The Extent of Corruption

[Logos1560]

Sources: Pickering,

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals. To dump them into a ‘Byzantine’ basket is untenable” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 28; Identity of NT Text IV, p. 46). Wilbur Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained that “the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies all attempts to group them” (Identity IV, p. 39; see also Fuller, True or False, p. 231). Wilbur Pickering maintained that “a typical ‘Byzantine’ MS will have 3-5 variants per page” (God has Preserved, p. 92). Gregory Lanier asserted: “Four of the key Byzantine witnesses for Acts and the Catholic Epistles (minuscules 18, 35, 319, 617) vary among themselves—that is, contain more than one reading for a given unit of text—8 percent of the time, representing nearly one thousand textual units” (Hixon, Myths and Mistakes in NT Criticism, p. 115). Peter Malik observed: “The notion of a stable Byzantine text is even less applicable to the manuscripts of Revelation, where the Byzantine tradition Is split into at least three major groups, and even these are far from uniform” (Ibid., footnote 26, p. 158).

 

[Logos1560]

The sources I listed earlier document this: Burgon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis, van Bruggen, Pickering, Moorman, Fuller, Garrett,

Your source Edward F. Hills acknowledged: “There are, however, a few places in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts” (KJV Defended, p. 200; Text, p. 336). Edward F. Hills claimed: “Through the influence of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading” (p. 107; Text, p. 192). Edward F. Hills asserted: “There are also a few passages in which the Latin Vulgate has preserved the true reading rather than the Greek Traditional New Testament Text” (p. 188; Text, p. 317).

Edward F. Hills pointed out: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207; KJV Defended, p. 221; Text, p. 366). Edward F. Hills listed several renderings in the KJV that Erasmus added to the Traditional Greek text from the Latin Vulgate (KJV Defended, pp. 200-202; Text, pp. 337-339). Edward Hills listed additions by Erasmus at Matthew 10:8, 27:35, John 3:25, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5, 6, 20:28, Romans 16:25-27, and Revelation 22:19. James D. Price maintained that Edward “Hills presumed that God guided Erasmus, and the editors and printers, to correct the errors in the Greek Traditional Text by means of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate (King James Onlyism, p. 269).

Edward F. Hills asserted: "There are some readings on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow" (KJV Defended, p. 224; Text, pp. 371-372).

 

[Logos1560]

The preserved stream is preserved because it was used.​

The preserved stream tells a different story. It represents the text used by the churches.

Does your own argument unintentionally suggest that the old Greek Septuagint should be considered part of the preserved stream since it was used in many years and it was used for centuries? The Greek Septuagint is still the Old Testament text used in Greek Orthodox churches.

Karen Jobes and Moises Silva observed: “The people who read and made copies of the Greek NT were to a large extent the same people who read and made copies of the Greek OT. This factor alone suggests that much can be learned from analyzing the transmission of these two works in tandem” (Invitation, p. 135) [bold type added]. Natalio Fernandez Marcos as translated by Wilfred Watson wrote: “The LXX very soon became the Bible of the Church and was transmitted by manuscripts together with the New Testament and independently of the Hebrew text” (Septugaint, p. 322). David Rose wrote: “A text that has lived within the Church for centuries deserves careful considerations” (Ending the King James Debate, p. 107). While David Rose made his assertion concerning the New Testament text, would it not also apply the Greek Old Testament text that lived within the churches for centuries?

Did any of the same copiers or scribes who made the copies of the Greek New Testament text at Antioch and other near-by cities also make the copies of the Greek Old Testament text [the Antiochian Septuagint]? Did many of the lectionaries used in the Greek-speaking churches contain this Antiochian Greek Old Testament along with the Greek New Testament? Would it be consistent and sound to think and assert that the Greek-speaking churches that preserved the New Testament Greek text would preserve the wrong Old Testament text? Would Antioch be the logical location for the preservation of the true Old Testament text as well as the true New Testament text? Could God have chosen to preserve any readings of the Old Testament text through that lineage of OT texts which flowed through Antioch of Syria? Why would the faithful men in the Antioch stream copy the wrong Old Testament text in Greek? Would not these copiers at Antioch who were said to be faithful to make accurate Greek copies of the New Testament be also faithful to make accurate Greek copies of the Old Testament? After the beginning of the church, could not the Old Testament be preserved among the churches just as the New Testament was? Are believers being asked by KJV-only advocates to believe that these same churches preserved the wrong Old Testament text? Did God work providentially through the usage of the Greek-speaking Church to preserve the Old Testament text just as is claimed for the New Testament text? Did not KJV-only advocates in effect recommend the Old Latin Old Testament translated from the Antiochian Septuagint when they put the Old Latin Bible in their pure stream of Bibles?

