Reverse engineering is definitely a better description of what Scrivener did, and you did a good job of explaining the difference between the two terms. Back translation is what Erasmus did at the end of Revelation when he didn't have a Greek source for it.
Nice! I always find it humorous how much the TR crowd reveres Scivener without realizing most of his work was promoting and supporting the Revised Version alongside Westcott and Hort!
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 that is actually wrong. I'd recommend you watch the lecture Mark Ward did on that at his Almer Mater (Bob Jones) where he goes goes to Scrivner's own words on textual critical methedology.. And the work Allen is talking about is the Revised Version. FH Scrivner was a member of the committee that produced the Revised Version.
@@matthewmencel5978 I've watched it. Ward exaggerates, perhaps in an attempt to make his case stronger.[¹] (And he was immediately informed about it by me personally.) Scrivener was no friend of Hort's methodology. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply needs to read Scrivener's works. [¹ EDIT: or maybe he was simply working under a misconception. Either way, I'm not trying to ascribe bad motives to Dr. Ward. It's a common tendency to exaggerate a bit (or see what one wants to see i.e. confirmation bias) when presenting an argument.]
Thank you, Pastor Dwayne: Scrivener was 'back-guided' by the AV translation to the other TR editions where these differed from the Beza edition; thus making available, for the first time in print, the precise and composite trail that the AV men had blazed in composing the Authorised Version. Yes, the AV is taken from the AV men's 'composite TR' that Scrivener for the first time made available in print.
I love the Scrivener TR, but in my present study of revelation, I see that the majority manuscripts were ignored in some places. This is not good. Some of the evidence in his Greek text is almost negligent.
From what I remember, the initial Erasmus only had one manuscript of revelation. If this is true, he likely relied heavily upon the Vulgate for it. This isn't really all that surprising though since a number of Latin readings appear in the Textus Receptus.
Scrivener was not attempting to create either a majority text, or what he thought was original. He was simply attempting to reconstruct the greek text presumably underlying the 1611 KJV. Retro-engineering is a pretty good analogy. Whether he did a (i) perfect, (ii) near perfect, or (iii) merely pretty good attempt at retro-engineering requires others to attempt to do the same job. Alan Bunning claims he's detected heaps of errors in Scrivener, but Bunning's method has its own problems it seems. Given the evidence of other similar tasks Scrivener did that have been replicated by others, I would expect him to have done a very very good but not perfect retro-engineering.
Actually I do feel like this is a necessary distinction since I feel like a lot of the confusion around KJV-onlyism is fueled by imprecise use of terms. Another example is not distinguishing preservation in the general sense that most believers would agree with, and the supposed perfect preservation of the text after 1611 (IMO KJVO actually falls apart if this distinction is clearly made). Really "back-translate" should only be used in this context in debates like end of Revelation and 1 John 5:7.
You're right. I believe the preface said something to the effect of 'those edition which the KJV would naturally have used'. The point was less about which editions he used and more the fact that he used other editions.
@@michealferrell1677 Tregelles was not directly involved at all in the RV (though I think he might have been invited) as he was already too ill having suffered a series of strokes in the last decade of his life. However, his influence would have been felt through the text and apparatus of his large edition of the Greek NT (with Vulgate) that was published in parts during his lifetime and finally completed from his notes after his death. Hort was influenced by and highly appreciative of Tregelles work, but Hort's procedures and theory are different to Tregelles.
As for what Westott and Hort - they used dozens of manuscripts, but mainly focussed on about half a dozen the vast majority of the time and basically if Vaticanus made sense they went with it, especially if Sinaticus backed it. There are only a small number of places where they didn't follow the combined witness of Vaticanus and Sinaticus.
When I say "manuscripts" what I really mean is the evidence of manuscripts as printed in apparatus and editions - they did inspect some manuscripts themselves but largely relied on the evidence of those manuscripts as they had already been published or collated for them.
it's a good thing to educate the listeners, especially when dealing with a technical and complex issue like text criticism, it fits right in with a more "learned" approach to the use of words, and the lifting of the standard to a little higher level than just staying on the "popular" level where most people are at the outset... to the "popular mind" the expression "back translate" gives the ring of doing a back translation from one language to another where we have lost or cannot find the original text of a document, like the popular anecdote about Erasmus' "back translating" of the last 6 verses of Revelation from Latin to (back into) Greek, in which he supposedly did not have Greek MSS for the verses.... (though the expression is also used today for other purposes - see below)... so "reverse engineering" is better, but even that is not completely satisfying, for it is not about "reverse engineering" a complete NT text, just a tracing of a few variant readings in some passages of the A.V.1611... in the end, it is better to just explain that Scrivener identified the textual choices of the KJV and produced in print the "Greek text underlying the A.V.1611".... like it says on the title page: "...THE TEXT FOLLOWED IN THE AUTHORISED VERSION"... and the case is simply and shortly accounted for in the TBS edition's Preface... (-- another modern variant of a practice called "back translation" is found on a website called "Scriptis": "What is back translation? Occasionally, a language services client needs an additional validation step called a “back translation.” Back translation is the translation of a target document back to the original source language. The process guards against potentially lethal mistakes in specialized, technical and medical materials. Who requires it? A back translation adds an additional layer of quality assurance for sensitive or high risk information. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and ethics committees often require this process for translations of research surveys and clinical trials. Regulatory agencies might require proof of accuracy for translations of instructions for medical devices and potentially dangerous industrial processes. Back translation helps identify any ambiguities or sensitive details in the source. It also assures that any cross-cultural misunderstandings are addressed before publication of the translated text. What should you expect? A separate linguist with no knowledge of the original source content should translate the target document back into the source language. It won’t be an exact replica of the original source text. There is no mathematical formula for translation, and one translator’s word choice can never exactly match another’s. We instruct our linguists to translate as literally and comprehensively as possible, using precise dictionary terms, while avoiding personal stylistic choices. When the target has been translated back into the source language, the reconciliation process begins.") ... -- here we see that fundamentally they define back translation like: "Back translation is the translation of a target document back to the original source language", it's just used for another purpose and not because the "original" is lost... but one interesting thing about Scrivener's work with the A.V.1611 text: in some sense the exact text underlying the translators' resultant text, was "lost", or more precisely "hidden", for Scrivener, in a few places where he was not able to trace the source of a rendering in the A.V. back to any of the Greek "TR editions", where he could only suggest probabilities that they followed the Latin reading or the Complutensian.... so he was not able to "reconstruct" the "text underlying the A.V." with absolute confidence, though these were very few and minor instances.... but he did not touch the text in those instances, but added them in the Appendix.... though he may even have misinterpreted a handful of instances, where the text is identifiable in the "TR editions" and in Beza's text, like Nick Sayers have suggested... but i doubt anyone could have done a better job than what he did back in 1881...
Pastor are you saying that we can not trust any of the translations that we have today including the KJB, if so then what the hell have I been doing for the last 12 years? Of trusting the Bible?
Not at all. This is simply a recounting of the historical details surrounding Scrivener's work on the Textus Receptus, which part of this video are you having trouble with?
Be sure to check out the original Scrivener video that this video is commenting on! th-cam.com/video/6n_82448iw4/w-d-xo.html
Reverse engineering is definitely a better description of what Scrivener did, and you did a good job of explaining the difference between the two terms. Back translation is what Erasmus did at the end of Revelation when he didn't have a Greek source for it.
Nice! I always find it humorous how much the TR crowd reveres Scivener without realizing most of his work was promoting and supporting the Revised Version alongside Westcott and Hort!
What "work" are you speaking of? Scrivener was no fan of the type of textual criticism practiced and promoted by W&H.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 that is actually wrong. I'd recommend you watch the lecture Mark Ward did on that at his Almer Mater (Bob Jones) where he goes goes to Scrivner's own words on textual critical methedology.. And the work Allen is talking about is the Revised Version. FH Scrivner was a member of the committee that produced the Revised Version.
@@matthewmencel5978 I've watched it. Ward exaggerates, perhaps in an attempt to make his case stronger.[¹] (And he was immediately informed about it by me personally.) Scrivener was no friend of Hort's methodology. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply needs to read Scrivener's works.
[¹ EDIT: or maybe he was simply working under a misconception. Either way, I'm not trying to ascribe bad motives to Dr. Ward. It's a common tendency to exaggerate a bit (or see what one wants to see i.e. confirmation bias) when presenting an argument.]
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I wanted to make sure so I went and read scrivener fir myself and Dr Mark Ward is right on the money .
@@michealferrell1677 went to what exactly? And how is Ward right on the money pray tell?
Can you tell about the verses that are in textus receptus but not found in any other original manuscripts? Thanks
Thank you, Pastor Dwayne: Scrivener was 'back-guided' by the AV translation to the other TR editions where these differed from the Beza edition; thus making available, for the first time in print, the precise and composite trail that the AV men had blazed in composing the Authorised Version. Yes, the AV is taken from the AV men's 'composite TR' that Scrivener for the first time made available in print.
The appendix of his 1881 edition contains a list of the Latin readings.
I love the Scrivener TR, but in my present study of revelation, I see that the majority manuscripts were ignored in some places. This is not good. Some of the evidence
in his Greek text is almost negligent.
From what I remember, the initial Erasmus only had one manuscript of revelation. If this is true, he likely relied heavily upon the Vulgate for it. This isn't really all that surprising though since a number of Latin readings appear in the Textus Receptus.
Scrivener was not attempting to create either a majority text, or what he thought was original. He was simply attempting to reconstruct the greek text presumably underlying the 1611 KJV. Retro-engineering is a pretty good analogy. Whether he did a (i) perfect, (ii) near perfect, or (iii) merely pretty good attempt at retro-engineering requires others to attempt to do the same job. Alan Bunning claims he's detected heaps of errors in Scrivener, but Bunning's method has its own problems it seems. Given the evidence of other similar tasks Scrivener did that have been replicated by others, I would expect him to have done a very very good but not perfect retro-engineering.
I think there are 3 or 4 ( 1881, 18??, 1904) editions of Scrivener's Greek New Testament.
Are there any differences between the text in each edition?
Actually I do feel like this is a necessary distinction since I feel like a lot of the confusion around KJV-onlyism is fueled by imprecise use of terms. Another example is not distinguishing preservation in the general sense that most believers would agree with, and the supposed perfect preservation of the text after 1611 (IMO KJVO actually falls apart if this distinction is clearly made).
Really "back-translate" should only be used in this context in debates like end of Revelation and 1 John 5:7.
Good explanation.
About 9:28 I don't believe he considered Elzevir. I believe they were all pre-1611 printed Greek texts.
You're right. I believe the preface said something to the effect of 'those edition which the KJV would naturally have used'. The point was less about which editions he used and more the fact that he used other editions.
@@Dwayne_Green I knew it was somewhat off the cuff as an illustration of what he was doing.
What exactly were Wescott and Hort using to produce their text ?
They relied HEAVILY on Sainaticus and Vaticanus. They were newer discoveries at the time.
@@Dwayne_Green so how is Trigelles involved ?
@@michealferrell1677 Tregelles was not directly involved at all in the RV (though I think he might have been invited) as he was already too ill having suffered a series of strokes in the last decade of his life. However, his influence would have been felt through the text and apparatus of his large edition of the Greek NT (with Vulgate) that was published in parts during his lifetime and finally completed from his notes after his death. Hort was influenced by and highly appreciative of Tregelles work, but Hort's procedures and theory are different to Tregelles.
