Preserved Text Only

[Anthony Pritchard]

Preserved Text Only

There has been some confusion in recent discussions about what I mean when I use the term “preserved text only.” I want to clarify this carefully, because I am not speaking about a translation, nor am I speaking about English alone. I am speaking about the textual stream that God preserved through history.

When I say “preserved text only,” I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction. It is the line of manuscripts that were copied, used, preached, and received by the believing church for centuries. It never disappeared, never had to be rebuilt from fragments, and never required modern editors to guess at lost readings. That is what I mean by preserved text only.

I am not referring to Nestle-Aland, UBS, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, or Alexandrian priority. Those represent a reconstructionist philosophy, not a preservation philosophy. They assume that the text was lost and must be restored by modern critical methods. I reject that approach entirely.

A clear example of the difference is found in Romans 8:1. The phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” belongs to the preserved stream. It is found in the Majority Text, the Byzantine tradition, the Syriac, the Old Latin, the Gothic, the Waldensian line, and the TR editions. It is removed only in the Alexandrian reconstructionist stream. There is good reason to preach it, defend it, and prefer it. This is exactly what I mean by preserved text only.

Preservation is not English-only. It is text-only. There are faithful translations in Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Romanian, and other languages that follow the preserved stream. These are not KJV equivalents. They are preserved-text equivalents. The issue is not English. The issue is the stream of transmission.

The Textus Receptus is not a single edition. It is a family of printed Greek texts that represent the preserved stream. The differences among TR editions are minor and do not reflect reconstruction. They reflect orthographic normalization, printer corrections, and refinement within the same preserved line. The TR tradition is stable, not eclectic.

My position is simple. I reject Alexandrian reconstruction, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, and the idea of a lost text restored by modern editors. I affirm continuity of transmission, providential preservation, linguistic maturity, and doctrinal stability.

That is what I mean by preserved text only.

Two passages summarize the heart of this conviction. Galatians 3:16 says, “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed.” Matthew 5:18 says, “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” These verses express the precision of Scripture and the certainty of its preservation.

The issue of language maturity and degradation is separate but equally vital.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.

 

[Logos1560]

Preserved Text Only

There has been some confusion in recent discussions about what I mean when I use the term “preserved text only.” I am speaking about the textual stream that God preserved through history.

When I say “preserved text only,” I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction. It is the line of manuscripts that were copied, used, preached, and received by the believing church for centuries. It never disappeared, never had to be rebuilt from fragments, and never required modern editors to guess at lost readings.

You show that you are uninformed or misinformed concerning the Bibles on your claimed preserved line or stream of transmission. You are simply wrong in some of your claims. You do not document and prove an actual continuous line of transmission.

The Old Testament of the Gothic Bible was based on the Greek Septuagint. The Old Testament of the Old Latin Bible was translated from the Greek Septuagint. The Waldensian translations were translated from editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. There is not actually consistent continuity and stability in this claimed preserved line of transmission. There was some mixing from the other supposed line into the preserved line. The Church of England makers of the KJV even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

There are some conjectural emendations or reconstructions found in this claimed preserved line of transmission. There are some conjectural emendations in the varying Textus Receptus Greek NT editions. Erasmus added some readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate to his edited and reconstructed Greek New Testament that involved use of textual criticism. The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373). Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26. In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.

 

[Logos1560]

Preserved Text Only

There has been some confusion in recent discussions about what I mean when I use the term “preserved text only.” I want to clarify this carefully, because I am not speaking about a translation, nor am I speaking about English alone. I am speaking about the textual stream that God preserved through history.

Preservation is not English-only. It is text-only.

You seem to reject other post-1611 English Bible translations made from the same preserved original-languages texts or same textual stream as the KJV, which suggests that you can be soundly identified as being KJV-only based on your own assertions concerning English Bibles.

Since the KJV is an English Bible translation made in 1611, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations since 1610, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV. The accurate term KJV-only does not mean preservation in English-only. You seem to be confused about what constitutes a KJV-only view.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV.

