Tag Archives: TR

Matthew chapter 20 verse 15 variant

What is going on here in Matthew 20:15? The Majority text reads:

Ἢ οὐκ ἔξεστίν μοι ποιῆσαι ὃ θέλω ἐν τοῖς ἐμοῖς; Εἰ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρός ἐστιν, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἀγαθός εἰμι;

Here are the two significant variants in the verse, showing only witnesses 8th century and earlier:

η ουκ…ει ο οφθαλμος lat Chrysostom TR RP ‖ η ουκ…η ο οφθαλμος ℵ C E N W Σ Φ 085 syr-p,h cop-sa TH [NA28] ‖ ουκ…η ο οφθαλμος B* D L Z SBL ‖ ουκ…ει ο οφθαλμος B² ‖ lac A P 0233 0281. 

All the witnesses above except B D L Z SBL begin the sentence with the Greek word Ἢ, “or.” Then the TR and Majority text for the second variant read ει, a marker for a direct question. What I am pointing out is that none of the English translations based on the Majority reading translate the word Ἢ as “or.”

BUT, neither do the English translations based on the second reading, which has the Greek word η for both variants, neither do they appear to render their text as it is found.

Practically none of the English translations translate the first η as “or.” 

The translations supposedly based on the TR / Majority text, at first seem to read as the Vaticanus corrector. (ουκ…ει ο οφθαλμος B²). The English translations from the Syriac, the Etheridge and Murdock translations, also seem to read as B².

The EMTV, “English Majority Text Version, reads as the SBL text.

We have seen that none of the English translations translate the first η as “or.”  But they are probably not following the reading of B* D L Z Θ SBL. The BDF grammar in Sec. 440 (3) says a simple interrogative ἦ does not exist in the NT.  In Sec. 440 (1) DeBrunner gives four examples in the NT of “simple interrogative ἤ,” Matt. 20:15, 26:53; 1 Cor. 9:8; 2 Cor. 11:7.  This must be how the first η is being interpreted.

Luke Ch 2 verse 22

There is a textual variant in Luke 2:22, where the Textus Receptus Greek text reads “her purification,” but all other Greek editions read “their purification. The TR reading is found only in the Catenae, but in no Greek manuscript, or other language version, or in any Church Father writings. The Bishops’ Bible, the Douay Rheims Bible, the Geneva Bible and the King James bibles read “her purification,” but Tyndale reads “their purification,” so they departed not only from the Greek and Latin manuscripts, but also from their predecessor English translation. Wycliffe reads “the daies of the purgacioun of Marie.”

Here is the footnote from my translation of Luke:

txt αυτων 76 rell. Gk. it-q syr-p,h cop-sa,bo-pt AT RP NA28 ‖ αυτου D 118 205 209 it-a,aur,b,c,d,e,f,ff²,g¹,l,r¹ vg syr-s cop-sa-ms arm Ir-lat (Adv. Haer 3.10.5.157-9) ‖ αυτον Θ* ‖ omit cop-bo-pt Chrys Diatess-Pers. ‖ αυτης TR ‖ lac 𝔓⁴⁵ 𝔓⁷⁵ C F N P Q T.

You can download my translation of Luke here.

Textus Receptus Gospel of John

I completed and uploaded my edition of the Gospel of John containing verse by verse alternation between the Textus Receptus Greek text of John and my English translation.  You can download that there, and also the whole Bible Textus Receptus edtion.  Kindle edition as well.  The Greek text I used was Scrivener’s 1894 TR edition.  I don’t see the point of translating Erasmus’ or Stephens’ editions since that would not line up with the King James Version (KJV), with which people are already very familiar.

There are not a great many differences between the Textus Receptus and the Robinson-Pierpont text of John’s gospel, but I noticed that when the TR does differ, it is often following the Western text, i.e., Codex D and Latin. I also noticed a variant reading in the TR for which I know of no Greek manuscript attesting to it (there may be one or two; I have not looked at all MSS.) And that variant is in John 20:29, “Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed.” That addition of the word Θωμᾶ, Thomas, is not attested in any of the Greek mss (as far as I know right now.)

Byzantine Gospel of John

I have completed and uploaded my translation of the Robinson-Pierpont majority text version of the gospel of John.  You can download that as the separate pdf file, or as part of the Byz Holy Bible: https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/johnwgrkbyz.pdf    https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/holybiblebyz.pdf ; A Microsoft Word edition of the whole bible is also available: https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/holybiblebyz.docx

Textus Receptus Revelation

I have completed and uploaded editions of the Revelation of John based on the Robinson-Pierpont Greek text, and also another one based on the Textus Receptus.  In addition, my previous eclectic edition of Revelation has added to it many more footnotes.  There are now 508 footnotes in these editions, showing the textual variants, and the ancient witness support for each.
Here you can download the Textus Receptus edition of the Apocalypse of John or the Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Apocalypse of John

Textual Variant Revelation 11:10

In Revelation 11:10, the Byzantine text says people will “give gifts” to each other, whereas the TR and NA28 says they will “send gifts.”  Which turns out to be the more accurate prediction of gifting in the future?

Revelation 11:10- txt πέμψουσιν ℵ² A C ƒ052 922 1006 1841 2040 2053txt vg it-gig Tyc1,3 Prim Ps-Ambr syriac coptic-bohairic arab TR SBL NA28 {\} ‖ πεμπουσιν ℵ* P coptic-sahidic arm2,3,4 Tyc2 Beat ‖ πεμψωσιν 2329 ‖ π̣[εμψου]σιν ?⁴⁷ ‖ π̣[εμψουσιν] ?¹¹⁵  ‖ πεμπειν 2053com ‖ δώσουσιν 046 1828 eth RP ‖ hiat 051 2050 2062.  Both Papyrus 47 and Papyrus 115 read words that start with π, so they are some form of the word “send.” To download my document that contains this:  https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf

Revelation 8:7 Homoioteleuton

A case of homoioteleuton in the Textus Receptus

Will one third of the earth be burned up or not?  Revelation 8:7.  This is a variant between Bible versions based on the Textus Receptus, and all others.  The Textus Receptus and the King James Version omit the first of the three phrases below, which means, “and one third of the earth will be burned up.”

καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς κατεκάη
καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων κατεκάη
καὶ πᾶς χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη

Only three late Greek manuscripts (out of 300+-) omit the first phrase, and it is a clear case of “homoioteleuton” that happened in the Greek copying process.  That means, the lines end the same, so a copyist, having left off his work for a break, then resumed doing his work, and he remembers, “I resume, at the line ending with κατεκάη,” but he resumed with the wrong line ending with κατεκάη.  Skipped one line by accident.  Homoioteleuton.

Or, it could have been a case of “homoioarcton,” that is, all three lines BEGIN the same, with καὶ, and the scribe having left off, resumed, thinking, “I resume with the line beginning with καὶ, but he picked the wrong line beginning with καὶ.

Interestingly, the scribe of manuscript 620 wrote the phrase in question two times, which is another kind of parablepsis from homoioteleuton.

As long as I am on this verse, let’s look at a Bible version.  As you can see, the word κατεκάη is used 3 times, the exact same word and same form of the word, and it means “burned up.”

NLT:  One-third of the earth was set on fire, one-third of the trees were burned, and all the green grass was burned.

So why does the New Living Translation render one of the occurrences of κατεκάη as “set on fire”?  This is simply unacceptable.  Just one of thousands of translation errors in the NLT.  I would never recommend the NLT, or the Message.  If you want a paraphrase, the Philips NT is much better, or the NIV.  I consider the NIV a mild paraphrase.

Please share this post about Homoioteleuton in the Textus Receptus