The Extent of Corruption

[SovereignGrace]

Sorry, but that is wrong. “Influence” does not mean “origin.” Pickering said the TR’s form of the Comma reflects Latin influence. He did not say the Comma originated in Latin or ‘came from’ the Latin tradition. You are equating similarity with origin, which is not what Pickering wrote.”

Sorry, but that's wrong. “Influence” does not mean “origin.” Pickering said the TR’s form of the Comma reflects Latin influence. He did not say the Comma originated in Latin or ‘came from’ the Latin tradition. You are equating similarity with origin, which is not what Pickering wrote.”

Here is Pickering's quote about the Johannine Comma and it not being part of the original text:

Footnote about 1 John 5:7 from Pickering‘s Family 35:

Those who use the AV or NKJV are used to: “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” The words in italics are only found in five late Greek manuscripts (less than 1% of the total) and part of the Latin tradition, from which they came. To be more precise, the manuscripts are: (61)[16th], (629)[14th], (918)[16th], 2318 [18th], 2473[17th], wherein the cursives in ( ) all differ from each other; the two that agree verbatim with TR were probably copied from it. The only one that is clearly early enough to have served as TR’s exemplar, 629, is far too different—it lacks the seven last words in TR, omits another five, changes five and adds two—19 out of 40 words is too much; the Textus Receptus is not based on cursive 629, so it must be a translation from the Latin (or its exemplar is lost). The shorter reading makes excellent sense. [Those who make ‘the three heavenly witnesses’ a litmus test for orthodoxy are either ignorant or perverse (or both).]

He said from which they came.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Here:

I apologize for not noticing your question earlier: They did not have access because the earlier manuscripts were not physically available to them. Most Greek manuscripts from the 5th–11th centuries were located in Eastern monasteries, private collections, or Roman libraries that Protestant scholars could not enter. Many were not catalogued, not discovered, or not known to exist. Travel into Ottoman territories was dangerous or impossible, and Rome did not lend Greek manuscripts to Reformation‑era Protestant scholars. Access was restricted by geography, politics, and logistics, not by any limitation in the preserved stream.

The preserved stream refers to the continuity of readings across the manuscript tradition, not the ability of Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza to travel into regions they could not reach. They used the witnesses available in Basel, Paris, and Geneva, and those witnesses contained the same readings that appear throughout the preserved stream. The continuity is in the readings themselves, not in the number of manuscripts on their desks.

If someone believes the preserved stream should have used different readings, the question becomes which readings, in which verses, supported by which manuscripts. Without specific verses and specific witnesses, the objection is about the printing process rather than the textual evidence.

 

[Conan]

Sorry, but that is wrong. “Influence” does not mean “origin.” Pickering said the TR’s form of the Comma reflects Latin influence. He did not say the Comma originated in Latin or ‘came from’ the Latin tradition. You are equating similarity with origin, which is not what Pickering wrote.”

Sorry, but that's wrong. “Influence” does not mean “origin.” Pickering said the TR’s form of the Comma reflects Latin influence. He did not say the Comma originated in Latin or ‘came from’ the Latin tradition. You are equating similarity with origin, which is not what Pickering wrote.”

That is what it Pickering means. In this case influence does mean origin. The Textus Receptus in the section of the "Comma" is likely under Latin influence. The KJV Comma is likely from Latin influence. How the "Comma" came into the Textus Receptus and hence the 1611 KJV was likely Latin influence. It was from the Latin, not the Greek in other words. Likely Latin influence. Not a little accidental influence, LIKELY INFLUENCE.

 

[Conan]

From The Revision Revised by Dean Burgon page 21 footnote 2

Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction. We do but insist, (1) that it is an incomparably better text than that which either lachmann, or Tischendorf or Tregelles has produced : infinitely preferable to the 'New Greek Text' of the Revisionist.
And, (2) that to be improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely different principles from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the German prejudices of the last 50 years; and addressed themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@SovereignGrace @Conan

I apologize for not noticing your question earlier. They did not have access because the earlier manuscripts were not physically available to them. Most Greek manuscripts from the 5th–11th centuries were located in Eastern monasteries, private collections, or Roman libraries that Protestant scholars could not enter. Many were not catalogued, not discovered, or not known to exist. Travel into Ottoman territories was dangerous or impossible, and Rome did not lend Greek manuscripts to Reformation‑era Protestant scholars. Access was restricted by geography, politics, and logistics, not by any limitation in the preserved stream.