KJV-only author D. A. Waite incorrectly alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). D. A. Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20).

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

Would you suggest that Peter Ruckman was preserved text only and not KJV-only because he accepted faithful translations in other languages that use the preserved texts?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You show that you are uninformed or misinformed concerning the Bibles on your claimed preserved line or stream of transmission. You are simply wrong in some of your claims. You do not document and prove an actual continuous line of transmission.

Does your entire philosophy rest on the words of man? You are very good at quoting them. I do not reject learning from scholars, but the level to which you depend on them is concerning. You argue almost entirely by assembling long chains of quotations from modern writers.

You have cited Armitage, Ferrari, Warner, de Ansa, Conjurske, Johnson, Todd, Hatfield, and many others. But none of these citations address the point I made. They do not touch the question of continuity of transmission. They do not touch the distinction between preservation and reconstruction. They do not touch the philological categories that matter for determining whether a textual stream is continuous or whether it is eclectic.

Your objection rests on a misunderstanding of what I mean by preserved text only. I am claiming that translations in the preserved stream were made from the same base text, because the preserved stream itself is one continuous base text.. I am claiming that the preserved stream is the continuous line of manuscripts and versions that the believing church used, copied, preached, and transmitted. That stream includes Byzantine Greek, Syriac, Gothic, Old Latin, Waldensian, Majority Text, and the printed TR editions. These represent continuity of use and continuity of reception. They do not represent the reconstructionist philosophy of Alexandrian priority.

Your citations about the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and editorial decisions in TR editions do not overturn continuity. They simply show that the preserved stream, like all historical transmission, includes minor variations, editorial refinements, corrected printing errors, non‑standardized spelling, and occasional borrowings. None of that changes the fact that the preserved stream is continuous, ecclesiastically received, and never lost. None of that changes the fact that the reconstructionist stream is eclectic, conjectural, and built on the assumption of textual loss.

You are treating any variation, any editorial decision, any marginal note, and any historical borrowing as proof that the preserved stream does not exist. That is not how textual history works. Continuity means the text was never lost, never abandoned, never reconstructed from fragments, and never dependent on modern editors guessing at lost readings.

That is the point.

You have assembled an impressive list of quotations. But none of them address the distinction between continuity and reconstruction. None of them address the difference between ecclesiastical transmission and modern eclectic theory. None of them address the actual definition of preserved text only.

I do not eschew learning from scholars. But when a position rests almost entirely on strings of quotations rather than on the internal logic of preservation, transmission, and linguistic structure, it is fair to ask whether the foundation is Scripture and philology or simply the words of man.

You have disproven nothing. You have established nothing.

 

[Logos1560]

They do not touch the distinction between preservation and reconstruction. They do not touch the philological categories that matter for determining whether a textual stream is continuous or whether it is eclectic.

Perhaps you have merely demonstrated your use of double standards.
You dismiss or avoid all actual verifiable facts that conflict with or contradict your inconsistent, unproven claims. Examples of major inconsistencies, actual conjectural emendations, and reconstruction in your claimed preserved stream are dismissed and are mislabeled as minor and insignificant. Your claims depend upon your own subjective opinions or assertions that you have not proven to be true.

 

[Logos1560]

You have established nothing.

It is established that your stated view is KJV-only according to an accurate definition of what constitutes KJV-only.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Perhaps you have merely demonstrated your use of double standards.

This has dropped below the level of meaningful discussion. I am not continuing further.

 

[Logos1560]

Some of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew’s Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible are currently in print. The 1833 Webster’s Bible which was reprinted in 1987, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible [also called the New Authorized Version], and the 2013 Jubilee Bible edited by Russell Stendal still have the same distinction in second person pronouns that is in the KJV.

The 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV or as belonging to the same preserved line of transmission as the KJV.
The omitting of all these English Bibles from the preserved line of Bibles suggests a KJV-only view, not a preserved text view.

