All of these editions — the five of Erasmus, Stephanus’s text (primarily his 1550 edition), and Beza’s editions — were available to the King James translators while they labored between 1604 and 1611. Since these editions differed at various points, 12 the translators also played the role of textual critics, weighing the various readings and making decisions as it seemed best to them, just as modern editors and translators do.
How is this a half truth? Yes, there are minor differences – amounting to the spelling of a word in Greek, or a different word in Greek.
“These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” (John 1:28, KJV)
Βηθαβαρά is Bethabara. The 1st and 2nd editions of STephanus – not the text we use for our King James – reads Βηθανία – Bethany.
The collators of the Textus Receptus did not choose readings, they simply looked at the manuscripts, and saw which ones were the most often used. THey wrote those down. If I assigned a class to copy something off the chalkboard, and then I go through what everyone copied down and I see a misspelling or copyist’s error, I’m going to go with what everyone else said.
That’s not the principles of modern textual criticism at all, and James White knows it. He’s aware that textual Criticism is based upon the premise the Bible is just another book.
Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, the Elvizir brothers – did not approach it that way.
Modern Textual Criticism is based upon the arrogant assumption we alone have the right to determine what the words of God is. Stephanus and Erasmus did not.
“Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament WHICH WAS REGARDED AS THE ‘REVEALED TEXT.’ THIS IDEA OF VERBAL INSPIRATION (i.e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text), which the orthodoxy of both Protestant traditions maintained so vigorously, WAS APPLIED TO THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS…” (Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd edition, pp. 6, 7).
For White to say they were being Textual Critics is a slanted half truth, ignoring facts and again distorting history and definitions.
If I have to omit facts, deliberately state something to be the opposite of what I know to be the truth, what do you call that?
I don’t know about you, but I call that lying.