1550 Stephanus GNT

[Julia Falling]

Since the Textus Receptus (GNT-TR) we have in Accordance is adapted from the 1550 Stephanus, making the text conform to the textual choices made my the KJV translators, y'all must have a Stephanus somewhere, right?

 

Is it possible for us to have an un-adapted, untampered with 1550 Stephanus?  

 

Pretty please?

[Kristin]

Hi Julia,
I am afraid I can't answer the question, but if you do not mind, I am just curious what this is about. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the Greek TR has been modified to match the KJV? What about the Greek TR has been tampered with exactly?

[Julia Falling]

In the late 19th century, Scrivener modified a TR so that its Greek conformed to the English of the KJV, reflecting the textual choices made by the KJV translators (see the description of the Logos version here – https://www.logos.com/product/4643/the-new-testament-in-greek).  Some of what we see in the KJV has no textual support from any Greek manuscript, but comes from the Latin Vulgate.  Compare the Greek of the NA28th versus TR at Acts 3:20, and Rev 22:19 for instance (or the NAS95 or ESV to the KJV or NJKV) in the same verses.  The differences are not because the original Greek has differences at those points, but because what you see in the Scrivener TR (like the TR from the Trinitarian Bible Society) at those places comes from the Latin, translated into Greek, and then into English for the KJV and NKJV.

 

Read the "About this Text" from Accordance –

 

 

What we have in Accordance is essentially the Scrivener TR – I don't know whether every single word conforms to Scrivener.

 

If you want to learn more about this issue, I suggest that you read The King James Only Controversy by James R. White.  It is NOT a bashing of the KJV.  It is a careful, well-documented exposition of the textual differences.  I read the first edition in ahd 90's and the updated edition about a decade later.  Our current pastor, whom we highly respect, recommends White's often.  

 

EDIT:  One other interesting piece of information:  there are quite a few versions of the TR.  This screen shot is taken from a Daniel B. Wallace Credo class on Textual Criticism.  Note - the Computensian Polyglot is NOT a version of the TR, but has an additional version of a 16th centery GNT.  Dr. Wallace's class is excellent.  I highly recommend it.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Julia Falling

[Kristin]

Hi Julia,
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. That is all very interesting to know.

Take care,
Kristin

[Accordance Enthusiast]

This would also be a great addition to Accordance, 

 

As shown above, the Accordance TR is not really the 1550 Textus receptus at all.

 

This is available on Archive.org in the original print edition, https://archive.org/details/1550-stephanus-textus-receptus/page/n183/mode/2up

 

And it's also available on Logos as a text module...

[Brian K. Mitchell]

5 minutes ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

This would also be a great addition to Accordance, 

 Agreed! Count me in I would also like to see the Stephanus texts Receptus come to Accordance.

[Steven MacDonald]

Agreed.  I would like to have a tagged Stephanus and also Scrivener New Testament.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Trinitarian Bible Society has Scrivener. I'm using their print one and online one. I'd like to eventually see some of their content in Accordance.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

On 11/29/2023 at 6:53 AM, Dr. Nathan Parker said:

Trinitarian Bible Society has Scrivener. I'm using their print one and online one. I'd like to eventually see some of their content in Accordance.

 

 @Dr. Nathan Parker, the current Accordance 1550 TR is in reality a (modified version of the) Scrivener text! It is virtually the same as the Scrivener text and contains many, many divergences from the 1550 TR.

 

Here is an example from Revelation 16. This screenshot comes from Logos, but I have manually compared this with the Accordance TR. All the words marked in Yellow are examples where Accordance follows the (modified) Scrivener Text against the 1550 TR. 

 

Edited February 26 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Most of the above differences are minor - mostly the movable Nu - but the point is that the Accordance 1550 TR is not, at all, what it claims to be.

Accordance will do well to call it an attempt to reproduce a (modified) Scrivener text.

 

The word circled above in red is a serious difference. The 1550 TR reads οσιος (holy), but the KJV emended 'holy' to 'will be' - and the (modified) Scrivener text artificially mirrors that by reading "εσομενος" - with zero manuscript evidence. It's not in the printed TR of 1550, nor in any known Greek ms.

 

The bottom line is that the Accordance TR is not the 1550 TR, but extremely similar to the (modified) Scrivener text, which even contains artificial additions/changes based on the KJV and not based on any manuscripts.

Edited February 26 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Good to know. If you have your hands on a 1550 TR file, it's another one I can look at seeing if I could bring it into Accordance now that I'll be working on Bible development.

 

I can also try getting my hands on the TBS Scrivener TR so we have a clean Scrivener TR.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

I have the 1550 TR in Logos and Bible Works. Don't know where else one may find it but I guess you'll be able to get is without copyright somewhere...

[darrylmy]

I think this is a defect in the Accordance GNT-TRS module. Here is an image of Rev 16:5 in Stephanus' 1550 edition:

 

 

And here is an image of the same passage in Scrivener's 1887 edition:

 

 

I've also checked all of the other GNT texts that I own in Accordance and only GNT-TR has this clearly incorrect reading.

 

Further, another example in your screenshot is concerning me at Rev 16:14. Here is Stephan's' 1550 edition (notice it does not have the pronoun):

 

]

 

And again, here is Scrivener's 1887 edition (also without the pronoun):

 

 

But all the other modern GNT modules that I have contain the pronoun (GNT-BYZ, GNT-WH, GNT-TIS, NA28-T, NA27-T, NA27-GBS, GNT-T, UBS5-T, UBS4-T, THGNT-T). This makes me think that the GNT-TR was possibly a derivative text that was produced through editing.

 

This is making me loose confidence in Accordance having "research-grade" texts. I use the NA28 daily and its making me wonder if I can trust it now.

 

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Good observations @darrylmy!

 

Thanks for that.

 

Thus, it seems that both Logos and Accordance have an edited version of the Scrivener text, which mirrors the KJV more than the 1887 Scrivener text.

 

From Logos: "This Greek text (Scrivener 1881) is the Greek text which corresponds best to the 1611 King James Version. The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version. This is a useful text for comparison for those with proficiency in Greek..."

 

From Accordance: "Greek New Testament: Textus Receptus (GNT-TRS) ...adjusted against the text of “The Greek New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611...” "

 

So, the main issue is that the Accordance TR is not Stephanus TR, but it is the modified Scrivener text which artificially follows the KJV.

Edited February 26 by Accordance Enthusiast

[darrylmy]

Indeed, thanks for sharing that info. I just tracked down a source from 1882 that contains the 1611 and the 1881 revised edition along with the Greek text. Here is the preface to the Greek text (this is like reverse-textual criticism if it can even be called that!): https://archive.org/details/parallelnewtesta00scri/page/n25/mode/2up?view=theater

 

Also, note the reading at Rev 16:5 and the change in the margin:

 

 

And in Rev 16:14 note the inclusion of the pronoun:

 

 

Hopefully Scrivener is remembered not for this work, but his subsequent work!

 

This puts me a bit at ease to see that the editing was done on the actual text rather than the Accordance module (at least in regards to the texts in Accordance). Thanks for clarifying that for me. So I definitely agree with you that the GNT-TR should not be marketed as Stephanus' 1550 edition, but rather, Scrivener's 1881 edition.

 

It would probably be nice if Accordance included a brief history of this text in the read-me module on the GNT-TRS.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Great info. Thanks.

 

Hopefully you'll all look into this when you have a moment @Dr. Nathan Parker.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

I'll show this to our teams. Thanks!