What is the Reformation Bible text, the Received text?

[bgwilkinson]

Steven Avery said,

"The Reformation Bible text, the Received text, I believe is God's inspired and preserved word...  And the singular most excellent edition."

Now my question is which text is it, or is it a group of texts?

Is it the first Anglican Version of 1611 produced under Bancroft's supervision?

Maybe several dozen versions in various languages as well the various Greek texts?

I am only discussing the NT not the OT.

 

[Steven Avery]

There are many independent yet similar editions of the Received Text. And many Reformation Bible editions in dozens of languages.

The AV is one such TR edition, as explained by Edward Freer Hills. Hillswrote of the "logic of faith" as a way of understanding the preservational imperative manifested through the AV, the pure word of God.

 

[bgwilkinson]

There are many independent yet similar editions of the Received Text. And many Reformation Bible editions in dozens of languages.

The AV is one such TR edition, as explained by Edward Freer Hills. Hillswrote of the "logic of faith" as a way of understanding the preservational imperative manifested through the AV, the pure word of God.

So you are basing your theory on Hills?

Would you include Luther's German first edition and the Gustav Vasa Swedish first edition?

How about Erasmus 1516 Greek-Latin and 1519 Greek-Latin.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Hills expressed certain aspects of this well.

Those are early TR editions. 
And they had certain lacks, including the heavenly witnesses.

Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

Hills expressed certain aspects of this well.

Those are early TR editions. 
And they had certain lacks, including the heavenly witnesses.

Steven

What exactly is the reformation text?

 

[Steven Avery]

What exactly is the reformation text?

All of the editions that came from the textus receptus in the period coming forth from the 1500s are Reformation Bibles.

In the 1500s through the 1800s the opposition was the rcc Vulgate, noting that the Vulgate did contribute to the pure Received Text.  Starting in the late 1800s the contra text was the far more corrupt W-H recension.

For a list of Reformation Bible descriptions in many languages, see the 1996 book - The reformation of the Bible, the Bible of the Reformation by Jaroslav Jan Pelikán.

========

btw, since you do not have a Bible position that you defend, this game of 20 questions gets a bit tiring.  If you were asking sincerely, wanting to know more about the Bible, I would feel differently.  However, I've never seen you acknowledge information or  give solid counterpoint.  So I am posting more for the readers.  Although I allow that you could in the future actually interact iron sharpeneth.

And I will acknowledge that occasionally you ask a good question. As with the Maurice Robinson quote, that turned out to be helpful for our studies even as you ignored the response.

So, unless this becomes a dialog, where you state and defend your position, I plan to close it out.  Time is quite limited right now, with a trip planned in a couple of days, and that is a factor as well.    If you demonstrate real dialog capability, I'll try to keep some more time available, even on the road.

Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

What exactly is the reformation text?

All of the editions that came from the textus receptus in the period coming forth from the 1500s are Reformation Bibles.

In the 1500s through the 1800s the opposition was the rcc Vulgate, noting that the Vulgate did contribute to the pure Received Text.  Starting in the late 1800s the contra text was the far more corrupt W-H recension.

For a list of Reformation Bible descriptions in many languages, see the 1996 book - The reformation of the Bible, the Bible of the Reformation by Jaroslav Jan Pelikán.

========

btw, since you do not have a Bible position that you defend, this game of 20 questions gets a bit tiring.  If you were asking sincerely, wanting to know more about the Bible, I would feel differently.  However, I've never seen you acknowledge information or  give solid counterpoint.  So I am posting more for the readers.  Although I allow that you could in the future actually interact iron sharpeneth.

And I will acknowledge that occasionally you ask a good question. As with the Maurice Robinson quote, that turned out to be helpful for our studies even as you ignored the response.

So, unless this becomes a dialog, where you state and defend your position, I plan to close it out.  Time is quite limited right now, with a trip planned in a couple of days, and that is a factor as well.    If you demonstrate real dialog capability, I'll try to keep some more time available, even on the road.

Steven Avery

Reformation Text or Reformation Bible.

I will attempt to summarize what you mean by reformation text. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It would be any text that was collated from any number of disparate and various sources during the 16th century. It would be a thoroughly eclectic text not based on any one family of manuscripts.

Are you saying you agree completely with Jaroslav Jan Pelikán?

I do not like to use the term "Textus Receptus" as it is exceedingly nebulous and was not used in the 16th century by anyone that has left a printed record. 

