Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Alan Kurschner of James White’s Alpha Omega Ministries (aomin) posted an article at their site titled,
“8 Reasons Why It Is Fallacious for KJVO Advocates to Invoke the Majority Rule”
It begins thus:
Very often you will hear a King James Version Only advocate claim that since the majority of Greek manuscripts that are extant today (which is a Byzantine text-form that is substantially behind the KJV translation) therefore the KJV is a superior translation. The following are eight reasons to debunk this fallacious KJV argument.
It is true that King James Version advocates make this claim in part, but it is not entirely true. Perhaps other KJV defenders do this; I do not. Text critic Maurice Robinson wrote, “…all printed Receptus texts do approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to allow a near-identity of reading between any Receptus edition and the majority of all manuscripts…” (full context of statement below). However – and Robinson is quick to point this out – he does not subscribe to the KJV / Textus Receptus position. KJV / AV defenders take a position based not solely on the majority of mss – although we do see God preserving the text to a great extent in the Byzantine/Majority group of manuscripts – but as well in His providential care of the text beyond that, going so far as to correct the Byzantine text with a number of readings (according to Robinson, 2%) from elsewhere. An objection to this is that this is not scientifically neutral text criticism, and we agree, not believing the true Bible text can be discerned by a supposed scientific method when supernatural forces are involved, one opposing its preservation and another promoting it. We believe God promised to preserve His word, and actually did. This position we shall endeavor to explain and defend.
The first of Kurschner’s eight reasons is this:
(1) The Greek text that is behind the KJV is not the “Majority Text”; rather it is called the Textus Receptus (TR). There are 1,838 differences between the Majority text and the TR! In other words there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts.
The 1,838 figure is from Daniel Wallace. Robinson differs by some 383 instances (1,500). Michael Marlowe says the number of translatable differences is 1,005 (this means that many “differences” are so minor that they do not affect the translation into English). Whatever the exact count, let us consider the issues. First I quote from the Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.
It is the 2% or so of differences between the TR and the MT that concerns us, what Kurschner calls “readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts”. Occasionally the KJV/AV will follow “a small minority,” but often this “small minority” is an illusion. To explain:
Jack Moorman, in his book, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence (also titled When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”), says,
I would like to focus for a moment – due to limited space here – only on Moorman’s point #2. Kurschner, in his point #1, stated, “there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts.” Let’s look at this issue a moment.
Hodges & Farstad, as well as Robinson and Pierpont, in their respective editions of the Majority Text, relied on Hermann Von Soden’s 1913 edition of a massive gathering and collation of the “majority” cursive manuscripts, Die Schriften des neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1902-1910). Although remarkable for the enormity of information gathered, as can be seen in its apparatus, later scholars examining it have declared it “honeycombed with errors” (H.C. Hoskier; JTS, 15-1914, p. 307)
Frederik Wisse, in his, The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence (Eerdmans, 1982), says,
Yet, as Moorman remarks, “…Hodges and Farstad went ahead and used von Soden to reconstruct the Received Text!” (When the KJV Departs…, p. 11)
What Moorman brings out, Von Soden's collating of the MSS was very incomplete, and relatively few of the thousands of MSS were represented. It was not in the least a depiction of how the majority of cursives read.
So when Kurschner says, “there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts”, this supposed small minority is really an unknown quantity, for Von Soden did not use but a fraction of the MSS that existed. On this topic, I quote from Kevin James’, The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship (distributed by Micro-Load Press, 1990, ISBN: 0962442003):
For those interested in reading this now out-of-print work (perhaps you can get it through Inter-library Loan), he collates and studies a number of Greek manuscripts in the following chapters.
To continue examining this phenomenon of thousands of majority text manuscripts deliberately unexamined and their testimony thus consigned to silence by the prejudice of the establishment CT critics, we turn to Frederik Wisse, in his, The Profile Method.
The late Kurt Aland, director of the manuscript centre at Muster, Germany – where about 80% of all Greek manuscripts are available on microfilm – admitted,
Jack Moorman points out (quoting from his book referred to above), “However, Aland’s interest in the vast repository of MS evidence which he oversees is not what we would expect…Wisse explains:”
Moorman continues, “Therefore, when we read about many more cursives being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek NT; we are not to believe that a significant shift away from the Alexandrian text has taken place…Wisse singles out the central reason why textual criticism cannot afford to pass over the great mass of manuscripts:”
Moorman continues, “When Aleph and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, display 3,000 clear differences in the Gospels (they must be weary of hearing this!); then what candidate do they propose for ‘relatively uncorrupted tradition.’?
“They have none! Yet they continue to work at the miserable business of keeping the TR-KJV out of public sight, without giving all the witnesses a chance to speak. Hodges and Farstad reacted against this and turned to the work of Hermann von Soden for help.
“Wisse sums it up:
Interesting information, no? (The above quotes from Jack Moorman's, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence, pp. 4-7.
So to say that the AV uses “a small minority of Greek texts” in its readings is really following the line of those who have suppressed the majority of extant Greek manuscripts on the basis of blatant bias.
Do we err saying that God, foreseeing such doings by men imposing their own biased methods on His people, preempted their schemes and preserved His New Testament Scriptures centuries earlier, by giving Erasmus and the Reformation-era textual editors both the Byzantine text and those readings outside the Byz necessary to correct its few errors, so that in the Textus Receptus editions we could have His word unsullied, and fit to be translated into the standard text for the English-speaking world, and into the foreign languages of the world in the great missionary outreaches that followed?
God did not leave His people at the mercy of either Rome or German rationalistic (unbelieving) critics and those who bought their spiels.
------------------
Proceeding to Kurschner’s reason #2,
(2) To dovetail the last point, I adduce a few examples of numerous minority readings in verses found in the KJV, and the majority readings found in modern translations: Revelation 5:10; Acts 8:37; Acts 9:5; Revelation 22:19; Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 3:9 (the latter verse contains a variant attested by 99.5% of all Greek manuscripts, yet the KJV takes the .05% reading!). If the KJVO wanted to be consistent with the majority principle they should change these and many other readings.