 

[Logos1560]

When we compare the two streams, the documented and measurable omissions are in the CT, not the TR. Entire verses are omitted. Partial verses are removed. Doctrinal statements are weakened. These differences arise from the character of the Alexandrian manuscripts, not from the preserved stream.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no missing or added verses in the preserved stream? Are you revealing that you have not actually compared completely the two claimed separate streams?

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.

One of your sources Edward F. Hills declared that “Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse [Luke 17:36] with the majority of Greek manuscripts” (Believing Bible Study, p. 208).

The first two editions of the Greek text edited by Erasmus did not have four whole verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, Revelation 21:26] that are found in the KJV.

Some pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale’s New Testament and Matthew’s Bible did not have three whole verses (Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Revelation 21:26) because those verses were not in the editions of the Greek text of Erasmus. The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible did not have Luke 17:36 [it has a verse 36, but it is the verse that is verse 37 in the KJV].

In some of its later editions of the Bishops' Bible published in 1575 and 1595 and 1602, the Psalms of the Great Bible were printed in place of its own rendering of them. Those editions would have the three extra verses at Psalm 14 and other additional renderings in Psalms that are not found in the KJV.
Thus, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, and the 1602 Bishops' Bible have three whole verses that are not found in the KJV.

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

I do not believe the additions in the newer manuscripts the KJV used constitute corruption.

Sure, Catholic influences are probably there in the choices of Jerome. Sure, 17th century Anglican theology influenced the choice translators made. But this was not corruption. The same goes on today. Translators are human beings doing their best to be faithful to God's words. But they are human beings.

I do not believe the inclusion of marginal notes into 12th century manuscripts constitutes corruption either.

These additions were notes for clarification of circumstances to readers alienated from ancient customs and beliefs. They were also repeating Scripture for emphasis (just like us writing verses in the margins of our Bibles.

The KJV and the newer manuscripts do have additions BUT these additions do not corruption God's Word.

So no...the KJV is not less the Word of God than translations using manuscripts that are a century older. The KJV is not corruption of Scripture.

IF one considers the KJV a corruption of God's Word because it used more modern manuscripts than the MT and adds verses THEN that one must consider many of the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament a corruption of Scripture.

God's Word transcends human translation. His Word is greater than words printed on paper.



The answer to the OP is -

NO! While the KJV uses relatively modern manuscripts (about 1,000 years newer than the MT) and notes have made their way into the text, the KJV is not a corruption of God's Word because of the additions and Catholic/Anglican influences.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The claim that the preserved text is “very faulty” has been repeated so often that it is treated as an axiom, but repetition is not evidence. If a text is faulty, the faults must be shown. They must be identified in specific verses, in specific manuscripts, with specific witnesses. Without that, the claim is only a slogan.

The preserved stream is not a theory. It is a manuscript tradition. It is a continuous line of transmission. It is supported by lectionaries, patristic citations, and the broad ecclesiastical use of the same readings across centuries. If someone believes the preserved text is faulty, the burden is to demonstrate where the fault is, how it entered the stream, and which witnesses support the correction.

Until that is done, the statement remains an assertion without evidence. A repeated fable is still a fable.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

And why do you repeatedly call it the "preserved stream"? Upon what basis can you make such a claim?

The term “preserved stream” is simply a description of what the manuscript evidence shows. It is not a theory and not a slogan. It refers to the readings that appear consistently across the broad manuscript tradition, in the majority of Greek manuscripts, in the lectionaries, in the patristic writers, and in the ancient versions. That is preservation in practice.

If you disagree with the term, the way to challenge it is to show where the stream breaks, which readings were lost, and which witnesses support the correction. That requires specific verses and specific manuscripts. The sources I provided explain this in detail.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Logos1560

Logos, you are stacking quotations again, but you are not demonstrating how any of them overturn the point I made. Quoting authors who describe variation within the Byzantine tradition does not prove that the preserved stream is faulty. Variation is a normal part of manuscript transmission. It does not erase continuity of readings across the broad tradition, and it does not establish Alexandrian priority.

Likewise, quoting Hills on places where the TR differs from the majority text does not prove corruption. Hills himself explained why those differences exist and how they fit within the preserved line of transmission. You are presenting his statements without his reasoning, which does not engage the argument.

