Followers

Monday, July 18, 2022

Against KJV-Onlyism: Stop Usurping the Original Text

          In the second half of the 1800s, some textual critics were wary of the momentum that was building in England and the United States in favor of a revision of the English Bible.  (Some individuals had already made new English translations – such as Living Oracles and The Book of the New Covenantbut they had little impact.)   But the situation changed when the Revised Version was published in 1881.  Its New Testament base-text reflected, for the most part, an abandonment of the Byzantine Text (which generally has the support of most Greek manuscripts), and an almost complete embrace of the Alexandrian Text, especially at points where the Alexandrian Text is supported by two early manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

          Meanwhile in America, defenders of the traditional text – as reflected in the English King James Version – tended to be suspicious of textual revisions, mainly for three reasons.  I give them in no particular order:  (1)  Some of the individuals calling for revision were doctrinally aberrant (with Unitarian tendencies).  (2)  Much analysis still needed to be done upon both already-known and newly discovered materials.  (3)  Future discoveries of pertinent materials were likely to make revisions obsolete virtually before the ink dried.  (The short lifespan of revisions was illustrated in Tischendorf’s eighth edition of the Greek New Testament, following his encounter with Codex Sinaiticus, in which Tischendorf changed the text in 3,505 places, compared to the seventh edition.)

          But no one, generally speaking, was saying that text-critical endeavors were not worthwhile.  No one opposed the Revised Version with more vigor than John Burgon, but Burgon was not categorically opposed to revision.  Burgon wrote (in Revision Revised, 1883, the following, in a footnote on p. 21:

            “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 (e.g., at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction.   We do but insist (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced : infinitely preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ of the Revisionists.  And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely different ‘principles’ from those which are just now in fashion.  Men must begin by unlearning the German prejudices of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts.”

          Notice Burgon’s statement that “the Textus Receptus needs correction.  Burgon argued, though, that much more work needed to be done on the text before such a revision could be successfully undertaken:  in paragraph 23 (p. xxix) of the Preface to Revision Revised, Burgon stated, “After many years it might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek text.” Burgon also wrote (Revision Revised, p. 20), “Nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall clearly outweigh the evidence for retaining it.”

          It is now 2022.  Much of the study and research that Burgon hoped would be undertaken – and more – has been undertaken.   The Byzantine Text has been published, and is available to the public in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform and, with some differences, in Hodges & Farstad’s The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text.

          Yet congregations have arisen in which the King James Version’s base-text – the Textus Receptus – is regarded as perfect and incapable of correction.  The Textus Receptus has even been treated as if it is immutable and authoritative by “Confessional Bibliologists.”  At least, I have never seen a “Confessional Bibliologist” agree with Burgon that the Textus Receptus needs correction, or say forthrightly that any reading anywhere in the base-text of the KJV New Testament is not original.

          Progress has been made since Burgon’s time – but KJV-Onlyists have either not acknowledged it, or else regarded it as unpalatable when served up on the same plate as the heavy pro-Alexandrian bias that is on display in the Nestle-Aland and UBS compilations (the main base-text for the NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NLT, and NRSV).  Some textual changes which impacted English Bibles in 1881 and more recently (looking especially you, TNIV and NIV 2011) were steps backwards.  But today, let’s consider the points in the text of the Gospels where definite progress has been made, away from the compilations of the 1500s and early 1600s, toward the original text.

          Specifically:  look at these readings which are supported not only by the Westcott-Hort compilation, and by the Nestle-Aland compilation, but also by Hodges & Farstad’s Majority Text and by the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.  In other words, look at all the places in the text of the Gospels where the basis for what is read in the KJV is NOT the majority reading, and where the Textus Receptus is not, and never has been, the “Antiochan line” that KJV-Onlyists routinely pretend that it is). 