Looking at his very first one, Revelation 5:10, I see we are going to re-visit some verses we discussed in the thread devoted to that and 5:9. Let’s look at a section of it from post 5:
This is where I shall answer Alan’s rebuke to me for using the old 1975 edition of Metzger’s Commentary. I do have to admit that the rating in the 1994 edition for [size=+1]tw qew[/size] – the CT reading in verse 9: “to God” (as opposed to the TR’s reading of [size=+1]tw qew hmaj[/size] “us to God” – was upgraded to an {A} rating “signifying that the text is certain” in the Committee’s opinion, rather than the {C} rating I gave it as per the former edition. (His allegation that I did this on purpose to hoodwink my readers is unworthy a brother in Christ dialoguing with a church elder, and is a breaking of the 9th commandment. I have since sprung for the new edition, and the UBS4 Greek NT as well.) As I look over the contents of the new edition on this verse, I see nothing at all has changed in terms of evidence, merely the opinions of the committee. They do have an entry now for [size=+1]ettoihsaj autouj[/size], “made them” in verse 10 of the CT reading. Metzger writes,
He gives this an {A} rating also, as he does now for verse 10’s [size=+1]basileusousin[/size] “they reign” – this was upgraded from {C} to an {A} as well. Nothing changed except their opinions. You may see on this post why I am wary of Metzger and his views.
The CT’s / NASB’s, as well as the MT’s “made them” – [size=+1]ettoihsaj autouj[/size] – of the 046 group of mss, and the TR’s /AV’s “made us” – [size=+1]ettoihsaj hmaj[/size] of the Andreas group of mss is what is in contention here. The Majority Text sides with the CT because it uses the 046 mss, where the TR uses the Andreas group. Metzger says the CT’s reading is “overwhelmingly supported,” but that is only with the stacked deck of suppressed Andreas readings in particular and Byzantine mss in general as has been noted above.
In Moorman’s apparatus he notes that it is in
And then he notes, as he did with regard to the CT’s/MT’s “them” earlier in the verse, that “there is no previous indication of who ‘they’ [in the CT] would be.”
All this to say, that the TR’s Andreas group readings have sufficient support to warrant their place as the true reading over the more poorly attested 046 readings. I refer you to the links provided above to see a bit more of the previous argumentation provided in this case. See also the remarks on Ephesians 3:9 below.
------------
Before we proceed to the second example Kurschner brings up, the reader will understand that our defense of the TR’s readings over against the Majority Text’s and the Critical Text’s is based upon a) the inadequate representation of the full body of Byzantine / Majority Text mss in the discussion, and the erroneous tabulation of the Andreas vis-à-vis the 046 mss when seeking to determine the readings in Revelation.
The next example AK brings up is Acts 8:37, the testimony of the Ethiopian eunuch. At this point, as there are some excellent defenses already available, I will just post the links to them (or this post would be far longer than it already is!):
Will Kinney gives a good examination of this verse on his site: Untitled
Dr. Thomas Holland on Acts 8:37 (from his edifying book Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version): Acts 8:37 - "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
Holland on Acts 9:5, 6: Acts 9:5-6 - "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks"
Will Kinney on Acts 9:5, 6: Untitled
Will Kinney on Rev 22:19: Untitled
Dr. Thomas Holland on Rev 22:19 Revelation 22:19 -"book of life" and the last six verses of Revelation 22
For more Holland articles on KJV “minority readings” from Crowned With Glory (scroll down a bit): Bible Versions F. A. Q., and Answers to Criticisms of the KJV
For more Kinney articles: articlespage
(I apologize for Mr. Kinney's sometimes disrespectful attitude to Dr. White; still he is a very able defender of the AV.)
Continuing to examine Rev 22:19 (and the last six verses of Revelation in general) I want to quote from a paper titled, “That Rascal Erasmus—Defense Of His Greek Text”, pages 5-8, by Dr. Daryl R. Coats (available for $2.00 at BFT – Bible For Today Webstore – item # OP2456). Most of us have heard stories of Erasmus’ poor copies of texts available to him, and especially the one about his offering to insert 1 John 5:7 into his Greek editions if but one Greek MS was shown him which contained it. Dr. Coats writes,
-------------
There are many more interesting details to Dr. Coats’ paper, mostly regarding the integrity of Erasmus’ text vis-à-vis modern text editors and editions.
The last of Kurschner’s “examples of minority readings” is in the phrase “the fellowship of the mystery” in Ephesians 3:9, where the TR Greek reads [size=+1]koinwnia[/size] – “fellowship” in the AV – and the CT and MT read [size=+1]oikonomia[/size] – “Administration/dispensation” in the modern versions. He says of this verse that it “contains a variant attested by 99.5% of all Greek manuscripts, yet the KJV takes the .05% reading!...If the KJVO wanted to be consistent with the majority principle they should change these and many other readings.”
In response I would say that the KJV advocates do not want to be consistent with the majority principle all the time! For is not this our primary distinctive contra the Majority Text position, that in certain particulars we hold God brought in other readings not in the (provisional) majority of mss to correct some faulty readings in that textform? And on what basis do we justify this? At no other point in the history of the New Testament text has such an auspicious confluence of events marked the emergence of this textform: 1) the care of Erasmus in gathering mss – under the providence of God in bringing certain ones to him – for his NT editions; 2) the labors of Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs in continuing and refining Erasmus’ work; 3) the stand of the post-Reformation theologians on this very textform – the Textus Receptus – opposing the assaults of Rome with the two-edged blade of the doctrines Sola Scriptura and the Providential Preservation of that Scripture; 4) the blessing of God on that textform, its primary English translation – the AV – and the foreign-language translations which impacted the world through subsequent missionary movements. A question I would ask in the passing: Was the stand of the Reformation – and the Reformers – in error as regards the validity of their doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation? In other words, was Rome correct in asserting the invalidity of the Reformation’s text in the face of the variants they produced to counter it, the very same variants which distinguish the Critical Text based on Codex Vaticanus and other Alexandrian-type mss today?
Just as we stand on God’s word as regards the creation account in Genesis, despite all the supposed evidences of the evolutionists and evolutionary theorists – believing His word to be true notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary – even so do we believe His promises that His word is not only directly inspired by Him but that it will also be preserved by Him through time and eternity. We do not stand on science or scientific method – although we are glad to see true science as it aligns with the realities of God’s universal sovereignty – but on the realities of God’s word, and in this case, His promises. We may be ridiculed and scorned by scoffers of all stripes, but we will trust in Him and hold our heads high in His truth.
A pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:
He closes the essay with these words,
Those interested in obtaining Dr. Letis' works see this post: http://www.puritanboard.com/273938-post24.html
But to the text: In Erasmus’ 3rd edition of 1522, in both Greek and Latin, Ephesians 3:9 reads in the Greek, [size=+1]koinwnia[/size] – “Fellowship” in the AV – and in the Latin: Communio, which likewise translates “fellowship”. He did not get this reading from the Latin Vulgate, for their reading at this point is dispensatio, translated dispensation or administration in accord with the CT and MT.
At the time of this writing Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament is in the mail to me, and I will see what he says about his sources when I receive it. In the meanwhile I will note what Jack Moorman says about it in his book on the Majority Text and when the KJV departs from it. These are his notes:
The TR reading is found in,
I’m sorry to have gone on so long, but I wanted to give some substantial answer to the legitimate issues Alan Kurschner brings up. For this really is a very important topic – the disparity between the MT and the TR – and it needs to be addressed.
I will continue to answer Alan Kurschner’s remaining 6 points. Let these first two suffice for now while I work on the others. He actually takes a different tack in points 3 to 8, attacking the Byzantine / Majority text directly. The defense here is different than in the first two points, and will prove an interesting exercise.
“8 Reasons Why It Is Fallacious for KJVO Advocates to Invoke the Majority Rule”
It begins thus:
Very often you will hear a King James Version Only advocate claim that since the majority of Greek manuscripts that are extant today (which is a Byzantine text-form that is substantially behind the KJV translation) therefore the KJV is a superior translation. The following are eight reasons to debunk this fallacious KJV argument.
It is true that King James Version advocates make this claim in part, but it is not entirely true. Perhaps other KJV defenders do this; I do not. Text critic Maurice Robinson wrote, “…all printed Receptus texts do approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to allow a near-identity of reading between any Receptus edition and the majority of all manuscripts…” (full context of statement below). However – and Robinson is quick to point this out – he does not subscribe to the KJV / Textus Receptus position. KJV / AV defenders take a position based not solely on the majority of mss – although we do see God preserving the text to a great extent in the Byzantine/Majority group of manuscripts – but as well in His providential care of the text beyond that, going so far as to correct the Byzantine text with a number of readings (according to Robinson, 2%) from elsewhere. An objection to this is that this is not scientifically neutral text criticism, and we agree, not believing the true Bible text can be discerned by a supposed scientific method when supernatural forces are involved, one opposing its preservation and another promoting it. We believe God promised to preserve His word, and actually did. This position we shall endeavor to explain and defend.
The first of Kurschner’s eight reasons is this:
(1) The Greek text that is behind the KJV is not the “Majority Text”; rather it is called the Textus Receptus (TR). There are 1,838 differences between the Majority text and the TR! In other words there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts.
The 1,838 figure is from Daniel Wallace. Robinson differs by some 383 instances (1,500). Michael Marlowe says the number of translatable differences is 1,005 (this means that many “differences” are so minor that they do not affect the translation into English). Whatever the exact count, let us consider the issues. First I quote from the Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.
For over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which texttype might be favored by any critic.[6] This undisputed bulk of the text reflects a common pre-existing archetype (the autograph), which has universal critical acceptance. In the remaining one-fifth of the Greek New Testament, the Byzantine/Majority Textform represents the pattern of readings found in the Greek manuscripts predominating during the 1000-year Byzantine era. Early printed editions of the Greek New Testament reflect a general agreement with the Byzantine-era manuscripts upon which they were based. Such manuscripts and early printed editions are commonly termed "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" documents, based upon the term applied to the Elzevir 1624 printed Greek edition. Other editions commonly termed "Textus Receptus" include the editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephens 1550, and Beza 1598. George Ricker Berry has correctly noted that "in the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus."
All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely paralleled (but were not identical with) the text which underlies the English-language King James or Authorized Version of 1611. That version was based closely upon the Greek text of Beza 1598, which differed but little from its Textus Receptus predecessors or from the derived text of the few Byzantine manuscripts upon which those editions were based. Nevertheless, neither the early English translations nor the early printed Greek New Testaments reflected a perfect agreement with the predominant Byzantine/Majority Textform, since no single manuscript or small group of manuscripts is 100% identical with the aggregate form of that text.
Most of the significant translatable differences between the early Textus Receptus editions and the Byzantine/Majority Textform are clearly presented in the English-language "M-text" footnotes appended to most editions of the New King James Version, published by Thomas Nelson Co. Those M-notes, however, are tied to the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and do not always coincide with the present Byzantine/Majority Textform edition.
There are approximately 1500 differences between any Receptus edition and either the present text or that of Hodges-Farstad. Nevertheless, all printed Receptus texts do approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to allow a near-identity of reading between any Receptus edition and the majority of all manuscripts.… (pp. xvi-xviii)
Footnote: [6] A texttype is a specific pattern of variant readings shared among a fairly distinct group of manuscripts. The manuscripts which "belong" to a certain texttype are not themselves equal to that generalized text, since each manuscript has its own peculiar readings, as well as some mixture from readings of other texttypes. The texttype exists apart from and beyond the manuscripts which comprise it.
All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely paralleled (but were not identical with) the text which underlies the English-language King James or Authorized Version of 1611. That version was based closely upon the Greek text of Beza 1598, which differed but little from its Textus Receptus predecessors or from the derived text of the few Byzantine manuscripts upon which those editions were based. Nevertheless, neither the early English translations nor the early printed Greek New Testaments reflected a perfect agreement with the predominant Byzantine/Majority Textform, since no single manuscript or small group of manuscripts is 100% identical with the aggregate form of that text.
Most of the significant translatable differences between the early Textus Receptus editions and the Byzantine/Majority Textform are clearly presented in the English-language "M-text" footnotes appended to most editions of the New King James Version, published by Thomas Nelson Co. Those M-notes, however, are tied to the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and do not always coincide with the present Byzantine/Majority Textform edition.
There are approximately 1500 differences between any Receptus edition and either the present text or that of Hodges-Farstad. Nevertheless, all printed Receptus texts do approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to allow a near-identity of reading between any Receptus edition and the majority of all manuscripts.… (pp. xvi-xviii)
Footnote: [6] A texttype is a specific pattern of variant readings shared among a fairly distinct group of manuscripts. The manuscripts which "belong" to a certain texttype are not themselves equal to that generalized text, since each manuscript has its own peculiar readings, as well as some mixture from readings of other texttypes. The texttype exists apart from and beyond the manuscripts which comprise it.