The issue is simple. If you believe the preserved stream contains faults, you need to identify the specific readings, the specific manuscripts, and the specific witnesses that demonstrate the fault. A list of quotations about variation does not do that. It only shows that manuscripts differ, which everyone already acknowledges.

Until you provide verse‑level evidence with manuscript support, your reply remains a collection of quotations, not a refutation.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

do not believe the additions in the newer manuscripts the KJV used constitute corruption.

Jon, I agree that the KJV is not a corruption of God’s Word. My point in the thread has been about identifying where claims of corruption need actual manuscript evidence. I appreciate your clarity on the distinction between additions and corruption.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I agree that the KJV is not a corruption of God’s Word. My point in the thread has been about identifying where claims of corruption need actual manuscript evidence. I appreciate your clarity on the distinction between additions and corruption.

Thanks.

I guess the evidence would be that Scripture prior to the 12th century did not have the verses added in the KJV. But the claim that the KJV is corrupted is warranted.

The evidence of added verses in the KJV:

1. Copies of Scripture dating to the Early Church do not have the verses found in the KJV and its sources.

2. The earliest manuscript used by the KJV translators are from the 12th century.

3. The verses added in the KJV do not change God's Word. They appear instead to be note-like comments, repeating a verse or offering explanation to a situation.

4. When the translators worked on the KJV in the 17th century the oldest sources they had were less than 500 years old. Manuscripts without the added verses were over 1,000 years old but these were not avaliable to the translators.

Translators deal with the manuscripts they have. The KJV translators had poor sources by any measure. But they did an outstanding job with what they had.

Considering claims of corruption we need to remember:

1. The newest manuscript they had was less than 500 years old when they used it.

2. They used Latin translated into Greek then the Greek to English out of necessity (although I am not sure that was the best way).

3. While they were influenced by Catholic and Anglican theology, this was not intentional but due to their understanding. This can't be helped as translators word choices are somewhat subjective.

BUT this was not corruption. The result is no less a translation God's Word than the NIV. God preserves His Word in the KJV (even with the additions) the NASB, NIV, ESV. etc.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Thanks.

I guess the evidence would be that Scripture prior to the 12th century did not have the verses added in the KJV. But the claim that the KJV is corrupted is warranted.

The evidence of added verses in the KJV:

1. Copies of Scripture dating to the Early Church do not have the verses found in the KJV and its sources.

2. The earliest manuscript used by the KJV translators are from the 12th century.

3. The verses added in the KJV do not change God's Word. They appear instead to be note-like comments, repeating a verse or offering explanation to a situation.

4. When the translators worked on the KJV in the 17th century the oldest sources they had were less than 500 years old. Manuscripts without the added verses were over 1,000 years old but these were not avaliable to the translators.

Translators deal with the manuscripts they have. The KJV translators had poor sources by any measure. But they did an outstanding job with what they had.

Considering claims of corruption we need to remember:

1. The newest manuscript they had was less than 500 years old when they used it.

2. They used Latin translated into Greek then the Greek to English out of necessity (although I am not sure that was the best way).

3. While they were influenced by Catholic and Anglican theology, this was not intentional but due to their understanding. This can't be helped as translators word choices are somewhat subjective.

BUT this was not corruption. The result is no less a translation God's Word than the NIV. God preserves His Word in the KJV (even with the additions) the NASB, NIV, ESV. etc.

Jon, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I agree with you that the KJV is not a corruption of God’s Word. Where I differ is on the historical claim that the early churches did not have the verses found in the preserved text. The patristic writers quoted many of these readings long before the twelfth century, and the earliest complete exemplar of the preserved stream is the Peshitta, which predates the medieval manuscripts by many centuries.

A few examples may help.

The patristic writers of the early churches quoted readings that match the preserved text. These quotations appear in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and others. Their writings show that the churches did have these verses long before the twelfth century, in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. These quotations are not medieval. They are early witnesses.

The Peshitta is a fourth century witness to the preserved stream. It contains the same readings that later appear in the Greek manuscripts used by the KJV translators. It is not a medieval witness. It is an early one. It demonstrates that the preserved text existed long before the surviving Greek manuscripts that happen to be medieval.

The preserved text is not defined by the age of the surviving parchment. It is defined by continuity of transmission. Manuscripts that were used in churches wore out. Manuscripts that were unused survived. Age of parchment is not age of text. Survival conditions distort the record.

The claim that the KJV translators had poor sources is not supported by the historical record. They had the standard Greek text of the churches, the ancient versions, and the patristic writers. They worked with the preserved stream, not an isolated medieval tradition.