It was unknown until 1633, long after the last Reformation Texts were completed, when the Elzevirs placed it in the preface to the second edition of their Greek New Testament.

In this preface the Elzevirs wrote, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus -- “What you have here, is the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted". This term is not found anywhere before this time.

There is of course no single Greek manuscript that represents the "Textus Receptus", for the more than 30 varieties of the "Textus Receptus" were all eclectic texts formed by incorporating variant readings from many sources some known and many unknown to us today. No two of them agree completely.

They are totally different from what we term the majority text whether HF or RP.

Here is a nice list that shows several hundred differences between the KJV and the majority text of HF.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html

These TR editions could be said to be hopelessly corrupt as they in no way represent the majority text. They are different in hundreds of ways. The Revelation is more corrupt than any other book because of Erasmus' poor manuscript. The last six verses are a Greek translation from the Vulgate and are not found in any other Greek manuscript.

Now I believe that all of the Reformation texts contain the Word of God and are the Word of God as Miles Smith said, be they Geneva, Rheims, Tyndale or even Wycliff though he translated solely from the Vulgate.

IMHO

 

[Steven Avery]

Reformation Text or Reformation Bible. I will attempt to summarize what you mean by reformation text. Correct me if I'm wrong. It would be any text that was collated from any number of disparate and various sources during the 16th century. It would be a thoroughly eclectic text not based on any one family of manuscripts.

In terms of external evidence, the TR was based primarily on the Greek mss, with the Latin mss and the ECW also contributing.  In modern terms it can be called an eclectic text, a bit anachronistically.

Are you saying you agree completely with Jaroslav Jan Pelikán?.

Not at all. I'm saying that he helps a lot with the identification and definition of the Reformation Bible, from an established scholarship perspective. 

I do not like to use the term "Textus Receptus" as it is exceedingly nebulous

Not at all. A set of editions is represented, much the same way that Critical Text is used.

and was not used in the 16th century by anyone that has left a printed record. It was unknown until 1633,

Your wording is obscure and potentially self-contradictory.  What you are trying to say is there is no extant record of use.  Lots of people who left a printed record may have written and spoken in many places about the received text.

Just as significantly, who is your information source on this claim? What exactly did they claim?  Did they really check the historical use? Have you?

And what term do you use for what would most would call the group of Received Text editions?
What term do you use for what would most would call the group of Critical Text editions?

  long after the last Reformation Texts were completed, when the Elzevirs placed it in the preface to the second edition of their Greek New Testament. 

This makes no sense. Reformation Bibles were being translated into many languages. And in Greek, the Elzevir editions were just coming out of the Greek text.  Long after what?  And more Greek editions came out e.g. later by John Mill.

  In this preface the Elzevirs wrote, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus -- “What you have here, is the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted". This term is not found anywhere before this time.

Again, who told you this?

There is of course no single Greek manuscript that represents the "Textus Receptus"

Of course not, since Latin and ECW sources contributed to the Received Text editions.

  for the more than 30 varieties of the "Textus Receptus" were all eclectic texts formed by incorporating variant readings from many sources some known and many unknown to us today. No two of them agree completely.

When they agree they are considered the same variety.  This is circular.

They are totally different from what we term the majority text whether HF or RP.

Thank you Lord Jesus!

Vive les Differences! Why would anyone care about a Greek-only nose-counting text, except maybe for collation purposes?

These TR editions could be said to be hopelessly corrupt as they in no way represent the majority text.

 
The person who would say that would be foolish, ignorant and conceptually anachronistic.  Why in the world should a full-orbed historic text, the historic Reformation Bible represent a one-dimensional nose-counting, threshold collation text read by just-about-nobody?

===========

So you believe all editions are the word of God?  Received Text, Vulgate, Critical Text.  Maybe dozens of other conflicting editions and manuscripts.

Are any corrupt?
Do the thousands of differences matter to you?

Please, let's not play dodge and dance.  Be straight-forward.  I'm answering your questions directly, try to respond in kind.

e.g Explain how you feel about the dozens of verses that are missing or added? 
Or "God was manifest in the flesh.." 
Or contradictory texts. (e.g. the daughter of Herod.)

Is it all frill to you?

e.g.
Do you just say "I dunno and I don't care .. I feel I've got the message, and that is what counts"

And I would really, really like you to try to answer this section to point, clearly.

Since you ask better questions, I'm hoping you also give better answers (than is the contra norm).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery