Featured Has the KJV been proven to be based on a superior text?

That claim for the KJV would ignore and avoid the facts concerning the Majority Text. Thus, it does not support the claim made for the KJV when a more consistent majority text is considered. The KJV is based on several varying editions of the Textus Receptus.

A Majority Text could be regarded as a superior text to the textually-varying Textus Receptus editions with their additions from the Latin Vulgate and with their conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza.

 

You have it backwards. It is KJV-only reasoning which attempts to pass off mere subjective opinions as objective facts. It is right and proper to challenge KJV-only advocates to prove their own assertions to be true. If KJV-only reasoning is merely subjective preference, they have no sound basis for their many attacks on the preferences of other believers.

If the claimed "evidence" for KJV-only claims is merely subjective, it would affirm that it cannot and has not been proven to be true.

How it is incorrect to challenge KJV-only advocates to follow a scriptural truth as stated in the KJV [Prove all things--1 Thess. 5:22a]? Are you suggesting that this scriptural command cannot be obeyed?

The opening post presented the claimed "objective" evidence that D. A. Waite offered and that would tie in with his superior claim: his claim that the Textus Receptus is supposedly based on 5,210 manuscripts. Since his claim that the TR is based on 5,210 manuscripts is not true, his evidence does not support his subjective conclusion or opinion.

Are you perhaps improperly taking the brief question that is the title of this thread to misrepresent the entire opening post, which presents more detail and specifics about this KJV-only claim? Only a small number of words can be put in a title so the entire points or case in an opening post cannot always be soundly presented in it.

You have ignored or dodged the quoted statements made by Waite which would in effect contradict his own argument for the TR and the KJV. You skipped over or dodged the other questions asked in the opening post. Points are presented in the opening post that you have not discussed. One important point was whether Waite in effect contradicted his own claim that the TR is based on 5,210 manuscripts in his other statements that were quoted.

 

W. Edward Glenny noted: “The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51). Charles Lantz asserted: “Erasmus created a number of Greek readings that had never been seen in any manuscript before” (Just One Bible, p. 274). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). In his book about the KJV, F. H. A. Scrivener included a partial list of "places in which the translators of 1611 have apparently followed the Latin Vulgate, mostly after the example of Tyndale, sometimes of Versions later than his, especially of the Rhemish of 1582, whereof the Epistle of the Translators to the Reader speaks so contemptuously" (Authorized Edition, p. 262). John Reumann also maintained that Erasmus “at places actually inserted Greek words found in no Greek manuscripts, translating them himself on the basis of the Latin” (Romance, p. 85). Jan Krans acknowledged: “As is well known, some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Jan Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62). Jan Krans maintained that “Erasmus’ text appears as an unsteady bridge between the Byzantine and the Vulgate text, but a bridge nevertheless” (p. 108). Donald Brake noted that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 93). In their second edition’s preface, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote: “Some early printed editions (usually Textus Receptus) and English translations include words or phrases that are not part of the Byzantine Textform” (The New Testament, p. xx). Edward Andrews maintained that “there are some twenty readings in his [Erasmus’] Greek text not found in any Greek manuscript” (Complete Guide to Bible Translation, pp. 132, 324).

It has not been demonstrated that Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza collated completely and accurately anything approaching a true majority of Greek NT manuscripts. It also has not been proven that they applied any sound textual measures consistently and justly. The available evidence indicates that the textual editing or textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of likely less than fifty Greek NT manuscripts [not of 5,210 manuscripts].

 

Terence D. McLean wrote a brief 90-page book entitled The History of Your Bible proving the King James to be the perfectly preserved words of God. I just read it, and this book fails to prove what its title claims.

Terence D. McLean asserted: "By the way, prejudiced belief in favor of the King James Bible is just as unacceptable as being prejudiced against it. It is facts we need, not fables or favoritism" (p. 6).

Terence McLean did not present sufficient facts to prove what he may assume and what he claims.
Some of what he claims to be facts are not facts.

 

Any positive assertion that any Bible translation made after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God is inspired would have the burden of proof to prove it. Is it sound to assert a need to prove a negative? It would be a positive assertion that should be proved.

Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, wrote: “We never learned to prove the negative” (Perpetual Government, p. 251).

