Question for those who use modern translations.

[Jordan Kurecki]

The twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus really are not a majority text with all of their readings found in an acutal majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts.

The varying Textus Receptus editions actually have some minority readings and even some readings found in no known Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

The NT editions such as the Majority Text of Hodges-Farstand and the New Testament in the Original Greek--Byzantine Textform edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont are more of a majority text than the Textus Receptus editions are.

Also can you give me an example of where that are readings found in no Greek NT Manuscript?

 

[Logos1560]

The So-Called "Majority Greek Text of Hodges-Farstad"

1. Papyrus Fragments-- 8 out of 81 = 10% of the evidence

2. Uncials-= 4 out of 267 = 1% of the evidence

3. Cursives- 414 out of 2764 = 15% of the evidence

4. Lectionaries-- 0 out of 2143 = 0% of the evidence

Total MSS: 426 out of 5,255 = 8% of the MSS evidence

5. Ancient Versions-- 0 out of 20 = 0% of the evidence

6. Church Fathers-- 0 out of 300 = 0% of the evidence

Total Non-MSS: 0 out of 320 = 0% of the non-MSS evidence*

Grand Total: **426 out of 5,575 = 7% of ALL evidence**

Regardless of however you try to present or likely misrepresent it, the number of actual manuscripts behind the text in the Majority Text is greater than the actual number of manuscripts used in the making of the Textus Receptus editions.

Likely less than 100 actual manuscripts were imperfectly collated and used in the making of the Textus Receptus editions.

Erasmus used only a small number of Greek manuscripts for the making of his editions [from 6 to 12]. Robert Stephanus' editions were based on less than twenty Greek manuscripts, imperfectly collated by his sixteen year old son. Theodore Beza mainly used the collations made by Robert Stephanus' son, and he had access to a couple more manuscripts.

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).

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). David Cloud claimed that the collations of Hermann von Soden “is the most extensive collation that has ever been made” (Ibid.). Clinton Branine also admitted 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).

If that most extensive collation is supposedly insufficient evidence to establish the text for a Majority Text, it indicates that actual use of a smaller number of manuscripts would be insufficient evidence for the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.

 

[Logos1560]

Rev. 16:5

can you give me an example of where that are readings found in no Greek NT Manuscript?

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237).

J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he asserted that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389). In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv). Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Regardless of however you try to present or likely misrepresent it, the number of actual manuscripts behind the text in the Majority Text is greater than the actual number of manuscripts used in the making of the Textus Receptus editions. Likely less than 100 actual manuscripts were collated and used in the making of the Textus Receptus editions.

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). David Cloud claimed that the collations of Hermann von Soden “is the most extensive collation that has ever been made” (Ibid.). Clinton Branine also admitted 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).

If that most extensive collation is supposedly insufficient evidence to establish the text for a Majority Text, it indicates that actual use of a smaller number of manuscripts would be insufficient evidence for the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.

It is true that Erasmus had in his actual possession only a few Greek manuscripts when he composed the first edition of his Greek New Testament, but he had examined a large number of other manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, and he had compared these with many ancient Bible translations and with a large number of quotations from ancient church leaders. He also was aware of the alternative readings contained in manuscripts such as the Vaticanus and Codex D. Thus he was in a position to know that those few manuscripts he had at hand represented the witness of vast numbers of other manuscripts. The fact is that the Received Text underlying the esteemed and mightily used Reformation Bibles is represented in the majority of existing Greek manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible translations. This is why the Received Text has commonly been called the “majority text” (though that term has been usurped in recent years by the Hodges-Farstad-Thomas Nelson Greek New Testament of 1982). Textual authorities admit that of the more than 5,200 existing Greek manuscripts, 99% contain the common traditional ecclesiastical or Received Text.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

"Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. ‘If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.’ HE HAD COLLATED MANY GREEK MSS. of the New Testament, and WAS SURROUNDED BY ALL THE COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS, by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. ... HE HAD INVESTIGATED THE TEXTS ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF SACRED CRITICISM. When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Ecolampadius. Nothing without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb” (J.H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, New York: Hurst & Company, 1835, Vol. 5, p. 157).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

“Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16)” (Dr. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1956, 1979, pp. 198-199).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

BURGON’S RESEARCH INTO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE THROUGH CHURCH HISTORY HAS, IN SOME WAYS, NEVER BEEN EQUALED. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF HIS RESEARCH INTO THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE SCRIPTURES OF CHURCH LEADERS OF ANTIQUITY. To discover what Scripture text the ancient church leaders were using, Burgon laboriously dug out 86,489 quotations from ancient Christian writings and compiled these into sixteen thick manuscript volumes, which are located today in the British Museum. More than 4,000 of the quotations are from writers who lived before 400 A.D. By this peerless research, Burgon was convinced that the Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles is the very text which has been used by God’s people through the centuries and is thus the preserved Word of God. He concluded: “Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1881).

