LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Okay...big KJV debate on another board. I'm KJV...but don't buy into the whole "it was purified seven times" or "it's the ONLY EVER inspired that was preserved" (or as we like to joke, Paul used it; good enough for me!)
My arguements are against the kind of rhetoric that dismisses all translations prior to the KJV or in use at the same time as the KJV...and leaves out the possibility of ever being able to translate again using the TR instead of the W&H. That kind of absolutism could lead us into issues with foreign translations and all (ie., which of the Tagalog Bibles is the 7th "main"? It is also subjective to determine which translations were major and minor. This would be to presume that there were no major Translations amoung the Early English Translations (the Anglo-Saxons), and to reject Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Taverner's. These were not considered "minor" Translations).
So here is my question:
Something I just noticed from the Trinitarian Bible Society quote I posted.
It says what is commonly accepted as the TR was the edition done from 1633.
The KJV was done in 1611.
So the KJV had to use one of the earlier editions (erasmus's) for it's translation (that it used the Bishop's and Geneva for comparison while translating).
So there is more than one edition of the TR and the one that is commonly refered to is not the one that the KJV translators used??
And...So here is my reason for suddenly looking at the older...if they were able to accept a "newer translation" (which the KJV was...and it was not the seventh, I reject that concept, history rejects it, and probability of there not being any major translator in early english rejects it)...would it not be possible to have another modern english translation from the TR rather than W&H???
My arguements are against the kind of rhetoric that dismisses all translations prior to the KJV or in use at the same time as the KJV...and leaves out the possibility of ever being able to translate again using the TR instead of the W&H. That kind of absolutism could lead us into issues with foreign translations and all (ie., which of the Tagalog Bibles is the 7th "main"? It is also subjective to determine which translations were major and minor. This would be to presume that there were no major Translations amoung the Early English Translations (the Anglo-Saxons), and to reject Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Taverner's. These were not considered "minor" Translations).
So here is my question:
Something I just noticed from the Trinitarian Bible Society quote I posted.
It says what is commonly accepted as the TR was the edition done from 1633.
The KJV was done in 1611.
So the KJV had to use one of the earlier editions (erasmus's) for it's translation (that it used the Bishop's and Geneva for comparison while translating).
So there is more than one edition of the TR and the one that is commonly refered to is not the one that the KJV translators used??
And...So here is my reason for suddenly looking at the older...if they were able to accept a "newer translation" (which the KJV was...and it was not the seventh, I reject that concept, history rejects it, and probability of there not being any major translator in early english rejects it)...would it not be possible to have another modern english translation from the TR rather than W&H???
What is the Textus Receptus?
Today the term Textus Receptus is used generically to apply to all editions of the Greek New Testament which follow the early printed editions of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469?-1536), a Roman Catholic humanist, translated the New Testament into Latin and prepared an edition of the Greek to be printed beside his Latin version to demonstrate the text from which his Latin came. Erasmus used six or seven Greek manuscripts (the oldest being from the 10th century), combining and comparing them in a process in which he chose the correct readings where there were variants. On several occasions he followed the Latin and included some of its readings in his text. This edition was published in 1516. There was great interest in this Greek text, and it is the Greek text for which the volume is remembered. This New Testament was the first published edition of a Textus Receptus family New Testament.
The term was first used, however, to refer to the edition of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevirs in 1633. The preface to this edition, written by Daniel Heinsius, includes the Latin phrase "textum ... receptum". Because of this, the 1633 edition became known as the "Textus Receptus" or the Received Text. This term has been expanded to include numerous editions of the Greek New Testament which come from the same Byzantine textual family representing the majority of the handwritten Greek manuscripts before the 16th century.
It needs to be remembered that the editions included in this family of Greek New Testaments were printed volumes. The Greek texts which preceded them were all hand-copied manuscripts which were in turn copied from copies for many hundreds of years. No two of the well over 5,000 manuscripts which are known today agree 100% with each other. In other words, the Textus Receptus was not printed from one manuscript alone.