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
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.