 

[Logos1560]

The fact is that the Received Text underlying the esteemed and mightily used Reformation Bibles is represented in the majority of existing Greek manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible translations. .

Dean John William Burgon actually disagreed with your opinion since he maintained that there were differences between the Textus Receptus and the Traditional Text. According to Burgon, the text that came down to us differs from the Textus Receptus in places even hundreds of places.

John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269). For example, Dean Burgon wrote: "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 that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21, footnote 3). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). In 1864, Burgon asserted that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69).

In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.).

Edward Miller suggested that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96).

Edward Miller maintained that Burgon thought that there were “additions to the Received Text” at Matthew 6:18, Matthew 25:13, and Matthew 27:35 (Burgon, Causes of the Corruptions of the Traditional Text, p. 171). Burgon as edited by Miller noted: “An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke 16:25” (p. 60). Under the heading “Burgon and Miller’s system,” Edward Miller asserted that “The Textus Receptus, which was adopted in the revival of Greek learning, though it agrees substantially with our Canons, fails under the first, which is the virtual embodiment of them all; because some of its readings are condemned by the balance struck upon all the evidence which as been assembled under the unprecedented advantage afforded in this century” (Oxford Debate, p. xiii). Burgon asked: “See you not that the state of the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the Bible, then the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of God’s sun?” (Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 119).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237).

J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he asserted that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389). In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv). Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).

Only 4 Manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 Are From Before the 10th Century

Did you know?
Only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century. The 3 earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.
A look at the textual history of Revelation 16:5 will show that the evidence against Beza's reading is not as strong as one might think. Although all known existing Greek manuscripts do not have "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)," the body of evidence is relatively small and late, and even the existing evidence are not in full agreement with each other.

Of all the ancient papyri that include the book of Revelation (P18, P24, P43, P47, P85, P98, P115), only P47 includes Revelation 16:5. Of all the ancient uncials (pre-10th century) that include Revelation (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, 0163, 0169, 0207, 0229, 0308), only Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi include Revelation 16:5. Vaticanus does not have the book of Revelation at all. Thus the only witnesses from before the 10th century which include Revelation 16:5 are P47, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi. Just 4 manuscripts in 10 centuries is not a lot of evidence. There is definitely room to suppose that a reading with "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)" existed in the early years of transmission, especially since Revelation in general was corrupted very early and an erroneous reading could have easily gained supremacy. Critics who say "There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts and not one of them has Beza's reading" are misrepresenting the situation. Although there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts, only a fraction has Revelation 16:5, and just 4 from before the 10th century. Since manuscript evidence (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) is relatively scarce for Revelation 16:5 in comparison with other passages of scripture, the use of conjectural emendations is that much more justified for Revelation 16:5 than it normally would be for other passages.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

5) Burgon Believed That For an "Authoritative Revision of the Greek Text" They Were "Not Yet Mature" in His Day. He wrote:

". . . an authoritative revision of the Greek text will have to precede any future revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking, we are not yet mature; either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship." [Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 124].

(6) Burgon Demanded at Least Six Prerequisites Before Any Authoritative Revision of the Textus Receptus Could Be Successfully Completed. Burgon was writing on page 124 of his book, Revision Revised, as quoted in paragraph "(5)" above. After stating that "for such an undertaking we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship," Burgon went on to tell why they were "not yet mature" in his day [1883]. It was for the same reasons, we are not yet mature in our day either. These six prerequisites rule out the Nestle-Aland Greek Text (ether the 26th or 27th editions). They also rule out the so-called "Majority Greek Text" of Hodges and Farstad, published by Nelson as we will show later as well as the "Majority Greek Text" of Robinson and Pierpont!

(a) Prerequisite #1: We Need at Least "500 More Copies" of the New Testament "Diligently Collated." Burgon wrote:

"Let 500 more copies. of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

This has not yet been done!

(b) Prerequisite #2: We Need at Least "100" "Ancient Lectionaries" "Very Exactly Collated." Burgon wrote:

"Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p.12 5].

This has not yet been done!

