The King James Version
Oct 29, 2012 4:21:23 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2012 4:21:23 GMT -5
w62 2/1 p. 89
w50 10/15 p. 372 para 2
Erasmus, a European tranlator put the NT into LATIN but admitted in his preface that it was “rushed through rather than edited.” (1516)
[/ul]
Theodore Beza (a Protestant scholar who also had access to two Greek Scripture manuscripts of the sixth century, the D and D2) also produced a Erasmian-influenced text
Dutch Elzevir's 1633 greek edition is practically the same as those the Beza text became the Textus Receptus or the Received Text.
Tyndale used Erasmus' latin translaiton for his English translation.
[/ul]
A 02 - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
LATER DISCOVERIES
Codex Sinaiticus dated 4th century discovered 1844
Codex Vaticanus (Vatican manuscript) dated before 350 CE "discovered" (revealed) 1400s
Codex Alexandrinus early 5th century (1628)
w88 12/15 p.6
The Chester Beatty collections (1931) contain codices codices of a Greek text a hundred years OLDER than the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus!
This is evident from the instructions given by King James to the translators. They were: “The Bishops’ Bible to be followed, and altered as little as the Original will permit. And these translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible—namely, Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.”
The translators had worked for years, using basically the inherited Tyndale-Coverdale text and adding their own improvements.
Original Preface to the KJV (later removed)
“Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeauour, that our marke.”
w50 10/15 p. 372 para 2
Erasmus, a European tranlator put the NT into LATIN but admitted in his preface that it was “rushed through rather than edited.” (1516)
[/ul]
Theodore Beza (a Protestant scholar who also had access to two Greek Scripture manuscripts of the sixth century, the D and D2) also produced a Erasmian-influenced text
Dutch Elzevir's 1633 greek edition is practically the same as those the Beza text became the Textus Receptus or the Received Text.
Tyndale used Erasmus' latin translaiton for his English translation.
[/ul]
A 02 - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
w 62 2/1
Erasmus had little to recommend them, for he had access to but five (some say eight) Greek manuscripts of comparatively late origin, and none of these were of the complete Christian Scriptures. [...] He even repeatedly brought his Greek text in line with the Latin Vulgate, this accounting for the fact that there are some twenty readings in his Greek text not found in any Greek manuscript. And after leaving out 1 John 5:7 from his first two editions he inserted this spurious text upon dubious authority [...]
As they became acquainted with older and more accurate manuscripts and noticed the flaws in the Received Text, rather than to change that text they would publish their findings in introductions, margins and footnotes of their editions. As late as 1734, J. A. Bengle of Tübingen, Germany, apologized for again printing the Received Text, doing so only “because he could not publish a text of his own. Neither the publisher nor the public would have stood for it,”
Erasmus had little to recommend them, for he had access to but five (some say eight) Greek manuscripts of comparatively late origin, and none of these were of the complete Christian Scriptures. [...] He even repeatedly brought his Greek text in line with the Latin Vulgate, this accounting for the fact that there are some twenty readings in his Greek text not found in any Greek manuscript. And after leaving out 1 John 5:7 from his first two editions he inserted this spurious text upon dubious authority [...]
As they became acquainted with older and more accurate manuscripts and noticed the flaws in the Received Text, rather than to change that text they would publish their findings in introductions, margins and footnotes of their editions. As late as 1734, J. A. Bengle of Tübingen, Germany, apologized for again printing the Received Text, doing so only “because he could not publish a text of his own. Neither the publisher nor the public would have stood for it,”
LATER DISCOVERIES
Codex Sinaiticus dated 4th century discovered 1844
Codex Vaticanus (Vatican manuscript) dated before 350 CE "discovered" (revealed) 1400s
Codex Alexandrinus early 5th century (1628)
w88 12/15 p.6
The Chester Beatty collections (1931) contain codices codices of a Greek text a hundred years OLDER than the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus!
This is evident from the instructions given by King James to the translators. They were: “The Bishops’ Bible to be followed, and altered as little as the Original will permit. And these translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible—namely, Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.”
The translators had worked for years, using basically the inherited Tyndale-Coverdale text and adding their own improvements.
Original Preface to the KJV (later removed)
“Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeauour, that our marke.”