Don't want the KJOs who have been posting here lately to miss out on this; if any of you here think you've seen this one before, you have. It's in the archives, and this is a copy.
Approximately twelve passages contain readings not attested by any Greek manuscripts (e.g., Acts 9:6 reads, "And he trembling and astonished said, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?'" [KJV]). Erasmus' Greek text was published many times in the years to follow; in time it became known as the Textus Receptus, which does not mean received from God but denotes the standard text of the seventeenth century.
Since the King James Bible was the standard English translation for so long, it has a significant and loyal readership. There are at least three levels of adherents to the King James Bible:
First, they claim that the majority of extant manuscripts support the Textus Receptus, and thus is must be the more correct text. It is important to remember, however, that the Textus Receptus first derived from only a few Greek manuscripts and that the majority of extant texts differ in many particulars from the Textus Receptus.
Moreover, the vast majority of manuscripts are late (dating between the eighth and fifteenth centuries), allowing for the possibility of significant corruption of the texts.
Second, they claim that the longer text is more correct. This is in direct opposition to the principle of textual criticism that the shorter text is preferable unless there are significant reasons to suggest that the text has been shortened (i.e., copyist errors, etc.). Scribes had a tendency to add words (by way of explanation or clarification) rather than subtract them, especially in cases where a text has been harmonized with another (this commonly occurs in the Gospels-the copyist attempts to make the stories in each of the Gospels agree with one another
Modern text critics believe that the Byzantine text family (and thus the Textus Receptus) shows much evidence of harmonization, but those who favor the Textus Receptus argue that other text families omitted parts of the Byzantine text to support heretical beliefs. A favorite example is the Arian heresy, which arose around Alexandria, Egypt, in the fourth century.
Scribes there purportedly omitted material running counter to their denial of the deity of Christ. According to those who favor the Textus Receptus, the word . . . (Christos, "Christ") in Romans 16:20 was removed by the Arians in support of their view. This is doubtful, however, since the word appears nine other times in the same chapter (vv. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, 25, 27). Furthermore, the Textus Receptus is not always superior in theological passages; for in one of the most important Christological passages in the New Testament, John 1:18, the Byzantine texts read Jesusis the "only begotten son" instead of Jesus is the "only begotten God" (the latter reading appears in many texts of the Alexandrian family: P66, P75, [Aleph]*'2, B, C*, L, 33).
The scholars translating the Authorized Version of 1611 could have known of only twenty-five late manuscripts at the most for the New Testament, whereas today there are at least 5,358 New Testament manuscripts and fragments. For the Old Testament, they had only a few later Hebrew texts and one text of the Septuagint, but now about 800 manuscripts and versions are available. The following works were discovered subsequent to the translation of the Authorized Version:One of the editions of the 1611 version of the Authorized Version read "then cometh Judas" instead of "then cometh Jesus" (Matt. 26:36). Another repeated twenty words (Exod. 14:10). Later printing errors of the Authorized Version resulted in some unusual readings . . .
[Source Cited:]
Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translation Baker Academic: 1999
The King James Version
(Authorized Version of 1611)
This version, a good translation for the time it was written, was based upon Erasmus' Greek New Testament, which used about six manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. Later Erasmus' text was improved upon by comparing it with the Complutensian Polygot, but it still was based exclusively upon medieval manuscripts.Approximately twelve passages contain readings not attested by any Greek manuscripts (e.g., Acts 9:6 reads, "And he trembling and astonished said, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?'" [KJV]). Erasmus' Greek text was published many times in the years to follow; in time it became known as the Textus Receptus, which does not mean received from God but denotes the standard text of the seventeenth century.
Since the King James Bible was the standard English translation for so long, it has a significant and loyal readership. There are at least three levels of adherents to the King James Bible:
- Those who prefer its majesty and reverence, being most familiar with this Bible or having used it for much of their lives.
- Those who believe that the text is to be preferred.
- Those who believe that it is only the authoritative text and that it has been preserved by God through the ages.
Arguments Used for the Priority of the Textus Receptus
Those who maintain that the Textus Receptus is the most accurate Greek text do so according to the following lines of argument.Existence of Early Byzantine Texts
One of the most damaging arguments against the priority of the Byzantine text type (or the Textus Receptus, though these terms are not synonymous since the Textus Receptus is based on only about six Byzantine manuscripts) is that no manuscripts from this family date earlier than the mid-fourth century, whereas other text families have significant early manuscript evidence. Those who hold to the priority of the Textus Receptus argue that early manuscripts from this family did exist but either they hae not yet been uncovered in any finds or have been destroyed by climate and constant use. It is surprising, however, that no early manuscripts have been found in locations where climate is not a factor (e.g., similar to what happened in the Cairo Genizah or St. Catherine's Monastery).Incorrect Text-Critical Methods
Those who prefer the Textus Receptus argue that the text-critical methods used by most modern translations (initially developed by Wescott and Hort) are incorrect and that in reality the Byzantine text-type is closer to the original. Two principles of modern textual criticism are generally challenged.First, they claim that the majority of extant manuscripts support the Textus Receptus, and thus is must be the more correct text. It is important to remember, however, that the Textus Receptus first derived from only a few Greek manuscripts and that the majority of extant texts differ in many particulars from the Textus Receptus.
