Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark 7:3 - [textualcriticism] Re: Greek manuscripts in England - July, 2006
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/2270
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/2270
[FONT="]
Hi Folks,
Thanks, Daniel. Let me add a few thoughts.
>--- Schmuel wrote:Daniel Buck wrote:
>>> Looking at the King James Bible translators, ...a variety of printed Greek editions.... Textus Receptus editions by Beza and Stephanus. .... Complutensian Polyglot.>>
>There's no reason to assume that the KJV translators consulted any mss at all. They specifically mentioned "consult[ing] the Translators [and] Commenators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, [and]Yes, many of the above would be simply recent translations, Spanish, French, etc.
>Latin, [as well as] the Spanish, French, Italian, [and German]." These were all available in printed editions, except that AFAIK Syriac was first printed in 1645.
Specifically, considering the dates, what do you think is the reference to the Chaldee and Syrian ? And the Syriac printed edition you are mentioning, would that be a Textus Receptus translation into Syriac, or the Peshitta appearing in a printing ? (Or some sort of Peshitta manuscript or copy, even if partial).
As an aside, where you have [and German] the Preface apparently says Dutch. I do wonder why you made a change there. My understanding is that there was a Dutch edition distinct from the German.
Schmuel
><<any ideas or conjectures of other Greek manuscripts? They would have various Vulgate editions? Would they have any manuscripts that we today call Old Latin?>>Daniel
>TC was a very minor part of their responsibilites as translators of the KJV.Understood. I realize that they were not involved in a textcrit endeavor, such as coming up with an eclectic text. (Anyway, some of the principles currently in vogue in textcrit scholarship, such as lectio difficilior, had never yet even been floated for consideration as a textual analysis principle.)
However since so many of the translators were involved in Bible scholarship, it would not be surprising for some of them to be a bit familiar with whatever manuscripts were in the region. So the question is, as before, .. what hand-copied manuscripts were in the region ?
Daniel
> .... they revised the Bishops' Bible (the good one) using the best vocabulary and phraseolgy culled from all previous English translations (many good ones) as well as commentaries as far back as that of Theophilact (for Mark 7:3).Mark 7:3
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft,
eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
This would be a reference to the footnote:
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/mark7.htm>Mark 7:3 - "Or, diligently, in the originall, with the fist: Theophilact, up to the elbowe."
That would be a commentator from about 1100, Bulgaria. There were likely early
church writer commentaries as well, a whole nother consideration, especially
since so many of the variants have multiple references in those commentaries.
>< The resulting translation was clearly based heavily on Beza 1598, but according to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus (Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 60).Yes, while a good base, sometimes the Scrivener analysis seems to have
some weaknesses when you go verse to verse.
>I should not that it's a bit more complicated than that; the KJV "follows" various editions of the above editors (mainly just to the extent that they were adopted by earlier translators), and any "Vulgate" reading actually came into the KJV by means of earlier English versions, and ultimately from the Latin translations of Beza (a primary source for the Geneva Bible) Coverdale (a primary sourceInteresting.
>for the Great Bible), and Erasmus (a primary source for the Tyndale version). The Rheims NT was the source for some of the English phraseology of the KJV, but I don't know that anyone has ever traced
>any textual readings back to it, nor do I expect anyone to.
So you are indicating a view that they didn't actually have any Vulgate manuscripts per se ?
ie. Latin manuscripts from before the Reformation scholarship directly passed down ?
>I've abandoned the hypothesis that Tyndale drew on Wycliffe's version,I didn't even know that was a hypothesis
> a statement by Tyndale himself lamenting that he'd had no one to go before him in the job of developing a biblical vocabulary for the English language. Thus it appears he never laid hands on a ms of Wycliffe--and little wonder, as to do so at the time would have endangered both his head and that of its owner. Later, once the Bible was taken off the list of banned books, copies of WycliffeInteresting. Thanks.
>emerged from the shadows, to the point that the introduction of the Bishops' Bible makes mention of the fact that the Bible had been first translated into English a century and a half earlier.
There is a website that has the Tyndale and Geneva text side-by-side.
And there really does seem to be a vocabulary similarity.
As an example, looking at John
http://faithofgod.net/compare/John.htm
The nouns and verbs, adjectives and adverbs essentially match till the 14th verse
(truth/verity). This would seem to be unlikely if the biblical vocabulary didn't have
some direct or indirect connection.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
[/FONT]