It is the 2% or so of differences between the TR and the MT that concerns us, what Kurschner calls “readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts”. Occasionally the KJV/AV will follow “a small minority,” but often this “small minority” is an illusion. To explain:
Jack Moorman, in his book, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence (also titled When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”), says,
The Majority Text Edition [of Hodges and Farstad] concludes that the Greek text of our Authorized Version is represented by minority MS support in over 1800 readings and therefore defective in these places. Thus our opponents (Critical Text, modern versions) say our AV New Testament is wrong in 5,300 places, and now our friends say it’s off in 1800.
Zane Hodges has been a good ally. Several of the consulting editors, Harry Sturz, Jakob Van Bruggen, Alfred Martin, and Wilbur Pickering have contributed strongly to the defence of the Traditional Text. But with this production [The Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text (Nelson, 1982)] they have left us with a “tentative” Bible.
This is plainly stated on the jacket (second edition):
On page x we are told:
So we are bound to ask, if this isn’t, if the AV-Received Text isn’t, if the Critical Text isn’t; where must we go to get a Bible today? If after all these centuries we still have only a provisional, preliminary, tentative Bible; what are we to do?
Three major errors of judgment have led to this “provisional” edition:
1. The editors do not want to be seen relying upon God’s preservation of the text.
2. They have resorted to a source which cites only a minority of the evidence.
3. They have followed the wrong stream of MSS in the Book of Revelation.
These points along with a number of wider issues will be dealt with in the following chapters. (pp. v, vi)
Zane Hodges has been a good ally. Several of the consulting editors, Harry Sturz, Jakob Van Bruggen, Alfred Martin, and Wilbur Pickering have contributed strongly to the defence of the Traditional Text. But with this production [The Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text (Nelson, 1982)] they have left us with a “tentative” Bible.
This is plainly stated on the jacket (second edition):
Scholarly discipline permeates the editor’s logic and conclusions; yet Hodges and Farstad make no claims that this text in all its particulars is the exact form of the originals.
On page x we are told:
The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals…it should therefore be kept in mind that the present work…is both preliminary and provisional.
So we are bound to ask, if this isn’t, if the AV-Received Text isn’t, if the Critical Text isn’t; where must we go to get a Bible today? If after all these centuries we still have only a provisional, preliminary, tentative Bible; what are we to do?
Three major errors of judgment have led to this “provisional” edition:
1. The editors do not want to be seen relying upon God’s preservation of the text.
2. They have resorted to a source which cites only a minority of the evidence.
3. They have followed the wrong stream of MSS in the Book of Revelation.
These points along with a number of wider issues will be dealt with in the following chapters. (pp. v, vi)
I would like to focus for a moment – due to limited space here – only on Moorman’s point #2. Kurschner, in his point #1, stated, “there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts.” Let’s look at this issue a moment.
Hodges & Farstad, as well as Robinson and Pierpont, in their respective editions of the Majority Text, relied on Hermann Von Soden’s 1913 edition of a massive gathering and collation of the “majority” cursive manuscripts, Die Schriften des neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1902-1910). Although remarkable for the enormity of information gathered, as can be seen in its apparatus, later scholars examining it have declared it “honeycombed with errors” (H.C. Hoskier; JTS, 15-1914, p. 307)
Frederik Wisse, in his, The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence (Eerdmans, 1982), says,
Once the extent of error is seen, the word “inaccuracy” becomes a euphemism…
…von Soden’s inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used. (pp. 16, 17)
…von Soden’s inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used. (pp. 16, 17)
Yet, as Moorman remarks, “…Hodges and Farstad went ahead and used von Soden to reconstruct the Received Text!” (When the KJV Departs…, p. 11)
What Moorman brings out, Von Soden's collating of the MSS was very incomplete, and relatively few of the thousands of MSS were represented. It was not in the least a depiction of how the majority of cursives read.
So when Kurschner says, “there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts”, this supposed small minority is really an unknown quantity, for Von Soden did not use but a fraction of the MSS that existed. On this topic, I quote from Kevin James’, The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship (distributed by Micro-Load Press, 1990, ISBN: 0962442003):
Some examples of places where a King James wording seemingly has little support are given in the following chapters. Seemingly, because, while most existing New Testament copies have been roughly categorized into “majority” or “non-majority” groupings, the exact text of thousands of existing manuscripts is unknown except in a handful of places. [Emphasis mine –SMR]
It should be understood that it is impossible to prove which of two or more competing wording variations is the original since the originals have long since disappeared. But it is the height of folly to throw the settled received text of three and one-half centuries into the dustbin to make a revision when the exact contents of thousands of existing copies of mainstream tradition manuscripts is unknown [this last emphasis mine –SMR]. A clear picture of New Testament manuscript transmission history is also lacking. Finally, unless the vigilance of a living God is recognized, attempts at revision of the King James can easily stray from a stated target of supplying God’s people with a “better” New Testament.
Paul said: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) This should be the guiding principle for the Christian church when dealing with the intricacies of the wording of the original text. (pp. viii, ix)
It should be understood that it is impossible to prove which of two or more competing wording variations is the original since the originals have long since disappeared. But it is the height of folly to throw the settled received text of three and one-half centuries into the dustbin to make a revision when the exact contents of thousands of existing copies of mainstream tradition manuscripts is unknown [this last emphasis mine –SMR]. A clear picture of New Testament manuscript transmission history is also lacking. Finally, unless the vigilance of a living God is recognized, attempts at revision of the King James can easily stray from a stated target of supplying God’s people with a “better” New Testament.
Paul said: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) This should be the guiding principle for the Christian church when dealing with the intricacies of the wording of the original text. (pp. viii, ix)
For those interested in reading this now out-of-print work (perhaps you can get it through Inter-library Loan), he collates and studies a number of Greek manuscripts in the following chapters.
To continue examining this phenomenon of thousands of majority text manuscripts deliberately unexamined and their testimony thus consigned to silence by the prejudice of the establishment CT critics, we turn to Frederik Wisse, in his, The Profile Method.
