In "The King James Version Defended," (electronically available here) Dr. Edward F. Hills makes a number of references to conjectural emendation, and includes Beza's revision of the text as one such emendation.
From chapter 8, "The Textus Receptus and the King James Version," Section 2, "How Erasmus and His Successors were Guided by the Common Faith," Sub-Section (i),"Calvin's Comments on the New Testament Text," (p. 204):
The mention of Geneva leads us immediately to think of John Calvin (1509-64), the famous Reformer who had his headquarters in this city. In his commentaries (which covered every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John and Revelation) Calvin mentions Erasmus by name 78 times, far more often than any other contemporary scholar. Most of these references (72 to be exact) are criticisms of Erasmus' Latin version, and once (Phil. 2:6) Calvin complains about Erasmus' refusal to admit that the passage in question teaches the deity of Christ. But five references deal with variant readings which Erasmus suggested in his notes, and of these Calvin adopted three. On the basis of these statistics therefore it is perhaps not too much to say that Calvin disapproved of Erasmus as a translator and theologian but thought better of him as a New Testament textual critic.
...
To the three variant readings taken from Erasmus' notes Calvin added 18 others. The three most important of these Calvin took from the Latin Vulgate namely, light instead of Spirit (Eph.5:9), Christ instead of God (Eph. 5:21), without thy works instead of by thy works (James 2:18). Calvin also made two conjectural emendations. In James 4:2 he followed Erasmus (2nd edition) and Luther in changing kill to envy. Also he suggested that 1 John 2:14 was an interpolation because to him it seemed repetitious. (22)
Hills' endnote cites Calvin's commentaries, presumably the section on the Catholic epistles. I quote this material as background to Hills' comments about Beza, not as an endorsement or recommendation of Dr. Hills' work.
I note that the KJV does not follow either of these conjectures by Calvin.
At subsection (j) "Theodore Beza's Ten Editions of the New Testament," of the same chapter and section, Hills writes (p. 208):
Like Calvin, Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the King James Version, namely, Romans 7:6 that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.
The subsequent sub-section (k) "The Elzevir Editions-The Triumph of the Common Faith" goes on (p. 208):
Admittedly there are a few places in which the Textus Receptus is supported by only a small number of manuscripts, for example, Eph. 1:18, where it reads, eyes of your understanding, instead of eyes of your heart; and Eph. 3:9, where it reads, fellowship of the mystery, instead of dispensation of the mystery. We solve this problem, however, according to the logic of faith. Because the Textus Receptus was God-guided as a whole, it was probably God-guided in these few passages also.
Ultimately, of course, this is Hills' solution for everything. Because he accepts the KJV as a whole, he resolves every individual question in the KJV's favor.
Hills identifies the substitution of "shalt be" for "holy" as a conjectural emendation, which it may well have been (despite Beza's comments, which suggest reliance in some way on a manuscript). However, Hills' defense of this is just that "the influence of the common faith" was responsible for keeping these cases "to a minimum."
While we may agree that there are "few" (though more than Hills enumerates) places where the KJV is supported by only a few manuscripts and "a minimum" of places where the KJV follows a conjecture, their small number is not really a defense of the reading as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment