191 Variations in Scrivener’s 1881 Greek New Testament from Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus

From Textus Receptus

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→Matthew 10:25)
Line 198: Line 198:
;Other English Versions
;Other English Versions
-
Scrivener changed his 1881 Greek New Testament to Beelzebub in this verse as opposed to Beza's 1598 Greek Beelzeboul. But he was in error to do so because it can be easily explained by the translators second rule which stated  
+
Scrivener changed his [[1881 AD|1881]] Greek New Testament to Beelzebub in this verse as opposed to Beza's [[1598 AD|1598]] Greek Beelzeboul. But he was in error to do so because it can be easily explained by the translators second rule which stated  
"The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used."  
"The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used."  
-
The name Beelzebub had been established in English, German, and Latin usage and so became the acceptable translation of Beelzeboul in translations. Others that read Beelzebub are Zwingli’s Swiss bible of 1531, Luther's 1565 Bible, the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot have it in the German, Danish, Latin, Italian, Galice, and Bohemice. The Italian Diodoti of 1661 also has it. It was not a strange practice to alter proper names from the Greek text to a name more agreeable in its traditional English pronunciation, for example “Paulos” was altered to “Paul” (II Timothy 1:1), “Looidi” is “Lois” (2 Timothy 1:5), “Euneika” to “Eunice” (2 Timothy 1:5), “Petros” to “Peter” (1 Peter 1:1), “Jakobos” to “James” (James 1:1), “Joudas” to “Jude” (Jude 1:1), and “Timotheo” to “Timothy” (1 Timothy 1:2), etc. If the translators were justified in converting the Greek spelling of proper names of people, why are they not justified in changing the proper name of “Beelzeboul” in Greek to “Beelzebub” in English? Surely Scrivener should have figured this out?  
+
The name Beelzebub had been established in English, German, and Latin usage and so became the acceptable translation of Beelzeboul in translations. Others that read Beelzebub are Zwingli’s Swiss bible of 1531, Luther's 1565 Bible, the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot have it in the German, Danish, Latin, Italian, Galice, and Bohemice. The Italian Diodoti of 1661 also has it. It was not a strange practice to alter proper names from the Greek text to a name more agreeable in its traditional English pronunciation, for example “Paulos” was altered to “Paul” ([[2 Timothy 1:1]]), “Looidi” is “Lois” ([[2 Timothy 1:5]]), “Euneika” to “Eunice” ([[2 Timothy 1:5]]), “Petros” to “Peter” ([[1 Peter 1:1]]), “Jakobos” to “James” ([[James 1:1]]), “Joudas” to “Jude” ([[Jude 1:1]]), and “Timotheo” to “Timothy” ([[1 Timothy 1:2]]), etc. If the translators were justified in converting the Greek spelling of proper names of people, why are they not justified in changing the proper name of “Beelzeboul” in Greek to “Beelzebub” in English? Surely Scrivener should have figured this out?  
-
There are six passages which read “Beelzeboul” in the underlying Greek of Beza which is translated “Beelzebub” by the King James Version translators. The passages are [[Matthew 12:24]], [[Matthew 12:27]], [[Mark 3:22]], [[Luke 11:15]], [[Luke 11:18]], and [[Luke 11:19]]. Beelzeboub appears in Scrivener’s Greek only in [[Matthew 10:25]], but not in the other five passages it follows Beelzeboul which is the reading in Beza's 1598. Why he was inconsistent in [[Matthew 12:25]] is because the [[Complutensian Polyglot]] only had Beelzebub in [[Matthew 10:25]] but Beezeboul in all other places, so he matched it to that text in his failed attempt to reconstruct the [[Greek language|Greek]] behind the [[King James Version]].
+
There are six passages which read “Beelzeboul” in the underlying Greek of Beza which is translated “Beelzebub” by the King James Version translators. The passages are [[Matthew 12:24]], [[Matthew 12:27]], [[Mark 3:22]], [[Luke 11:15]], [[Luke 11:18]], and [[Luke 11:19]]. Beelzeboub appears in Scrivener’s Greek only in [[Matthew 10:25]], but not in the other five passages it follows Beelzeboul which is the reading in Beza's [[1598 AD|1598]]. Why he was inconsistent in [[Matthew 12:25]] is because the [[Complutensian Polyglot]] only had Beelzebub in [[Matthew 10:25]] but Beezeboul in all other places, so he matched it to that text in his failed attempt to reconstruct the [[Greek language|Greek]] behind the [[King James Version]].
==[[Matthew 11:21]]==
==[[Matthew 11:21]]==

Revision as of 19:03, 13 December 2012

Contents

Matthew 2:11

Beza εὗρον
Scrivener εἶδον
Scrivener
Beza

Footnote: In omnibus, εὗρον. vetustis exemplaribus scriptum erat, εἶδον viderunt. (In all things, εὗρον. In copies of the ancient codices it was written, εἶδον see it.)

  • 1582, (not yet sure)
  • 1589, (not yet sure)
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
English Versions
Conclusion

So even though Scrivener changes the "εὗρον" in "εἶδον" it is of no significance because both mean "invenerunt" in Latin. All thoughout the reformation in Matthew 2:11 they used "εἶδον", "εὗρον", and "invenerunt" side by side. Erasmus used "repererunt" (found) for "εὗρον" in 1516, but later editions say "invenerunt". The Complutensian used the different "εἶδον" but still had had "invenerunt" in Latin.