The late Kurt Aland, director of the manuscript centre at Muster, Germany – where about 80% of all Greek manuscripts are available on microfilm – admitted,
…the main problem in N.T. textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts…(The Significance of the Papyrii pp. 330,1, quoted in Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text)
Jack Moorman points out (quoting from his book referred to above), “However, Aland’s interest in the vast repository of MS evidence which he oversees is not what we would expect…Wisse explains:”
Yet Aland’s interest in the miniscules is not for their own sake. He is no longer satisfied with Hort’s judgment that the discovery of important cursives is most improbable. He wants to find the few hypothetical nuggets which Hort did not think were worth the effort. Aland wants to be able to say that he has searched the miniscules exhaustively for anything of value. This search of course, presupposed that the miniscules as such are of little value…Miniscules have to pass a test before they are worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All MSS which are generally Byzantine will fail (Profile Method, p. 4)
Moorman continues, “Therefore, when we read about many more cursives being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek NT; we are not to believe that a significant shift away from the Alexandrian text has taken place…Wisse singles out the central reason why textual criticism cannot afford to pass over the great mass of manuscripts:”
In a situation where MS evidence runs into more than 5000 separate items and a time span of more than fourteen centuries, it should be questioned whether all this evidence is relevant for the establishment of the original text. It may well be that the oldest copies in existence are adequate representatives of the MS tradition so that the rest can be ignored. After all, why start more than thirteen centuries after the autographs were written and wade back through literally thousands of MSS in an immensely complicated process…To find the foundation of a building one does not first climb the roof; one starts somewhere below the ground floor.
This argument…forms the background for all those who consider it justified to ignore all, or almost all, miniscules…
There is basically only one argument which can circumvent the task of studying all the late miniscules…This argument is that among the early uncials there are the MSS which stand in a relatively uncorrupted tradition, and which show all other text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted. Only if this argument can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late miniscules fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, can we safely omit a full study of these MSS (Profile Method, pp. 1, 2)
This argument…forms the background for all those who consider it justified to ignore all, or almost all, miniscules…
There is basically only one argument which can circumvent the task of studying all the late miniscules…This argument is that among the early uncials there are the MSS which stand in a relatively uncorrupted tradition, and which show all other text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted. Only if this argument can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late miniscules fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, can we safely omit a full study of these MSS (Profile Method, pp. 1, 2)
Moorman continues, “When Aleph and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, display 3,000 clear differences in the Gospels (they must be weary of hearing this!); then what candidate do they propose for ‘relatively uncorrupted tradition.’?
“They have none! Yet they continue to work at the miserable business of keeping the TR-KJV out of public sight, without giving all the witnesses a chance to speak. Hodges and Farstad reacted against this and turned to the work of Hermann von Soden for help.
“Wisse sums it up:
Except in von Soden’s inaccurate and unused pages, the miniscules have never been allowed to speak (Profile Method, p. 5).”
Interesting information, no? (The above quotes from Jack Moorman's, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence, pp. 4-7.
So to say that the AV uses “a small minority of Greek texts” in its readings is really following the line of those who have suppressed the majority of extant Greek manuscripts on the basis of blatant bias.
Do we err saying that God, foreseeing such doings by men imposing their own biased methods on His people, preempted their schemes and preserved His New Testament Scriptures centuries earlier, by giving Erasmus and the Reformation-era textual editors both the Byzantine text and those readings outside the Byz necessary to correct its few errors, so that in the Textus Receptus editions we could have His word unsullied, and fit to be translated into the standard text for the English-speaking world, and into the foreign languages of the world in the great missionary outreaches that followed?
God did not leave His people at the mercy of either Rome or German rationalistic (unbelieving) critics and those who bought their spiels.
------------------
Proceeding to Kurschner’s reason #2,
(2) To dovetail the last point, I adduce a few examples of numerous minority readings in verses found in the KJV, and the majority readings found in modern translations: Revelation 5:10; Acts 8:37; Acts 9:5; Revelation 22:19; Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 3:9 (the latter verse contains a variant attested by 99.5% of all Greek manuscripts, yet the KJV takes the .05% reading!). If the KJVO wanted to be consistent with the majority principle they should change these and many other readings.
Looking at his very first one, Revelation 5:10, I see we are going to re-visit some verses we discussed in the thread devoted to that and 5:9. Let’s look at a section of it from post 5:
This is where I shall answer Alan’s rebuke to me for using the old 1975 edition of Metzger’s Commentary. I do have to admit that the rating in the 1994 edition for [size=+1]tw qew[/size] – the CT reading in verse 9: “to God” (as opposed to the TR’s reading of [size=+1]tw qew hmaj[/size] “us to God” – was upgraded to an {A} rating “signifying that the text is certain” in the Committee’s opinion, rather than the {C} rating I gave it as per the former edition. (His allegation that I did this on purpose to hoodwink my readers is unworthy a brother in Christ dialoguing with a church elder, and is a breaking of the 9th commandment. I have since sprung for the new edition, and the UBS4 Greek NT as well.) As I look over the contents of the new edition on this verse, I see nothing at all has changed in terms of evidence, merely the opinions of the committee. They do have an entry now for [size=+1]ettoihsaj autouj[/size], “made them” in verse 10 of the CT reading. Metzger writes,
The third person pronoun, which is overwhelmingly supported, was replaced by [size=+1]hmaj[/size] in several versional and patristic witnesses, followed by the Textus Receptus.
He gives this an {A} rating also, as he does now for verse 10’s [size=+1]basileusousin[/size] “they reign” – this was upgraded from {C} to an {A} as well. Nothing changed except their opinions. You may see on this post why I am wary of Metzger and his views.
The CT’s / NASB’s, as well as the MT’s “made them” – [size=+1]ettoihsaj autouj[/size] – of the 046 group of mss, and the TR’s /AV’s “made us” – [size=+1]ettoihsaj hmaj[/size] of the Andreas group of mss is what is in contention here. The Majority Text sides with the CT because it uses the 046 mss, where the TR uses the Andreas group. Metzger says the CT’s reading is “overwhelmingly supported,” but that is only with the stacked deck of suppressed Andreas readings in particular and Byzantine mss in general as has been noted above.
In Moorman’s apparatus he notes that it is in
Tyndale Great Geneva Bishops / Steph. Beza Elz. / 296 2049 2066 2432 / About 6 (apparently) of Hoskier’s cursives / Old Latin: dem; …Vulgate: Clementine …demid …lipss; …Armenian: 3 early mss. …Maternus (?) 384 …Tyconius, Latin 380 …Prismasius, Adrumentum, Latin, 552 …Bede, England, Latin, 735 …Haymo, Halberstadt, Latin, 841 …Arethas, Cappadocia, 914.
And then he notes, as he did with regard to the CT’s/MT’s “them” earlier in the verse, that “there is no previous indication of who ‘they’ [in the CT] would be.”
All this to say, that the TR’s Andreas group readings have sufficient support to warrant their place as the true reading over the more poorly attested 046 readings. I refer you to the links provided above to see a bit more of the previous argumentation provided in this case. See also the remarks on Ephesians 3:9 below.
------------
Before we proceed to the second example Kurschner brings up, the reader will understand that our defense of the TR’s readings over against the Majority Text’s and the Critical Text’s is based upon a) the inadequate representation of the full body of Byzantine / Majority Text mss in the discussion, and the erroneous tabulation of the Andreas vis-à-vis the 046 mss when seeking to determine the readings in Revelation.
The next example AK brings up is Acts 8:37, the testimony of the Ethiopian eunuch. At this point, as there are some excellent defenses already available, I will just post the links to them (or this post would be far longer than it already is!):
Will Kinney gives a good examination of this verse on his site: Untitled
Dr. Thomas Holland on Acts 8:37 (from his edifying book Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version): Acts 8:37 - "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
Holland on Acts 9:5, 6: Acts 9:5-6 - "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks"
Will Kinney on Acts 9:5, 6: Untitled
Will Kinney on Rev 22:19: Untitled
Dr. Thomas Holland on Rev 22:19 Revelation 22:19 -"book of life" and the last six verses of Revelation 22
For more Holland articles on KJV “minority readings” from Crowned With Glory (scroll down a bit): Bible Versions F. A. Q., and Answers to Criticisms of the KJV
For more Kinney articles: articlespage
(I apologize for Mr. Kinney's sometimes disrespectful attitude to Dr. White; still he is a very able defender of the AV.)
Continuing to examine Rev 22:19 (and the last six verses of Revelation in general) I want to quote from a paper titled, “That Rascal Erasmus—Defense Of His Greek Text”, pages 5-8, by Dr. Daryl R. Coats (available for $2.00 at BFT – Bible For Today Webstore – item # OP2456). Most of us have heard stories of Erasmus’ poor copies of texts available to him, and especially the one about his offering to insert 1 John 5:7 into his Greek editions if but one Greek MS was shown him which contained it. Dr. Coats writes,
The supposed “Erasmian Inventions”
Modern critics such as Metzger almost gleefully repeat the story that when Erasmus put together his Greek New Testament, he had access to only one copy of Revelation, a “very mutilated” copy missing the last six verses of the book and damaged in verse 17:4. As a result Erasmus supposedly retranslated the missing verses from the Latin vulgate back into Greek, producing several readings supposedly known in no Greek manuscripts and one word ([size=+1]akaqavrthtoV[/size] in 17:4) which doesn’t even exist in Greek. These readings (to Metzger’s apparent distress!) “are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus” [The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Edition, by Bruce Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 100.
Even if this story were completely true,* these “Erasmian inventions” are of no consequence unless a person believes that the New Testament exists in no language other than the “original Greek.” Pressed to prove the seriousness of his claim of supposed inventions, Metzger lists only 33 words. Of these 33 words, 18 match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament which Metzger helped edit! Of the 15 words that don’t Metzger’s own text, 11 make no difference in English translation. Of the four words that do affect translation, three are found in Codex Sinaiticus ([size=+1]a[/size]), the oldest existing “complete Greek manuscript of Revelation!**
There are, however, at least three good reasons to doubt the validity of the story of Erasmus and his mutilated copy of Revelation: 1) the only evidence for it is that the manuscript apparently used by Erasmus for Revelation is missing its last page;*** 2) Erasmus’s Latin New Testament doesn’t agree with the Latin Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation (a problem if his Greek text for those verses was derived from the Vulgate); and 3) there exists Codex 141.†
H.C. Hoskier spent a lifetime collating every edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, several other printed Greek New Testaments, and almost all of the known Greek manuscripts of Revelation….His study and collation of Revelation in Codex 141 surprised him, because it contained substantially the same text that appears in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. In Hoskier’s own words:
In an effort to nullify the testimony of Codex 141, most “scholars” assign the manuscript a “young” age and simply claim that it is a copy of Erasmus’s (or Aldus’s or Colinaeus’s) printed Greek New Testament. But based on his study of the penmanship of the scribe who composed it, Hoskier determined that Codex 141 was executed in the 15th century—well before Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was printed; and based on his study of its contents (and the collation of same), Hoskier determined that MS 141 “has no appearance of being a copy of any [printed edition of the Greek New Testament], although containing their text (Coats’s emphasis).†† There is, then, manuscript evidence to support the supposed “Erasmian readings”—as much as there is to support the reading of Revelation 5:9 that appears in all the modern “bibles”—and critics who claim otherwise are either ignorant or purposely deceitful.
-------------
Footnotes
* By their own admissions, not all the stories which these “scholars” tell about Erasmus are true. Since 1964, on p. 101 of all three editions of Text of the New Testament, Metzger has claimed that Erasmus inserted 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament only because “in an unguarded moment [he] promised that he would….if a single manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a manuscript was found—or made to order!” He has claimed further (pp. 62, 101) that Erasmus wrote notes stating his suspicions that the manuscript was a forgery and the passage was spurious. Yet in the third edition, in small print in footnote 2 on p. 292, he makes this admission: “What was said about Erasmus’ promise….and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to [add 1 John 5:7 to the text], needs to be corrected in light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” [bold emphasis mine –SMR; italic Coats’]. Why isn’t this admission in larger type in the text of the book? Why is the “assertion” (that is, lie!) still included? Because the enemies of the Bible are liars and crooks at heart.
** In Text of the New Testament (p. 100, n. 1), Metzger lists these “Erasmian inventions” in Revelation: one word in 17:14; one in 22:16; three in 22:17; seventeen in 22:18; ten in 22:19; and one in 22:21. But the “coined word” of 17:4 and the “invented words” of 22:16 & 17 are synonymous with the “original” words and make no difference in English translation.
