The Fable of the Faulty

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Fable of the Faulty Preserved Text and the Fable of Oldest Is Best

Method, Evidence, and the Collapse of Two Modern Myths

Introduction

Two claims are repeated so often in modern textual criticism that they have taken on the appearance of axioms. The first is the claim that the preserved text is faulty. The second is the claim that the oldest manuscripts are automatically the best. Neither claim is supported by the historical record. Both are slogans. Both collapse when examined through manuscript evidence. Both depend on repetition rather than reasoning.

The preserved text is not a theory. It is a description of the manuscript tradition used by the churches. The oldest is best is not a principle. It is a fable that confuses age of parchment with age of text. These distinctions matter because the integrity of Scripture depends on transmission, not on slogans.

The Fable of the Faulty Preserved Text

The claim that the preserved text is faulty is repeated without evidence. It is asserted without identifying the specific readings that are supposedly wrong. It is presented as a conclusion without demonstrating the premises. A claim of fault requires proof. It requires verse level evidence. It requires manuscript support. Without that, the claim is only a slogan.

The preserved stream is documented. It appears in the majority of Greek manuscripts. It appears in the lectionaries used in public worship. It appears in the patristic writers who quoted Scripture. It appears in the ancient versions that carried the same readings into other languages. This is continuity. This is transmission. This is preservation. 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.

If someone believes the preserved text is faulty, he must identify the specific readings, the specific manuscripts, and the specific witnesses that demonstrate the fault. Without that, the claim is a fable.

The Fable of Oldest Is Best

The second fable is the claim that the oldest manuscripts are automatically the best. This claim confuses age of parchment with age of text. A manuscript survives because of conditions, not because of accuracy. The oldest manuscripts survived because they were unused. They sat on shelves. They were archived. They were not part of the living transmission stream.

Pickering demonstrated that the earliest manuscripts do not form clear streams. They are scattered across a wide range of variation. Zuntz observed that the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts defies attempts at artificial grouping. Burgon documented the omissions and contradictions in the Alexandrian manuscripts. Scrivener confirmed their instability. Hills explained why age of parchment is not a measure of textual purity.

Age of parchment is not age of text. Survival is not preservation. A manuscript that sits untouched for centuries will survive. A manuscript that is used in churches will wear out. The one that wears out may be closer to the original. The one that survives may be far removed from it.

The oldest is best is not a principle. It is a slogan. It is repeated because it cannot be defended. When the slogan is removed, the position collapses.

Preservation Is Transmission

The preserved text is preserved because it was used. It was copied. It was read aloud. It was circulated. It was transmitted across centuries. This is preservation in practice. It is communal. It is repeated. It is stable.

The reconstructed text is reconstructed because it was unused. It was archived. It was forgotten. It was rediscovered in the nineteenth century. It is supported by a small number of manuscripts that survived because they were not part of the living stream.

The preserved text stands because its transmission stands. The reconstructed text depends on the age of a few manuscripts and the repetition of slogans. When these are removed, nothing remains.

Conclusion

The fable of the faulty preserved text collapses because it has no evidence. The fable of oldest is best collapses because it has no reasoning. Both are slogans. Both are repeated without support. Both obscure the historical record.

The preserved text stands because its transmission stands. It is grounded in the broad manuscript tradition. It is confirmed by lectionaries, patristic writers, and ancient versions. It is supported by scholars who relied on evidence rather than slogans.

The difference between preservation and reconstruction is not academic. It is doctrinal. It determines whether the churches receive a stable text or an unstable one. It determines whether Scripture is preserved or reconstructed. It determines whether the foundation of faith is continuous or fragmented.

~Tony

© A. K. Pritchard 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution

Sources Consulted

Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed.
John William Burgon, The Revision Revised.
Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended.
Theodore Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text.
Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text.
Jack Moorman, Forever Settled.
Gunter Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles.

 

[Logos1560]

The Fable of the Faulty Preserved Text and the Fable of Oldest Is Best



Two claims are repeated so often in modern textual criticism that they have taken on the appearance of axioms. The first is the claim that the preserved text is faulty.
John William Burgon, The Revision Revised.

Does your own source John William Burgon refute the fable of a perfect Textus Receptus and the fable of a perfect 1611 KJV? John William Burgon did not advocate a Textus Receptus-only view nor a KJV-only view.

Dean John William 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" (The Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 3). John William 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 himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Dean Burgon himself 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?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (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). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 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 concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). Do KJV-only advocates agree with Burgon “consistently Christian method of New Testament textual criticism”?

Peter Ruckman referred to Dean Burgon as “the greatest textual authority of the nineteenth century” (Errors, p. 441). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1). In 1864, John William Burgon maintained 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). Burgon noted: “GOD has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon asserted: “From the very nature of the case, he who transcribes a MS. must fall into error sometimes” (p. 66).


John William Burgon maintained “that the number of various readings in the New Testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated,” and he asserted that “in reality they are exceedingly few in number” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 16; Green, UnHoly Hands, I, p. B-5). Burgon asserted: "Let it be also candidly admitted that even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth" (Revision Revised, p. 232). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “It may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverable in the Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency of the scribes” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 21). John William Burgon wrote: “The Greek text ordinarily in use is that of Stephens, put forth at Paris in 1550” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). John William Burgon wrote: “The Greek text, as we have it in any ordinary edition, (that of Bp. Lloyd, for example, who reproduced that of Mill (1707), which is very nearly that of Stephens (1550),) is known to be generally correct, --quite correct enough for all practical purposes” (p. 70). Burgon wrote: “S. Luke’s history of the Temptation (4:8) contains five words which some ancient copyist must have inserted from remembering too well the parallel place in S. Matthew 4:10, and confounding it with the language of S. Matthew 16:23” (p. 76).

Edward Miller noted: “Dean Burgon has incurred much misrepresentation. He does not maintain the faultlessness of the Received Text” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 33).

Glenn Conjurske maintained that KJV defenders “have read Burgon without half understanding him—though indeed he is not hard to understand—and have coupled his protest with the most invincible ignorance and the most arrogant prejudice. And they have crippled Burgon’s protest, by saddling it with a host of the most baseless of fictions” (Olde Paths, April, 1995, p. 75; Bible Version, p. 156). Glenn Conjurske asserted that the stand of the Dean Burgon Society “is far away from anything which Burgon held” (May, 1996, p. 100). Glenn Conjurske observed that Burgon “believed that there were inaccuracies and mistranslations in the King James Version and that the Revised Version remedied some of them” (p. 102). Glenn Conjurske contended that “in our own generation there are a great many who suppose that they hold Burgon’s view, but who in fact hold a view which Burgon had nothing to do with” (Bible Version, p. 165). Glenn Conjurske maintained that “Burgon never applied his doctrine to any printed Greek New Testament, nor to any single manuscript, but held that the true text was dispersed in all the manuscripts, to be ferreted out and established by patient and painstaking labor, to which he gave much of his life” (Ibid., p. 166).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When I studied textual criticism at University, I recall that there were three particular rules which scholars used to try and establish the true text when the surviving manuscripts disagreed. We shall look at these in turn

1. The oldest manuscript is likely to be the most accurate. It needs to be understood that all ancient writings other than the Bible have a very small number of surviving manuscripts. One of my ‘Set Texts’ at University was the Poems of Catullus. As I recall, there are only three surviving manuscripts of Catullus, all dated 600 years or more after his time. One of these is believed to be older than the others, and so, when they differed, the older one was preferred. This might seem to be reasonable, but there is no assurance in the matter. The older manuscript might well have been copied more times than the more recent ones; or the older one might have been copied badly one or more times while the more recent ones may have been copied faithfully dozens of times. We have no way of knowing.