On Page 243 of The authorized edition of the English Bible (1611) its subsequent reprints and modern representatives by F. H. A. Scrivener Published 1884, it says that the Complutensian and the Bishops' have in place of "εἶδον" (for "εἶδον").

See Also

Matthew 9:18

Beza -
Scrivener εἷς
Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions
  • 1526 Lo there cam certayne ruler
  • 1534 beholde ther came a certayne ruler
  • 1535 beholde there came a certayne ruler
  • 1540 beholde, ther came a certayne ruler
  • 1549 behold there came a certaine rueler
  • 1568 beholde, there came a certayne ruler
  • 1587 beholde, there came a certaine ruler
  • 1611 beholde, there came a certaine ruler
Conclusion

Why did Scrivener claim that the KJV follows the Complutensian reading when the above English bibles have the same reading without following any Greek text with "εἷς".

Green in his 1976 interlinear of Scrivener has "one" above "εἷς" but considers it unimportant and in the LITV Translation on the side has "..behold, coming up a ruler bowed before him.." So he leaves the εἷς untranslated. In his Interlinear Greek New Testament Third Edition, he has "..behold, coming one ruler worshiped Him.." and εἷς has "one" above it.

Zodhiates and the Online bible both have εἷς meaning "a certain"

See Also

Matthew 10:10

Scrivener
  • 1884 ῥάβδους
Beza
  • 1598 ῥάβδον
Stephanus
  • 1550 ῥάβδον
Erasmus


Complutensian Polyglot

ῥάβδους

King James Version
Other English Versions

Matthew 10:25

Scrivener
  • 1881 Βεελζεβοὺβ
Beza
  • 1598 Βεελζεβοὺλ
Stephanus
  • 1550 Βεελζεβοὺλ
  • 1551 Βεελζεβοὺλ
Erasmus
  • 1516 Βεελζεβοὺλ
Complutensian Polyglot
  • 1514 Βεελζεβοὺβ
King James Version
Other English Versions

Scrivener changed his 1881 Greek New Testament to Beelzebub in this verse as opposed to Beza's 1598 Greek Beelzeboul. But he was in error to do so because it can be easily explained by the translators second rule which stated

"The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used."

The name Beelzebub had been established in English, German, and Latin usage and so became the acceptable translation of Beelzeboul in translations. Others that read Beelzebub are Zwingli’s Swiss bible of 1531, Luther's 1565 Bible, the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot have it in the German, Danish, Latin, Italian, Galice, and Bohemice. The Italian Diodoti of 1661 also has it. It was not a strange practice to alter proper names from the Greek text to a name more agreeable in its traditional English pronunciation, for example “Paulos” was altered to “Paul” (2 Timothy 1:1), “Looidi” is “Lois” (2 Timothy 1:5), “Euneika” to “Eunice” (2 Timothy 1:5), “Petros” to “Peter” (1 Peter 1:1), “Jakobos” to “James” (James 1:1), “Joudas” to “Jude” (Jude 1:1), and “Timotheo” to “Timothy” (1 Timothy 1:2), etc. If the translators were justified in converting the Greek spelling of proper names of people, why are they not justified in changing the proper name of “Beelzeboul” in Greek to “Beelzebub” in English? Surely Scrivener should have figured this out?

There are six passages which read “Beelzeboul” in the underlying Greek of Beza which is translated “Beelzebub” by the King James Version translators. The passages are Matthew 12:24, Matthew 12:27, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15, Luke 11:18, and Luke 11:19. Beelzeboub appears in Scrivener’s Greek only in Matthew 10:25, but not in the other five passages it follows Beelzeboul which is the reading in Beza's 1598. Why he was inconsistent in Matthew 12:25 is because the Complutensian Polyglot only had Beelzebub in Matthew 10:25 but Beezeboul in all other places, so he matched it to that text in his failed attempt to reconstruct the Greek behind the King James Version.

Matthew 11:21

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Matthew 13:24

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Mark 2:15

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Mark 4:18

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Mark 5:38

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Mark 6:45

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Mark 6:53

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions


Mark 9:42

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Mark 13:9

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions


Mark 15:3

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Luke 3:31

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Luke 3:35

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Luke 17:36

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Stephanus made only a few changes in Erasmian text but added to the Erasmian text verse Luke 17:36. He took it from Codex Bezae. So the KJV translators said in the footnotes: This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies

John 8:6

Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

Ephesians 6:24

Beza - ἀμήν
Scrivener -
Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions

In Scrivener's TR he omits Amen in Ephesians 6:24. Actually if you look at the 1598 of Beza, it contains Amen in both the Greek, Latin, and Vulgate. The original 1611 KJV did not contain 'amen' due to a printing error. This 'typo' was corrected in 1616. Obviously Scrivener took this as a Textual Emendation rather than a printing error. So you could say that Scrivener was too literal in sticking with the 1611 in his TR. The Text of Beza, 1598 is the Textus Receptus behind the KJV.


Philippians 2:21

Beza -
Scrivener -
Scrivener
Beza
Stephanus
Erasmus
Complutensian Polyglot
King James Version
Other English Versions
Retrieved from "http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/191_Variations_in_Scrivener%E2%80%99s_1881_Greek_New_Testament_from_Beza%27s_1598_Textus_Receptus"
Personal tools