I Further Confess the modern critical Greek text of Scripture Can Not be Reconciled with God’s Promises about the Preservation of His Word.

Alan Dale Gross said:

"Furthermore, I confess that the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont texts are most improperly designated the “Majority Text,” for neither of them is a collation of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts currently in existence, but they are rather collations of only a few hundred manuscripts, and there are hundreds of verses where they do not follow the reading of the majority of manuscripts.7
​

Click to expand...

The varying printed Textus Receptus editions are not a collation of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts currently in existence. The varying printed Textus Receptus editions are based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of likely less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts along with some readings added from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

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 or at least less than one hundred. John Scott Porter claimed: “The MSS they possessed were few; add together the five of Erasmus, the fifteen of Stephens, the two possessed by Beza, and allow ten for the Complutensian, there were only thirty-two in all” (Principles of Textual Criticism, p. 253).

Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131).

Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448). Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Jan Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).

Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of these manuscript collations that underlie varying Textus Receptus 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 and TR-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?

Would not an incomplete, imperfect collation of over 400 Greek NT manuscripts (plus more for the book of Revelation that were collated by Hoskier) be more reliable and sound evidence for making assumptions or reaching conclusions concerning a majority text than an incomplete, imperfect collation of likely less than 100 manuscripts or perhaps even less than 50?

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; King James Bible, pp. 22, 184, 222). James Edward Snapp asserted: “The Textus Receptus contains both longer readings and shorter readings that are non-original” (NT Textual Analysis, p. 327).

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 in agreement with scriptural truths. 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 or at least less than one hundred.

Some or many TR defenders and KJV defenders sometimes seem to use and rely on the fallacy of composition in making their unproven, overgeneralized statements about the Textus Receptus, the KJV, and modern Bible translations. The opening post in this thread seems to involve use of the fallacy of composition.

Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In the glossary, Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks defined the fallacy of composition as “fallacy that assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 190). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “You cannot logically conclude anything about a whole group from something you only know about part of it, even if it looks right” (p. 82). Joshua Rasmussen observed: “It is false that whatever is true of the parts is automatically also true of the whole” (How Reason, p. 38). Joshua Rasmussen added: “Arguments that rely on the Parts to Whole principle are fallacious. They commit the fallacy of composition: they assume that the whole has all the same properties as its parts” (Ibid.). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134). Gordon Clark noted: “This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The logical reason is that the characteristics of components are not necessarily, nor even usually, the characteristics of the compound” (p. 13).

Use of an adjective to describe the whole text of a translation can involve use of the fallacy of composition when or if it is assumed that what is true of a few individual renderings, of many individual renderings, or even of a great majority of the individual renderings is true of all the renderings in that translation. There is an important major difference in use of an adjective to describe overall a Bible translation and use of an adjective to describe every rendering of a Bible translation.

Alan Dale Gross said:

"Furthermore, I confess that the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont texts are most improperly designated the “Majority Text,” for neither of them is a collation of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts currently in existence, but they are rather collations of only a few hundred manuscripts, and there are hundreds of verses where they do not follow the reading of the majority of manuscripts.7
​

Click to expand...

This writer fails to prove that there are hundreds of verses where they [Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont texts] do not follow the reading of the majority of existing collated Greek NT manuscripts.

KJV-only author J. A. Moorman asserted: “Von Soden did not collate anything approaching a majority of the manuscripts” (When the KJV Departs from the "Majority Text", p. 150), but he admitted that this source “provides more MS information than any other” (p, 21).

Is the KJV in effect based on a possible “mythical” majority text since “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determine with any sufficient degree of certainty”? (Cloud, Majority Text, p. 14). David Cloud claimed: “It is ridiculous, then, to talk about possessing a ‘Majority Text’ based solely upon the collated manuscript evidence at hand” (p. 16).
Seeming to contradict what he wrote in his different book entitled Majority Text, David Cloud asserted: “It [the KJV Greek text] is called the ‘majority text’ because it represents the vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts” (Why We Hold to the King James Bible, p. 73).

Jim Taylor maintained that “a healthy number of the manuscripts have never really been studied or collated to determine the common readings on a verse-by-verse level” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus, p. 303). Do KJV-only advocates define what they mean by majority text when many of them try to suggest or claim that the Textus Receptus is a majority text?

D. A. Waite admitted: “No ‘majority text’ has inspected ‘over 4000’ manuscripts” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 57), and that would include the varying Textus Receptus editions that he and other KJV-only advocates may assume or claim to be a majority text. Did Waite in effect admit that the over 5,000 manuscripts that he claims supports the TR and the KJV have not all been carefully inspected and completely collated so that it is not known for a verifiable fact whether they do agree and support every reading of the TR and the KJV as may have been merely assumed?

Would not an incomplete, imperfect collation of over 400 Greek NT manuscripts (plus more for the book of Revelation that were collated by Hoskier) be more reliable and sound evidence for making assumptions or reaching conclusions concerning a majority text than an incomplete, imperfect collation of likely less than 100 manuscripts or perhaps even less than 50?

Can the textual-varying imperfect printed editions of the Textus Receptus be reconciled with the interpretations and absolute assertions of KJV-only advocates concerning God's promises about the preservation of His words?

​