As for what Westott and Hort - they used dozens of manuscripts, but mainly focussed on about half a dozen the vast majority of the time and basically if Vaticanus made sense they went with it, especially if Sinaticus backed it. There are only a small number of places where they didn't follow the combined witness of Vaticanus and Sinaticus.
When I say "manuscripts" what I really mean is the evidence of manuscripts as printed in apparatus and editions - they did inspect some manuscripts themselves but largely relied on the evidence of those manuscripts as they had already been published or collated for them.
Can we all just take a minute and admire the fact that the man can pull off purple?😎
Ha!
Yes
it's a good thing to educate the listeners, especially when dealing with a technical and complex issue like text criticism, it fits right in with a more "learned" approach to the use of words, and the lifting of the standard to a little higher level than just staying on the "popular" level where most people are at the outset... to the "popular mind" the expression "back translate" gives the ring of doing a back translation from one language to another where we have lost or cannot find the original text of a document, like the popular anecdote about Erasmus' "back translating" of the last 6 verses of Revelation from Latin to (back into) Greek, in which he supposedly did not have Greek MSS for the verses.... (though the expression is also used today for other purposes - see below)... so "reverse engineering" is better, but even that is not completely satisfying, for it is not about "reverse engineering" a complete NT text, just a tracing of a few variant readings in some passages of the A.V.1611... in the end, it is better to just explain that Scrivener identified the textual choices of the KJV and produced in print the "Greek text underlying the A.V.1611".... like it says on the title page: "...THE TEXT FOLLOWED IN THE AUTHORISED VERSION"... and the case is simply and shortly accounted for in the TBS edition's Preface...
(-- another modern variant of a practice called "back translation" is found on a website called "Scriptis":
"What is back translation?
Occasionally, a language services client needs an additional validation step called a “back translation.” Back translation is the translation of a target document back to the original source language. The process guards against potentially lethal mistakes in specialized, technical and medical materials.
Who requires it?
A back translation adds an additional layer of quality assurance for sensitive or high risk information. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and ethics committees often require this process for translations of research surveys and clinical trials. Regulatory agencies might require proof of accuracy for translations of instructions for medical devices and potentially dangerous industrial processes. Back translation helps identify any ambiguities or sensitive details in the source. It also assures that any cross-cultural misunderstandings are addressed before publication of the translated text.
What should you expect?
A separate linguist with no knowledge of the original source content should translate the target document back into the source language. It won’t be an exact replica of the original source text. There is no mathematical formula for translation, and one translator’s word choice can never exactly match another’s. We instruct our linguists to translate as literally and comprehensively as possible, using precise dictionary terms, while avoiding personal stylistic choices. When the target has been translated back into the source language, the reconciliation process begins.") ...
-- here we see that fundamentally they define back translation like: "Back translation is the translation of a target document back to the original source language", it's just used for another purpose and not because the "original" is lost... but one interesting thing about Scrivener's work with the A.V.1611 text: in some sense the exact text underlying the translators' resultant text, was "lost", or more precisely "hidden", for Scrivener, in a few places where he was not able to trace the source of a rendering in the A.V. back to any of the Greek "TR editions", where he could only suggest probabilities that they followed the Latin reading or the Complutensian.... so he was not able to "reconstruct" the "text underlying the A.V." with absolute confidence, though these were very few and minor instances.... but he did not touch the text in those instances, but added them in the Appendix.... though he may even have misinterpreted a handful of instances, where the text is identifiable in the "TR editions" and in Beza's text, like Nick Sayers have suggested... but i doubt anyone could have done a better job than what he did back in 1881...
Interesting, thanks
Pastor are you saying that we can not trust any of the translations that we have today including the KJB, if so then what the hell have I been doing for the last 12 years? Of trusting the Bible?
Not at all. This is simply a recounting of the historical details surrounding Scrivener's work on the Textus Receptus, which part of this video are you having trouble with?