Why Scrivener REVERSE ENGINEERED the Textus Receptus!

[@Dwayne_Green]

In considering this video and the ongoing (and awesome!) discussions I've been having about the TR, I do have to add a bit of a correction to this video... For the most part, this video presents an accurate history of what has happened, however I feel I didn't quite go far enough in sharing that the differences between Beza and Scrivener amounts to about 190 variants all together. Very few of these differences amount to a translatable difference.

[@lloydcrooks712]

Hi Dwayne the reverse or backtranslated is not true any cursory reading of the Greek would demonstrate that please look at Hebrews 10 v20 the KJV says new but TR says πρόσφατος which means freshly slaughtered or even Mark 7 v3 Oft in the Greek πυγμή which relates to fist and elbow which was how the Jews washed there are numerous examples of this as a consequence the video is not factually true

[@morganfrmn]

Obviously he had great confidence in the scholarship of the KJV scholars. He also felt that the KJV scholars were accessing many Greek texts in stead of what we are taught

[@christopheryetzer]

I think you are bit mistaken. Scrivener used printed TR texts and matched those readings which might have been used by the KJB translators together. In other words, what might have the KJB translated from or thought was the true text. He did not use manuscripts or back-translate, he simply checked the different printed editions and put them together. He started with Beza's 1989 and then filled in with about 12 different editions (he mentions them in the appendix). An example of his work can be seen in Mark 15:3. Beza didn't have "but he answered nothing" but the Complutensian and Stephanus' first 2 editions did. Therefore Scrivener inserted it into his text.

[@RevRMBWest]

Scrivener, it seems, wrought a composite Textus Receptus from the several slightly different TR editions that had been printed from 1516 to 1637 - the text received by all. He used the AV translator's choices in this matter as his guide to do this, and that in effect wrought a final printed edition of the TR. It is not a bad edition, but it is not one that actually existed in physical form at the time of the AV: it is rather something that the AV translators themselves trailblazed, which then inspired Scrivener to bring into physical form many decades later. It is their view of the best text at the time. Many have since opposed it and the battle continues with much of the scholarly world veering over to 'the earliest manuscripts' and some of the scholars veering back to what the overwhelming number of manuscripts read.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks Rev... I made a second video and expanded on this (mostly due to some misunderstanding of others), you might enjoy this one too if you haven't seen it already: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hl7KpZusYt5maqc

[@bjadams64]

Hey Brother really enjoy your videos. I’m a retired Pentecostal pastor myself. It’s good to see other Pentecostal’s getting involved with these subjects. Keep up the good work young man.

[@julioalvarengamartinez8829]

i have the textus receptus from beza or the spanish kjv as i heard most kjv only say but what is really funny is that casiodoro and cipriano beat the kjv for 32 years funny isnt it

[@caldylangoss2287]

Great show, lad!

[@1sportv]

The Greek manuscripts had definite articles not reflected in the King James. The KJV was partially from Latin manusceipts and Latin doesn't have definite articles. So, going back to gk verses like Ephesians 2:8 changed to by grace through "the faith". Emphasis not on personal faith alone to the faith God delivered. The definite articles change the meaning.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Every English translation does. The definite article in Greek is used in ways we don't use it in English, the most obvious way is to put it before names. So instead of Jesus, they write 'the Jesus' or instead of Peter they write 'the Peter'. Many papers have been written to try to determine why the article does and doesn't appear before names and there is no consensus at all. One thing is certain, we don't do this in English, so when the article appears before a proper noun, it is rarely, if ever translated. Of course this is just one example of a type of usage. But your example suffices as well, the article is VERY important in many places...

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for the shout out. Scrivener is one of my favorite textual scholars.

[@Dwayne_Green]

You're video was a great resource! And I love your other content too!

[@JonStallings]

Trying to wrap my head around how you receive something backwards. 😲 Interesting history for sure

[@Dwayne_Green]

Definitely, to be sure, it wasn't really that bad, I think in total there were something like 270ish changes from Beza's edition, and they were quite minor... I may do a video on some of these changes.

[@DaneKristjan]

Interesting stuff. One correction, the Beza edition is the 1598

[@Dwayne_Green]

You are absolutely correct! Thanks for the correction!

[@DaneKristjan]

@@Dwayne_Green no problem brother. Scrivener's project was very interesting and is much misunderstood in our day. Good to have more info out there about him.

[@aitornavarro6597]

Where can one find printed editions of the TR that are earlier to Scrivener's work?

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thanx, Pastor Dwayne 🌹🌲🌹

[@matthewmencel5978]

fun fact, there are modern Editiosn of the Greek NT that are like this today as well. Paricularly, there is one for the NIV and there is an edition of the Greek NT to match the NET (I have it on LOGOS).

[@davidbrock4104]

Interesting... Thanks for posting

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

I am binge watching these videos. It is really a treasure collection.

[@NKDV76]

YUP

[@georgeluke6382]

Always helpful! Thank you!

[@RyanHReviews]

This video comes across to me as misleading. Scrivener consulted various editions of the Textus Receptus to find the readings the AV used. He only used printed Textus Receptus editions to find the proper readings and he never back-translated from English or Latin, even when the AV used a Vulgate reading.

[@Dwayne_Green]

I would hartily agree here, I don't believe that scrivener pulled these from his own mind from nothing... I used the phrase 'back-translated', which I admit was a poor choice of words, you can see the hesitancy with which I used it in the end. At 5:55, I mention he was looking for support among the manuscripts. 'reverse engineered' is a better phrase.

[@RyanHReviews]

@@Dwayne_Green I love your humility regarding my comment, God bless you! I watch your videos occasionally, although i no longer wrestle with issues of textual criticism and manuscripts, I believe God has pointed me to the TR. The most clear experience i have had with these issues actually came from reading the Majority Text Interlinear but it was specifically reading the longer ending of Mark where i felt the Holy Spirit powerfully and the page was filled with Light. I understand not everyone has had similar experiences and i remember hearing you say that you have not even after prayer but i don't doubt the Holy Spirit can guide you. I pray your day be blessed.

[@Dwayne_Green]

@@RyanHReviews Praise the Lord, brother! I'm glad to hear that the issue has been settled in your heart.

[@RyanHReviews]

@@Dwayne_Green Amen!

[@rodneyjackson6181]

You do translations based on the Greek manuscripts. You do not do a manuscript based on a translation. Its backwards like you basically said, reverse engineering. A KJV Greek manuscript.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Right! I think it's important to to recognize what Scriviner was trying to do. He was trying to reconstruct the Greek text behind the KJV for the sake of comparison with the revised version.

[@julioalvarengamartinez8829]

sorry 42 years mind you a slip of the finger