Quote:
|
Can you give actual concrete difference between Scrivener's TR and the KJV?
|
I will state the case briefly as I understand it: Instead of presenting the actual underlying text to the King James Bible, Scrivener presented on occasions differences to the KJB as are to be found in some or many Greek witnesses, because he limited himself to certain Greek sources, so his work therefore, according to various reviewers, has differences at Hebrews 10:23, 1 John 5:7 and so on.
There is no exact "jot and tittle" (or iota) correct text of the Greek that is being presented today. This is because the King James Bible has gathered from a variety of sources, and presented the exact correct text in English. (It does not exist in Greek in one extant volume.) Going back to the Greek, or attempting to imitate the KJB in Greek is, once we regard the finality of the English Bible, taking a step backwards. Thus, the situation is “fait accompli”.
The real problem is that authority cannot now be in the original languages “in toto” because we cannot be entirely certain as to which sources and when the translators were following what, or whether they found (as we might expect from the title page) every last reading from the Greek for the New Testament. Therefore, we can only rely upon that we know in English, that is, the received tradition as manifested to us through the Church by Divine Providence. Additionally, Scrivener also came up with analysis of where he things that the translators followed Beza as opposed to Stephanus, etc., but all this again is "ex post facto".
Bishop Lloyd's Textus Receptus was being used as the usual Greek standard for a long time, and this is even what Burgon utalised. Having studied Scrivener's work on the King James Bible (he was a member of the Revised Version Committee after all), it is clear that this is a person who did not hesitate to make unnecessary changes.