Moreover, the vast majority of manuscripts are late (dating between the eighth and fifteenth centuries), allowing for the possibility of significant corruption of the texts.
Second, they claim that the longer text is more correct. This is in direct opposition to the principle of textual criticism that the shorter text is preferable unless there are significant reasons to suggest that the text has been shortened (i.e., copyist errors, etc.). Scribes had a tendency to add words (by way of explanation or clarification) rather than subtract them, especially in cases where a text has been harmonized with another (this commonly occurs in the Gospels-the copyist attempts to make the stories in each of the Gospels agree with one another
Modern text critics believe that the Byzantine text family (and thus the Textus Receptus) shows much evidence of harmonization, but those who favor the Textus Receptus argue that other text families omitted parts of the Byzantine text to support heretical beliefs. A favorite example is the Arian heresy, which arose around Alexandria, Egypt, in the fourth century.
Scribes there purportedly omitted material running counter to their denial of the deity of Christ. According to those who favor the Textus Receptus, the word . . . (Christos, "Christ") in Romans 16:20 was removed by the Arians in support of their view. This is doubtful, however, since the word appears nine other times in the same chapter (vv. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, 25, 27). Furthermore, the Textus Receptus is not always superior in theological passages; for in one of the most important Christological passages in the New Testament, John 1:18, the Byzantine texts read Jesusis the "only begotten son" instead of Jesus is the "only begotten God" (the latter reading appears in many texts of the Alexandrian family: P66, P75, [Aleph]*'2, B, C*, L, 33).
The Byzantine Tradition Favored throughout Much of Church History
Those who favor the Textus Receptus argue that the Christian church favored the Byzantine tradition from at least the fourth century to the nineteenth centuries, which suggest that God preserved this text through the church. In response, it can be argued that a large sector of the church (Roman Catholicism) favored the Latin Vulgate, prayers to saints, and praying for the dead, and that the large Eastern Orthodox Church supports the veneration of icons. Once again it should be noted that all but a small minority of scholars now reject the superiority of the Textus Receptus.Arguments for the Priority of an Eclectic Greek Text
The Textus Receptus derives from manuscripts no earlier than the tenth century, whereas we now have manuscripts dating as early as the second century. While this does not guarantee a more accurate text, it is commonly acknowledged that each time a text is copied there is the possibility of introducing errors into it. There is still no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text type was known before the fourth century.The scholars translating the Authorized Version of 1611 could have known of only twenty-five late manuscripts at the most for the New Testament, whereas today there are at least 5,358 New Testament manuscripts and fragments. For the Old Testament, they had only a few later Hebrew texts and one text of the Septuagint, but now about 800 manuscripts and versions are available. The following works were discovered subsequent to the translation of the Authorized Version:
- Codex Alexandrinus
- Codex Vaticanus
- Codex Sinaiticus
- All papyri fragments (discovered at least 300 years after its publication)
- Codex Leningradensis
- Aleppo Codex
- British Museum Manuscript (Or 4445)
- Qumran manuscripts
Quality More Important Than Quantity
It is commonly agreed by most modern New Testament text critics that quality is more important than quantity; not only do some of the other text families have much earlier texts, but they are though to be more accurate as well.Tendencies of the Scribes
It is plausible that scribes may have removed sections of the Scripture because they believed them to be theologically aberrant, but it can be shown that copyists were more likely to harmonize texts. Scribes believed these works to come from God and presumably would not dare to remove part of God's sacred word. Even if, for the sake of the argument, scribes removed parts of Scripture that they thought to be flawed, that practice would surely have been more consistently carried out than it appears to be.Which King James Version is the Correct Edition?
It is hard to determine a standardized text of the King James Bible since even the first two editions that appeared in 1611 were significantly different. Throughout the history of the King James Bible changes continued to be incorporated, some intentionally and some not. A few of the unintentional changes are noted:Unclear Wording
The wording in many passages is difficult to understand in this translation, such as- "And Jacob sod pottage" (Gen. 25:29).
- "And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke" (Exod. 19:18).
- "And Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar" (1 Chroni. 26:18).
- "Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing" (Ps. 5:6).
- Bring forth therefore the fruits meet for repentance" (Matt. 3:8).
- "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner" (Matt. 3:12) (337-340).
[Source Cited:]
Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translation Baker Academic: 1999
