Q. How can the King James Version of 1611
be translated from the Textus Receptus, since it didn’t appear until 1633?
A. This is a misunderstanding about a name
or title that became popular after 1611. The Elzevir Brothers published three
editions of the Greek New Testament. Their publisher’s preface in the 1633
edition included the statement “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in
quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus” (Then you have the text now received
by all, in which nothing we give is changed or corrupted). From this sprang the
use of “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text” to describe a certain family of
printed Greek New Testaments. The current use of Textus Receptus is not limited
to the 1633 Elzevir Greek NT, but to an entire line of Greek Testaments, most
of which preceded the Textus Receptus terminology – 5 by Desiderius Erasmus
(1466-1536) in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535; 4 by Robert Estienne, or Stephanus
(1503–1559) in 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551; 9 by Theodore Beza (1519-1605) in 1565
(2), 1567, 1580, 1582, 1589, 1590, 1598, 1604; 3 by Abraham (1592-1652) and
Bonaventure Elzevir in 1624, 1633, 1641, and 1 by F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891)
in 1881; and perhaps others.[i]
Perhaps some people just misunderstand the
time sequence of the terminology. Perhaps others wish to detach the King James
Bible from the Textus Receptus for some reason. However, it is simply a matter
of folks using the terminology that is most common. For example, most
contemporary Christians always refer to “Abram” to “Abraham,” even when
speaking of him before God changed his name.
[i] For
example, TextusReceptusBibles.com includes the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot, a 1534 edition by Simon de Colines, a later printing by Elzevir Brothers(1679), 1825 by the Oxford Press, and an 1841 edition
by Scholz. I have not investigated the status of any of these.
No comments:
Post a Comment