Of the 17 words in question in 22:18, twelve match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament; two more are synonymous with the “original words” and make no difference in English translation. One word (a personal pronoun) “missing” from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament is also “missing” from many manuscripts of the Received Text, including von Soden’s subgroups c, d, and e—and including it makes no difference in English translation, because the King James translators already added a personal pronoun to the English text for clarity. The other two “invented words” appear in the scribal corrections in Codex [size=+1]a[/size]. (Other words in Erasmus’ text of this verse also appear in Codex A and the corrections in Codex [size=+1]a[/size].
Six of the ten “invented words” in 22:19 match the USB Greek text. Three more represent only differences in spelling or inflection (case; conjugation/voice) andmake no difference in English translation. Only [size=+1]biblou[/size] (“book”) would affect English translation (“book of life” vs. “tree of life”). The invention cited for 22:21 is almost laughable: [size=+1]amhvn[/size] (“amen”! The word is rejected by the UBS Greek New Testament, but it’s found in most of the manuscripts of the Received Text as well as in Codices [size=+1]a[/size], 046, 051, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2020, 2042, 2053, 2065 (commentary section), 2073, and 2138. It is also translated in most of the counterfeit “bibles” on the market…
*** The audacity of “scholars” in speculating (and then basing theories and “facts”) on the contents of a missing leaf of a manuscript—or even in assuming that the leaf was missing when Erasmus used the manuscript (provided that this is the manuscript he used)—aptly demonstrates the reliability of such men in matters of scholarship.
† The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is [size=+1]w[/size] 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens.
†† For full details, see H.C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together with the Testimony of the Versions, and Fathers; a Complete Conspectus of All Authorities, Vol. 1 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd, 1929), pp. 474-477. It was also Hoskier who noted that Erasmus’s Latin New Testament differs from the Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation.
Modern critics such as Metzger almost gleefully repeat the story that when Erasmus put together his Greek New Testament, he had access to only one copy of Revelation, a “very mutilated” copy missing the last six verses of the book and damaged in verse 17:4. As a result Erasmus supposedly retranslated the missing verses from the Latin vulgate back into Greek, producing several readings supposedly known in no Greek manuscripts and one word ([size=+1]akaqavrthtoV[/size] in 17:4) which doesn’t even exist in Greek. These readings (to Metzger’s apparent distress!) “are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus” [The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Edition, by Bruce Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 100.
Even if this story were completely true,* these “Erasmian inventions” are of no consequence unless a person believes that the New Testament exists in no language other than the “original Greek.” Pressed to prove the seriousness of his claim of supposed inventions, Metzger lists only 33 words. Of these 33 words, 18 match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament which Metzger helped edit! Of the 15 words that don’t Metzger’s own text, 11 make no difference in English translation. Of the four words that do affect translation, three are found in Codex Sinaiticus ([size=+1]a[/size]), the oldest existing “complete Greek manuscript of Revelation!**
There are, however, at least three good reasons to doubt the validity of the story of Erasmus and his mutilated copy of Revelation: 1) the only evidence for it is that the manuscript apparently used by Erasmus for Revelation is missing its last page;*** 2) Erasmus’s Latin New Testament doesn’t agree with the Latin Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation (a problem if his Greek text for those verses was derived from the Vulgate); and 3) there exists Codex 141.†
H.C. Hoskier spent a lifetime collating every edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, several other printed Greek New Testaments, and almost all of the known Greek manuscripts of Revelation….His study and collation of Revelation in Codex 141 surprised him, because it contained substantially the same text that appears in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. In Hoskier’s own words:
Upon reaching the end [of Revelation] and the famous final six verses, supposed to have been re-translated from the Vulgate into Greek by Erasmus when Codex I was discovered and found to lack the last leaf: the problem takes on a most important aspect. For if our MS. 141 is not copied from the printed text, then Erasmus would be absolved from the charge for which his memory has suffered for 400 years! [Emphasis in the original]
In an effort to nullify the testimony of Codex 141, most “scholars” assign the manuscript a “young” age and simply claim that it is a copy of Erasmus’s (or Aldus’s or Colinaeus’s) printed Greek New Testament. But based on his study of the penmanship of the scribe who composed it, Hoskier determined that Codex 141 was executed in the 15th century—well before Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was printed; and based on his study of its contents (and the collation of same), Hoskier determined that MS 141 “has no appearance of being a copy of any [printed edition of the Greek New Testament], although containing their text (Coats’s emphasis).†† There is, then, manuscript evidence to support the supposed “Erasmian readings”—as much as there is to support the reading of Revelation 5:9 that appears in all the modern “bibles”—and critics who claim otherwise are either ignorant or purposely deceitful.
-------------
Footnotes
* By their own admissions, not all the stories which these “scholars” tell about Erasmus are true. Since 1964, on p. 101 of all three editions of Text of the New Testament, Metzger has claimed that Erasmus inserted 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament only because “in an unguarded moment [he] promised that he would….if a single manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a manuscript was found—or made to order!” He has claimed further (pp. 62, 101) that Erasmus wrote notes stating his suspicions that the manuscript was a forgery and the passage was spurious. Yet in the third edition, in small print in footnote 2 on p. 292, he makes this admission: “What was said about Erasmus’ promise….and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to [add 1 John 5:7 to the text], needs to be corrected in light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” [bold emphasis mine –SMR; italic Coats’]. Why isn’t this admission in larger type in the text of the book? Why is the “assertion” (that is, lie!) still included? Because the enemies of the Bible are liars and crooks at heart.
** In Text of the New Testament (p. 100, n. 1), Metzger lists these “Erasmian inventions” in Revelation: one word in 17:14; one in 22:16; three in 22:17; seventeen in 22:18; ten in 22:19; and one in 22:21. But the “coined word” of 17:4 and the “invented words” of 22:16 & 17 are synonymous with the “original” words and make no difference in English translation.
Of the 17 words in question in 22:18, twelve match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament; two more are synonymous with the “original words” and make no difference in English translation. One word (a personal pronoun) “missing” from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament is also “missing” from many manuscripts of the Received Text, including von Soden’s subgroups c, d, and e—and including it makes no difference in English translation, because the King James translators already added a personal pronoun to the English text for clarity. The other two “invented words” appear in the scribal corrections in Codex [size=+1]a[/size]. (Other words in Erasmus’ text of this verse also appear in Codex A and the corrections in Codex [size=+1]a[/size].