          A very thorough list of readings in the Textus Receptus that are not in the Majority Text has been made available online by Michael Marlowe.  Marlowe has presented detailed lists of such readings found in Acts 1-14, Acts 15-28, Romans, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First & Second Thessalonians, First & Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, First & Second Peter, First, Second, & Third John, Jude, Revelation 1-11, and Revelation 12-22 (and he has also made a collection of variations found in different editions of the Textus Receptus that were published in the 1500s).

          Focusing on the Gospels, here are 100 readings which everyone should acknowledge as improvements on the King James Version.

MATTHEW

4:18 – do not include the proper name “Jesus.”

5:27 – do not include “”by them of old time”

6:18 – do not include “openly”

7:2 – do not include “again”

8:5 – do not include the proper name “Jesus”

8:15 – replace “unto them” with “unto him”

8:23 – replace “a boat” with “the boat”

9:4 – replace “knowing” with “seeing”

9:36 – replace “weary” with “were harassed”

11:16 – read “others” instead of “fellows”

12:8 – do not include “even” after “Lord”

12:35 – omit “of the heart” after “treasure”

14:22 – replace “his disciples” with “the disciples”

14:22 – replace “a ship” with “the ship”

18:28 – replace “that” with “what”

18:29 – remove the word “all” at the end of the verse

19:9 – replace “except it be for fornication” with “except for fornication”

20:21 – replace “the left” with “your left” 

20:26 – replace “let him be your servant” with “must be your servant”

24:17 – replace “any thing” with “things”

24:27 – remove the word “also”

25:44 – remove the word “him”

MARK

4:4 – remove “of the air”

4:9 – remove “unto them”

5:11 – replace “mountains” with “mountain”

6:15 – remove “or”

6:33 – replace “the people” with “they”

6:44 – remove “about”

7:3 – replace “oft” with “with the fist” or “ceremonially”

8:24 – add “I see them” between “I see men” and “as trees walking”

8:31 – include “of the” before “scribes”

9:7 – remove “saying”

10:2 – remove “the”

10:14 – remove “and” after “Me”

10:28 – remove “Then”

10:29 – include “sake” after “gospel’s” at the end of the verse

11:4 – replace “the” with “a”

12:20 – remove “Now” at the beginning of the verse

12:23 – remove “therefore”

12:32 – remove “God”

13:9 – replace “be brought” with “stand”

14:9 – include “And” at the beginning of the verse

15:3 – remove the words “but he answered nothing”

LUKE

2:21 – replace “the child” with “him”

2:22 – replace “her” with “their” (As far as I know, no Greek manuscript made before the time of Erasmus which reads “her”)

3:2 – replace “priests” with “priest”

3:19 – replace “his brother Philip’s” with “his brother’s”

4:8 – remove “for” before “it is written”

5:30 – include “the” before “publicans” (or “tax collectors”)

6:10 – replace “the man” with “him”

6:10 – remove “so”

6:26 – remove “unto you”

6:28 – remove “and” before “pray”

7:11 – replace “the day after” with “soon afterwards”

7:31 – remove “And the Lord said” at the beginning of the verse

8:3 – replace “him” with “them”

8:34 – remove “went and”

8:51 – replace “James and John” with “John and James”

10:6 – replace “the son” with “a son”

10:12 – remove “But”

10:20 – remove “rather”

11:54 – remove “and”

12:56 – replace “of the sky and of the earth” with “of the earth and of the sky”

13:15 – replacd “hypocrite” with “hypocrites’’

13:35 – remove “Verily”

16:25 – inclde “here” after “now”

17:6. Read “you have” instead of “you had”

17:9 – remove “him”

17:24 – remove “also”

19:23 – remove “the” before bank”

20:5 – remove “then” after “Why”

20:9 – remove “certain” before “man”

22:17 – remove “the” before “cup”

22:42 – . Read “willing to remove” instead of “willing, remove”

22:45 – replace “his” with “the”

23:25 – remove “to them”

23:55 – remove “also”