However, when we come to the New Testament, there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts. So let us consider the last nine verses of Mark 16. The NIV states, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The ESV is a little more circumspect: “Some of the earliest manuscripts so not include 16:9-20.” What are the facts? Well, our old friends Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not contain the verses, although the latter has the space for them left blank, showing that the scribe was at least aware of them. There is also one other Greek manuscript in which the verses are missing. They are contained in more than 600 other Greek manuscripts and in the old Latin and Peshitta Syrian versions as well as being quoted by 2nd Century writers such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote almost 200 years before the estimated dates of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I ask, is it sensible to prefer two, admittedly older manuscripts over hundreds of others?

2. Where manuscripts differ, the shorter reading is to be preferred over the longer.

The reasoning here is that scribes may have added comments to the text in the margin which later copyists have incorporated into the text. Obviously it is impossible to prove that this is not so, but is it not more likely that an inattentive copyist has accidentally left something out? Frankly, when it comes to the word of God, I expect the fuller, theologically richer reading to be correct. Let us look at two verses:

Luke 11:2b-4, NKJV. ‘Our Father in heaven , hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us day by day our daily bread and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’

Luke 11:2b-4, ESV. ‘Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.’

The wretchedly ugly and abbreviated reading of the ESV and most other modern versions is found in no more than five or six Greek manuscripts, whereas the Traditional Text is found in at least 600. The argument put forward by the supporters of the C.T. is that the Traditional reading has been harmonized with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, but this is really not very persuasive. There are at least two other differences between the Traditional readings of the Prayer in Matthew and Luke. Surely, if a scribe was going to harmonize Luke with Matthew, he would have done the job properly? It is far more probable that the reading of the C.T. is the result of an inattentive scribe missing out two sections of the prayer.

Here is another example of the same principle.

Romans 3:22, NKJV. ‘….Even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.’

Romans 3:22, ESV. ‘…..The righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, for all who believe.’

The C.T. version, exemplified by the ESV, is a tautology. It is through faith for all who believe. Well, who else would it be for if it’s through faith? The Traditional reading of the NKJV is much more profound. The righteousness of God by faith comes ‘to all’ as it is preached, but it is ‘upon all’ who receive it. The C.T. reading is found in about 20 manuscripts, the Traditional reading in several hundred. There is no reason why a scribe would have inserted extra words. Without doubt the shorter reading is the result of words being missed out.

[continued]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

3. The most unusual or ridiculous reading- the one that makes least sense- is most likely to be the original.

This is the theory that I find most offensive of all. The idea is that a reading that appears to make no sense, or contains a factual error, is likely to have been ‘corrected’ by a scribe at some stage. Even in secular writings, I wonder how helpful this rule is. If an ancient writer was accustomed to write nonsense, whyever is anyone studying him? But when we come to the word of God, surely no believer could possibly support such an idea. Either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t! If it is, then God did not inspire the Apostles and evangelists to write stuff that is wrong or which makes no sense. Let’s see how this works out is practice.

Eph. 3:14-15, NKJV. ‘For this reason I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family (or ‘people’ or ‘nation’) in heaven and earth is named.’

Eph. 3:14-15, NIV. ‘For this reason I kneel before the Father from whom the whole family in heaven and earth derives its name.’

The C.T. reading is supported by 19 Greek manuscripts; the Traditional reading is found is over 500, as well as the majority of the ancient writers who cite the verses.

By what name is the family of God known? Why, as Christians of course. We are not ‘Fatherians’ or ‘Godians.’ The NIV reading makes no real sense. Unfortunately this may be the very reason why many textual critics prefer it. The ESV tries to make some sense of its reading in a footnote where it suggests that the Greek word Patria might actually mean ‘fatherhood’ rather than ‘family.’ But this is not the word’s primary meaning as a glance at a Greek dictionary will confirm. As indicated above, patria means ‘family,’ ‘people’ or ‘nation.’ The English words ‘Patriarch,’ meaning head of the family, and ‘Patriotic’ come from it.

Luke 4:44- 5:1, NKJV. ‘And He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. So it was, as the multitudes pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the Lake of Gennesaret.’

Luke 4:44- 5:1, ESV. ‘And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret.’