The preserved stream refers to the continuity of readings across the manuscript tradition, not the ability of Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza to travel into regions they could not reach. They used the witnesses available in Basel, Paris, and Geneva, and those witnesses contained the same readings that appear throughout the preserved stream. The continuity is in the readings themselves, not in the number of manuscripts on their desks.

Burgon made a clear distinction between the Traditional Text and the printed TR editions. The Traditional Text is the preserved text, the preserved stream. It is the continuous Greek text found in the majority of manuscripts, supported by the lectionaries, confirmed by the patristic writers, and reflected in the ancient versions. Burgon believed that text was preserved.

The TR is a printed edition of that preserved stream. Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza produced printed forms of the Traditional Text, but no printed edition is identical to the entire manuscript tradition in every detail. Printed editions can contain minor differences in spelling, accents, or occasional readings that do not perfectly reflect the broader manuscript tradition.

This is the context of Burgon’s statement that the TR “needs correction.” He was not saying the Traditional Text itself was corrupt or unreliable. He was saying that printed editions can be refined to match the preserved stream more precisely. His point was that the TR represents the preserved text, but that individual printed editions are human productions and can be improved in small ways to align more closely with the Traditional Text. He rejected the German critical method, not the preserved text.

Conan’s quotation from Burgon does not address the Comma or Pickering’s comments about Latin influence. Burgon was comparing the TR to the Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles reconstructions, and insisting that any refinement of the TR must follow entirely different principles from the German critics. He was not discussing the origin of the Comma, and he was not saying the preserved text itself needed correction. His statements are consistent once you distinguish between the preserved stream and the printed editions.

If someone believes the preserved stream should have used different readings, the question becomes which readings, in which verses, supported by which manuscripts. Without specific verses and specific witnesses, the objection is about the printing process rather than the textual evidence.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

That is what it Pickering means. In this case influence does mean origin. The Textus Receptus in the section of the "Comma" is likely under Latin influence. The KJV Comma is likely from Latin influence. How the "Comma" came into the Textus Receptus and hence the 1611 KJV was likely Latin influence. It was from the Latin, not the Greek in other words. Likely Latin influence. Not a little accidental influence, LIKELY INFLUENCE.

Conan, you are redefining a technical term. In textual criticism, “influence” does not mean “origin.” Pickering did not say the Comma originated in Latin or came from the Latin tradition. He said the TR’s form of the Comma reflects Latin influence. That is a statement about similarity of wording, not about where the reading began.

If you believe Pickering meant origin, then you will need to provide a direct quotation where he says the Comma originated in Latin or was created in the Latin tradition. He never wrote that. You are equating resemblance with source, which is not how textual criticism works.

Pickering’s point was simple. The TR’s form of the Comma resembles the Latin tradition more than the Greek manuscripts available to Erasmus. That does not mean the Comma itself originated in Latin. It means Erasmus followed the Latin form of a reading that already existed in Greek marginal notes, lectionaries, and patristic citations.

Similarity of form is not the same thing as origin. If you want to claim Pickering taught Latin origin, please provide the exact sentence where he said that.

 

[SovereignGrace]

From Dean Burgon:

“We do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction.”

The Revised Revise pg 21 footnote 2/3


And:

“in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision, certainly.”

pg 107

 

[SovereignGrace]

From Wilbur N. Pickering:

“The whole of chap. 7 (in my book) is given to a presentation of how I propose to determine the identity of the text, and on p. 177 I plainly state that the TR will probably require correction in over a thousand places.”

The Identity of the New Testament Text pg. 177

“When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places.”

Same book pg 232-233

“We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text.”

Same book pg 153

 

[SovereignGrace]

Jakob van Bruggen:

“Pleading for the return to the known Church text certainly does not mean that this textus receptus must be canonized.”

The Ancient Text of the New Testament

“The textus receptus should not be rejected categorically because of its shortcomings, but should according to its own design and intention be corrected conformable to the so-called Byzantine text.”