My point is simply that the preserved text is older than the surviving medieval manuscripts, and the early churches did have the verses in question. The patristic writers and the Peshitta demonstrate that continuity.

 

[JonC]

Jon, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I agree with you that the KJV is not a corruption of God’s Word. Where I differ is on the historical claim that the early churches did not have the verses found in the preserved text. The patristic writers quoted many of these readings long before the twelfth century, and the earliest complete exemplar of the preserved stream is the Peshitta, which predates the medieval manuscripts by many centuries.

A few examples may help.

The patristic writers of the early churches quoted readings that match the preserved text. These quotations appear in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and others. Their writings show that the churches did have these verses long before the twelfth century, in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. These quotations are not medieval. They are early witnesses.

The Peshitta is a fourth century witness to the preserved stream. It contains the same readings that later appear in the Greek manuscripts used by the KJV translators. It is not a medieval witness. It is an early one. It demonstrates that the preserved text existed long before the surviving Greek manuscripts that happen to be medieval.

The preserved text is not defined by the age of the surviving parchment. It is defined by continuity of transmission. Manuscripts that were used in churches wore out. Manuscripts that were unused survived. Age of parchment is not age of text. Survival conditions distort the record.

The claim that the KJV translators had poor sources is not supported by the historical record. They had the standard Greek text of the churches, the ancient versions, and the patristic writers. They worked with the preserved stream, not an isolated medieval tradition.

My point is simply that the preserved text is older than the surviving medieval manuscripts, and the early churches did have the verses in question. The patristic writers and the Peshitta demonstrate that continuity.

Early letters do match the additions. This is probably how they ended up in Scripture (for example, somebody wrote Irenaeus' comment in the margin and over time it made its way into the text).

It could also be that these letters copied and circulated within eatly churches added notes. It could also be that these notes were added from conversations with the actual human writer.


All we know is the manuscripts missing the additions were used by the Early Church as Scripture (the Scriptures missing the additions thar actually date to the Early Church).

We can only speculate about how the additions came to be.


The most logical are they were notes, probably from the letters of early writers, or they are just additions made by churches as they copied the letters for their congregations.

 

[Logos1560]

I call it the preserved stream because the readings appear consistently in the vast majority of manuscripts, across multiple centuries and regions, in the lectionaries used in worship, and in the writings of the early fathers. That is the historical basis.

You seem to be trying to rewrite history according to unproven KJV-only claims.

You are skipping over the fact that your statement is not true since all the readings in the preserved stream do not appear consistently in the vast majority of Greek NT manuscripts. Some Textus Receptus readings are found in no known Greek New Testament manuscripts and many more are found in a minority [less than 50%, not a vast majority] of Greek NT manuscripts. Examples of these verifiable facts have already been presented.

Your seeming refusal to accept or face verifiable facts does not refute them.

 

[Logos1560]

The claim that the preserved text is “very faulty” has been repeated so often that it is treated as an axiom, but repetition is not evidence. If a text is faulty, the faults must be shown. They must be identified in specific verses, in specific manuscripts, with specific witnesses.

It is not repetition that is offered as evidence by me. You seem to be the one repeating unproven claims over and over. You try to reverse the burden of proof since you have not proven what you claim to be true.

I did not make the claim "that the preserved text is very faulty" as you seem to try to put words in my mouth. I do acknowledge the truth that some errors have been found in it. Faults or copying errors in the preserved stream have been identified concerning specific verses. Whole verses missing in a majority of Greek NT manuscripts have been cited.

Edward F. Hills maintained that the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the “majority of the Greek manuscripts” have their purification at Luke 2:22 (KJV Defended, p. 221; Text, p. 367). Many of the Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the TR editions and several TR editions have the reading his father at Luke 2:33. Theodore Beza altered the actual wording of the Greek text of Erasmus at Luke 2:33.

You have not cited all the specific Greek NT manuscripts that actually constitute a vast majority of Greek NT manuscripts that have every textual reading followed in the KJV.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The term “preserved stream” is simply a description of what the manuscript evidence shows. It is not a theory and not a slogan. It refers to the readings that appear consistently across the broad manuscript tradition, in the majority of Greek manuscripts, in the lectionaries, in the patristic writers, and in the ancient versions. That is preservation in practice.

If you disagree with the term, the way to challenge it is to show where the stream breaks, which readings were lost, and which witnesses support the correction. That requires specific verses and specific manuscripts. The sources I provided explain this in detail.