Once again, the vast majority of ancient manuscripts, along with the Church Fathers, support the Traditional Text. The point here is that the Lake of Gennesaret is in Galilee, not Judea, but for that very reason, the majority of textual critics uphold the Critical Text and make Luke into a geographical nincompoop.

John 7:8-10, NKJV. ‘” You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee. But when His brothers had gone up, He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.’

John 7:8-10, ESV. ‘”You go up to the feast. I am not going to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly, but in private.’

The question is over the little word ‘yet’ in verse 8. Its omission makes out the Lord Jesus to be either indecisive or a liar. The word is missing in only a tiny number of the hundreds of extant ancient manuscripts; even Codex Vaticanus contains it. Yet the ESV and also, to its shame, the NASB, omit the word, though the NIV (1984 edition) includes it. The ESV writes in its margin, ‘Some manuscripts add yet.’ Some manuscripts? Would it not be more honest to say, ‘98% of the manuscripts add yet’? The only possible reason to omit the word is that just because the C.T. reading is so ridiculous and objectionable, a scribe might possibly have added it. Such an explanation might be acceptable to a Richard Dawkins or a Bart Erhmann, but it surely cannot be acceptable to anyone who believes that the Bible is the true and complete word of God. The word from heaven declared, “This is My beloved Son; hear Him!” (Mark 9:7). Why would we listen to someone who was either a liar or couldn’t make up his mind? No, no! We should accept the witness of the vast majority of the ancient witnesses, dismiss the omission as the error of an inattentive copyist, and honour Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

To sum up, I believe that the Bible is the very word of God, and as such I believe that the most exalted, God-honouring reading of a text is likely to be the correct one. I do not believe that God would have hidden His word in a tiny number of Greek manuscripts, and to have locked away the correct readings from His people for hundreds of years. Nor do I believe that textual critics who are not evangelical Christians should be given any authority to say what the text of the Bible is. I am prepared to listen to people like Don Carson or James White, even though I don’t agree with them, but I am not prepared to accept the views of a Kurt Aland or a Bruce Metzger or anyone for whom the Bible is not the word of God in its entirety

From my blog post: Critical Text or Traditional Text? Free to all to use]

 

[Logos1560]

Sources Consulted

Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed.
John William Burgon, The Revision Revised.
Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended.

Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text.

Are you appealing to these authors without presenting their actual reasoning and without proving that they agree with your assertions and conclusions?

You do not present proof for your many unproven assertions.

 

[Logos1560]

Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed.

In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Frederick 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).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Does your own source John William Burgon refute the fable of a perfect Textus Receptus and the fable of a perfect 1611 KJV? John William Burgon did not advocate a Textus Receptus-only view nor a KJV-only view.

Burgon’s statements about the Textus Receptus do not touch the argument I presented. My article addressed two specific modern slogans: that the preserved text is faulty and that oldest is best.

Burgon’s position actually supports the point I made. He rejected the Alexandrian text, he rejected the theory behind the reconstructed text, and he argued for the traditional text based on the broad manuscript evidence of copies, versions, and fathers. That is the preserved stream I described.

My argument stands untouched. The preserved stream is documented across manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic writers, and ancient versions. The oldest‑is‑best slogan collapses because age of parchment is not age of text.

Your quotations do not contradict the article, but they do illustrate the difference between quote stacking and source grounding.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Frederick 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).

Scrivener’s observations about Erasmus and about places where the KJV translators followed the Vulgate do not touch the argument I presented. My article addressed two specific modern slogans: that the preserved text is faulty and that oldest is best.

Scrivener’s comments actually reinforce the point I made. He documented the broad continuity of the traditional text across manuscripts, lectionaries, and versions, and he also acknowledged that printed editions contain places needing correction. That is simply the reality of transmission.

The fact that Erasmus inferred a few readings from the Latin, or that the KJV translators sometimes followed the Vulgate where they judged it correct, does not refute preservation. It simply shows that the preserved stream was transmitted through many witnesses, not through one edition.

