Reina Valera Gomez

The quotations you provided leave wide open the door that the RVG could have been conformed to the KJV is a number of verses. Because the person doing the revising may have open both a copy of the Textus Receptus and the KJV is not evidence that he was not using the KJV as his standard and the TR as a secondary source. The quotations do not say that the reviser considered the Textus Receptus to be a greater authority than a translation [the KJV]. At the very least, the quotations you provided suggest that the TR and the KJV were considered equal authorities. The quotations do not actually prove or demonstrate that the person revising the Spanish Bible may not have considered the KJV to be a greater or superior authority than the TR and may not have been conforming the Spanish Bible to the KJV. You also seem to be ignoring the fact of the other statement where Gomez said that he considered the KJV the standard. You have not shown that Gomez did not introduce any changes into the Spanish Bible in order to attempt to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV in some renderings.

Which edition of the Textus Receptus was used: one of the ones actually available to and used by the KJV translators or the later one that was especially compiled by Scrivener in the 1800's in order to try to conform it and match it to the KJV? The 1569 edition of the Spanish Bible and the 1602 edition of the Spanish Bible may have been made from earlier editions of the Textus Receptus like some of the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's].

 

No way to tell without asking, but Stephens (Stephanus) and Scrivener (edited the TR to the underlying text of the KJV) are the only ones easily available.

The principles of modern textual criticism had not yet been developed, so it was not really the critical text of its day. More like the only text of its day!

Not really. Erasmus used what he had on hand, and did some textual criticism with those manuscripts, but that's about it.

Not precisely. It's more accurate to say the "best critical texts" today use the Byzantine/Majority text as one source.

Depends on your theory of textual criticism: TR-only, Byz/Maj, eclectic, etc. And it's even more complicated, since Robinson-Pierpont uses some aspects of Westcott-Hort theory, while Hodges-Farstad use a different approach, but both are Byz/Maj. And the eclectics have their own approach, etc.

 

While it may not be well-known, there is a facsimile reproduction of one of the editions of the Greek text edited by Erasmus in print today. It includes his Greek text and Latin translation. It made available by "the Bible Reader's Museum" at an on-demand printer: Lulu Press [www.lulu.com]. A reprint of the New Testament of the Complutensian Polyglot was also available.

The first two editions [1546 and 1549] of Stephanus' Greek New Testament were a compound of the earlier editions by Erasmus and the earlier Complutensian Polyglot. His third edition (1550) is considered to be closer to the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus' text (Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 104). The edition of Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible edited by H. B. Hackett asserted that “numerous instances occur in which Stephens deserts his former text and all his MSS to restore an Erasmian reading” (III, p. 2132). KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance also noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible stated that the number of various readings in this 1550 text is said to be 2194 (III, p. 2131). The Cambridge History of the Bible pointed out that "Erasmus's Greek text was to remain the principal source" for that standard 1550 text of Stephanus (Vol. 2, p. 449). Tregelles affirmed that in Stephanus' 1550 folio edition "Erasmus was almost exclusively followed" (Account of the Printed Text, p. 30). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "through its [Erasmus's Greek text] being incorporated into the third edition of Robert Estienne's Greek Testament (1550) it influenced strongly the Greek Testament of Theodore de Beza" (Vol. 2, p. 57). Scrivener noted that his “own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata” (Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).

The fourth edition (1551) of Stephanus included two Latin New Testaments (the Vulgate and the Latin translation by Erasmus) on either side of the Greek text (Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 104). Armstrong pointed out that Stephanus defended the inclusion of the Latin Vulgate in his 1551 edition "on the grounds that it represented a very ancient Greek text, was still the most familiar version to most people, and was still a valuable translation to the beginner in Greek when used with a modern version" (Robert Estienne, p. 76). This fourth Stephanus edition was the first to have the text divided with numbered verse divisions. Thomas Holland reported that in the last edition of his Greek text Stephanus "proclaimed his conversion to Protestantism" (Crowned With Glory, p. 252).



Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener noted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible affirmed that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of all his collations? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214).

 

Gentlemen, please understand I am not posting about the Spanish Bible issues, since I'm not qualified to do so. However, as a Bible translator who has researched the methodology and history, I do believe I'm qualified to comment on the process of translation.

4His_Glory, you are still generalizing about a complex process and history. There have been many times in history in many countries where the scholarship of the missionaries was not up to producing a translation based on Greek and Hebrew. Yet the people needed a Bible right then, and for the missionaries to wait for someone trained in the original languages was not an option!

This is particularly true in tribal work and 3rd world work even in the 21st century. Right now around the world translations are being made primarily from the KJV or some modern version simply because "the harvest is plenteous but the (Greek and Hebrew trained) laborers are few." To lay down a die hard principle that no one should ever translate except from a base of the original languages is to ignore the huge need in thousands of languages for a Bible, any Bible!

Here in Japan, the very first NT was actually done by the scholarly Nathan Brown, a former colleague of Carey, from the Greek. However, a number of linguistic factors (his failure to use the Chinese characters for one) meant that his NT was not widely accepted. The very next year, 1972, the Motoyaku ("Original Translation") was printed, with the KJV as the original base, with the OT being printed a few years later. (Brown didn't do an OT.) So until it was revised (it was a poor translation), the only Bible the Japanese had for 30-40 years was the Motoyaku! Should the Japanese have been denied a complete Bible for decades simply because no missionaries with enough original language scholarship attempted the effort?

Having said all of that, in the 21st century, in a major language such as Spanish, I would agree that the Bible in the original languages, Greek and Hebrew, ought to be the base for the translation. :type:

 

D. A. Waite has also written that there was already a Spanish Bible that was based on the Received Text.
D. A. Waite wrote: "The Spanish Version (1569) used the Received Text" (Defending the KJB, p. 48).

By the way, D. A. Waite's claims and research has been shown to be inaccurate several times at this forum.

 

Well now, that would be fun to have!

Anyway, thanks for all the good info, Logos1560. :thumbsup:

 

Bro. Manny,

I know you are busy with deputation, but I would like to see some examples of CT corruption in the RV1960 if you could post a few.

Thanks.

 

Dr. Edward Hills, PhD in Textual Criticism, says that the KJV is "an independent variety of the Textus Receptus". To refer to the KJV is to in essence refer to the Textus Receptus. All editions of the TR are different, though the differences are mostly minor and insignificant, but different nonetheless. The KJV is a conglomeration of all editions of the TR. The KJV is the collective result of the greatest assembly of scholarship that ever took place in the European continent (or in the world for that matter). The crowning work of the TR. The most exact Greek equivalent to the KJV is Scrivener's 1894 text, however there are a few differences (very few and minor) between it and the KJV. So the standard should be the exact Greek & Hebrew words that underlie the KJV. Such was the standard for the RVG according to Bro. Gomez's own admission both to me in person as well as in public on numerous occasions.

Now again, you guys seem to be OK with the Critical Texts. So if that is so, then do what you will. I understand that the RVG is not for everybody. But those of us who sincerely believe that accuracy is found within the Received Texts and not the Westcott & Hort Alexandrian Critical Texts, for sake of consistency we will use the RVG.

As I said earlier, neither the 1960 nor the RVG nor any other Spanish Bible is based SOLELY upon the Greek and Hebrew. It's pretty simple to me. I can either use a Spanish Bible that incorporated the ASV and RSV (English Bibles) to bring it more in line with the Critical Texts. Or I could use a Spanish Bible that incorporated the KJV to bring it more in line with the Received Texts. I am concerned with giving my people what I sincerely believe is the best and purest. Therefore, I will choose the latter. You can do what you want.

 

Dr. Waite is exactly right. The Reina Valera was originally based upon the Received Text. I have a copy of both the 1569 and 1602. The problem is that the 1909 and even moreso the 1960 revisers replaced many of the Spanish Bible's TR basis with the Critical Texts. This is what we are against. Many who use the 1909 and 1960 act as if they are using a Spanish Bible that is equal to the original Reina Valera. Yet, nothing can be further from the truth. The truth is that the RVG brought the Reina Valera Bible back to its roots. The original Reina Valera only departed from the TR in about 50 something places, which is not bad considering the difficult circumstances they suffered during their work. All one had to do was fix those few places. But instead, liberal Bible societies came along and caused the Spanish Bible to be further removed from it's original basis (the Received Texts). This was a step backwards, not forwards.

By conforming the RV back to the TR, Bro. Gomez and his collaborators have produced a Spanish Bible that is more true to it's original form - the 1602 - than the 1909 and 1960.

I am currently working on an article documenting many instances where the RVG has been brought back to read like the original 1602 as opposed to the 1909 and 1960. One example off the top of my head is Eph. 3:9. New bibles in English omit the last 3 words "by Jesus Christ", which affects the Deity of Christ equating Christ as the Creator. The 1960 likewise omits "por Jesucristo". They follow the Critical Texts in doing so. On the other hand, the original 1602 had the words "por Jesucristo". Why did revisers after 1602 take it out? The RVG has re-inserted those words back to it's rightful place to agree with the Received Texts, the KJV, and the 1602 Valera.

Everyone complains that Bro. Gomez is just trying to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV. But really and truthfull, he has brought it back in line with what Reina and Valera originally rendered, which were right to begin with.

 

I will be more than happy to brother. Just give me some time to prepare a list for you and I will post it as soon as I can. (I am in the middle of moving right now, and I have to travel out of town this afternoon for a 6 hour trip so I'm running out of time but I will make time later.)

 

Here is a couple of quotes from Dr. Hill's book "The King James Version Defended" explaining why the KJV is an "independent variety of the TR".

An online version of this book can be found at http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter8.htm

 

There is so much more that I wish to discuss but I must go now. I will try to make time to come back later and respond to a few more items. God bless.