Textual Critical Methods of the KJV Translators

[FSSL]

9 times in their preface, the KJV translators told us that they were set about "correcting" the text.
As far as the NT is concerned, we do know that the translators used the text of the following in their translation work:

Bishop's Bible
Vulgate
Erasmus's TR (Scrivener thought it to be Beza's, but the "jury" is still out on that.)

When it comes to the New Testament, there is no question that they used a form of Erasmus, Textus Receptus. No one can identify exactly which form they used, so Scrivener tried to solve that problem in the 1800s by making his own TR "match" the KJV... albeit not entirely.

Erasmus used 7 manuscripts, none of which contained the entire NT. He used what he had from the Dominican Library and one privately owned. He had a very limited group of MSS accessible to him.

This raises a few questions related to those who are against textual critical methods:

What method/s did the KJV translators use in determining the text?
Were those method/s superior to methods used today? If so, why?
Or, does the KJVO not concern himself with the translators' method/s because they are unknown?

 

[Steven Avery]

The learned men of the AV1611 used Received Text editions, many were available, and the emphasis was on Scrivener and Beza.  Thus, the major textual analysis distinction would be between the analysis of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, how they related to the manuscript and ECW and "internal" evidences, compared to the methodology used in the Westcott-Hort recension followed by the minor CT tweaks.

The TR methodology was vastly superior.

The main AV decisions would be places where the TR editions had differences, like Luke 2:22 and 1 John 2:23b.

==============================

The Erasmus manuscript background was quite extensive since it included years of correspondence and visits to libraries throughout Europe.  Plus Latin mss. The Complutensian work in Spain, Stephanus and Beza added lots of additional manuscript background and expertise that was a part of Reformation Bible development.

And the great mass of Greek manuscripts are homogeneous in their text, so a relatively small number of mss can reflect the Greek manuscript textline as a whole.

This would not work for the Westcott-Hort recension model, which essentially ignores the mass of Greek mss and is only concerned with a small number of early and heavily conflicting mss.

Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

The learned men of the AV1611 used Received Text editions, many were available, and the emphasis was on Scrivener and Beza.  Thus, the major textual analysis distinction would be between the analysis of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, how they related to the manuscript and ECW and "internal" evidences, compared to the methodology used in the Westcott-Hort recension followed by the minor CT tweaks.

The TR methodology was vastly superior.

The main AV decisions would be places where the TR editions had differences, like Luke 2:22 and 1 John 2:23b.

==============================

The Erasmus manuscript background was quite extensive since it included years of correspondence and visits to libraries throughout Europe.  Plus Latin mss. The Complutensian work in Spain, Stephanus and Beza added lots of additional manuscript background and expertise that was a part of Reformation Bible development.

And the great mass of Greek manuscripts are homogeneous in their text, so a relatively small number of mss can reflect the Greek manuscript textline as a whole.

This would not work for the Westcott-Hort recension model, which essentially ignores the mass of Greek mss and is only concerned with a small number of early and heavily conflicting mss.

Steven Avery

I don't think they could have used Scrivener's as he produced his reverse-engineered text 1881 to 1894, that's about 270 years after the Anglican Bible of 1611 was published. Maybe you mean Robert Estienne.

 

[bgwilkinson]

9 times in their preface, the KJV translators told us that they were set about "correcting" the text.
As far as the NT is concerned, we do know that the translators used the text of the following in their translation work:

Bishop's Bible
Vulgate
Erasmus's TR (Scrivener thought it to be Beza's, but the "jury" is still out on that.)

When it comes to the New Testament, there is no question that they used a form of Erasmus, Textus Receptus. No one can identify exactly which form they used, so Scrivener tried to solve that problem in the 1800s by making his own TR "match" the KJV... albeit not entirely.

Erasmus used 7 manuscripts, none of which contained the entire NT. He used what he had from the Dominican Library and one privately owned. He had a very limited group of MSS accessible to him.