These English Bible translators make the exact same-type translation choices as the makers of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the makers of the KJV. If the translation choices of the KJV translators cannot overturn preservation, by a consistent application of your own stated reasoning the translation choices of post-1611 translators also cannot overturn it. The translation choices of the KJV translators involved interpretation just as the translation choices of later translators involves it.
Anthony, it seems to be that your stated reasoning tries to suggest that all English translations [besides the KJV] have to preserve the Scriptures in the same way or else you will inconsistently try to condemn or smear them as supposedly being "reconstructive".

Your two lines of Bibles is an extra-biblical argument not taught in the Scriptures, and it is a typical KJV-only argument.

According to your own posts, it is clear that you fail to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly to the making of all post-NT Bible translations.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Preserved Text Only

There has been some confusion in recent discussions about what I mean when I use the term “preserved text only.” I want to clarify this carefully, because I am not speaking about a translation, nor am I speaking about English alone. I am speaking about the textual stream that God preserved through history.

When I say “preserved text only,” I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction. It is the line of manuscripts that were copied, used, preached, and received by the believing church for centuries. It never disappeared, never had to be rebuilt from fragments, and never required modern editors to guess at lost readings. That is what I mean by preserved text only.

I am not referring to Nestle-Aland, UBS, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, or Alexandrian priority. Those represent a reconstructionist philosophy, not a preservation philosophy. They assume that the text was lost and must be restored by modern critical methods. I reject that approach entirely.

A clear example of the difference is found in Romans 8:1. The phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” belongs to the preserved stream. It is found in the Majority Text, the Byzantine tradition, the Syriac, the Old Latin, the Gothic, the Waldensian line, and the TR editions. It is removed only in the Alexandrian reconstructionist stream. There is good reason to preach it, defend it, and prefer it. This is exactly what I mean by preserved text only.

Preservation is not English-only. It is text-only. There are faithful translations in Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Romanian, and other languages that follow the preserved stream. These are not KJV equivalents. They are preserved-text equivalents. The issue is not English. The issue is the stream of transmission.

The Textus Receptus is not a single edition. It is a family of printed Greek texts that represent the preserved stream. The differences among TR editions are minor and do not reflect reconstruction. They reflect orthographic normalization, printer corrections, and refinement within the same preserved line. The TR tradition is stable, not eclectic.

My position is simple. I reject Alexandrian reconstruction, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, and the idea of a lost text restored by modern editors. I affirm continuity of transmission, providential preservation, linguistic maturity, and doctrinal stability.

That is what I mean by preserved text only.

Two passages summarize the heart of this conviction. Galatians 3:16 says, “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed.” Matthew 5:18 says, “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” These verses express the precision of Scripture and the certainty of its preservation.

The issue of language maturity and degradation is separate but equally vital.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.

Thank you for your clarification. It is my understanding that you take a Syriac-Byzantine priority of the original Greek texts? This is a vestige of my former KJV-Onlyism that I somewhat hold onto although it is not a hill upon which I would choose to die.

It is my understanding of those on the other side saying that "Once upon a time, the Alexandrian manuscripts were the majority" and only due to the Western Church going to Latin, that these Greek manuscripts went away of which I am guessing they wore out and were never replaced?

The reason why the Syriac-Byzantine manuscripts are in the overwhelming majority is (based upon their attestation) because Koine Greek continued to be the extant language and therefore you have a proliferation of Greek manuscripts that have been copied and re-copied over the centuries and it is in the copying and recopying that certain "additions" were made to these texts including the second part of Romans 8:1 of which I had brought up along with Acts 8:37 among others.

Perhaps you have some further insight here or perhaps others on the other side of this issue could chime in and add their clarification? Hopefully we can do so respectfull whereby we may learn from each other?

