Subject: Question about greek behind KJV

From: Andrew Kulikovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:39:45 +0900

TCers,

Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated?

According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English
Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was
only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis.

Now it is generally held that the TR was used. But the term Textus
Receptus came from a publisher's blurb in the Elzevir's 2nd edition GNT
of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611.

My current understanding is that the Greek text behind the KJV was the
Stephanus 1551. Is this correct? I have also heard others say that it
was an edition published by Theodore Beza...

The Stephanus editions are revisions of Erasmus's text which he
initially rushed out the door using only a hand full of late manuscripts
and then made some corrections using the Complutum Polyglot.

Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition?

cheers,
Andrew

+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS                   
|                                              
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919  fax: +618 8281 6231
| email: [email-masked]
| 
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| http://www.cryogen.com/hermeneutics
|                                                            
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has  
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?          
|                                                          
|                                   ...Look to Jesus Christ
|                                                           
|                           hO IHSOUS KURIOS!                  
+---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:28:55 -0700

> only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis.

As per the Greek texts used by the KJV translators, they primarily used Beza's 1589 edition (as well as the 
preceeding Greek/Latin editions of Beza), follwed by Stephanus 1550 ed.; less influential was the 
Complutensian Polyglot, and I doubt if Erasmus had any influence at all. Their work was simply a revision 
rather than a fresh translation ("to make a good work better").

> 
> Now it is generally held that the TR was used. 

Because it was! :-)

>But the term Textus

Right, but it was a term that can to reflect the essentially identical text of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.

> Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition?

Andrew, 

The MSS used by Erasmus throughout the 5 editions are the following:

Erasmian edition	MSS used	

1516 			Codex 2e  (13th cent.)	    sent to press
			Codex 2ap  (12th cent.)	    sent to press
			Codex 1r  (12th cent.)	    sent to press
			Codex 1eap  (12th cent.)    collated
			Codex 4ap  (15th cent.)     collated
			Codex 7p  (11th cent.)      collated
			Commentary of Theophylact   collated
________________________________________________________________________________
1519 			Codex 3ap (12th century) 	collated
________________________________________________________________________________
1522			Codex 61 (Codex Montfortianus, 
			used for 1 John 5:7-8 only)
			Latin MSS			collated
_________________________________________________________________________________

1527			Complutensian Polyglot NT 
			(heavily used to revise Apocalypse text of 1522)
			Latin MSS	
__________________________________________________________________________________
1535			none	
_________________________________________________________________________________

Thus even though Erasmus subsequently examined further MSS they all were Latin MSS: the foundation for the TR 
still remains his 7 Greek MSS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Arcieri

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 11:34:57 -0500 (CDT)

>Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated?

No one really knows, but it is believed that the editions of
Stephanus and Beza were the most important.

Scrivener attempted to reconstruct the text they used, though I
believe some criticisms have been leveled at that reconstruction.

>only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis.

I wouldn't put it quite that way. The earlier English versions were
consulted for matter of English style, but the translation was based
on the Greek (and the Latin, at some points). Also, although
Tyndale's translation was not officially consulted, it is generally
agreed that it had the greatest influence on the KJV.

>of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611.

To say that the KJV translators worked from the TR is technically an
anachronism -- but to say that they worked from a text of the TR *type*
is perfectly correct. Stephanus, Elzevir, and Beza all used texts that
were very nearly identical with the editions of Erasmus, which was the
original TR. For proof of this, observe that all of them include
1 John 5:7-8 -- a reading with almost no support from the Greek
manuscripts.

>was an edition published by Theodore Beza...

As mentioned, we don't really *know*. There is clear evidence that
multiple editions were used. I believe it was Scrivener (who ought
to know) who claimed that Beza's edition was the most important.

>Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition?

The *primary* manuscripts were 2e 2ap 1r. For the first edition he
also consulted 1eap. For later editions he looked at a number of
other manuscripts such as 4. But these had influence only on
isolated readings. So the *basic* answer is that Erasmus used
2 influenced by 1, except in the Apocalypse, where he used 1 influenced
by the Vulgate. (In fact, as is well known, the last six verses
of the Apocalypse are taken straight from the Vulgate.)

I hope this helps.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:15:55 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:

> As per the Greek texts used by the KJV translators, they primarily used
> Beza's 1589 edition (as well as the preceeding Greek/Latin editions of
> Beza), follwed by Stephanus 1550 ed.; 

A small correction: according to Scrivener, the Beza 1598 edition was the
primary TR text used by the KJV translators:

"Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be
in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the
best standard within their reach."

      -- F.H.A. Scrivener, _The NT in Greek acc. to the text followed
         in the AV, together with the variations adopted in the RV_
         (Cambridge, 1908), p.vii

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:29:36 -0700

> only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis.

In the Preface of the TBS Greek NT we find that "The editions of Beza,
particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stephens, were
the chief sources used for the English Authorised Version of 1611".
Dr. Edward Hills referred to the words used in the title page of the AV,
when he wrote: "The original tongues referred to in the title were the
current printed Hebrew Bibles for the Old Testament and Beza`s printed
Greek Testament for the New. The "former translations" mentioned there
include not only the five previous English versions.....but also the
Douai Version, the Latin versions of Tremellius and Beza, and several
Spanish, French, and Italian versions. The King James Version, however,
is mainly a revision of the Bishops` Bible, which in turn was a slightly
revised edition of Tyndale`s Bible" (KJV Defended, p.215).
H.W.Hoare writes: "With regard to the New Testament, the companies
appear not to have confined themselves exclusively to any one existing
text, but to have made use of much the same materials as were accessible
to Tyndale, and to have attached also great weight to the modifications
which had been introduced by Beza into the texts of Erasmus and of Henry
Stephens" (The Evolution of the English Bible, London 1902, p.252).
 
> of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611.

Even though it is clear that the "name" "Received Text" did not appear in
any edition before that of the Elzevirs, all editions with virtually
the same text as that of the Elzevirs are normally referred to as the
Textus Receptus. Besides, the announcement was not intended as a new name
or title, it was written in the Elzevir-edition only to refer to
something which already was a fact, namely that "this is the text now
recognized/received by all". It may have been an overstatement, but
nevertheless it shows that this text was at least a standard in most
circles (outside of the Roman church). It was in fact the _received_
text. The *announcement* in the Elzevir-edition was just that! The
Elzevirs stated what they did because their edition contained
the text which was *already* "received".

The KJV was published in 1611 and the second Elzevir-edition with the
"TR-announcement" did not appear until 1633. This sounds like the KJV
was *not* based on the TR. But the "TR" refers primarily to the *form* of
the text rather than to some particular *edition* of that form. The form
was fundamentally the same with the Erasmus and Stephens editions.
Thus, to speak of the "TR" as something that was brought on the scene in
1633, is not at all fair to the actual situation.

There *are*, however, _minor_ differences between the TR editions of the
Reformation, but the KJV-translators did not use only _one_ Greek source
for their NT. They used a *variety* of the "TR", namely, a Greek text
constructed on the basis of the Beza and Stephens editions, in comparison
with other "TR-editions/translations". This also shows that they did not
*uncritically* accept one particular source or just one edition. In this
respect, the KJV-translators functioned as "textual critics". They even
introduced a few readings of minor importance from Latin sources.
In fact, they made their own "TR", their exact NT-basis was not in
complete harmony with *any* printed Greek edition at the time.
 
> was an edition published by Theodore Beza...

(See above)

> Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition?

It should be clear today, especially after the studies by Bentley, Jonge,
and others, on Erasmus and his text, that the implications drawn from the
"rushing out" of the first edition of Erasmus, and his use of only a hand
full of late MSS, can no longer be maintained.

K.W.Clark, in his article "Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2"
(Studia Evangelica, 1959, p.749-56), brought out a few interesting points
about Erasmus and his first editon. I quote: "Some have held that it
[cod. 2] was written in the fifteenth century, not long before Erasmus
used it. The recent personal examination left no doubt that Gregory`s
twelfth-century dating is right, and that we must evaluate the work of
Erasmus on this basis".

He continues: ".....Erasmus was not guilty, as often accused, of resting
his text upon a manuscript of later date and of greater corruption.
.....there is no _a priori_ assurance that his twelfth-century copy was
better than a later one, or that a manuscript of the fifteenth century
would have been substantially inferior".
"Indeed, among manuscripts after about 600 A.D. there is seldom a
substantial difference to be observed except for local or family
resemblance".
"Erasmus may be defended even against his own oft-quoted admission of
haste. [Footnote: "... praecip fuit verius quam editum". It is not clear
that Erasmus meant that he had been careless or negligent in preparing
the text. The context suggests rather that he was dissatisfied with the
haste and pressure of the printer. In any case, typographical errors are
not properly to be charged to Erasmus]. Suppose that he had taken ten
years instead of ten months; could the result have been much different,
under the circumstances? A case in point is the Complutensian New
Testament, praised by many for the care and time expended as well as for
the superior manuscript sources borrowed and bought".
".....Scrivener quite rightly noted that "the text it [the Complutensian]
exhibits does not widely differ from that of most codices written from
the tenth century downwards".
        It is true that the Erasmus text is largely a printing of Codex
2, just as the Westcott-Hort text is largely a printing of Codex B; yet
the Erasmus text is a typical Byzantine text and is the only sort of text
conceivable two centuries before John Fell and John Mill" (p.750-52).

Clark further notes: "We should not attribute to Erasmus the creation of
a "received text", but only the transmission from a manuscript text
already commonly received to a printed form in which this text would
continue to prevail for three centuries more" (p.752).

Then he goes on to discuss some select passages in which Erasmus made
changes by way of notes in Codex 2. The passages (in Luke) selected for
illustration are the more significant readings dealt with by Erasmus.
Clark discovered in his investigation of Codex 2 that several of the
changes made by Erasmus has later been attested by subsequent MS finds.
Let me qoute just one example: "At Luke 5,16 the scribe wrote simply that
Jesus was in the desert areas praying, as the specific term UPOXWRWN was
omitted. Erasmus inserted this in the margin, and this change is now well
approved". Here we find Erasmus at work as a textual critic.

Clark found that the notes done by Erasmus in Codex 2 demonstrate that
the first edition of Erasmus was not solely based on this codex and his
supplied notes. He concludes his paper with these words: "The instances
here cited from the Gospel of Luke form adequate illustration of the
surprising fact that the Erasmus edition is not a mere reproduction of
Codex 2 as Erasmus revised it. Who was responsible for the gap: Froben,
or the Lutheran John Oecolampadius of Weinberg, or Nikolas Gerbel? Or did
Erasmus make oral and later revision of his own work? It is even possible
that the basic text prepared by Erasmus was subject to collaborative
revision, and that the 1516 edition was not solely the work of Erasmus"
(p.756).

I think these statements and the investigation by Clark, shows that we
should not be quick to pass judgment on Erasmus` work. It is, after
all, several hundred years since Erasmus prepared his edition, and much
material that was available to Erasmus may not be available at all today!

The competence of Erasmus` as a textual critic is clearly seen in his
"Annotationes in Novum Testamentum". Jerry H. Bentley writes about the
"Annotationes", stating: "One surprising feature common to virtually all
studies of Erasmus` scriptural labors is the failure to examine closely
his _Annotationes....._. Heretofore only a few of the _Annotations_ have
excited much scholarly interest.....
.....and since the _annotations_ served for Erasmus purposes similar to
those served today by the footnote and critical apparatus, the appendix
and excursus.......it seems rather odd that scholars have not focused
more attention on them before now. In fact the _Annotations_ can yield a
great deal of information, not only about Erasmus` competence as a
textual critic, but also about his general awareness of textual
problems,.....". (Erasmus` _Annotationes in Novum Testamentum_ and the
Textual Criticism of the Gospels, Archive für Reformationsgeschichte,
No.67, 1976).
In a footnote Bentley lists several earlier studies on the Annotations,
and notes with reference to a chapter on it by A. Rabil: "Like all of the
other studies listed in this note, Rabil is most interested in Erasmus`
theological notes".
This indicates that modern scholars in general have not given much
consideration to the fact that Erasmus was a competent textual critic.

In another article by Bentley on Erasmus and TC, we read: "....Erasmus
was a remarkably astute textual critic. His _Annotations to the New
Testament_ reveal that he was well aware of the many paths - some of them
rather beaten tracks - leading to textual corruption in the
pre-Gutenberg era. They reveal further that in the light of his
well-developed critical faculty he was able to tread the largely unmarked
road of textual criticism without himself straying down too many of those
false paths. He employed advanced techniques, including the principle of
the harder reading, for isolating error and recovering a pure text of the
New Testament" (Erasmus, Jean Le Clerc, and the Principle of the Harder
Reading, Renaissance Quarterly 31, 1978, p. 320).

It is of importance to note that even though Erasmus did have objections
to several "TR-readings", he did not let that influence the actual text
he printed. He commented upon several readings in his Annotations, in
which he disfavored readings which he himself had adopted into his text.
He was led by a kind of "common faith" in the traditional text which was
found in the current Greek MSS. His text-critical ideas did not influence
his text much. Thus, Erasmus separated between TC and printed text. His
method of TC was very moderate when it came to introduce into the text
readings that departed from the generally accepted form of Greek text.

Often we hear TCers referring to the "few and late MSS" used by Erasmus.
But several of the "late" readings favored by Erasmus have been attested
in subsequent time by far older MSS. Not to mention the great number of
Byzantine MSS that has appeared since the time of Erasmus. This evidence
attests even more to Erasmus` edition(s). Erasmus may have had "few" MSS
at his disposal according to today`s standard, nevertheless his
text was later attested by the great *majority* of MSS! And clearly, the
text he produced from the "few" MSS was even in harmony with the great
majority of Greek MSS at his own time.

Let us now turn to one of the experts on Erasmian studies, Henk J. de
Jonge.
In his article "Novum Testamentum a Nobis Versum: The Essence of Erasmus`
Edition of the New Testament", Jonge emphasizes the importance of the
Latin part of the first edition. In so doing, Jonge raises a few
important points that may be of some relevance to our discussion here.
He writes: ".....that the aim of the _Novum Instrumentum_ [i.e. the 1516
edition] was not originally an edition of the Greek New Testament, is
evident from what is known of the preparations for the work. It is
established, and generally accepted, that Erasmus had been working on
the text of the New Testament since 1504, and had been studying Greek
manuscripts for this purpose.....
His goal now was to make a new Latin translation on the basis of Greek
manuscripts.....
By 1506 at the latest Erasmus had completed his new translation of Paul`s
Epistles, and not later than 1509 he had made a new version of the
Gospels....."
(Journal of Theological Studies, vol.35, part 2, 1984, p.402).

>From this it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a "truism" that
Erasmus based his first edition on "just a hand full of Greek MSS".
Erasmus had plenty of time for the investigation of Greek MSS.
At the final stage of the preparation he may have *used* just a few MSS.
But it is clear from the facts noted by Jonge that Erasmus did not *base*
his edition on just "a few" MSS. It is a known fact that he travelled all
over Europe visiting libraries and gathering information on Greek MSS.
It is unfair to assert that the Erasmus edition necessarily is based on
"just a few late MSS", when there are indications that he had a wide
knowledge of variant readings in MSS. Most certainly he must have
gathered hundreds of notes on his travels. Besides, we know very little
with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard to all the sources
used by Erasmus. He *may* have used *many* MSS instead of "a few".

If Erasmus had been working on the text of the NT since 1504, *twelve
years* ahead of the publication of his first edition, it is only logical
to conclude that he must have had knowledge of variants in MSS far beyond
those exhibited in the "few late" MSS he "used" in the final stage.
When Erasmus saw that the Greek MSS he found throughout Europe was
virtually identical in text to the ones at his disposal at the time
of printing, he did not hesitate to use the latter.
He began his work with the printed edition at Basel in 1515, and he had
there five Greek MSS at his disposal. In addition, he must have had notes
and maybe other sources available. He had throughly studied the Church
Fathers which had made him well acquainted with textual variants.

If Erasmus already by the year 1506 had translated the Epistles of Paul
and by 1509 had translated the Gospels _from the Greek MSS_, then it is
not hard to at least assume that he had compared the MSS with which he
had been working.

Further in the above mentioned article by de Jonge, we learn that
Erasmus had not made his own recension of the Greek text by the time of
the printed edition. So even though he had collected readings and
studied MSS, he did not make his own recension. His text was not his, but
the currently available form of the Greek text at the time. Jonge writes:
"The truth is that he never made any such recension". Some have asserted
that he did, but the results of Jonge`s study indicate that this
assertion is wrong.
Jonge`s contention is, in fact, that the *primary* reason for Erasmus`
edition was to make available a new Latin translation of the NT based
on the *Greek* MSS instead of the Latin.

Jonge also says that Erasmus used not four or five, "but seven Greek
manuscripts, for the edition of 1516: three which went to the printer and
four which he merely collated" (p.404).
Erasmus made notes in the MSS he sent to the printer. In his subsequent
four editions he introduced corrections. So by the time the
KJV-translators prepared their work, they had a "developed" and a
"refined" "TR" available for use.

Here is a rather interesting citation from de Jonge`s article:
".....we must....bear in mind that if Erasmus had had more time and had
found manuscripts of the now preferable Egyptian type, he would certainly
not have used them. On the contrary, he regarded the older Egyptian text
form as having been deliberately brought into conformity with the Latin
Vulgate, and thus as corrupt and to be rejected. If this (false) theory
is borne in mind, we can only expect Erasmus to have edited the Byzantine
text" (p.410).

I would strongly suggest to all on this list who have not already done
so, to read the studies presented by de Jonge. They are very instructive
and, even more important, corrective, to many "established"
misconceptions regardig the edition(s) of Erasmus among TCers.
At the same time I must warn that he seems to place all too much
emphasis on the Latin part of Erasmus` edition, even to the point that
he believes the Greek column only had the function as a means by which
to verify the accuracy of the Latin. I quote: "The true
purpose of the Greek text which he offered is almost always missed. The
aim of this text was to give the reader of the Latin text column, the
opportunity to check whether the surprising and startling new phrasing of
the new translation was really based on the Greek. The Greek was designed
as an aid to the verification of the accuracy of the unfamiliar Latin
expressions.....
It was not the textual criticism of the Greek, but the presence of the
Greek at all, with which he was concerned" (p.410).
Of course, de Jonge states this influenced by his own textual preferences
which is not the TR or the Byzantine text.

There is at least one major problem with Jonge`s statements here. I am
talking now in terms of textual criticism. If the
Greek was *not* in accordance with the Latin, there would have showed
up problems in the mind of the careful reader. For if the reader reads
something in the Latin which is not in the Greek, or something in the
Greek which is not in the Latin, it probably would have caused
questions regarding the accuracy of the Latin translation. So the textual
quality of the Greek (i.e. that it has the same readings as the Latin)
must have been an important aspect in Erasmus` mind. I have not, however,
investigated Erasmus` Latin compared to his Greek, to verify this. But at
least it seems to be the logical implication. Another point here seems to
be (as already noted above) that since Erasmus had worked several years
on his Latin translation based on *Greek MSS*, he must also have obtained
a good insight into the readings of the Greek MSS and thus he must have
developed a text-critical capability to approve or disprove of the MSS
he would send to the printer.

Finally, I must also state that, while Jonge defends Erasmus against some
oft-repeated misconceptions, he does not at all favor the form of Greek
text published by Erasmus, i.e. the "TR".

--
- Mr. Helge Evensen