This raises a few questions related to those who are against textual critical methods:

What method/s did the KJV translators use in determining the text?
Were those method/s superior to methods used today? If so, why?
Or, does the KJVO not concern himself with the translators' method/s because they are unknown?

One of the most interesting arguments KJVOs use against other than the TR is that the other texts are Catholic and that is somehow used as a negative as if the Catholics could not do reasonable translation work.

Miles Smith in his Preface thought that the Catholics Bible was also the Word of God even though maybe not done as well as his fellows did the KJV.

It seems to me that the Greek manuscripts Erasmus used were all Catholic manuscripts as they were Byzantine.

They were Bibles that were used in the Greek Orthodox Church, or Eastern Catholic Church as opposed to the Western Catholic Church which used Latin as their main language since the 3rd or 4th century all the while the Greek Church used the LXX and NT Greek untranslated.

Also Erasmus was a Catholic priest, that would make anything he produced Catholic IMHO.

Dominicans would seem to be Catholics as well, It seems the TR is wholly Catholic.

How can anyone say the the TR is not Catholic in origin?

Disclaimer.  I am in no way bashing Catholics over the transmission and translation of the scriptures.

I think KJVOs need to recheck the facts on the very Bible they worship.

 

[bibleprotector]

What method/s did the KJV translators use in determining the text?

They use the received from providence method.

Were those method/s superior to methods used today? If so, why?

Yes, the modern engineered from human reasoning method is not based on Scripture, whereas the KJB makers were Scriptural-doctrinally based.

Or, does the KJVO not concern himself with the translators' method/s because they are unknown?

The received tradition from providence method seems unknown to a modern view because a modern view is based on knowing (reasonings) based on human knowledge.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Isa 28:19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
Isa 28:20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
Isa 28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

 

[Ransom]

The learned men of the AV1611 used Received Text editions, many were available, and the emphasis was on Scrivener and Beza.

Scrivener, eh? Well, now we know who's got the KJV-only Time Machine this week.

 

[FSSL]

They use the received from providence method.

You do realize that you have not answered the question. At least, we do.

Yes, the modern engineered from human reasoning method is not based on Scripture, whereas the KJB makers were Scriptural-doctrinally based.

So, Scripture told them to use only the 6 documents in the Dominican library and to borrow one from a friend?

The received tradition from providence method seems unknown to a modern view because a modern view is based on knowing (reasonings) based on human knowledge.

Actually, had you really known the method, you would have elucidated it instead of giving us a pietistic answer.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Isa 28:19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
Isa 28:20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
Isa 28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

Since I am a believer, your abuse of the KJV has been noted.

Why pretend to protect the KJV when you are given to abusing its meaning?

 

[FSSL]

The learned men of the AV1611 used Received Text editions, many were available, and the emphasis was on Scrivener and Beza.

Scrivener, eh? Well, now we know who's got the KJV-only Time Machine this week.

I'm thinking Steven finds it unfortunate that the forum does not come with this tool!

 

[FSSL]

i;m not going to say where i met him..... but it;s a place where you could bounce even the most densest of objects off the walls........  8)

Lol!

 

[Steven Avery]

Maybe you mean Robert Estienne.

Yep. Thanks.  (Less proof-reading with Airpad posts!)

It is true that a lot of AV defense does not properly place the Vulgate as part of the textual development of the Reformation Bible.  This is something I write about, although most of it to date has been on Facebook forums. 

And it is also true that the rcc position about the Bible changed radically at Trent, and in the early 1500s they were aware that the Greek fountainhead mss were extremely significant.  The actual chronology is very significant.

And I was curious if the OP was part of a real inquiry to study and understand the issues, or not.  The question remains.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

The OP is real.

The first question has not been answered.

 

[bibleprotector]

You do realize that you have not answered the question. At least, we do.

All answers I give may be rejected because  I do not subscribe to "Rationalism".

So, Scripture told them to use only the 6 documents in the Dominican library and to borrow one from a friend?

