- Well of course, you really can t do a study like this without being able to read the original languages. Using the KJV as a respresentation of the ByzantineMessage 1 of 1 , Jul 9, 2007View SourceWell of course, you really can't do a study like this without being able to read the original languages. Using the KJV as a respresentation of the Byzantine text won't cut it. There's places where the KJV disagrees with the Byzantine to agree with the Latin or the Alexandrian. For example...
In John 18:14 , the KJV follows the WH reading that KJV proponents argue against so vehemenently, not the TR, saying
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die (apoqanein) for the people. (Westcott-Hort)
Whereas the TR reads:
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should be killed (apolesqai) for the people. (Stephens TR, 1550)
And while the KJV is allegedly based on the TR, we have at least some reason to doubt in places like this....
In the 1611 footnote to Acts 13:18, it says...
"Gr. etropoforsen, perhaps for, etroroforhsen as a nurse beareth or feedeth her childe."
So the KJV is admitting that what is seen in the text, namely "etropoforsen" , isn't correct and is probably a mispelling of something else. The Textus Receptus reads "etropoforhsen", which means the KJV either mispelled it in these notes or they weren't using the TR. Did they use something other than the TR, or can they simply not read Greek very well?
Here's a few examples of the KJV agreeing with various Latin readings:
- Gal 4:4 says the Son was "made" in the King James, which is how the Vulgate reads, but the Greek says "came". Thus it says Yeshua was "came of a woman" (Greek version), not that he was "made of a woman" (KJV = Vulgate).
- Gal 6:12 KJV = "constrain" = Vulgate's "cogunt" <> Greek "compel". One can be compelled to do something without being constrained. And in the example given, if one constrained someone, he could not be compelled to be circumcized, so the KJV reading describes something impossible.
- 2 Thess 2:8, KJV uses "destroy", as does the Vulgate, but the Greek says "katarghsei", meaning to annul or to make idle, but not necessarily to destroy. Of course, destruction certain results in idleness, but the converse is not necessarily true.
- Gal 1:18. KJV says "I went up to Jeruslaem to see Peter." Here, the KJV agrees with the Vulgate, but the Greek reads "make aquaintance with" or "meet", which potentially could be done without using ones eyes. In Acts 9:17, Paul makes the aquaintance of Ananias before seeing him.
- 2 Cor 8:23 - KJV calls Titus Paul's fellow "helper" as does the Vulgate (reading "adjutor"), but the Greek says "laborer". Help often involves labor, but doesn't have to. These are two different concepts, and not synonyms.
- Eph 4:18 Greek reads "hardness" while KJV = Vulgate = "blindness".
- In Matt 24:12, as well as numerous other places, the KJV reads "iniquity", agreeing with the Vulgate's "iniquitas", but disagreeing with the Greek's "lawlessness = anomian ". Other places where this occurs are Matt 7:23, 13:41, 23:28, as well as others.
The Latin influences on the King James did not always come from the Vulgate. In Col 1:22, we find...
- unreproveable before Him" (Greek)
- unreproveable in his sight" (KJV = Calvin's Latin reading of the New Testament)
The Latin influence is due to the fact that the KJV wasn't really so much of a fresh literal translation, but a reaction to the changes in the Geneva Bible in 1599 and an attempt to get back to traditional pre-Geneval wording. That's why they simply used wording that had been in the English tradition in the past even if that wording had come from a previously existing Latin source text.
Poetically enough, the KJV has attracted the same crowd it was born in, because many KJV onlyists are people who latch onto it for tradition's sake - that being English tradition - even when there's no support in the Greek or Hebrew sources. And it was created by men who didn't care if they had to copy an incorrect reading from the Latin as long as they were using something people were familiar with, irregardless to the accuracy of matching the alleged source text. The KJV was trying to return the public to the familiar, not create a new level of accuracy.
Joe Viel----- Original Message -----From: Jeffrey B. GibsonSent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 9:42 PMSubject: Re: [textualcriticism] Peshitta confluence with the GreekTR/Byzantine text
Hi Folks,How did you do your study when, as you've admitted elsewhere, that you read neither Greek nor Syriac?
I agree that this is true about a few of very significant variants, that there
is agreement with the Alexandrian text and the Peshitta.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
e-mail jgibson000@comcast. net