-
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!
what is the ONE received greek text used to translatethe Kjv from?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
You mean the collection of documents, etc, from many different languages?
Depends on which edition of the 'perfect' version you're talking about. :tongue3:
The highly imperfect KJV 1611 used Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus, but the improved 1769 edition revised according to the much earlier Stephanus 1550. The standard TR for the past 120 years has been Scrivener 1894.
The KJV is not a perfect translation; the received text is not a perfect manuscript. Anyone who thinks otherwise may well be ignorant of the fact that there are multiple words to express one idea, or perhaps puts too much stock in the notion that some Church of England bureaucrats 'authorizing' a translation has some deep mystical meaning.
And, do remember that the KJV was only commissioned in the first place to rewrite the 1560/1599 Geneva Bible which so offended His Nibs King Jimmy.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is false, King James was approached by a handful of bishops who were requesting a revision.
Your statement is incorrect. King James I was not approached by a handful of bishops who were requesting a revision. The bishops at the Hampton Court Conference opposed the idea of the making of a new translation when it was said to be brought up by a moderate puritan, John Reynolds.
While King James I may not have approved the making of a new translation for the purpose of rewriting the Geneva Bible, he did want the Geneva Bible replaced. Offically the KJV was a revision of the Bishops' Bible according to the first rule given the translators for its making. In many places the makers of the KJV followed the Geneva Bible so that the KJV could be considered a revision of the Geneva Bible.
John Reynolds, one of the four Puritans invited to the Hampton Court conference, is said to have suggested the idea of a new translation to King James. John Eadie noted that Reynolds “was not chosen in any way by his own [Puritan] party” (English Bible, II, p. 172). The three examples of incorrect translation in the English Bibles that Reynolds used as the reason for his suggestion came from the Great Bible. The correct rendering for these three examples was already available in the Geneva Bible so that Reynolds’ call for a new translation could have been intended as a tactful or gentle request for acceptance of the Geneva Bible. David Norton observed that “it may be that Reynolds’ intention was to push the conference into accepting the Geneva Bible as the official Bible of the Church” (Textual History, p. 6). Adam Nicolson suggested: “Reynolds had wanted, when all the code is stripped away, a strict Puritan Bible, non-episcopal, the naked word of God, truly transmitted. And to that request James had said, in effect, ’Yes; I will give you the very opposite of what you ask’” (God’s Secretaries, p. 60).
The makers of the KJV did not name or identify any specific edition of the Greek NT text that they followed and used.
According to those scholars that have compared to the text of the 1611 to the editions of the Textus Receptus available to them, it is thought that they mainly followed one of the last editions edited by Beza perhaps the 1598, but they did not follow it 100%.
KJV defender Edward Hills asserted that the KJV "agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus" (KJV Defended, p. 220; see also Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 60). KJV defender D. A. Waite pointed out that Scrivener found about 190 places where the KJV translators departed from the 1598 edition of Beza (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 71).
According to historical records, it is true that Benjamin Blayney, the editor of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, used the 1550 Stephanus edition as his basis for making changes to the earlier KJV editions.
Simon Wong wrote: “Blayney assumed wrongly that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Robert Stephanus (or Estienne) edition of the Textus Receptus tradition, whereas it was from the later editions of Beza (most likely that of 1598). Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7). Concerning the italics in the 1769, Jack Countryman also reported or quoted from some source the following: “Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Treasure of God‘s Word, p. 75). For possible examples of textually-based changes in italics, see Mark 8:14, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18. Concerning one of those places, James D. Price noted: “The following is a place where the AV has words in italics that are actually in Scrivener’s TR: 2 Peter 2:18: the word ‘through’ was erroneously italicized in 1769 as though the word is not in the Greek text” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). Scrivener also indicated that the Greek word was in the text of Beza at this verse and that “through was not italicized before 1769” (Authorized Version, p. 254). In 1833, Thomas Curtis asserted: “Dr. Blayney and his coadjutors also employ them [italics] to express their doubts of the authenticity of particular readings--see John 8:6 where they thus, in a sense, discard the whole clause, ‘as though he heard them not’” (Existing Monopoly, p. 59). Edward F. Hills claimed: “At John 8:6, the King James translators followed the Bishops’ Bible in adding the clause, as though He heard them not” (KJV Defended, p. 221). Hills maintained that this clause is found “in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of Stephanus. After 1769, it was placed in italics in the King James Version” (Ibid.).
My own feeling is that the Scrivener 1894-95 Greek NT is the supremely prefered text as it is a composite of the underlying text of the various mss sources of which the KJV NT is comprised.
Based upon the AV after the advent of the printing press and photography (which certainly goes a long way in preventing much human error) and just before the advent of the electronic phase of the Industrial Revolution which virtually gaurantees a 100% duplicate copy of the text as well as a multitude of copies inexpensively and quickly which events opened the door to world wide evengelism.
In fulfilment of:
Based upon the AV after the advent of the printing press and photography (which certainly goes a long way in preventing much human error) and just before the advent of the electronic phase of the Industrial Revolution which virtually gaurantees a 100% duplicate copy of the text as well as a multitude of copies inexpensively and quickly which events opened the door to world wide evengelism.
In fulfilment of:
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
HankD
Last edited:
actually, the King did not like the calvinistic notes in that Bible, and how it seemed to undercut Kingly authority!