KJV Onlyism?

[OzSpen]

Erasmus has been made the whipping boy by the anti-KJV crowd, since most Christians are not familiar with the development of the Received Text. Erasmus may have had only a few (five) of the manuscripts representing the Traditional Text, but what he had was sufficient to begin with. And let us never forget that he did have access to other manuscripts and all the libraries of Europe. Erasmus made five editions between 1516 and 1535.

But then Erasmus was followed by Robert Stephens (Stephanus) who made five editions of his Greek text between 1546 and 1551. His third edition of 1550 essentially became the RECEIVED TEXT (Textus Receptus).

Then Theodore Beza made ten editions of his Greek text between 1565 and 1598. BEZA RARELY DEPARTS FROM STEPHENS. After Beza we have the Elzivir Brothers, with three editions of their Greek text between 1624 and 1633. The Latin words Textus Receptus are actually from Elzivirs' 1624 edition, which is practically the same ar that of Stephens 1550 edition, and all of these are practically the same as the Byzantine Text (the Traditional Text) used by the Orthodox churches. This was confirmed by Burgon and Scrivener, and Scrivener's 1894 Greek Text is the actual text of the KJV translators. Thus the Greek text of Erasmus was only one of many others, all carefully compiled by godly men who understood that they could not tamper with the text.

As Burgon said regarding the Received Text (while addressing Bishop Ellicott) in the Revision Revised (1883): "What is more... to the end of time it will probably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS [manuscripts] of the NT with the 'Received Text'... And what standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text, which by the good Providence of GOD, was UNIVERSALLY EMPLOYED THROUGHOUT EUROPE [my caps] for the first 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically identical with the text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use... being more than 1500 years old".

When the Authorized Version was being prepared, the translators had access to all of the above Greek texts PLUS all the translations up to that time, including Tyndale's translation (which they used quite frequently).

This is a red herring of a reply.

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Erasmus made five editions between 1516 and 1535.

So...which one of the five is the correct one?

Remember, the Comma Johanneum was never found in any of his early editions. It was only after he caved in to peer pressure and a supposedly ancient manuscript was found that he conceded and included it in his works.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Then Theodore Beza made ten editions of his Greek text between 1565 and 1598. BEZA RARELY DEPARTS FROM STEPHENS.

Lets see here, hum...

Theodore Beza, successor of John Calvin. The Codex Bazae, (general knowledge) A Latin and Greek diglot. Greek on the left, Latin on the right. Contains the Gospels (though not complete) and Acts. Dating cannot be absolute as some date from the 5th to 6th century or as early as the 2nd century. It is also recognized as unique in that it is loaded with interpolations. Also noteworthy is in its variations as they are "unique".

It has been previously shown that F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament comments that Beza's Codex shows 8 different scribes at work.

Gregory Polson shows that as many as eighteen scribes are involved in corrections and/or lectionary notes.

George Rice, in his dissertation "The Alteration of Luke's Tradition by the Textual Variants in Codex Bezae" shows that Beza evidently accepted:

"Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωσέως, ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα παραστῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ" (Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550)

However, the KJV says:

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"

Yet again, Beza's Codex D says:

"Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτou κατὰ τὸν νόμον mωσέως, ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα παραστῆσαι κῳ"

Translated out as: And when the days of his purification were completed according to the law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord."

Ibid, Chapter III, The Glorified Jesus, The Child Jesus, Luke 2:22, pp.88-89

The only change in this verse that can be seen right off the bat is the abbreviation of the word for "Lord".

Now I can accept that Mary had to observe the "ritual" cleansing according to the Law, however, what did Jesus need to be purified of?

You can find online, Beza's Codex. And in that, he made no corrections himself. So one can only conclude that he himself accepted this verse.

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lets also address:

The KJV reads:

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." -Lk. 2:40

Stephanus reads:

"το δε παιδιον ηυξανεν και εκραταιουτο πνευματι πληρουμενον σοφιας και χαρις θεου ην επ αυτο"

Beza reads:

"το δε ιπς εκραταιουτο και πυενετο πληρουμενον σοφιας και χαρις ιυ ην επ αυτw" Lk. 2:40 Codex D

You can see here two (2) abbreviations: Jesus and God.

Roughly translated as: "And the child Jesus increased in strength and grew being filled with wisdom and divine loveliness was in him."

To quote Rice:

"The first thing that should be noted is the absence of the definite article before "God" in the normal text. This takes on significance when we realize that theos appears 120 times in the normal text of Luke and of those 120 appearences is has the definite article 108 times. It only appears 12 times without the article. (*) Moreover, the usual English translation of the verse supplies the article ("the favor") which is absent from the Greek text. The significance of the omission of this article seems to have led "D" to alter the preposition from "epi" (upon) to "ev" (in)."

(*) cf. The New Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, Wilmington: Associated Publishers & Authors, 1972, pp. 364-65.

Also noteworthy is:

"Understanding that one of the basic meanings of "xapis" is attractiveness or loveliness, and knowing that a noun without an article can express quality, D instituted a simple change in the preposition from "epi" to "ev", and changed Luke's normal tradition from "And the grace (or favor) of God was upon him," to a reading that magnifies the personality and character of the child. "And divine loveliness (graciousness, sweetness, or charm) was "in" him."

George Rice, Ibid, p.93, 95

God Bless

Till all are one.