My argument stands untouched. The preserved stream is documented across the majority of manuscripts, the lectionaries, the patristic writers, and the ancient versions. The oldest‑is‑best slogan collapses because age of parchment is not age of text.

Your quotations illustrate the difference between quote stacking and source grounding, but they do not contradict the article.

 

[Logos1560]

My argument stands untouched.

Your argument does not actually stand untouched, and you have not proven your argument to be true. Your argument that seems to try to suggest that all the readings of the preserved stream appear in the majority of Greek NT manuscripts is not correct. You have not proven that your sources would actually agree with what you assert.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Glenn Conjurske maintained that KJV defenders “have read Burgon without half understanding him—though indeed he is not hard to understand—and have coupled his protest with the most invincible ignorance and the most arrogant prejudice. And they have crippled Burgon’s protest, by saddling it with a host of the most baseless of fictions” (Olde Paths, April, 1995, p. 75; Bible Version, p. 156). Glenn Conjurske asserted that the stand of the Dean Burgon Society “is far away from anything which Burgon held” (May, 1996, p. 100). Glenn Conjurske observed that Burgon “believed that there were inaccuracies and mistranslations in the King James Version and that the Revised Version remedied some of them” (p. 102). Glenn Conjurske contended that “in our own generation there are a great many who suppose that they hold Burgon’s view, but who in fact hold a view which Burgon had nothing to do with” (Bible Version, p. 165). Glenn Conjurske maintained that “Burgon never applied his doctrine to any printed Greek New Testament, nor to any single manuscript, but held that the true text was dispersed in all the manuscripts, to be ferreted out and established by patient and painstaking labor, to which he gave much of his life” (Ibid., p. 166).

Logos, you are quote stacking again.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos, you are quote stacking again.

You are trying to dismiss the truth again. You do not answer or refute the observations of Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, who was a strong defender of the KJV and a critic of modern versions.

 

[Logos1560]

Quotations from the writings of John William Burgon would affirm that Glenn Conjurske accurately presented or described the view of Burgon.

Dean John William 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" (The Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 3). John William 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 himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Dean Burgon himself 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?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (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). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 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 concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). Do KJV-only advocates agree with Burgon “consistently Christian method of New Testament textual criticism”?

Peter Ruckman referred to Dean Burgon as “the greatest textual authority of the nineteenth century” (Errors, p. 441). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1). In 1864, John William Burgon maintained 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). Burgon noted: “GOD has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon asserted: “From the very nature of the case, he who transcribes a MS. must fall into error sometimes” (p. 66).

John William Burgon maintained “that the number of various readings in the New Testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated,” and he asserted that “in reality they are exceedingly few in number” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 16; Green, UnHoly Hands, I, p. B-5). Burgon asserted: "Let it be also candidly admitted that even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth" (Revision Revised, p. 232). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “It may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverable in the Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency of the scribes” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 21). John William Burgon wrote: “The Greek text ordinarily in use is that of Stephens, put forth at Paris in 1550” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). John William Burgon wrote: “The Greek text, as we have it in any ordinary edition, (that of Bp. Lloyd, for example, who reproduced that of Mill (1707), which is very nearly that of Stephens (1550),) is known to be generally correct, --quite correct enough for all practical purposes” (p. 70). Burgon wrote: “S. Luke’s history of the Temptation (4:8) contains five words which some ancient copyist must have inserted from remembering too well the parallel place in S. Matthew 4:10, and confounding it with the language of S. Matthew 16:23” (p. 76).

 

[Logos1560]

The claim that the preserved text is faulty is repeated without evidence. It is asserted without identifying the specific readings that are supposedly wrong. It is presented as a conclusion without demonstrating the premises. A claim of fault requires proof.

The fable of the faulty preserved text collapses because it has no evidence.

Perhaps you present the slogan and fable without convincing evidence or without proof. Perhaps you also present a strawman misrepresentation since you do not accurately present the views of those who may disagree with your unproven claims. You fail to present accurately all the particulars and details concerning your claimed "preserved stream."

