|
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS IS
NOT THE SOURCE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
By Joseph Dugas
I have been reading a bit deeper
into the Issue about the  New King James bible and why many people like the Ahos' say that it agrees with the Textus
Receptus better then our 1769 King James Bible. These former King James Bible believers are now using the
Textus Receptus to promote the New King James bible. To understand why and how, this is what I've
found.
The first thing to know (and which many people overlook) is that the King James Bible is not based on a single
Greek manuscript or source like most Bibles of the time. Its actually based on portions from three Greek sources,
the editions of Erasmus, Stephenus, & Beza, but also uses portions from the Vulgate and Complutensian Polyglot
bible.
Dr. Edward F. Hills wrote: “The King
James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied
mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9)."
Hills went onto say that “According
to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English
rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59
times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus.” [The King
James Bible Defended]
So according to Hills and Scrivener,
Our King James Bible is based on a collection of readings which the translators were led to use via prayer and the
common faith.
| 