I do not believe that there is some sort of "Alexandrian Cult" bent upon taking God's word from us bit by bit nor do I believe that Nestle, Wescott, Hort, and all their ilk are members of the Illuminati and were sacrificing babies to the Devil or whatever! (Obvious hyperbole and sarcasm but not far removed from what the radical KJVO crowd think!). I believe that there are mostly good folks (a few bad apples perhaps) sitting on the translation committees and the resulting modern translations are faithful translations of their respective underlying text. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

James White, John MacArthur, and pretty much anyone else advocating modern translations would admit that the world does not "Need another modern English translation" but the English speaking world is where the money is so we have that FWIW...

The English language is not changing so much that you need a new translation coming out every couple years or so! As you have said (and I agree), the English language is only gettting worse, not better and we would be fools to follow such a trend in our Bible translation efforts. I have three major translations in hard-copy in my library: KJV, NKJV, and ESV. I think this will do for the remainder of my lifetime.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

My position is simple. I reject Alexandrian reconstruction, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, and the idea of a lost text restored by modern editors. I affirm continuity of transmission, providential preservation, linguistic maturity, and doctrinal stability.

That is what I mean by preserved text only.

In all fairness, I do not think I have heard anyone on the "Critical Text" side say anything about a "Lost text being restored." Textual variants exist due to copying errors or whatever and one thing I appreciate regarding such work is that they have proven that the text is largely preserved despite such variants.

Erasmus Greek New Testament was very important in Church history as it revealed several translation errors in the Latin Vulgate which impacted the doctrines of the Western Church - especially the doctrine of justification.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Thank you for your clarification.

You are certainly welcome.

The reason why the Syriac-Byzantine manuscripts are in the overwhelming majority is (based upon their attestation) because Koine Greek continued to be the extant language and therefore you have a proliferation of Greek manuscripts

The idea that Alexandrian manuscripts were once the majority is a reconstructionist assumption, not a historical fact. There is no evidence that they ever outnumbered Byzantine manuscripts. Traditions that are used get replaced; traditions that are not used fade. The Byzantine tradition proliferated because Greek remained the living liturgical language for centuries, but that is only the secondary reason. The primary reason is that this textform was trusted, received, and continually used by the churches through the centuries, right up until the mid‑1800s.

Greek manuscripts that have been copied and re-copied over the centuries and it is in the copying and recopying that certain "additions" were made to these texts including the second part of Romans 8:1 of which I had brought up along with Acts 8:37 among others.

The idea that the Byzantine manuscripts simply accumulated “additions” through copying and recopying is not a neutral historical observation; it is a reconstructionist assumption. Copying is the means of preservation, not proof of corruption. The longer readings in Romans 8:1 and Acts 8:37 are not late expansions added by careless scribes; they belong to the preserved stream that was trusted, received, and continually used by the churches. The critical text treats them as “additions” because it begins with the premise that the shorter Alexandrian readings are original. That premise is precisely what I reject.

I do not believe that there is some sort of "Alexandrian Cult" bent upon taking God's word from us bit by bit nor do I believe that Nestle, Wescott, Hort, and all their ilk are members of the Illuminati and were sacrificing babies to the Devil or whatever! (Obvious hyperbole and sarcasm but not far removed from what the radical KJVO crowd think!). I believe that there are mostly good folks (a few bad apples perhaps) sitting on the translation committees and the resulting modern translations are faithful translations of their respective underlying text. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

I disagree strongly with the idea that the Byzantine text accumulated “additions” through copying. That is not a historical observation; it is a reconstructionist assumption. The longer readings in Romans 8:1 and Acts 8:37 are not late expansions. They belong to the preserved stream that the churches trusted, received, preached, and transmitted for centuries.

History is also replete with examples of men altering Scripture, some conspiratorially, some through editorial habits, doctrinal preferences, and speculative corrections. Origen is a documented example. The Alexandrian scribal culture was highly editorial. Sinaiticus is heavily corrected by multiple hands. Westcott and Hort replaced the preserved stream with a reconstructionist model. None of this requires a “cult,” but it does show that the corruption of the minority text is not casual error.

My position is simply that the preserved stream is preserved because the churches used it, trusted it, and transmitted it continuously. The minority stream is minority because it was not received. That is the heart of the issue.

James White, John MacArthur, and pretty much anyone else advocating modern translations would admit that the world does not "Need another modern English translation" but the English speaking world is where the money is so we have that FWIW...

Agreed.

As you have said (and I agree), the English language is only gettting worse, not better and we would be fools to follow such a trend in our Bible translation efforts.

Yes. the English language is not maturing, it is flattening. Precision is collapsing, distinctions are disappearing, vocabulary is shrinking, and syntactic complexity is eroding. We would be foolish to follow that downward trend in Bible translation. Scripture requires a mature linguistic vehicle, not a degraded one.



It is God who preserves His word, not man.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Hopefully we can do so respectfull whereby we may learn from each other?

Always.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In all fairness, I do not think I have heard anyone on the "Critical Text" side say anything about a "Lost text being restored."

The critical text assumes that the original text was not preserved in any continuous stream, but must be reconstructed from fragmentary witnesses. That is the doctrine of a lost text restored, even if they avoid the phrase.

Textual variants exist due to copying errors or whatever and one thing I appreciate regarding such work is that they have proven that the text is largely preserved despite such variants.

Copying errors exist, but preservation exists alongside them. The preserved stream is preserved because God preserved it, not because scribes were perfect. The critical text assumes corruption as the dominant force; I hold preservation as the dominant force.

 

[Logos1560]

I am claiming that the preserved stream is the continuous line of manuscripts and versions that the believing church used, copied, preached, and transmitted. That stream includes Byzantine Greek, Syriac, Gothic, Old Latin, Waldensian, Majority Text, and the printed TR editions. These represent continuity of use and continuity of reception.

Numerous KJV-only authors try to connect the textually different Waldensian Bible translations with a claimed preserved or pure line of Bibles that also includes the KJV. Your claim does not seem to differ significantly from KJV-only arguments.

David Sorenson maintained that the Waldenses “used translations of the Bible based upon the Received Text from the second century up to and including the time of the Reformation” (Touch Not, p. 47). In his Appendix E entitled “Evidences of a historical connection between the Waldenses and the KJV,” David Sorenson wrote: “Though there is no conclusive evidence that Beza used Waldensian manuscripts, circumstances allow theories to arise suggesting the possibility. If this is the case, then there could be a direct lineage of the Received Text from the end of the first century through the Italic churches to the Vaudois to the Waldenses to Beza to the King James’s translators” (p. 261). D. A. Waite wrote: “I do believe that the Waldenses had a Bible that was founded on the Traditional Received Text” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 28). Waite asserted: “The Waldenses’ Bible both in the early 2nd Century and the later centuries did use the text that underlies the King James Bible” (Ibid., p. 49). Waite wrote: “The Waldensians (120 A. D. and onward) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 46). Jack Moorman also asserted that “the noble Waldenses in northern Italy still possessed in Latin the Received Text” (Forever Settled, p. 108). Will Kinney suggested that God may have preserved His perfect words “in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18). Peter Ruckman wrote: “When the world is a Latin speaking world, God has a Book in the Old Latin of the Waldenses and Albigenses which is carried all over the world” (Alexandrian, Part Seven, p. 12). Peter Ruckman maintained that “the AV translators had available three Waldensian Bibles” (Bible Babel, p. 72). In his commentary on the Minor Prophets, Ruckman indicated that “the sacred text“ (“a blood-bought, blood-stained text”) “came to us through the Waldenses [and] Albigenses” (I, p. 347). Ruckman referred to “the Old Latin Bible of the Waldenses, Vaudois, and Albigenses who used a text like the King James’ Bible” (Monarch of the Books, p. 7). Gail Riplinger maintained that “the pure Old Latin Bible became the Romaunt, Provencal, Vaudois, Toulouse, Piedmontese, and Romanese Bibles” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1105). David Loughran asserted that the Waldenses “used the Old Latin Vulgate and rejected Jerome’s Vulgate” (Bible Versions, p. 9). In a quotation that is from Benjamin Wilkinson’s book, Floyd Jones claimed “the translators of the 1611 had before them four Bibles which had come under Waldensian influences: the Dioadati in Italian, the Olivetan in French, the Lutheran in German, and the Genevan in English” (Which Version, p. 105). Robert Sargent presented a chart in his book that showed the Waldensian Bibles leading up to the same four Bibles (English Bible, p. 103). This statement in Jones’ book is also quoted in Joe Gresham’s book, and Gresham quoted Wilkinson’s claim that the KJV translators had before them “at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular” (Dealing with the Devil’s Deception, p. 49). Kelly Gallagher claimed that “Six Waldensian bibles sat at the desks of the King James translators” (Perfect Bible, p. 21).

David Cloud suggested that the Romaunt New Testaments used by the Waldenses “represented the Traditional Text” and that the Tepl was a Waldensian version that “represents the Traditional Text“ (Faith, pp. 139-140). David Cloud indicated that “the Scripture was also preserved . . . in the translations from Latin such as the Waldensian Romaunt, the old German Tepl” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Gail Riplinger claimed that “the Codex Teplensis (Tepl Bible) of 1389 is thought to be of the Waldensian type (KJV) and not a Latin text type (In Awe, p. 977). Gail Riplinger asserted that “Luther used the German Tepl Bible, which represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into German” (Which Bible, p. 53). Riplinger wrote that “God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible” (p. 74). Floyd Jones also maintained that the “Tepl ms represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German dialect which was spoken before the time of the Reformation” (Which Version, p. 105). Likewise, Cody Parrott alleged that “this Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German” (God’s Word, p. 104; Translation War, p. 15). Troy Clark claimed that the “Majority Text Waldensian Bible ’corresponds word for word with the [Majority Text] German [Tepl] Bible’” (Perfect Bible, p. 99).

Many if not all of the above KJV-only claims about the Waldensian Bibles seem to have come from the inaccurate or misleading claims of Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin G. Wilkinson whether directly from his book or as reprinted in Fuller’s book Which Bible. Benjamin Wilkinson claimed: “This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken in the days of the Reformation” (Fuller, Which Bible, p. 128). In 2005, David Cloud acknowledged that some of Wilkinson’s “history, in fact, is strongly influenced by his devotion to Seventh-day Adventist ’prophetess’ Ellen G. White” and that “Wilkinson got the idea that the Waldensian Bible is ’preserved uncorrupted’ from Ellen White’s Great Controversy” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 13).

Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson was one of the first [possibly the first] to use the two-streams-of-Bibles argument in his 1930 book (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 43). Benjamin Wilkinson asserted: “Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles,” and he claimed that “down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts“ (p. 12). Benjamin Wilkinson referred to “two parallel streams of Bibles,“ and then listed texts or Bibles in his claimed two streams (p. 43). Benjamin Wilkinson claimed that “there were really only two Bibles, --the official version of Rome, and the Received Text” (p. 30). Wilkinson included in the second stream “The Jesuit Bible of 1582” (pp. 13, 43).

 

[Logos1560]

I disagree strongly with the idea that the Byzantine text accumulated “additions” through copying. That is not a historical observation; it is a reconstructionist assumption. The longer readings in Romans 8:1 and Acts 8:37 are not late expansions. They belong to the preserved stream that the churches trusted, received, preached, and transmitted for centuries.

My position is simply that the preserved stream is preserved because the churches used it, trusted it, and transmitted it continuously.

The Waldensian Bible translations used and transmitted in the Waldensian churches included several added readings that could be considered textual corruptions or reconstructions in the Western family of texts. Those additions do not demonstrate continuity with a preserved pure text or with the KJV.

Margarent Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii).

James Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, James Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii).

Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).