Six of the ten “invented words” in 22:19 match the USB Greek text. Three more represent only differences in spelling or inflection (case; conjugation/voice) andmake no difference in English translation. Only [size=+1]biblou[/size] (“book”) would affect English translation (“book of life” vs. “tree of life”). The invention cited for 22:21 is almost laughable: [size=+1]amhvn[/size] (“amen”! The word is rejected by the UBS Greek New Testament, but it’s found in most of the manuscripts of the Received Text as well as in Codices [size=+1]a[/size], 046, 051, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2020, 2042, 2053, 2065 (commentary section), 2073, and 2138. It is also translated in most of the counterfeit “bibles” on the market…
*** The audacity of “scholars” in speculating (and then basing theories and “facts”) on the contents of a missing leaf of a manuscript—or even in assuming that the leaf was missing when Erasmus used the manuscript (provided that this is the manuscript he used)—aptly demonstrates the reliability of such men in matters of scholarship.
† The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is [size=+1]w[/size] 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens.
†† For full details, see H.C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together with the Testimony of the Versions, and Fathers; a Complete Conspectus of All Authorities, Vol. 1 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd, 1929), pp. 474-477. It was also Hoskier who noted that Erasmus’s Latin New Testament differs from the Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation.
-------------
There are many more interesting details to Dr. Coats’ paper, mostly regarding the integrity of Erasmus’ text vis-à-vis modern text editors and editions.
The last of Kurschner’s “examples of minority readings” is in the phrase “the fellowship of the mystery” in Ephesians 3:9, where the TR Greek reads [size=+1]koinwnia[/size] – “fellowship” in the AV – and the CT and MT read [size=+1]oikonomia[/size] – “Administration/dispensation” in the modern versions. He says of this verse that it “contains a variant attested by 99.5% of all Greek manuscripts, yet the KJV takes the .05% reading!...If the KJVO wanted to be consistent with the majority principle they should change these and many other readings.”
In response I would say that the KJV advocates do not want to be consistent with the majority principle all the time! For is not this our primary distinctive contra the Majority Text position, that in certain particulars we hold God brought in other readings not in the (provisional) majority of mss to correct some faulty readings in that textform? And on what basis do we justify this? At no other point in the history of the New Testament text has such an auspicious confluence of events marked the emergence of this textform: 1) the care of Erasmus in gathering mss – under the providence of God in bringing certain ones to him – for his NT editions; 2) the labors of Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs in continuing and refining Erasmus’ work; 3) the stand of the post-Reformation theologians on this very textform – the Textus Receptus – opposing the assaults of Rome with the two-edged blade of the doctrines Sola Scriptura and the Providential Preservation of that Scripture; 4) the blessing of God on that textform, its primary English translation – the AV – and the foreign-language translations which impacted the world through subsequent missionary movements. A question I would ask in the passing: Was the stand of the Reformation – and the Reformers – in error as regards the validity of their doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation? In other words, was Rome correct in asserting the invalidity of the Reformation’s text in the face of the variants they produced to counter it, the very same variants which distinguish the Critical Text based on Codex Vaticanus and other Alexandrian-type mss today?
Just as we stand on God’s word as regards the creation account in Genesis, despite all the supposed evidences of the evolutionists and evolutionary theorists – believing His word to be true notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary – even so do we believe His promises that His word is not only directly inspired by Him but that it will also be preserved by Him through time and eternity. We do not stand on science or scientific method – although we are glad to see true science as it aligns with the realities of God’s universal sovereignty – but on the realities of God’s word, and in this case, His promises. We may be ridiculed and scorned by scoffers of all stripes, but we will trust in Him and hold our heads high in His truth.
A pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:
Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text?
He closes the essay with these words,
Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204). [From, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.]
Those interested in obtaining Dr. Letis' works see this post: http://www.puritanboard.com/273938-post24.html
But to the text: In Erasmus’ 3rd edition of 1522, in both Greek and Latin, Ephesians 3:9 reads in the Greek, [size=+1]koinwnia[/size] – “Fellowship” in the AV – and in the Latin: Communio, which likewise translates “fellowship”. He did not get this reading from the Latin Vulgate, for their reading at this point is dispensatio, translated dispensation or administration in accord with the CT and MT.
At the time of this writing Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament is in the mail to me, and I will see what he says about his sources when I receive it. In the meanwhile I will note what Jack Moorman says about it in his book on the Majority Text and when the KJV departs from it. These are his notes:
The TR reading is found in,
Tyndale Great Geneva Bishops / Steph. Beza Elz. /
31-mg. 69-mg. others. /
“fellowship” fits the context better than “administration”. See verse 6.
Keep in mind that
the non-citing of evidence on these passages by von Soden and others does not mean that it is lacking but rather that there is a lack of interest on their part. Their chief concern is the gathering of material which shows some affinity with codices Aleph and B for the reconstruction of the N.T. text. The last thing on their minds is the defence of the King James Bible. Thus, until someone is able to gather evidence for these passages from all of the extant items, we will have to be content with these few bits of information. This wait will not affect our confidence in God’s preservation of the Scriptures at every point. (p. 71)
31-mg. 69-mg. others. /
“fellowship” fits the context better than “administration”. See verse 6.
Keep in mind that
the non-citing of evidence on these passages by von Soden and others does not mean that it is lacking but rather that there is a lack of interest on their part. Their chief concern is the gathering of material which shows some affinity with codices Aleph and B for the reconstruction of the N.T. text. The last thing on their minds is the defence of the King James Bible. Thus, until someone is able to gather evidence for these passages from all of the extant items, we will have to be content with these few bits of information. This wait will not affect our confidence in God’s preservation of the Scriptures at every point. (p. 71)
I’m sorry to have gone on so long, but I wanted to give some substantial answer to the legitimate issues Alan Kurschner brings up. For this really is a very important topic – the disparity between the MT and the TR – and it needs to be addressed.
I will continue to answer Alan Kurschner’s remaining 6 points. Let these first two suffice for now while I work on the others. He actually takes a different tack in points 3 to 8, attacking the Byzantine / Majority text directly. The defense here is different than in the first two points, and will prove an interesting exercise.
Last edited:
)
. This would be perfect to run serially on your own PB Blog Steve. You can simply cut and paste the entries above serially to start.