JOHN

1:28 – replace “Bethabara” with “Bethany

1:29 – replace “John” with “he”

1:39 – remove “for”

1:43 – remove “Jesus”

1:43 – add “Jesus”

2:22 – remove “unto them”

3:2 – remove “Jesus”

4:30 – remove “Then”

4:31 – remove “his”

6:24 – remove “also”

7:16 – include “Therefore” after “Jesus”

7:29 – remove “But”

7:33 – remove “unto them”

7:50 – remove “Jesus”

9:36 – include “And” before “Who”

10:16 – replace one fold” with “one flock”

13:25 – include “thus” after “lying”

14:23 – replace “words” with “word”

14:30 – remove “this”

16:3 – remove “unto you”

17:20 - replace “shall believe” with “believe”

20:29 – remove “Thomas”

           Two non-original readings outside the Gospels may serve (as representatives of a much larger number of readings) as examples of inaccuracies in the Textus Receptus that impact translation.  (1)  In Philippians 4:3, most manuscripts read Ναι (“Yes”) instead of Και (“And”) at the beginning of this verse.  (2)  In Colossians 1:6:  most manuscripts include the words καὶ αὐξανόμενον (“and growing”), a phrase which would be vulnerable to accidental loss due to its occurrence between the words καρποφορούμενον and καθως.

         The original readings listed here all have one thing in common:  they are doctrinally benign.  Everyone interested in maintaining the actual traditional text, and not a compilation marred by non-original scribal inventions, should accept these God-given readings, and reject the readings in the Textus Receptus that were concocted by scribes.  Whatever rationale KJV-Onlyists have had to prefer the Textus Receptus – sentimentality, the influence of propaganda, stability for stability’s sake, or whatever – should be outweighed by the rationale that prefers God-given readings over readings (or absences) made by scribes.  A thief does not become king by sitting on the king’s throne, even if he sits there a long time.      

         

 

20 comments:

Bobby said...

This leads me to believe the KJB is pretty darn accurate compared to the Alexandrian line. I'll stick with the KJB until a real revision of the Byzantine line is published. Then I'll consider.

James Snapp Jr said...

Bobby,
The Patriarchal Text has already been produced (and this was done over a century ago) and the Byzantine Textform has already been published (and is readily available online for free) and the EOB New Testament has also been published. So has the World English Bible and other English versions in which the New Testament is essentially based on the Byzantine Text.

Conan said...

Outstanding James Snap! I'm marking the same Byzantine Text corrections to my Sinai and comparative New Testament (Edwin Leigh) which through special Type one can view the KJV, Vaticanus, Sinaticus, Alexandrus all at the same time. I am confident when I have the Majority/Byzantine Text which I consider closest to the Original

James Snapp Jr said...

Conan,
I don't consider the Byzantine Text to be the original text in all respects. Some of its readings look very much like accretions influenced by lection-cycles,
But if it's the Byzantine Text that you think is closest to the original, why not just adopt the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text, and go from there?

MidusItus said...

James,
One thing you will see is that the KJV used a number of different TR editions. None of them have all the variants. Scrivener has a list that indicates this. I have not found a TR edition that has all the variants in it. I use the Trinity Bible Society Greek NT which is based on Scrivener's Greek NT text. Anyway, just saying, I don't even bother with considering any Reformation TR to be "perfect". I think God indicated what he wanted in the NT using the KJ translators.
Just as a note, the Synod of Dort also upheld these variants in its endeavor to translate a new bible for the Dutch people. You can see this information in my paper "The Witness of God is Greater".

MidusItus said...

James,
I have read enough of Burgon to know he is not a KJV fan. Burgon does a good job demonstrating how corrupt and liberal the 1881 revision is. That is what he is really good at. The 1881 revision is simply the product of the Tractarian movement in England. The antidote to that movement is the 3 vol edition of William Goode's "Divine Rule of Faith and Practice". The first two volumes are gold.

Conan said...