Glenn Conjurske observed that the “Codex Teplenis is a fourteenth-century manuscript, which has never been modified at all, but exists today just as it did in the fourteenth century, and just as it was written by the scribes who wrote it” (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 138). Glenn Conjurske pointed out that Codex Teplensis included the Epistle Czun Laodiern, “to the Laodicens” (p. 133). He noted that this manuscript included a list of Scripture portions to be read on certain holy days and saints’ days and at the end included a short treatise on “the seven sacraments” (pp. 133-134). Out of the eighty-two places where the N. T. has “son of man,” Conjurske pointed out that “the Tepl manuscript reads ’son of man’ only seven times, all the rest having ’son of the virgin’” [sun der maid or meid or another spelling variation] (p. 137; also Oct., 1996 issue, p. 240). He affirmed that the “Teplensis itself reads heilikeit, that is, ’sacrament’” at several verses (Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; 1 Tim. 3:16) (p. 139). Conjuske concluded that “it is an indubitable fact that the version contained in Codex Teplensis closely follows the Latin Vulgate and differs in a myriad of places from the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (pp. 139-140). According to J. T. Hatfield‘s examination of this text, some other example differences include that the Tepl has “Jesus” at Acts 9:20 where the KJV has “Christ,” “his name” at Acts 22:16 where the KJV has “name of the Lord,” “Lord God” at Revelation 1:8 where the KJV has “Lord,” and “Jesus” at Revelation 22:17 where the KJV has “Jesus Christ.”

 

[Logos1560]

Jan Krans noted that “in John he [Erasmus] used min. 2 and in Acts min. 2815, which were corrected and marked-up as printer’s copy. Both manuscripts contain many errors, which affect not only spelling (itacisms etc.) but also missing words and phrases through homoeoteleuton etc.” (Beyond What is Written, p. 62). Jan Krans asserted: “In the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7)” (p. 61, footnote 36). Jan Krans noted: “A key element in the understanding of Erasmus’ conjectural emendation are the many instances in which he inferred Greek readings on the basis of the Latin Vulgate” (p. 11).

After including Acts 8:37 in his list of Latin Vulgate readings followed by Erasmus, KJV defender Edward F. Hills maintained that “in his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading [Acts 8:37] from the margin of [manuscript] 4ap” (KJV Defended, pp. 200-201; Text, p. 337).

H. A. G. Houghton noted that “some of the extra phrases present in the Latin tradition were incorporated by Erasmus and feature in the Greek Textus Receptus” (Latin NT, p. 168).

 

[Logos1560]

When I say “preserved text only,” I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction. It is the line of manuscripts that were copied, used, preached, and received by the believing church for centuries. It never disappeared, never had to be rebuilt from fragments, and never required modern editors to guess at lost readings. That is what I mean by preserved text only.

[Bold type added on Syriac Peshitta in the quote above by this poster]

Numerous KJV-only authors try to connect the textually different Peshitta Syriac Bible with a claimed preserved or pure line of Bibles that also includes the KJV. Your argument does not seem to differ significantly from the KJV-only two lines or streams of Bibles arguments.

Peter Ruckman's good tree included the Peshitta Syriac Bible, which did not include the book of Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and John 7:53-8:11. Mickey Carter also placed the Peshitta translation in his pure stream of Bibles (Things That Are Different, pp. 110, 112). Mickey Carter wrote: "The New Testament pure stream or trail is the Greek text of the Authorized Version and has its beginning at the church of Antioch (Acts 11:26), the Syrian capital, and was already set down by 150 A.D. from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian and was known as the Peshitta Version" (p. 110). William Bradley wrote: "The Peshitta was the Bible of the early church translated from the original autographs into Syrian" (To All Generations, p. 5). Edward F. Hills placed the Peshitta Syriac on the line of manuscripts and translations leading up to the KJV (Believing Bible Study, p. 68). Donald Clarke contended that the Peshitta was "virtually the same Bible" as our English KJV (Bible Version Manual, pp. 19-20). Mickey Winter claimed that the KJV is "in harmony" with the Peshitta (KJV on Trial, p. 16). William Grady claimed: "The Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible" (Final Authority, p. 34). William Grady also claimed that “the Holy Spirit would also have breathed life into the many powerful ancient translations, such as the Peshitta” (Given By Inspiration, p. 103). Thomas Strouse asserted that “the TR is represented by the 2nd century Syriac Peshitta” (The Lord God, p. 18). D. A. Waite affirmed that the Peshitta Syriac Version “was based on the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 46). Douglas Stauffer also maintained that the Peshitta "closely agrees with the Traditional Text of the King James Bible" (One Book Stands, p. 307). Douglas Stauffer wrote: “Although belittled by modern scholarship, the Syrian text remains the underlying basis for the King James Bible of 1611” (One Book One, p. 343). James Rasbeary asserted: “The Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible” (What’s Wrong, p. 158). Jack Chick listed the Peshitta as one of the Bibles that were “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8).

