From: Glenn L. Weaver (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 18 1997 - 07:06:41 EDT
> >I have the Scrivener's one, and a Stephanus, but
> >these seem quite different from your typical United Bible Society
> >I know there is a reason for this. (What is it?)
> Each is an attempt to reconstruct the best possible Greek text. Scrivener's
> is from 1550. Stephanus is, I believe, an attempt to reconstruct the basis
> for the King James Bible, and was done after the KJV translation.
This is essentially correct, Jonathan, but you reversed
Stephanus & Scrivener--Stephenus is the 1550 version (plus a few
others), and Scrivener was in 1894 & 1902. Scrivener's is the
current Trinitarian Bible Society text.
The TC sites you mentioned are very helpful!
I'm not wanting to start a TR-MT-NA/UBS debate here by the
following comment, but I would like to make a clarifying comment on
Ken Woodruff's post. The TR is not equal to the MT. The MT has
thousands of manuscripts which fit under this title, but the TR is
ony dependent on approximately a half dozen of these manuscripts.
This is why there are differences between the TR and MT. For further
info, Dan Wallace's two articles in BibSac on the Majority Text are
Glenn L. Weaver (email@example.com)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT