1769 KJV editor's translation

Erasmus did not translate the Greek of his second edition of 1519, nor any other. He compiled a Greek text using primarily 2 Greek manuscripts.

Erasmus made a translation of the Greek into Latin as part of his diglot edition of 1516.

His edition of 1519 was essentially a revision of his first edition.

His edition of 1522 is remarkable for its inclusion of the comma for the first time.

His edition of 1527 contained 3 columns, the Greek text, the Latin Vulgate, and his own Latin Translation.

In his last edition of 1535 he omitted the Latin Vulgate and published only the Greek text and his own Latin translation.

 

No. There are over 30 Greek texts all loosely called TR and all are different. I take a position usually called "Byzantine Priority."

 

What do you mean by that, Thomas? And how would you distinguish it in todays "KJVonly" or "TRonly" etc, debates?

Thanks

 

I mean that the Byzantine textform better meets the greater criteria of number, age, historicity, geography, agreement, credibility, and internal considerations of context and is thus more likely to reflect the autographal textform.

And I distinguish it from KJVOnly by the fact that I, and Byzantine Priority, proponents are not KJVOnly. We prefer bibles translated from the Byzantine textform.

As to TROnly, I have to ask the same question I ask KJVOs, "Which TR?" There are over 30 of them, all different. The TR is one representative of the Byzantine textform but it is by no means the most accurate or most reliable.

 

Which TR? Erasmus's 1516 certainly wasn't. Nor were most of the 16th century editions. Scrivener's 1894 TR certainly was.

 

Sorry, but that is not even close to being accurate. The modern methods of textual criticism did not even exist until first formulated by Johann Bengel in 1725. And, of course, textual criticism is not used in manuscripts, it is used to form texts.

 

There is only one Byzantine textform, made up of over 5,000 manuscripts, and manifesting itself in about 35 printed texts including the 30+ TRs and the 2 Majority Texts currently available.

 

There is little (or no) evidence that says the later (Alexandrian) text is more accurate than the earlier (Byzantine) text. In fact the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction, that the earlier, Byzantine, text is superior to the later, Alexandrian, text.

You seem confused. The Byzantine textform is the earlier and the Alexandrian is the later. And the most telling evidence of Byzantine superiority has already been posted in my earlier response.

 

Yes, several. LITV, KJ2000, TMB, WEB, and several others. All excellent translations.