Reformer Francis Turretin observed: “The affirmative is bound to prove, not the negative” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I, p. 38).

John A. Broadus wrote: “He who alleges must prove; no man is under obligation to prove a negative” (Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, p. 165). ).

 

Who has carefully examined and completely collated all those 5,210 Greek manuscripts so that what you claim can accurately be asserted or suggested? What is the direct source for your unsupported claims?

In a 2019 book, S. Matthew Solomon asserted: “To date, a large number of manuscripts of the New Testament have not been examined in detail” (Hixon, Myths and Mistakes in NT Criticism, p. 173). KJV-only author J. A. Moorman acknowledged that “only a relative few of the 5555 MSS now catalogued have been collated” (When the KJV Departs, p. 17). KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692). Does a consistent, just application of David Cloud’s statement suggest that it cannot with any degree of certainty be claimed that all those 5,210 manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus editions?

David Cloud claimed that the collations of Hermann von Soden are “the most extensive collation that has ever been made” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692). Clinton Branine also acknowledged that “Von Sodden has done more work for a critical apparatus than anyone else has in this point of time” (Waite, Fundamental Distortions, p. 27). J. A. Moorman suggested that von Soden “provides far more MS information than any other” source and claimed that “von Soden examined more items than anyone before or since” (When the KJV Departs, p. 21).

If according to some KJV-only authors this more extensive collation of around 400 Greek NT manuscripts is supposedly insufficient evidence to establish the text for a Majority Text, it would indicate or even demonstrate soundly that the actual use of a much smaller number of Greek NT manuscripts (also incompletely and imperfectly collated) would have been insufficient evidence to establish the text of the printed textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus. That smaller number is evidently fewer than one hundred and perhaps fewer than fifty. There were many textual variations including some significant ones in that smaller number of manuscripts on which the TR editions were actually based.

I have nowhere advocated or recommended the Critical Text. My point concerned whether the twenty to thirty textually-varying "Textus Receptus" editions can be soundly asserted to be a superior text. I raised the point of a comparison of a text based on fewer than fifty or one hundred manuscripts to a majority text based on a larger number of manuscripts such as 400.

 

This thread is intended for people to present evidence for the claim that the KJV is based on a superior text if they assert that the claim is true or proven.

Another poster (Stratton7) had made this claim in a recent thread (that was on page 7) without offering any proof for it [besides a link to Waite's writing].

Knowing that that thread would likely be closed while I was at work second shift (since threads are closed after they reach page 7), I started this new thread concerning that poster's claim to see if he would offer evidence for it and back it up.

 

Do you ignore the other assertions by Waite that would in effect contradict his own claims concerning a type of text claimed to be supposedly based on 5,210 manuscripts that have not been collated?

D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’ I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 118). D. A. Waite claimed that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). Waite suggested that his readers should buy Burgon’s book and “see the proof that all of the surviving manuscripts are like orphan children with no provable connection with one another and certainly not grouped as ‘Text-types’” (p. 98). Waite asserted: “Each manuscript is a lone and independent document” (p. 50).

Waite acknowledged that “nobody on this earth has examined all the manuscripts that we have” (p. 121). Waite asserted: “There are no such things as ‘families’ of Greek manuscripts” (Fundamental Deception, p. 56). Waite declared: “I do not believe there are any ‘text-types’ of Greek manuscripts, only individual manuscripts” (Bob Jones University’s Errors, p. 11). Waite claimed: “Each manuscript is like an orphaned child with no ability to say where it came from” (p. 41). Waite asserted: “Manuscripts of the Greek language are simply manuscripts. None are related to each other” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 53). Waite declared: “”Every manuscript is independent of all others,” and Every manuscript stands alone” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 64, 72).

 

Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of these collations of the few Greek manuscripts that underlie TR editions?

Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Samuel Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214). Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Marvin Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Richard Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).

Is the textual apparatus in the 1550 Stephanus TR edition honeycombed with errors?

Do KJV-only advocates deal adequately with these pertinent facts that the collating of the few Greek NT manuscripts that are the basis for the TR editions was incomplete, imperfect, or slipshod, which could suggest the possibility that some of the TR textual criticism decisions may not have been soundly made?

How can an edited text based on such imperfect, faulty collating be soundly considered a superior text?