Are there any educated guesses in the KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. Logos1560

    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Oct 22, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Originally Posted by stilllearning in another thread

    I prefer not to study a Bible, that has just been made up, by somebody making an educated guess.
    Now, we are about to embark, upon the subject, of “which New Testament manuscripts should be trusted”?

    And since there seems to be some confusion in the minds of some people here, about the meanings of the “TR” or the “received text”: Let me cut through that confusion, and identify them as, the “majority Byzantine manuscripts”.

    I have not recommended the Critical Greek text. I am willing to accept the majority Byzantine text. Do you actually accept it when it disagrees with the KJV?

    There are at least a few places where the KJV does not seem to follow the majority Byzantine text, but instead seems to follow the "educated guess" of Erasmus, Beza, or the Latin Vulgate. Do you accept the "educated guess" of Erasmus or Beza in some cases? There possibly could be two ways for educated guesses to be in a translation: an educated guess in the text that underlies the translation and an educated guess by the translators concerning how to translate best a word in the text. Are you sure that there are no educated guesses in the KJV?

    According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, the KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation [or educated guess] interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83). William W. Combs maintained: “Beza simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was ‘shall be’ instead of ‘holy one’” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he maintained that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389).

    The earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be“ at this verse. Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.” E. W. Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One
    ” (p. 326).

Share This Page