David Sorenson wrote: “The fact of the matter is that the Syrian Peshitta, translated under the auspices of the church at Antioch, is a faithful translation of what we today call the Traditional Text of the New Testament. Or, put another way, the King James Version of today was translated from what was the same text as the Peshitta” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 121). David Sorenson declared: “The Peshitta is significant because it clearly parallels and is synonymous with what would later be called the Traditional Text (i.e., the Received Text)” (p. 120).

Gail Riplinger asserted that the Peshitta Syriac “agree with the KJV” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 488). Peter Ruckman contended that the Peshitta "contained the O. T. as it stands in the A.V. 1611, and the New Testament as it stands in the A. V. 1611" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 79). Troy Clark wrote: “The Peshitta Bible of the Antiochian Church inspired strongest agreement with and validates the Majority Text New Testament of the King James Bible. Since the words of both languages mirror one another in translation, both texts are virtually identical” (Perfect Bible, p. 82). Troy Clark wrote: “An honest believer seeking refuge in honest Scriptures may rest in the documented Majority Text that flourished through believers at Antioch (Syriac Peshitta Bible)” (p. 248). Adrian Bacon asserted: “When you read the Peshitta, it sounds much like the King James Version because they were both translated from the same family of text” (And the Darkness, p. 161). William Bradley also claimed: "If you translate from the Peshitta into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" (To All Generations, p. 52). William Bradley also contended that the existing Peshitta manuscripts give “us a direct link from the King James Bible to the very handwritten documents of Paul, Peter, James, John and the rest” (p. 6). Ronnie Simpson claimed that “the Peshitto is still in use today in Syrian and is essentially word for word just like the KJV” (Twelve Lessons, p. 8). At the August 14, 2021, KJV debate at Bible Missionary Baptist Church, Mitch Canupp referred to the Syriac Bible and concerning it he claimed: “whose readings match the King James Bible.”

 

[Logos1560]

Adrian Bacon asserted: “When you read the Peshitta, it sounds much like the King James Version because they were both translated from the same family of text” (And the Darkness, p. 161). William Bradley also claimed: "If you translate from the Peshitta into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" (To All Generations, p. 52).

Perhaps KJV-only advocates have not read the English translations of the Peshitta such as John Wesley Etheridge’s 1840’s New Testament, James Murdock's 1851 New Testament, the 1932 Lamsa Bible, the 2018 English translation by Glenn David Bauscher, or the 2020 Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz since they fail to include any of them in their preserved line of Bibles.

John Wesley (J. W.) Etheridge (1804-1866) had his English translation of the four gospels printed in 1846, and his English translation of the rest of the NT printed in 1849. James Murdock (1776-1856) had his English translation of the NT printed in 1851. In 2019, Stephen Ulrich edited and produced the Parallel New Testament with Etheridge’s English NT, Murdock’s NT, and Lamsa’s NT in parallel columns.

When the Syriac Peshitta Bible was actually translated into English, was it a King James Bible?

There would be a larger number of differences and more differences that are more significant between the Syriac Peshitta Bible and the King James Bible than any differences that KJV-only advocates claim between the KJV and the NKJV.

Does the Syriac Peshitta actually demonstrate continuity with the KJV?