Perhaps I should be more specific. While the Byzantine Text may not be exactly like the Original Text always, it seems to me to be more highly accurate than say Vaticanus/Sinaiticus. The book that you reviewed here "Scribal Slips" showed that Vaticanus and especially Sinaiticus is missing text because of eye skip. So if I am reading the previously mentioned "The Sinai and Comparative New Testament" and see Vat/Sin have the support of the Byzantine Text verses the KJV/TR then I have great confidence in the reading. If I see the TR/Byzantine Text verses Vat/Sin then I have much more confidence in the more strongly supported reading. There may be places where the Byzantine Text is strongly divided and may not have the original text, but when using the "Comparative New Testament" https://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=Us4TAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false it seems imperative to know what it's reading is.
I guess I do give it great weight.
As far as the Byzantine Text I do have https://books.google.com/books/about/Analytical_Literal_Translation_Devotiona.html?id=e7ChAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1#v=onepage&q&f=false which uses Pierpont and Robinson.

James Snapp Jr said...

Conan,
You might also consider looking into the EOB-NT, which I reviewed at
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2022/02/the-eob-new-testament-best-english.html .

Conan said...

Thank you James! And thank you for all your post's which are very informative!

Demian said...

I enjoyed the title, James ;-) This is how the fathers of old would address error in the early church. I learned with them that both KJV-Onlyism and Alexandrian Text-Onlyism (and obviously Vulgate Bible-Onlyism) are not what was handed down to the universal church. Your blog is a gift to the church of Christ. Thank you!

Conan said...

So the James, I noticed that at the Bible Researcher website there are 72 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus (Scrivener) in Matthew, yet on your page there are only listed 22 differences in English? Is that because you only consider these 22 the original text verses the other differences between the Majority verses TR not listed?

Same with the other Gospels?

Joel Metzger said...

Thanks Brother James, your latest post against KJV only is a good example of why I like this blog, you seem steadfastly opposed to falling into either the, anything but the KJV, or, nothing but the KJV, camps. Unfortunately the Bible topic seems so extremely polarized (especially when browsing the internet on the subject) that very few seem to have a real balanced, facts based discussion, and are willing to say both camps have errors in one way or another.

James Snapp Jr said...

Conan,

A reading's non-inclusion in the list should not be assumed to be due to a suspicion that it is original. Many of the KJV-readings in Marlowe's list were not included, for a variety of reasons (including the simple consideration that I didn't want to burden readers with the chore of reviewing them all; I limited the readings in the Gospels to 100.)

Conan said...

Thank you James for the clarification! Again, excellent blog. Thanks for sharing with us.

Steven Avery said...

The claim that these are "original" readings is clearly not supported by the evidence, it is a confirmation bias conclusion by those with Greek Byzantine-Majority perspective.

One of these,

Matthew 9:4 (AV)
And Jesus knowing their thoughts said,
Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

was presented at CARM as an AV minority Greek error, and I did an in-depth check:

Matthew 9:4 - "And Jesus, knowing their thoughts ..."
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/matthew-9-4.2704/

Turns out the case for the AV text is very strong.

Steveb Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
www.linktr.ee/stevenavery

Andrew said...

James,

Hopefully I am allowed to disagree with you a little in this post. Many of the variants you introduce here demonstrably do not impact translation, or don't actually reflect differences in the Greek text itself.

For instance, 1) on Mark 11:4 you wrote, replace “the” with “a”.

But there are translations of the Byzantine text, such as the English Majority Text Version (based mostly on the Robinson/Pierpont text), which agree with the definite article. One can see that the source text, between that and the Received Text (TR) doesn't differ here. Compare for example the Beza 1598 TR, and the Robinson/Pierpont and the Pickering F35 text at Mark 11:4.

A far more noteworthy translational variant than this occurs elsewhere in this verse, where "τοῦ ἀμφόδου" is translated more accurately as "a place where two ways met" in the KJV, instead of "a street" as some other translations (looking at NKJV for example) do.