Seeing it’s called the preserved stream why were they restricted to using five Erasmus editions, Beza’s, and Stephanus’ works. If it’s the preserved stream, why not use mss from the 8th century? The 6th? 10th? 5th? 11th?

 

[Conan]

I call it the preserved stream because the readings appear consistently in the vast majority of manuscripts, across multiple centuries and regions, in the lectionaries used in worship, and in the writings of the early fathers. That is the historical basis.

The sources I listed earlier document this, Burgon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis, van Bruggen, Pickering, Moorman, Fuller, Garrett, along with the patristic writers and the lectionary tradition. These are the witnesses to the preserved stream.

A reading supported by thousands of manuscripts, broad geographic distribution, centuries of continuity, lectionary use, and patristic quotation reflects preservation. A reading supported by a very small number of Alexandrian manuscripts reflects reconstruction.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” the discussion still requires specific verses and specific manuscript evidence. Listing CT omissions does not demonstrate TR additions.

Burgon, Scrivener, Pickering, Van Bruggen all acknowledge errors in the KJV and the Textus Receptus. None of those men believed in the additional words @ 1John 5:7. They were Scholars that's why. The additional words in the KJV came from the Latin Vulgate. Over 500 Greek Byzantine Manuscripts don't have the extra words in the KJV. Only 4 do and 4 have it as a marginal reading. Every one of those were under Latin influence. You are a KJV Onlyist. Burgon, Scrivener, Van Bruggen and Pickering are not. You should read those men for yourself.

 

[Conan]

First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts​

First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

www.thetextofthegospels.com

Now let’s look on the other side of the equation. Here, from researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of the Greek manuscripts that contain First John but do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text:

Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

 

[JonC]

The whole KJV "debate" is just a recycled lesson in tradition.

Most Christians rejected the KJV at the time. And it really had nothing to do with the translation itself.

The bishops did not see a need for a new translation. Theirs was less than 50 years old. Theirs was the translation they had read for decades. It was their bible.

The Calvinists did not see a need for a new translation. They had the Geneva Bible. It was only 50 years old. It was Calvinistic in character. It was their bible.

The population did not want a new translation. They did not want a break in tradition. The bibles they used were ingrained in their worship.


The same is true of KJVO people. They may give many justifications for their view, but these are false justifications. Even the heretics who argue for a second special revealation are giving a false justification (anybody could use that heresy, most cults do, to justify any belief).

They are not proofs. They are not evidence.

The reason boils down to tradition. Tradition is a hard nut to crack. But as Christians we have to set aside these traditions to follow God.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only author Terence McLean claimed that “the Bible of the true Christians never cross-pollinated with the corrupted texts until the nineteenth century” (History of Your Bible, p. 33).

Paul Devine asserted: “You can’t mix these streams and call them both ‘God’s Word’” (Why Your Bible Is a Lie, p. 57).

The two claimed separate streams are mixed [or cross-pollinated] in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, in the 1539 Great Bible, and in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. Some mixing of the two streams is also found in the 1611 KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

The Peshitta is a fourth century witness to the preserved stream. It contains the same readings that later appear in the Greek manuscripts used by the KJV translators. It is not a medieval witness. It is an early one. It demonstrates that the preserved text existed long before the surviving Greek manuscripts that happen to be medieval.

If the Peshitta is part of your preserved stream, why are English Bible translations of the Peshitta also not included?

Does the Peshitta actually have all "the same readings that later appear in the Greek manuscripts used by the KJV translators"?

Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.

Bruce Metzger noted that in an examination of Matthew chapters 1-14, "Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances it stands alone" (Early Versions of the N.T., p. 61).

The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible and Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, and the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “Bethany” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock has “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders.” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock and Lamsa have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These three English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19.

Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.

In some verses, English translations of the Peshitta may have additional words such as “the river” at Matthew 3:6, “it is I; be not afraid“ or “do not be afraid“ at Luke 24:36, “in Hebrew“ at John 20:16, “over Egypt” at Acts 7:18, “surnamed Agrippa“ at Acts 12:1, “to Antioch“ at Acts 12:25, “of the Lord” at Acts 14:25, “of Jesus“ at Acts 16:7, “in him“ at Romans 3:22, “the son of Nun” at Hebrews 4:8, and “a third part of the earth was burnt up” at Revelation 8:7. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrase "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found there in the KJV.

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible and Bauscher’s translation do not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Murdock’s has “raise the dead” in brackets with a marginal note that stated “omitted in most copies.”