I noticed the differences in English versions of 2 Peter 1:1 a couple of weeks ago when I preached on the passage, and my interest was piqued as I followed this discussion. Although I am away from my library, I was briefly in my home city yesterday and picked up some books. Here is what I have discovered:
The Englishman's Greek New Testament, which uses the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, omits
ἡμῶν as a qualifier of
σωτῆρος, while noting in the apparatus that Elzevir's Greek Text of 1624 has it.
The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition containing F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902) contains the full
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In the Preface this TBS edition says,
The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.
The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation--"Textum ergo habes,, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.
The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].
In Scrivener’s book,
The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), in “Appendix E.
The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament, Section II. Passages wherein the text of the Authorized Version agrees with Beza 1589 and 1598) against Stephen (1550),” as regards 2 Peter 1:1, he notes, “Beza 1565—98 adds
ἡμῶν after
σωτῆρος.”
Thus it is evident that the Greek text adopted by the 1611 translators in this instance was that of Beza’s, which the Elzevir edition of 1624 conforms to. In England (so says the Introduction of
The Englishman's Greek New Testament) “the Greek Text of Stephens 1550…is the common text in this country…”, even though the final text of the 1611 was a text refined by Beza (at points) and accepted as true by the translators.
There are many interesting studies regarding just these sorts of issues reprinted by the Fundamentalist Baptists, and available from Dr. D.A. Waite’s The Bible for Today ministries.
---------
On another matter I saw in this thread, regarding Isaiah 14:12 and the Lucifer/morning star/son of the morning controversy, I found none of my commentators affirming Lucifer in the translation from the Hebrew, although I came across this interesting remark from Herman Hoeksema in His commentary on Revelation, Behold He Cometh (I give the online book here, as I don’t have the hardcopy with me:
http://spindleworks.com/library/hoeksma/intro.htm), when he deals with Revelation 12:
What may be meant by his drawing of the stars of heaven with his tail?
This seems to be plain in itself. The stars in this connection must, of course, not be taken in the literal sense, no more than the entire portion. In this connection the inference is plain that they indicate the fellow angels of the devil. In Job the angels are called the morning-stars. And indeed this application is very appropriate for these spiritual inhabitants of the sphere of eternal light. And the devil himself has been such a morning-star, - perhaps, as we have said before, the greatest and most glorious among them all. And although the passage in Isaiah 14:12 cannot literally be applied to Satan, yet the language in which this metaphor against the king of Babylon is used, is such that the latter is evidently a type of the devil. And therefore also the devil may fittingly be called Lucifer, the day or morning-star. This morning-star, as we know, rebelled against God. Almighty. But he was not alone. He instigated a general rebellion in the heaven of heavens. He seduced others of his fellow angels to rise with him and exalt themselves against the Most High. And it is this feature that is pictured of the devil most probably in the fourth verse of this chapter. He dragged the third part, that is, in this sense, a great many, yet not a majority, of his fellow angels with him in his fall from heaven. And they together with him were cast down from their exalted place.
Hoeksema, as well as the PRC today, adheres to the King James Bible, and they have a number of writings on it. If anyone wants to dispute using HH (and the PRC) due to his and their stand on “common grace” and the “well-meant offer,” well that’s a different issue, and I’m not familiar with the theology boards here to know if that’s been discussed (how could it not be?).
----------
One last thing for the moment. In a March 12 post of Dr. White’s on his own site (responding to people here at PB) he said, regarding earlier defenders of the Comma, “the consistent application of their arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy [KJOC], there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR.” As I don’t have a copy of his KJOC in this foreign land, would someone please tell me in brief what he is referring to here? Thanks.
Steve