The Extent of Corruption

[Anthony Pritchard]

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

You have not presented a reading, a manuscript, or a witness. You have made an assertion, not a textual claim supported by textual evidence. If you believe that a specific reading in the preserved stream was altered by a Latin source, then present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness so it can be examined. Commentary is not textual evidence. A scholar’s opinion is not textual evidence. A one‑line accusation is not textual evidence. My position is simple. If someone claims that the preserved stream contains a corruption, the claim must be supported by textual data. If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly.

Preserved vs reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

 

[Logos1560]

My position is simple.

Your unbacked position seems to be simple--make unproven assumptions, provide no proof, use fallacies to beg the question and to try to reverse the burden of proof, and refuse to engage in serious discussion. Your claims are not supported by consistent textual data.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You have not presented a reading, a manuscript, or a witness. You have made an assertion, not a textual claim supported by textual evidence. If you believe that a specific reading in the preserved stream was altered by a Latin source, then present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness so it can be examined. Commentary is not textual evidence. A scholar’s opinion is not textual evidence. A one‑line accusation is not textual evidence. My position is simple. If someone claims that the preserved stream contains a corruption, the claim must be supported by textual data. If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly.

Preserved vs reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

I’m just going by what was stated by someone you think supports you, but it fact, denies the very claims you’re making.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

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

You have misrepresented my position. I have not asserted a "KJV-only pure preserved stream" claim, and any suggestion that I have is false. My position is the preserved stream, the Traditional Text, over the reconstructed text used in modern Critical Text editions. The KJV lies within that stream but not exclusively. That is a textual category distinction, not KJV-only.

I do claim that the Critical Text is corrupt, and I affirm that without hesitation. The corruption I am referring to is both the historical method that produced it and specific readings where the Critical Text departs from the preserved stream. The historical corruption is a category claim. Category claims are demonstrated by primary historical sources, not by manuscript citations.

The Alexandrian school with Origen introduced a method of textual reconstruction. That is documented in Origen's own writings. He acknowledged that copyists and editors altered the text and that he engaged in correcting it:

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of copyists or through the perverse audacity of some in correcting the text." Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15:14, Primary Source.

Westcott and Hort adopted a reconstruction method that treated the Traditional Text as secondary and attempted to rebuild an earlier text. That is documented in their own Introduction. They described the Byzantine text as a recension intended to replace older forms:

"The Syrian text is the result of a recension... a deliberate attempt to supersede the older texts." Westcott and Hort, Introduction, section 345, Primary Source.

The Nestle text continued that reconstruction method, and its editors stated plainly that they were producing an eclectic text based on internal principles, not on the preserved stream. These are primary historical sources. They show that the Critical Text is a reconstructed text.

In addition to the historical corruption of method, there are specific places where the Critical Text departs from the preserved stream. These are manuscript level corruption claims. They present the reading, the manuscripts, and the witnesses. Here are three primary sources out of many.

Matthew 1:25. The Critical Text omits "firstborn" (prototokon). The preserved stream includes it. The preserved reading is supported by the Byzantine Majority, A, C, W, Family 1, Family 13, and most minuscules. The omission is supported by Aleph and B. This is a manuscript level corruption claim.

Mark 1:2. The preserved stream reads "in the prophets" (en tois prophetais). The Critical Text reads "in Isaiah the prophet" (en to Isaia to prophetei). The preserved reading is supported by A, C, D, K, the Majority, Family 13, and most minuscules. The Critical Text reading is supported by Aleph, B, and Family 1. This is another manuscript level corruption claim.

Luke 2:33. The preserved stream reads "Joseph and his mother" (Ioseph kai he meter autou). The Critical Text reads "his father and mother" (ho pater autou kai he meter). The preserved reading is supported by A, C, D, K, the Majority, Family 13, and most minuscules. The Critical Text reading is supported by Aleph, B, L, and Family 1. This is a third manuscript level corruption claim.

Primary Sources

These examples demonstrate both the historical corruption of method and specific textual corruptions where the Critical Text departs from the preserved stream. If you believe that a specific reading in the preserved stream is corrupt, present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness so it can be examined. 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. Textual claims must be supported by textual data.

Preserved vs reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

 

[Logos1560]

You have misrepresented my position. I have not asserted a "KJV-only pure preserved stream" claim, and any suggestion that I have is false. My position is the preserved stream, the Traditional Text, over the reconstructed text used in modern Critical Text editions. The KJV lies within that stream but not exclusively. That is a textual category distinction, not KJV-only.

That is your incorrect opinion. You have repeatedly used KJV-only arguments in your stated reasoning. The KJV-only view depends upon a preserved stream of manuscripts/Bibles argument. Your basic argument that you have presented is a KJV-only argument.