Same book pg 40

 

[SovereignGrace]

F.H.A. Scrivener:

“Even several impressions derived from the same standard edition, and professing to exhibit a text positively the same, differ from their archetype and from each other, in errors of the press which no amount of care or diligence has yet been able to get rid of.”

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament pg 3-4

 

[Logos1560]

If you used primary source documentation, which you have not, there would be no problem.

You have not provided primary source documentation for all your claims so you do not practice what you preach. Does that mean that there is a problem with your second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand claims?

Others have presented more primary first-hand quotations from the authors to which you appealed than you have. They seem to be more accurately presenting the stated views of John William Burgon, Scrivener, and Pickering than you are.

 

[Logos1560]

F.H.A. Scrivener:

“Even several impressions derived from the same standard edition, and professing to exhibit a text positively the same, differ from their archetype and from each other, in errors of the press which no amount of care or diligence has yet been able to get rid of.”

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament pg 3-4

In the fourth edition of Frederick Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament edited by Edward Miller, this is stated concerning 1 John 5:7:
"On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on verse 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim" (Volume II, p. 407).


In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener indicated that the Complutensian edition differs from that of the 1624 Elzevir in 2,780 places “(viz. 1056 in the Gospels, 578 in the Pauline Epistles, 542 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 614 in the Apocalypse)” (Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, II, p. 180). The Greek NT text of the Complutensian Polyglot did not include Acts 8:37.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I have been asked why I do not accept your proofs.

I do not reject your proofs out of preference. I reject them because they are not textual evidence. Commentary, opinion, and secondary sources are not the same thing as a manuscript reading. When I ask for proof, I am asking for the specific text, the specific witness, and the specific line of transmission.

If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly. If you present commentary or interpretation, I will treat it as commentary, not as evidence.

For example, I have a great deal of respect for Dean Burgon. He was a careful scholar and a serious defender of the traditional text. But I do not agree with him on every point, and he is still a secondary source unless he is quoting primary sources. When he cites a manuscript, a reading, or a witness, that is primary evidence. When he gives his opinion or interpretation, that is secondary.

My position is simple. Textual claims must be supported by textual evidence. Commentary, no matter how respected, is not the same thing as a manuscript reading.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@SovereignGrace

I appreciate the quotations you have provided from Burgon, Pickering, van Bruggen, and Scrivener. They were careful scholars, and I respect their work. But these citations do not answer the question I asked. They are secondary commentary, not textual evidence. When I ask for proof, I am asking for the specific reading, the specific manuscript, and the specific witness. A scholar’s opinion about the text is not the same thing as the text itself.

Every quotation you have listed is simply a statement that the printed TR editions contain places that need correction. I agree with that. Burgon agreed with that. Pickering agreed with that. Van Bruggen agreed with that. Scrivener agreed with that. None of them believed the printed TR was perfect. That is not in dispute.

The question I asked was different. I asked for textual evidence. I asked for the reading, the manuscript, and the witness. You have provided commentary about the TR, but you have not provided the textual data that would demonstrate a specific corruption in the preserved stream.

My position is simple. Textual claims must be supported by textual evidence. Commentary, no matter how respected, is not the same thing as a manuscript reading. If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly. If you present commentary or interpretation, I will treat it as commentary, not as evidence.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

From Dean Burgon:

You obviously did not read my reply to you and Conan: Burgon made a clear distinction between the Traditional Text and the printed TR editions. The Traditional Text is the preserved text, the preserved stream. It is the continuous Greek text found in the majority of manuscripts, supported by the lectionaries, confirmed by the patristic writers, and reflected in the ancient versions. Burgon believed that text was preserved.

I have a great deal of respect for Dean Burgon. He was a careful scholar and a serious defender of the traditional text. But I do not agree with him on every point, and he is still a secondary source unless he is quoting primary sources. When he cites a manuscript, a reading, or a witness, that is primary evidence. When he gives his opinion or interpretation, that is secondary.

 

[Logos1560]

If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly. If you present commentary or interpretation, I will treat it as commentary, not as evidence.


My position is simple. Textual claims must be supported by textual evidence. Commentary, no matter how respected, is not the same thing as a manuscript reading.