Could the 2026 Sixth Edition of the book entitled Scribal Skips: 2000 Words that Fell Out of the Bible by Wayne Mitchell present the evidence that you assert has not been presented? There was an earlier 2020 fourth edition of this book entitled Scribal Skips: 1300 Words that Fell Out of the Bible so this author has found additional examples. The fourth edition has 160 pages while the sixth edition that I received yesterday has 252 pages.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Could the 2026 Sixth Edition of the book

Naming a book is not identifying a reading, a manuscript, or a witness. You are still declaring, not demonstrating. My point stands until you provide specific textual evidence.

 

[Logos1560]

My point stands until you provide specific textual evidence.

Your declaration does not make your point stand when specific textual evidence is found in the source Scribal Skips: 2000 Words that Fell Out of the Bible by Wayne Mitchell. That book identifies the readings and the witnesses that you try to dismiss. You appealed to sources with providing any direct quotations and specifics from them.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your declaration does not make your point stand when specific textual evidence is found in the source Scribal Skips: 2000 Words that Fell Out of the Bible by Wayne Mitchell. That book identifies the readings and the witnesses that you try to dismiss. You appealed to sources with providing any direct quotations and specifics from them.

You are still avoiding the actual point.

I said that my point stands until you provide specific textual evidence. You replied by naming a book. Naming a book is not the same thing as presenting evidence. You have not provided a single reading, a single manuscript, or a single witness in your own words. You have only pointed to a title.

You claim that the book identifies the readings and the witnesses. If that is so, then present them. Quote the specific reading. Identify the specific manuscript. Show the specific witness. Until you do that, you are still declaring rather than demonstrating.

You also accuse me of appealing to sources without providing direct quotations. That is not accurate. I did not appeal to any source. I asked you to produce evidence for your claim that the preserved text is faulty. You have not done so. You have only repeated the name of a book.

My point remains the same. A claim of textual fault requires specific readings, specific manuscripts, and specific witnesses. Until you present those, repeating the title of Scribal Skips does not advance the discussion.

If you want to engage the argument, provide the actual evidence. If you only repeat the book title, you are not interacting with the question.

 

[Logos1560]

I did not appeal to any source. I asked you to produce evidence for your claim that the preserved text is faulty.

In your opening post in this thread, you appealed to sources. However, you failed to demonstrate that those sources support your claims. You simply try to dismiss and avoid evidence when it is presented. Specifics were provided in other posts. You do not engage in serious discussion.

Concerning Joshua 2:1, Christian Ginsburg claimed: “Here the clause and the two young men came to Jericho is omitted because of the similar words and they came and they came. They are preserved in the Septuagint” (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, p. 175). Wayne Mitchell also cited Joshua 2:1 as a place where the Masoretic Text omitted words and where the words are found in the LXX (Scribal Skips, p. 29).

Listing Judges 16:13-14 as another passage with a scribal omission, Christian Ginsburg wrote: “Here the clause ‘then shall I be weak as another man. And it came to pass when he was asleep that Delialah took the seven locks of his head and wove them with the web and fastened them with a pin’ is omitted because of the two similar endings and fastened them with a pin … and fastened them with a pin. That the Septuagint exhibits the primitive text is moreover confirmed by the fact that the Massoretic text as it now stands says nothing about Samson having gone to sleep though verse 14 alludes to it” (pp. 176-177). About this passage, Kyle McCarter, Jr. asserted: “The shorter text of MT is the result of parablepsis [‘oversight’ or ‘faulty seeing’] in a text identical to that reflected by LXX” (Textual Criticism, p. 40). Wayne Mitchell again listed Judges 16:13-14a as a place with a scribal omission (Scribal Skips, p. 39).

Concerning 1 Samuel 3:15, Christian Ginsburg asserted: “Here the words ‘and he rose early in the morning’ are omitted because of the homoeoteleuton the morning … the morning. They are preserved in the Septuagint” (Introduction, p. 177). Wayne Mitchell also pointed out that the words “and in the morning he got up” at 1 Samuel 3:15 are omitted in the Masoretic text (Scribal Skips, p. 46). Ralph Klein cited the LXX reading “and he got up in the morning” at 1 Samuel 3:15 (Textual Criticism, p. 28).