(c) Prerequisite #3: We Need, "Above All," the Church "Fathers" to Yield "Their Precious Secrets" by "Ransacking" Them, "Indexing" Them, and "Diligently Inspecting" Them. Burgon wrote:

"Above all, let the Fathers, be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected in order that we may know what actually is the evidence they afford." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

This has not yet been done!

(d) Prerequisite #4: We Need the "Most Important of the Ancient Versions" to Be "Edited Afresh" and Let Their "'Languages" Be "Really Mastered by Englishmen." Burgon Wrote:

"Let the most important of the Ancient Versions be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

This has not yet been done!

(e) Prerequisite #5: We Need "Whatever Unpublished Works of the Ancient Greek Fathers' to be "Printed." Burgon wrote:

"Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the Ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,--(and not a few precious remains of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)--let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily . . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 125-26].

This has not yet been done!

(f) Prerequisite #6: We Need "For the First Time" the "Science of Textual Criticism" to Be Prosecuted "In a Scholarlike Manner." Burgon wrote:

"Yes, and in the meantime--(let it in all faithfulness be added)--the science of textual criticism will have to be prosecuted for the first time in a scholarlike manner. Fundamental principles.--sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,--will have to be laid down for mans guidance. . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised p.227].

This has not yet been done!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Logos just curious as to what you believe to be the most reliable Greek text today if it's not the Textus Receptus?

 

[Logos1560]

It is true that Erasmus had in his actual possession only a few Greek manuscripts when he composed the first edition of his Greek New Testament, but he had examined a large number of other manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, and he had compared these with many ancient Bible translations and with a large number of quotations from ancient church leaders.

Perhaps you are making greater claims for Erasmus than are warranted.
Erasmus made some mistakes in his texts.

John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very small number of manuscripts, probably only five” (Traditional Text, p. 3).

KJV-only author Robert Sargent maintained that Erasmus “used only two manuscripts for the bulk of his work, with another two for comparison, and a fifth for the book of the Revelation” (English Bible, p. 155). William Combs asserted: “Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring, 1996, p. 45). Combs claimed that “Erasmus had 3 manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts; 4 manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles, and only 1 manuscript of Revelation” (Ibid.). 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).

You should read the 2006 book entitled Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament by Jan Krans

 

[Logos1560]

In footnote 1 of their preface to their second edition, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote that “the overall text of these early printed editions differs from the Byzantine Textform in over 1800 instances, generally due to the inclusion of weakly supported non-Byzantine readings” (The New Testament, p. i). In his article in an appendix of their Greek text, Robinson maintained that “the Byzantine Textform is not the TR” (p. 533).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Perhaps you are making greater claims for Erasmus than are warranted.
Erasmus made some mistakes in his texts.

John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very small number of manuscripts, probably only five” (Traditional Text, p. 3).

KJV-only author Robert Sargent maintained that Erasmus “used only two manuscripts for the bulk of his work, with another two for comparison, and a fifth for the book of the Revelation” (English Bible, p. 155). William Combs asserted: “Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring, 1996, p. 45). Combs claimed that “Erasmus had 3 manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts; 4 manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles, and only 1 manuscript of Revelation” (Ibid.). 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).

You should read the 2006 book entitled Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament by Jan Krans

Erasmus had knowledge of many manuscripts other than those he used for his first edition. Erasmus “began studying and collating NT MSS and observing thousands of variant readings in preparation for his own edition” (Eldon Jay Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in The Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Epp and Gordon Fee, p. 18; quoting Bentley 1983: 35, 138). “It is well known also that Erasmus looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with the common faith because it was founded on manuscripts which in the providence of God were readily available” (Edward Hills, The King James Bible Defended, p. 198).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I'm still waiting for your answer on what you would consider the most reliable greek text to be trusted today?
Also I think I am just going to agree to disagree, for every quote you find, I find my own that says otherwise. We could do this all night but I don't really have more time.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Only 4 Manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 Are From Before the 10th Century

Did you know?
Only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century. The 3 earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.
A look at the textual history of Revelation 16:5 will show that the evidence against Beza's reading is not as strong as one might think. Although all known existing Greek manuscripts do not have "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)," the body of evidence is relatively small and late, and even the existing evidence are not in full agreement with each other.

