What Hundreds of Actual Words Preserved in the Textus Receptus Look Like.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth... Brother Glen

 

Comparing scripture with scripture... That is rightly dividing the word of truth... If scripture contradicts scripture, then the error is in the reader NEVER the writer!... That's the rule of thumb I use!... Brother Glen

 

Do you apply that same exact measure/standard to the verses in the KJV where its makers omitting giving any English word/rendering in those verses for original-language words of Scripture in its underlying texts?

Do you apply that same exact measure/standard to the verses with portions that were in a pre-1611 English Bible but are taken away in the KJV?

 

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). 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).

 

Clear evidence of the composite nature of the Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts can be seen again in the Greek NT manuscripts used by textual critic Robert Estienne or Stephanus (1503-1559) as he edited some TR text editions.

The first two editions [1546 and 1549] of Stephanus' Greek New Testament were a compound of the earlier editions by Erasmus and the earlier Complutensian Polyglot. His third edition (1550) is considered to be an important one. The edition of Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible edited by H. B. Hackett asserted that “numerous instances occur in which Robert Stephens deserts his former text and all his MSS to restore an Erasmian reading” (III, p. 2132).

KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Doug Stauffer wrote: “His 1550 edition was the first Greek New Testament with the critical apparatus providing the variant readings and symbols to indicate manuscript evidence” (One Book One Authority, p. 587). KJV-only author Tim Fellure asserted that Stephanus “is generally regarded as the first true textual critic” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 130). Edward F. Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Robert Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Plain Introduction, II, p. 189). Samuel Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30).

Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Edwin Bissell maintained that “in the edition of 1550, indeed, the first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually published, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four” (Historic Origin, p. 128). Samuel Tregelles affirmed that in Stephanus' 1550 folio edition "Erasmus was almost exclusively followed" (Account of the Printed Text, p. 30). Samuel Tregelles suggested: “The collation of MSS. had probably been made with Erasmus’s fifth edition, and thus Stephens in his principal edition used it as the basis of his text” (Ibid.). Charles E. Hammond claimed: “The influence of prescription already shows itself in the fact that Stephens often follows the text of Erasmus, in defiance of the authority of his manuscripts” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 11). Herbert Marsh asserted that “in the margin of this [1550] edition there are more than a hundred places, in which he [Stephens] has quoted all his authorities for readings different from his own” (Course of Lectures, p. 106). F. H. A. Scrivener as edited by Edward Miller maintained that Stephanus’ text of the 1550 edition “is perpetually at variance with the majority” of his fifteen Greek manuscripts and the Complutensian, “and in 119 places with them all” (Plain Introduction to the Criticism, Vol. II, p. 190). Robert B. Waltz cited “Scrivener’s report that there are 119 places where all of Stephen’s manuscripts read against the TR, but Stephens still chose to print the rendering in previous TR editions” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 855). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "through its [Erasmus's Greek text] being incorporated into the third edition of Robert Estienne's Greek Testament (1550) it influenced strongly the Greek Testament of Theodore de Beza" (Vol. 2, p. 57). Scrivener noted that his “own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).