In an additional example involving 1 Samuel 13:15, Christian Ginsburg contended: “Here the words ‘and went his way and the remnant of the people went after Saul to meet the men of war and they came out of Gilgal’ are omitted. The omitted clause which is due to the homoeoteleuton out of Gilgal . . . . out of Gilgal is preserved in the Septuagint” (Introduction, p. 177). Concerning 1 Samuel 13:15, Ralph Klein also cited the words preserved in the LXX that “have been lost by homoeoteleuton in MT” (Textual Criticism, p. 77). Wayne Mitchell also listed this clause at 1 Samuel 13:15 as being omitted in the Hebrew Masoretic text (Scribal Skips, p. 52).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

his is the theory that I find most offensive of all.

So you are offended. That is sad, but it is irrelevant. When someone becomes offended in a textual debate, it usually means one thing. They cannot answer the actual question.

When that happens, the discussion shifts into the familiar pattern.

tone policing, emotional framing, long digressions, appeals to experience.

None of that is evidence. None of that is demonstration. None of that is argument.

It is diversion.

Your length and your offense do not answer the question. I asked for specific textual evidence. You have provided commentary, but not the readings, not the manuscripts, and not the witnesses that support your claim. Truth is not established by volume or emotion. Truth is established by evidence.

If you want to engage the point, present the specific textual data. If you only react, you are not interacting with the argument.

 

[Logos1560]

If you only react, you are not interacting with the argument.

You only react to the sound evidence that exposes serious problems with your KJV-only "preserved stream" argument, but you do not prove your argument to be sound. You have been given specific textual evidence. You have not established your claims by sound verifiable evidence.

 

[Logos1560]

There are three Old Testament verses [Joshua 21:36-37; Nehemiah 7:68] that would prove that the KJV’s Old Testament was not based completely and solely on Ben Chayyim’s Hebrew Masoretic Text edition.

J. Scott Porter maintained that “it [Joshua 21:36-37] is left out of the Rabbinical Bibles of Ben Chajim, Buxtorf, and Ben Simeon” (Principles, p. 194). Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783) wrote: “In the 21st chapter of Joshua; the 36th and 37th verses, though clearly necessary to the sense of the chapter, having been accidentally omitted in some ancient copy, are omitted in many latter MSS: and being omitted in that copy or copies, on which the Masora was formed, they have been refused admittance into the printed Hebrew text, upon Masoretic authority” (State, II, p. 330). Benjamin Kennicott maintained that the Masora would “exclude at least two whole verses, which are beyond all disputation genuine” (pp. 284-285). Christian Ginsburg noted that Jacob ben Chayim "decided to omit them [Joshua 21:36-37) in accordance with a certain school of Massorites" (Introduction, p. 965).

KJV-only author Gail Riplinger acknowledged: “The original ben Chayim Hebrew Bible wrongly omitted Joshua 21:36-37” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1016). Gail Riplinger asserted: “This proves that the KJB translators DID NOT follow ben Chayim exclusively” (Ibid.). Gail Riplinger also maintained that “the original ben Chayim edition wrongly omitted Nehemiah 7:68” (p. 1017).

Kyle McCarter observed that Joshua 21:36-37 “are entirely missing in the Leningrad Codex and other major manuscripts of MT” and that the “cause of their omission in MT was homoioteleuton: Verses 35 and 37 ended with the same sequence” (Textual Criticism, p. 41). Scott Porter asserted that “the great majority of the MSS. of the Book of Joshua contain these verses,” claiming that 164 manuscripts have the verses while 68 omit them (Principles, p. 195). Douglas Somerset maintained that both Masoretic “Aleppo and Leningrad codices omit Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68. They also have tsaddik (‘righteousness’) in place of eretz (‘earth’) in Proverbs 8:16” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 242).

Do three whole missing verses make the KJV's underlying Hebrew Masoretic text faulty?