00lloygoog/hkaindiathknovu00lloygoog.pdf
.
or
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008409930
leads to

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.32044073425514

Three ways to get to the same text.

=====================================

Maurice Robinson, identical to "1825" (likely the DTS reprint edition)
.
Novum testamentum: Novum Testamentum (1742) (1885)
Stephanus (Henri Estienne)
http://www.archive.org/stream/novumtestamentu00sidngoog#page/n7/mode/2up
.
And it says it is reprint of 1742. The 1885 is a shorter edition than what we have for 1828 online because of the Eusebian canons. Apparently that is what DTS reprinted, although it will be good to check with Maurice Robinson.

=====================================

1910 Reprint edition

H Kain Diath k =: Novum testamentum : accedunt parallela S. Scripturae loca necnon vetus ... (1828) (1910)
Charles Lloyd
https://archive.org/details/hkaindiathknovu00lloygoog

=====================================
.
There are differences in sidenotes, inclusion of Eusebian canons, some end on p. 696, some earlier. These may be identical texts, but we do not have the 1742 or the DTS reprint (except that it is likely what is identical to 1885.)
.
Steven





.
Just a note. If someone has the 1825 reprint from DTS they could confirm whether that comes from one of two alternate lineages. The starting point in Mill is Stephanus 1550.
.
=========================
.
Two possible "1825" lineages.
.
Mill accurate text - 1805 Oxford "Bowyer" --> 1825 hard to find --> (a number of editions through 1910) -->197n DTS
.
Offbeat Mill in the 1740 Edinburgh --> 1742 John Gambold --> 1828 Lloyd --> used frequently as collation text - mislabeled as 1825 (?) --> 197n DTS
.
=========================
.
Even after a little research with a learned gentleman it is, so far, hard to know whether 1825 refers to an edition of Lloyd, commonly known as the collation text of the era, or perhaps the little-known Bowyer (1699-1777) lineage above. The fact is that some references to the 1825 seem to also reference 1742.
.
The Eberhard Nestle graph above gives a dozen or so checkpoints that can confirm whether an "1825" reprint is Lloyd or not.
.
Steven Avery
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
And I have taken from this page and the previous Facebook PureBible page over to:

summary of Textus Receptus editions
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/summary-of-textus-receptus-editions.3638/

Note that Nestle in 1904 actually looks at 12 variants between editions.

Matthew 16:9
Mark 1:21
Mark 4:18
Mark 6:29
Mark 8:3
Mark 11:22
Mark 16:20
John 18:24
1 Corinthians 15:33
1 Thessalonians 1:9
2 Timothy 1:5
Revelation 11:2

FYI: The Complutensian can be included in Textus Receptus editions.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
BVDB discussion of NKJV and editions like Oxford 1825, 1828 and Scrivener

Confusion about Majority Text and TR - 2 pages
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...ut-majority-text-and-tr-t5141-s10.html#p62245

Euthymius
RG: The NKJV is based on Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus.
I don't think so. Rather, given Farstad's editorship, it is more likely based on the Oxford 1825 TR that served as the control base for the H-F majority text edition.

redgreen5
Hmm. Then I am confused.Forward to the NKJV, Open Bible Edition, 1982:Each translator worked privately and recommended changes in the King James text. In the translator's work he used the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (for the Old Testament) and the Scrivener Greek Text (for the New Testament) and a copy of the 1611 King James Vesion as revised in 1769 (the edition in general use today). His work was them submitted to the executive editor for the Old or New Testament. James D. Price, the OT Editor for the NKJV, maintains a website of his most popular research and documents. http://www.jamesdprice.com/newkingjamesversion.html At this link you'll be able to find a Word document titled The_False_Witness_of.doc. It is a response to Gail Riplinger's work, "The Death Certificate for the New King James Version." On page 16:
The Elzevirs published seven editions of the Greek New Testament with essentially the same text as that of Erasmus, Beza, and Stevens. In the Latin introduction to the 1633 edition, Elzivar stated that this text was the Textus Receptus (Received Text). In England, this name subsequently was applied to Stevens' text of 1550. However, the exact Greek words followed by the KJV translators did not exist in a single printed edition until the middle of the 19th century when it was published by Oxford Press. Scrivener republished this text in 1894 and again in 1902.[1] His text is currently published by the Trinitarian Bible Society,[2] and this is the text upon which the NKJV was based. The Publisher's forward to the NKJV states: "the Scrivener Greek Text was the basis of the New Testament." Riplinger and the sources upon whom she relies know this publicized information--they have been informed. Yet they continue to publish misleading statements like the one at hand.
[1] F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version (Cambridge University Press, 1894/1902).