The KJB men used what was at hand (just as Erasmus did). That's the point.

Actually, had you really known the method, you would have elucidated it instead of giving us a pietistic answer.

Clearly, they used what was on hand. They chose by consensus in a believing manner under the providence of God. Obviously, as far as textual choices, it was pretty much Beza's 1598 anyway.

Since I am a believer, your abuse of the KJV has been noted.

Why pretend to protect the KJV when you are given to abusing its meaning?

Yes, that is the issue, isn't it. You have a different interpretation methodology, one which finds its origins with the German Theologians. Even if you accepted the same text (the KJB) and the same translation (the KJB), you would still differ on interpretation because of your wrong assumptions/methodology. (This is besides the relatively vast differences in doctrine between your Calvinistic view and my Word and Spirit view.)

 

[bibleprotector]

The OP is real.

The first question has not been answered.

My answers can never satisfy you because

Isa 28:20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

Your view is that perfection cannot arise from imperfection, that textual transmission is subject to a deistic view of the universe and that automatically whatever I say must be doubted.

 

[FSSL]

Your "answers" demonstrate an unwillingness to speak forthright about their approach.

Their textual method involved giving priority to particular demands that did not always involve a mss.

Perhaps a KJVO would be honest enough to explain the demands, constraints and texts that made up their method for choosing among the differences.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

What method/s did the KJV translators use in determining the text?

 
Do you mean the decision in general to use Received Text sources?

Or the decisions when there were variations within the TR?

Or do you mean what methods were used in the development of the Received Text? 
Since that is what would be normally compared to the Critical Text methods, as in the next question:

Were those method/s superior to methods used today? If so, why?

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Do you mean the decision in general to use Received Text sources?

Tweedledee and Tweedledum's collective inability to answer questions reminds me of this passage from The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

Zaphod tried to run in several equally decisive directions simultaneously. "Right!" he said. "Er... we've got to get manual control of this ship."

"Can you fly her?" asked Ford pleasantly.

"No, can you?"

"No."

"Trillian, can you?"

"No."

"Fine," said Zaphod, relaxing. "We'll do it together."

"I can't either," said Arthur, who felt it was time he began to assert himself.

"I'd guessed that," said Zaphod.

 

[FSSL]

Pretty enlightening. The KJVO lives in an existence where he knows what is "wrong" with everything on the other side. When simple, understandable questions are turned their direction, they will not answer.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

When simple, understandable questions are turned their direction, they will not answer.

As I pointed out, your question that you said was unanswered was vague. I specifically showed you how it was a combo of three very different questions.

My sense that your questions were not real, i.e sincere, is seen to have been accurate. And  I actually thought for a moment that there was a small possibility that the questions were not simply political posturing, that you really wanted to view comparative textual ideas on a level playing field, iron sharpeneth. Nope, not on your radar.

Maybe there are other posters who would like to discuss the question of the textual concepts behind the AV compared to the modern versions (which is really not directly related to the AV translators, since they received the pure Bible text.)

==================

Incidentally "Textual Critical Methods" is an anachronism, since textual criticism generally refers to a specific set of criteria and methodologies that developed in the 1800s leading to the Westcott-Hort recension and then some minor tweaking thereafter.  It can be proper to say that Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza used techniques of textual analysis, it is anachronistic and incorrect to call their pure Bible methodology "text critical".

So far, I've found that the term was first used to negatively describe the Griesbach methodology by Richard Laurence and thus in an 1817 review was called with quotes:

    "textual" criticism

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

How much translation have you actually done? Those who are able to translate from the original languages of Scripture do not need the question to be parsed.

It's really not difficult.

 

[Steven Avery]

How much translation have you actually done? Those who are able to translate from the original languages of Scripture do not need the question to be parsed.It's really not difficult.

It looked like you were writing in English.  The words were themselves formed into questions and the first question was awkward to the proposed topic.  Thus my post pointing out three different elements, asking you which one(s) the question was referencing.

Steven