You continue to misrepresent the meaning of the accurate, defined term KJV-only. The term KJV-only does not mean what you incorrectly suggest. According to a clear definition and explanation of the term KJV-only, your position can still be considered a form of KJV-only view.

Since the varying Textus Receptus editions are not the same as the Traditional Text, the KJV based on the Textus Receptus NT editions would not belong to the same stream as Bibles based on the Traditional Text. Some KJV-only advocates use the terms or names Traditional Greek text, Byzantine text, and the Majority text interchangeably as referring to the same basic text. It seems to be clear that you are merely using the term Traditional Text as in effect another name for the Textus Receptus. Perhaps you use the term Traditional Text as your rationalization for trying to deny your use of KJV-only arguments.

If you were actually defending the true Traditional Text as you assert, you should be advocating English Bible translations based on the Traditional Byzantine/Majority textform. However, you have not defended or advocated English Bible translations made from the Byzantine Traditional text. Your posts indicate that you defend the KJV instead of the English Bible translations based on the Traditional Byzantine/Majority textform.

In the preface of the first edition of their Greek N. T., Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote: "Neither the early English translations nor the early printed Greek New Testaments reflected a perfect agreement with the predominant Byzantine/Majority Textform" (New Testament in the Original Greek, p. xvii). Peter Johnson referred to “the small but significant number of Textus Receptus readings which differ from the apparent Byzantine Text majority” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 17, note 18). James White observed: "The TR differs in a number of places from the standard Greek text found in Greek Orthodox circles, which itself is more similar to the 'Majority Text'" (King James Only Controversy, p. 6). James D. Price asserted that the “occasional consensus” [of the early Byzantine-like manuscripts, the early Easter Church Fathers, and the Syraic versions] “against the Byzantine Text demonstrates that the Byzantine Text is a later descendant of the Antiochan Text with its own unique set of variants” (King James Onlyism, p. 457). Price gave twenty examples [Matt. 5:47, Mark 8:7, Luke 7:11, John 11:19, Acts 4:25, Acts 10:48, Acts 13:42, Acts 18:25, Acts 21:8, Rom. 6:12, Rom. 10:1, I Cor. 6:20, 2 Cor. 1:14, Eph. 5:9, 1 Tim. 6:19, Titus 1:4, James 4:4, 1 Pet. 5:2, 1 John 3:1, Jude 1:1] “where the Byzantine reading is unique, differing from that of all the text traditions including that of the Antiochan Text--the ancestor of the Byzantine Text” (pp.457-478.).

There would be at least three or four positions and perhaps more while you seem to use the fallacy of false dilemma to try to limit it to two. KJV-only reasoning also depends upon use of the fallacy of false dilemma. Again you argue for your position using the same argument as KJV-only authors.

Four possible varying texts on which Bible translations could be made are at least these four.

Traditional Text or Byzantine Majority Text,
Textus Receptus text
Syriac Peshitta text
Critical Text

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

If you were actually defending the true Traditional Text as you assert, you should be advocating English Bible translations based on the Traditional Byzantine/Majority textform.

You are still assigning a label to me that I have not claimed. My position is preserved underlying text, not KJV-only. I have acknowledged English translations based on the Byzantine/Majority textform. I even told Salty he was free to read the early English translations if he wished, not that he needed my permission, they are still extant. So can you, have at it. My argument has been consistent. The preserved stream is the standard, the KJV stands in that stream, but not exclusively. Translations should follow it. That is preserved text only, not KJV-only. Quote stacking is noise. Present the reading, present the primary sources.

PTO - Preserved Text Only

 

[Logos1560]

Preserved vs reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

Here is one of your own posts where you presented two positions or two choices. You have not been consistent.
Four possible varying texts on which Bible translations could be made exist while you presented only two in more than one post.

Traditional Text or Byzantine Majority Text,
Textus Receptus text
Syriac Peshitta text
Critical Text

Do you claim that the KJV should follow the Traditional Byzantine Majority Text in the 1800 places where it does not? Does the KJV depart from the Traditional Byzantine Majority Text in around 1800 places?

Doug Kutilek maintained that "the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts differs from the Textus Receptus in 1,838 places" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4). In the introduction to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament, Laurent Cleenewerck asserted: “Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus’ editions differed markedly from the classic form of that text. In 1,838 places (1,005 translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type (Majority Text)” (p. 16). 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, Maurice Robinson maintained that “the Byzantine Textform is not the TR” (p. 533).

Do you try to mix non-Traditional Byzantine Majority texts such as the Textus Receptus and such as the Syriac Peshitta in with the Traditional Text?