From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 12 1995 - 14:56:13 EDT
My previous posting of this message was somehow messed up in the process, so
I'm re-posting it, together with an additional comment (written after I saw the
re-posting by Bruce Terry of Stephen Carlson's post!).
There seems to be some confusion about what Scrivener published. I own
a copy of the original printing of his text, 1881 (simultaneously with
Westcott and Hort's text). It is:
_The NEW TESTAMENT in the Original Greek, according to the Text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted
in the Revised Version_.
In fact, it is Beza's 1598 edition of the Textus Receptus, printed
oddly: The readings adopted by the (English company) Revisers are at the
bottom of each page, while the readings IN THE TEXT which were displaced
by the readings adopted by the Revisers are printed in boldface type.
He then gives an Appendix which lists the passages where the 1611 translators
did NOT follow Beza's text but instead translated readings from previous
editions of the TR (total number: 190 readings)--pp. 648-656.
Scrivener himself shifted from a pro-TR position, gradually, to
the point where he basically affirmed the text adopted by the Revisers
of 1881 (i.e, in the main, the text of Westcott and Hort).
ADDITION: Scrivener did NOT reconstruct the Greek text used by the AV
translators (though for all practical purposes he had to). He published the
1598 edition of Beza. He then exhibited its differences from TWO different
translations' Vorlagen: (1) the differences from (his calculation of) the
Greek text actually followed by the 1611 translators, in an Appendix
(pp. 648-656), and (2) the differences from the Greek text followed by the 1881
Revisers, in footnotes on each page, signaled by bold type in the text where
such differences occur.
This is a bit complicated, which is no doubt where the minor
Edward C. Hobbs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:29 EDT