Another place where the translation is unaffected by one of your variants is in Matthew 18:28. 2) You wrote: Matthew 18:28 – replace “that” with “what”

There are already examples showing that both choices of English translation would really mean the same thing. Consider the fact that the 1611 King James said "not that I will" in Mark 14:36, but this was corrected in the Cambridge KJV of 1624 (and subsequent editions) to say "not what I will." This proves that the two are essentially not that different, as either translation could have resulted. The Geneva (1560) and Bishops' Bibles (1568) also said "not that I will" in Mark 14:36.

3) Mark 12:23 – remove “therefore”

The English Majority Text Version supplies this word in italics anyway. ("When they shall arise" being omitted is a far more significant variant to note in this verse.)

4) Mark 14:9 – include “And” at the beginning of the verse; and John 9:36 – include “And” before “Who”

The EOB (which you recommend) does not include "And" in either verse!!

-- A few of these other variants you have listed I instead disagree with your claim that they are "doctrinally benign" as you say. For example:

5) Mark 12:32 "God" removed - disagree

6) Luke 3:2 – replace “priests” with “priest” - disagree because two people cannot be one priest (also comp. John 18:24, Acts 4:6)
Offhand, I also don't know of a single translation that renders this verse as "priest" [singular] anyway.

7) Luke 13:15 – replacd “hypocrite” with “hypocrites’’
I disagree and I think that's a plurality mismatch.

8) John 17:20 - replace “shall believe” with “believe”
Clearly different in this verse.

9) Luke 12:56 – replace “of the sky and of the earth” with “of the earth and of the sky”
Yes, I am aware that the Greek text has a different word order than the KJV does. I am also aware that Scrivener even went so far as to reverse the ordering of the Greek words in his 1894 Textus Receptus edition, but I just want to leave both texts alone in this case.

I do not use Scrivener's TR. See also Scrivener in Ephesians 6:24 omitting ἀμήν and 1 Cor. 14:10 omitting αὐτῶν in the 1894 TR.

Yes, I am aware that some of the changes were proposed by Burgon in his books also. But I don't see where any change away from our received text exemplars is called for, considering the preservation of God's word. Regarding your comment "the rationale that prefers God-given readings over readings (or absences) made by scribes." I agree 100% with this, which is why I hold onto the word of the Lord for dear life.

Andrew said...

And in defense of a few TR readings, reminder that:

10) Mark 15:3 – remove the words “but he answered nothing”
- the words "but He answered nothing" are covered by Beza 1604 TR

11) Mark 7:3 - replace “oft” with “with the fist” or “ceremonially”
- this is not an object of textual criticism by the KJV translators at all. (See the comments I made about Mark 7:3 in the KJV and its marginal note elsewhere in your blog on this article).

I wrote: "Whenever the translators of the KJV wanted to note a difference in Greek copies, which they did at Matthew 26:26, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, Acts 25:6, James 2:18, 2 Peter 2:2, or 2 John 1:8, then they would mention "some copies" or "Greek copies." The footnote at Mark 7:3 is not comparable to these instances." (emphasis mine)

Rather, as at Matthew 5:15, Matthew 10:29, Matthew 17:24, Mark 4:21, Mark 13:8, Luke 16:6, and Luke 16:7, where, in each place (just as in Mark 7:3), the KJV marginal notes in Mark 7:3 speak of the "original" word – in their own terminology – without any indication of a variant existing in these places. They simply provide a different way to translate the base text here, they are giving the sense of the same Greek word, as in many other marginal notes.

Also, the Geneva Bible has the same translation of Mark 7:3. And they provide a footnote next to the word "oft," saying: "Or contentiously, struing to wash best."

It is simply the case that the word, "oft," was (considered to be) an appropriate translation of the Greek "πυγμῇ". There was no real note of a textual variation or contest in this verse by the KJV translators, in the same way that they did in Matthew 26:26, etc. And the fact that a variant from Aleph exists here is nothing more than a coincidence. See the comments I made about Mark 7:3 in the KJV and its marginal note elsewhere in your blog, here: https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/09/mark-73-4-immerse-or-pour-and-other.html.

12) Luke 2:22 – replace “her” with “their”
- This is not an issue since either word would equivalently translate to "her," which is why the Geneva 1560 translation (and the Pineda 1556 New Testament translation) translated it with "her," even before Beza's 1565 TR was published, which was the earliest TR to include the other variant. Note the following:

Complutensian Polyglot 1520: αὐτῆς
Beza 1565/1582/1589/1590/1598/1604: αὐτῆς
Plantin 1584: αὐτῆς
Hutter Nuremberg Polyglot 1599: αὐτῆς
Elzevir 1624/1633: αὐτῆς

Erasmus 1516/1519/1522/1527/1535: αὐτῶν
Colinaeus 1534: αὐτῶν
Stephanus 1546/1549/1550/1551: αὐτῶν

On a similar note I should also add, the "variant" at Revelation 16:5 is just a translation of a Nomen Sacrum, and should have the same resultant translation from either the expanded (Beza 1582+, Hutter 1599, Elzevir 1633) or contracted (Stephanus, Beza 1565, Elzevir 1624) form.

Andrew said...

One minor correction to point 1) in my first post: the Robinson-Pierpont edition included the definite article in Mark 11:4, but in brackets, as did the Byzantine Majority Text 2000. My apologies for that.

Demian said...

Hi James,

I went through one by one of those verses and noticed that in 88 cases, the majority text reading is supported by both the Alexandrian text and the Oxford critical edition of the vulgate, which indicates that they are supported by a broad array of evidence in multiple locations and times.

In some cases though I preferred to leave the text untouched because the change is either trivial, not adopted by modern translations like the EHV or the ESV or doesn’t make very good sense in English. I included in this category the following verses: Mt 9:4, Mt 18:28, Mt 19:9, Mt 24:17, Mk 6:33, Mk 7:3, Mk 8:31, Mk 10:29, Lk 5:30, Lk 8:51, Lk 12:56, Lk 19:23, Lk 22:42, Jn 1:43 Jn 7:50 and Jn 14:30.

In the following cases, the NKJV, which is my preferred version, went with the majority text in the main text: Luke 8:34, Lk 10:6, Lk 17:6 (not supported by the Vulgate of Oxford), Lk 23:55, Jn 1:39, Jn 10:16 and Jn 14:23. So, all good there.

Cases in which I preferred to stick to the TR are the following:

Mt 5:27 is supported by Ireneaus, Origen, Jerome and Cyril and should not be dropped;
Mk 13:32 is supported by Ambrose that cited and discussed the verse several times in his writings;
Lk 4:8b makes more sense internally in the context of the M-Text if we keep the Lk 4:8b untouched;

The following are not supported by the vulgate of Oxford and there isn’t a consensus towards the reading on the part of modern translations and so I didn’t adopt the reading: Mt 11:16, Mk 12:20 and Mk 12:23.

The following are supported by both the majority text and the Alexandrian text and, looking at the text, they seemed an improvement over the TR to me, even though unsupported by the vulgate of Oxford: Mt 20:26, Mk 14:9, Lk 7:11, Lk 8:3 and Lk 20:5.

PS: the genuine majority reading in Lk 3:2 is “in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas”. Please, correct the post because the way Michael Marlowe puts it appeared nonsensical.

Demian said...

I forgot to mention that I agree 100% with the corrections you proposed to Col 1:6 and Phillipians 4:3.

PS: I forgot to mention that I also consulted the WEB, because neither the WEB follows blindly the M-Text, nor the ESV the NA28. It is helpful to me to see when those translations disagree with their base text, which may indicate a weakness in their preferred text detected by the translation committee.