Of all the ancient papyri that include the book of Revelation (P18, P24, P43, P47, P85, P98, P115), only P47 includes Revelation 16:5. Of all the ancient uncials (pre-10th century) that include Revelation (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, 0163, 0169, 0207, 0229, 0308), only Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi include Revelation 16:5. Vaticanus does not have the book of Revelation at all. Thus the only witnesses from before the 10th century which include Revelation 16:5 are P47, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi. Just 4 manuscripts in 10 centuries is not a lot of evidence. There is definitely room to suppose that a reading with "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)" existed in the early years of transmission, especially since Revelation in general was corrupted very early and an erroneous reading could have easily gained supremacy. Critics who say "There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts and not one of them has Beza's reading" are misrepresenting the situation. Although there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts, only a fraction has Revelation 16:5, and just 4 from before the 10th century. Since manuscript evidence (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) is relatively scarce for Revelation 16:5 in comparison with other passages of scripture, the use of conjectural emendations is that much more justified for Revelation 16:5 than it normally would be for other passages.

If all the evidence is wrong here--all the Greek copies of copies of copies back to what John himself presumably wrote, all the Latin, Syriac, Coptic manuscripts, in fact every translation from actual Greek mss ever made, all the Fathers who ever quoted the passage from which records remain--if all of them are in error here, why not elsewhere? Why not everywhere? There remains no reason why they couldn't or shouldn't be. You attack every preserved documentary evidence of the Word of God at this place and presume to be doing him service? You attack the written Word of God at its very foundations and expect to gain a hearing here on the Baptistboard? You've come to the wrong place, my friend. You've shown all your cards, got nothin', and Logos' got the shirt off your back.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

If all the evidence is wrong here--all the Greek copies of copies of copies back to what John himself presumably wrote, all the Latin, Syriac, Coptic manuscripts, in fact every translation from actual Greek mss ever made, all the Fathers who ever quoted the passage from which records remain--if all of them are in error here, why not elsewhere? Why not everywhere? There remains no reason why they couldn't or shouldn't be. You attack every preserved documentary evidence of the Word of God at this place and presume to be doing him service? You attack the written Word of God at its very foundations and expect to gain a hearing here on the Baptistboard? You've come to the wrong place, my friend. You've shown all your cards, got nothin', and Logos' got the shirt off your back.

as confirmed by Jerome, there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have. Two, as pointed out by Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 “which is, and which was, and which is to come;” sometimes is rendered in Latin as “qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es” instead of the Vulgate “qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est.” (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Obviously the first printed edition of the Greek NT is the TR so we have thousands of copies in the printed edition. We don’t know what the KJV translators had in the way of manuscript evidence. There are references to manuscripts of which we are not sure. However, there is textual evidence to back up Beza’s claim that it is, in fact, “and shalt be,” in two ways. First, Beza says that there was a wearing away of that manuscript to make it not legible. Second, is what Thomas Holland presents in his material on Revelation 16:5 (next two paragraphs):
Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es.” This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (The Text of the NT, Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza’s Greek text does.

 

[Yeshua1]

Logos just curious as to what you believe to be the most reliable Greek text today if it's not the Textus Receptus?

TR greek text inferior to critical greek text, and the greek majority text for uses as a textual basis for translation, so what is your question?

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps you are making greater claims for Erasmus than are warranted.
Erasmus made some mistakes in his texts.

John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very small number of manuscripts, probably only five” (Traditional Text, p. 3).

KJV-only author Robert Sargent maintained that Erasmus “used only two manuscripts for the bulk of his work, with another two for comparison, and a fifth for the book of the Revelation” (English Bible, p. 155). William Combs asserted: “Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring, 1996, p. 45). Combs claimed that “Erasmus had 3 manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts; 4 manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles, and only 1 manuscript of Revelation” (Ibid.). 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).

You should read the 2006 book entitled Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament by Jan Krans

There are NO perfect greek texts to use as basis for translations today, correct/ Some are moreaccurate, closer to what was originally written down, but NO perfect texts as KJVO demand?

And isn't the 1894 revision/edition of the TR by Scrivener’s considered to be the best TR for textual use now?

 

[robycop3]

Why do you attack the King James bible on issues that are so minor compared to the issue of the Modern critical Greek texts?

Can you really with a clean conscience use bibles that are translated from from Greek texts that have readings that are often only supported by 2 or 3 manuscripts while ignoring the readings of the 99.9 percent of the evidences?

Because of King James Onlyists who not only insist (incorrectly) that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there, but also insist (also incorrectly) that the KJV is perfect.

As for those Greek texts...

Were YOU there when any of them were written? Do YOU know who wrote any of them, when and where? Do you know what SOURCES they used?

If you cannot answer any one of those questions, you have no more ability to decide among them than anyone else has.