[2] H KAINH DIAQHKH, The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, [n.d.]).

Euthymius
It then becomes of interest that the first edition of the NKJV NT (1979) says absolutely nothing in its Preface about the Scrivener text. Only this:
"The New Testament of the New King James Bible is a useful and accurate revision, based on the traditional Greek text underlying the 1611 edition of the English Bible."
Also,
"Recently there has been growing concern among reputable New Testament scholars that the nineteenth-century text suffers from over-revision, and that the traditional Greek text is much more reliable than previously supposed. We have confidence, therefore, in presenting the New King James Bible, New Testament, without subjecting it to the strictures of the newer critical text."
Of further significance: in the 1985 NKJV Believer's Study Bible, the Preface likewise has absolutely no mention of the Scrivener text, although it does talk about the "traditional text" once more:
"The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text.....It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament. Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the center reference column as being opposed by both Critical and Majority Texts....In light of these facts...the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament.....
So, somewhere in the publishing history of the NKJV, some later (post-Farstad? Price himself?) editor decided to identify the "traditional text" with the Scrivener edition.
I would suggest that in this the editor was definitely wrong, as has been shown.

redgreen5
... Or, the NKJV translation teams actually did use Scrivener for their task. But then during the editorial and review phase, the NT editors (Farstad, etc.) were so used to the 1825 Oxford that they used that version as their control. Discrepancies between Scrivener and Oxford 1825 arose as a result of the editorial phase, not the translation phase.Given the ready availability of Scrivener vs. the fact that the 1825 Oxford appears hard to find in print (a comment I found from Maurice Robinson in 1997 suggests that it was nearly impossible to find any such printed version any longer).
In either of these two scenarios, the new question becomes:
how many differences exist between the 1825 Oxford TR and Scrivener's 1894 version?

Euthymius
... Back when Hodges and Farstad were teaching at Dallas Seminary, the bookstore there was well stocked with reprints of that Oxford 1825 TR (which was used as a stopgap until the H-F edition finally came out). Not any more, since there are no current faculty at Dallas who hold to a majority text position. So good luck if you can ever find a copy (I certainly don't have one, although I saw one of the Dallas reprints several years ago).
>In either of these two scenarios, the new question becomes: how many differences exist between the 1825 Oxford TR and Scrivener's 1894 version?
Good question, and this can be found out (laboriously) by comparing all the H-F edition's "TR" notes against the Scrivener edition. But who has the time, or even cares?

CONTINUES ON PAGE 2
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Timothy Decker asks
So not
Bebel, Brylinger, Antwerp Polyglot, Sessa or others?

London Polyglot?

We could use the list of 22 Hoskier edition
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Christopher Yetzer

Elzevir Brothers—1624, 1633, 1641. (O’Reilly p.13 claims there were 5 editions published between 1633 and 1678 in addition to the first two [7 total]), one place cites one extra in 1679. These were Dutch brothers Bonaventure and Matthew. This is the text (the 1633 edition) by which they started calling them all Textus Receptus from a sentence in the preface, “You have therefore the text now received by all (textum ab omnibus receptum) in which we give nothing changed or corrupt” (Hills p.208). It was not simply an advertising ploy as some allege, but an appropriate way to designate all from this line prior to it, and the term thereafter stuck.


Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/KJB...4493409691&reply_comment_id=10162465867204691
Masoretic Text == Textus Receptus (OT) and first use Textus Receptus and Received Text
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/masoretic-text-textus-receptus-ot-and-first-use-textus-receptus-and-received-text.1633/#post-7032


Jan Krans
https://books.google.com/books?id=zy2hDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA244
1712162824783.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
When did the marketing blurb advertising campaign nonsense begin?

H. Offerman 1914
Upon the editions of Erasmus and his successors is based
the so-called Tcxtus Rcccptus. This expression was coined
and first used by the famous publishing firm of Elzevir at
Leyden in the preface to one of their editions of the Greek
New Testament (1663). “Tcxtum ergo habes nunc ab
omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum et corruptum,” so
they announced to their readers. Few phrases have been re-
ceived and accepted with such credulity and have worked so
much harm as this little remark made for advertising purposes
by a shrewd seventeenth century business man. Before long
the Tcxtus Rcccptus was regarded as the only authentic text
of the Greek New Testament.

Metzger - 1968
https://books.google.com/books?id=lA4WAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA152
1712163941058.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Christopher Yetzer
https://m.facebook.com/groups/KJBTR/permalink/10162465839174691/?

In the 1500s the phrase “received text” was being used to indicate a generally accepted authoritative statement or text. It was used in both medical and legal contexts. See books by Martín de Azpilcueta as well as does Juan Gutiérrez.

In 1582 Gregory Martin published a document titled A Discoverie of the Manifold Corruptions of the Holy Scriptures wherein he argued that the English Bibles done by “the Heretikes” were corrupt. The following year Dr. William Faulke of Cambridge took up the charge of confronting Martin’s claims and published a A Defense of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures. In his book Faulke gave an answer to Martin’s preface which was then followed by individual accusations by Martin and Faulke’s defense against Martin’s claims. In Martin’s preface he had stated that the heretics did not agree with their own Greek texts, but that they manipulated them to their favor. He pointed out Matthew 10:2 saying, “Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant us that Peter was chief among the apostles, because your own Greek text saith, ‘The first, Peter.’ No, saith Beza, we will grant you no such thing; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter’s primacy. Is it so? then you will not stand to this Greek text neither? Not in this place, saith Beza.” Faulke responded “In granting Peter to be the first, we need not grant him to be the chief; and if we grant him to be the chief, it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the church. And albeit that were also granted, the bishop of Rome could gain nothing by it.” He went on to demonstrate that Beza did not say that the words were added but questioned if they might have been added while clearly defending their inclusion. Faulke also mentioned that Beza defended the same words being added to Mark 3:16 while both the Latin Vulgate and the “common received text” did not include them. This seems to be the first time in a biblical context the phrase received text is mentioned in print and it appears to be in reference to the generally accepted standard Greek text of the time.

1607 Richard Bernard The faithful Shepheard ‘It is not fit that everie one be a publike controller of a publike received translation.’

Again the idea of a received text was used in the preface of the 1609 Douai Bible which read, “S. Isidorus witnesseth that S. Ieroms version was received and approve by al Christian Churches.”

At the Synod of Dordt: “In the first place caution was given that an entirely new version was not to be furnished, but an old version, long received by the Church,”

Another interesting use (although not in reference to Greek) is found in the documents relating to the French Synod of Alez which was held from October 1, 1620 to December 2, 1620. Giovanni Diodati had been hoping that the Synod would grant their permission for him to print his revision of the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible. Unfortunately the Synod did not favor his enterprise and made it clear that they desired no new translation to be made. However in their response they did open the possibility that Diodati could add new annotations to the 1588 French Bible which they called, “the common received Translation”.

Textus Receptus originally did not mean just a printed Greek text, it meant a publicly received authoritative text. That is why it was used in the 1633 preface. It was not a new term the Elzevir's came up with, it was standard language.

Below is a clipping from The Encyclopedic Dictionary in 1895.
 
Top