In his work The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills referred to the Authorized (King James) Bible as “an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”
“The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version 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. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”
2 comments:
The more I have read that paragraph and pondered that thought (I think it was Mr. Sayers who first brought it to my attention,) and what I had read about Erasmus, (maybe Stephanus) and Beza and their Latin translation work with their TR editions, it seems to really solidify the truth to Dr. Hills statement about the 1611 translation being in fact what he states, and the revisions up through the 1700's were very much like the revisions that a TR editor would perform (along with their Latin translation and annotations) etc.
It just seems to have left the individual to a committee and then to the church - until German TC, enlightenment thinking, and corporations took the wheel.
if i made sense.
grace and peace.
Yes, that is an interesting thought.
I think this is an important statement by Hills. Also interesting about Hills is how academia thinks about this statement and Hills himself. In the orbit of textual criticism, scholarship seems to be held up as the highest authority -- unless a scholar does not toe the party line. It is a simple fact, that as far as scholarship, Edward F. Hills has better credentials and better training than most of the TC talking heads on the Web. However, Hills chose to operate primarily as a preacher and teacher of the word rather than as a scholar, which I suppose makes him less in their eyes.
Post a Comment