King James Bible Editing

This post presents some interesting research by Christopher Yetzer. In it he tests the theory that some later editors of the King James Bible made some decisions giving preference to the Stephanus 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus over the Beza 1598 Textus Receptus.[i] I found his research interesting and asked his permission to post it on my blog. Brother Yetzer is a Baptist missionary, a native Ohioan, preaching in Milan, Italy. In addition, he researches and writes concerning the Traditional Texts and King James translation of the Bible. The writing below is from Brother Christopher Yetzer, posted with his permission.[ii]

--

I had heard that the later editors (after the initial printing) of the KJV used Stephanus’ 1550 text (for italics and such) instead of Beza’s 1598 text which was clearly the most uniform to the 1611 translation itself. Scrivener said “so that Beza’s fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of the King James’s revisers...” It has also been commented that the Elzevir text was more often printed on mainland Europe. So, I wanted to check some verses and test these hypotheses. 

Out of 13 verses checked 8 followed Stephanus where he differed from Beza and 7 of those were also in Elzevir’s text. None followed Beza against Stephanus. 3 of the changes were from 1638 or previous and the other 4 were from after 1638.

• (KJV1611) the readings in the 1611 printing
• (CE) what they are in the current edition
• (Date) when the change was made in the KJV tradition
• (Steph./Beza:) the readings according to the 1550 Steph. and the 1598 Beza
• (Elz.) which of those editions was followed by the 1633 Elzevir edition[iii] 

Ephesians 6:24. KJV1611: “in sinceritie.” CE: “in sincerity. Amen.” Date: 1616/1629. Steph./Beza: Both include αμην. Elz.: Same.

Matthew 14:34. KJV1611: “Genesaret” CE: “Gennesaret” Date: 1629. Steph./Beza: Both have Γεννησαρετ (*both also have variant spellings in their notes). Elz.: Same.

Mark 6:53. KJV1611:”Genesareth” CE: “Gennesaret” Date: ≥1638. Steph./Beza: Both have Γενησαρετ (*Steph. has variant in margin). Elz.: Same.

Mark 8:14. KJV1611: “Now the disciples had” CE: “Now [the disciples] had” Date: ≥1638. Steph./Beza: NA(margin)/οι μαθηται: Elz.: Steph.

Revelation 11:14. KJV1611: “woe is past, and behold,” CE: “woe is past; [and], behold,” Date: ≥1638. Steph./Beza: NA/και. Elz.: Steph.

Acts 7:16. KJV1611: “Sichem” CE: “Sychem” Date: 1638. Steph./Beza: Συχεμ/Σιχεμ. Elz.: Steph.

John 8:6. KJV1611: “as though he heard them not.” CE: “[as though he heard them not].” Date: 1638<. Steph./Beza: Neither (Steph. has the reading in the margin.) Elz.: Same.

Acts 1:4. KJV1611: “assembled together with them” CE: “assembled together with [them]” Date: 1638<. Steph./Beza: NA/μετ αυτων. Elz.: Steph.

Acts 26:3. KJV1611: “Especially, because I know thee” CE: “Especially [because I know] thee” Date: 1638<. Steph./Beza: NA(margin)/ειδως. Elz.: Steph.

2 Peter 2:18. KJV1611: “lusts of the flesh, through much wantonnesse,” CE: “lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness,” Date: 1638<. Steph./Beza: NA/εν Elz.: Beza.

1 John 3:16. KJV1611: “the love of God” CE: “the love [of God]” Date: 1638<. Steph./Beza: NA(margin)/του θεου. Elz.: Steph.

John 16:25. KJV1611: “the time commeth” CE: “but the time cometh” Date: 1756. Steph./Beza: Both have αλλ. Elz.: Same.

Acts 26:18. KJV1611: “To open their eyes, and to” CE: “To open their eyes, [and] to” Date: 1638<. Steph./Beza: του/και Elz.: Steph.

Used by permission.

---

[i] Originally posted in the Facebook group “King James Bible / Textus Receptus Defenders,” August 30, 2023. 

[ii] With some minor formatting for the blog. 

[iii] Yetzer: “I didn’t attempt to track all of them to the specific year that they were changed in English, but mainly compared them to the 1638 printing as to whether the change was pre or post 1638. I also tried to mention if Stephanus or Beza gave the reading in a marginal note.”

Letter to dog gets the job done

Evangelical Christians are the world's worst about meeting deadlines. I would occasionally use a Roman Catholic writer for an article that fit his abilities well. I would also use women as writers. But evangelical men were the world's worst at meeting deadlines. But I found the secret. If they were long overdue I would write to their wife. It never failed. No wife ever let me down. It seems they were very happy to enter into any conspiracy against their lawful spouse. The only time I ran into trouble was with one bachelor. He was notorious for not meeting deadlines and not submitting things at all. But I was on name terms with his dog. His dog was my friend, a German Shepherd. So I wrote to his dog. The man's name was Reynolds and his dog's name predictably was Joseph. So I got a huge post card and wrote on it with very large letters "To Joseph Reynolds, Esquire." I said to the dog, "Please remind your master that he is four months overdue." This guy sent the material the next week.

The enlightening story above comes from an interview with J. D. Douglas in the Reformation & Revival Journal (Volume 12, No 4, Fall 2003, pp. 141-168) James Dixon Douglas (1922-2003) was a long time editor, for example, editor of Christianity Today from 1961 to 1983, and chief editor overseeing The New Bible Dictionary. Of him, David F. Wright said at his memorial service that he was "strikingly proud of his lowly origins. These years left him with not only an addiction to fish and chips but also an aversion from high-falutin, from self-important conceit and empty show. He became a master at puncturing pretentiousness, at pricking inflated balloons, often playfully but never cruelly."