You again demonstrate that you do not practice what you preach. You do not present the readings, the manuscripts, and the witnesses for your claims. You do not quote primary sources. You ask what you do not provide for your own claims. You seem to be making excuses for your failure to engage in serious discussion. Are you showing that you know that your preserved stream KJV-only argument will not hold up to careful examination? It is simple to see that you cannot back up your opinions.

Are you telling readers to treat your comments as opinion and commentary since they are not the same thing as manuscript readings?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You again demonstrate that you do not practice what you preach. You do not present the readings, the manuscripts, and the witnesses for your claims. You do not quote primary sources. You ask what you do not provide for your own claims. You seem to be making excuses for your failure to engage in serious discussion. Are you showing that you know that your preserved stream KJV-only argument will not hold up to careful examination? It is simple to see that you cannot back up your opinions.

Are you telling readers to treat your comments as opinion and commentary since they are not the same thing as manuscript readings?

You are confusing two different things. I am not making a textual claim that requires proof. I am asking you to prove the textual claims that you are making. The burden of evidence rests on the person who asserts corruption in the preserved stream. You are the one claiming corruption in the preserved line, the Traditional Text. I am asking you to demonstrate it by presenting the reading, the manuscript, and the witness.

I have not claimed that a particular verse or passage in the preserved stream is corrupt. You have. That is why I am asking you to provide textual evidence. Commentary is not textual evidence. A scholar’s opinion is not textual evidence. A quotation about translation difficulty or manuscript grouping is not textual evidence. None of the material you have posted provides a reading, a manuscript, or a witness.

My position is simple. If someone claims that the preserved stream contains a corruption, the claim must be supported by textual evidence. If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly. If you present commentary or interpretation, I will treat it as commentary, not as evidence.

Preserved vs reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You again demonstrate that you do not practice what you preach. You do not present the readings, the manuscripts, and the witnesses for your claims. You do not quote primary sources. You ask what you do not provide for your own claims. You seem to be making excuses for your failure to engage in serious discussion. Are you showing that you know that your preserved stream KJV-only argument will not hold up to careful examination? It is simple to see that you cannot back up your opinions.

Are you telling readers to treat your comments as opinion and commentary since they are not the same thing as manuscript readings?

It’s this way with KJVO’ers. They do things but when we do them it’s a “no no”.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You are confusing two different things. I am not making a textual claim that requires proof. I am asking you to prove the textual claims that you are making. The burden of evidence rests on the person who asserts corruption in the preserved stream. You are the one claiming corruption in the preserved line, the Traditional Text. I am asking you to demonstrate it by presenting the reading, the manuscript, and the witness.

I have not claimed that a particular verse or passage in the preserved stream is corrupt. You have. That is why I am asking you to provide textual evidence. Commentary is not textual evidence. A scholar’s opinion is not textual evidence. A quotation about translation difficulty or manuscript grouping is not textual evidence. None of the material you have posted provides a reading, a manuscript, or a witness.

My position is simple. If someone claims that the preserved stream contains a corruption, the claim must be supported by textual evidence. If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly. If you present commentary or interpretation, I will treat it as commentary, not as evidence.

Preserved vs reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

Words added into a text from Africa from Latin isn’t preserved no matter how much you spin it.

 

[Logos1560]

The burden of evidence rests on the person who asserts corruption in the preserved stream.

You have it backwards. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the positive claim. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof instead of backing up your own positive assertions.

In every question the burden of proof lies on the side of the affirmative--in this case the KJV-only pure preserved stream claim.

Charles Sweet wrote: “Where a person who makes an allegation [of fact] is bound to prove it, the burden or onus of proof (onus probandi) is said to rest on him. The general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute” (Dictionary of English Law, p. 649).

John William Burgon also noted: "It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue" (Last Twelve Verses, p. 15; Unholy Hands, Vol. I, p. C-9).

John S. Hart asserted: “The burden of proof rests naturally with the affirmative” (Manual of Composition, p. 316).

Ralph Thomas wrote: “Burden of proof rests upon the fundamental logical principle that he who asserts must prove” (Manual of Debate, p. 29). Ralph Thomas also maintained: “One is never obliged to prove the negative of an assertion” (p. 30). Reformer Francis Turretin observed: “The affirmative is bound to prove, not the negative” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I, p. 38).