-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The 1611 Translators did use textual Criticism for their 1611
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Even Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254) compared various texts and attempted to discern the original text - that's loosely a form of "textual criticism."
But generally when the term, "textual criticism" is used it refers to modern, scientific textual criticism, which was not available to the translators of the KJV, being conceived in the decades after the KJV was printed.
Rob
But generally when the term, "textual criticism" is used it refers to modern, scientific textual criticism, which was not available to the translators of the KJV, being conceived in the decades after the KJV was printed.
Rob
KJV defender Edward F. Hills suggested that there appears “in Erasmus a humanistic tendency to treat the New Testament text like the text of any other book” (Believing Bible Study, p. 203).
Jan Krans asserted: “With all the evidence presented here, we conclude that Erasmus understands and applies the principle of the harder reading in an astonishingly ‘modern’ way” (Beyond What is Written, p. 50). Jan Krans wrote: “Erasmus’ work on the New Testament offers an excellent example: a whole series of rules can be deduced from it, with fairly adequate descriptions of each” (p. 29). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism, and, as we will see, even in the conjectural emendation of the Greek text” (p. 28). Did Erasmus take on himself the role of being a corrector of holy writ?
Edward Andrews claimed: “The Erasmus critical edition began the all-important work of textual criticism” (King James Bible, pp. 19, 181, 219). Taylor DeSoto wrote: “Erasmus’s methods are more similar to the modern approach than Beza’s in many respects” (Received Text, p. 75). Moises Silva claimed that Erasmus “the creator of what would be later known as the textus receptus was absolutely committed to the very principles that lie at the foundation of WH’s [Westcott/Hort] accomplishments” (Black, Rethinking NT, p. 142). In this same book, Eldon Jay Epp suggested that NT textual criticism since its beginnings with Erasmus “actually has remained much the same in terms of its goals, its arguments for priority of readings, its grouping of manuscripts, and its motivation and general procedures” (pp. 75-76).
Jan Krans asserted: “With all the evidence presented here, we conclude that Erasmus understands and applies the principle of the harder reading in an astonishingly ‘modern’ way” (Beyond What is Written, p. 50). Jan Krans wrote: “Erasmus’ work on the New Testament offers an excellent example: a whole series of rules can be deduced from it, with fairly adequate descriptions of each” (p. 29). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism, and, as we will see, even in the conjectural emendation of the Greek text” (p. 28). Did Erasmus take on himself the role of being a corrector of holy writ?
Edward Andrews claimed: “The Erasmus critical edition began the all-important work of textual criticism” (King James Bible, pp. 19, 181, 219). Taylor DeSoto wrote: “Erasmus’s methods are more similar to the modern approach than Beza’s in many respects” (Received Text, p. 75). Moises Silva claimed that Erasmus “the creator of what would be later known as the textus receptus was absolutely committed to the very principles that lie at the foundation of WH’s [Westcott/Hort] accomplishments” (Black, Rethinking NT, p. 142). In this same book, Eldon Jay Epp suggested that NT textual criticism since its beginnings with Erasmus “actually has remained much the same in terms of its goals, its arguments for priority of readings, its grouping of manuscripts, and its motivation and general procedures” (pp. 75-76).