No major doctrines changed?

[ResidentAlien]

It is not enough to brush off mss as a "corruption" simply because it may differ at some very critical points. If that were the case, then every mss in existence would be "corrupt," because no two mss are exactly the same. This is why textual critics look at variants on a word-by-word, and verse-by-verse basis.

Neither is it wise to base your whole scholarship on a few manuscripts and say: Yep, they're the oldest—case closed. Textual critics on the whole despise any manuscripts that don't fall into line with their minority manuscripts. If they were smart they'd look at all the evidence before making a decision.

There's a lot at stake: Bible publishers churn out Bible after Bible based on the critical text; they can't afford to have it challenged. That might upset the gravy train.

 

[Niki7]

I have never claimed that the KJV is "inspired" (though a very few Christians do make this claim mistakenly). Only the original autographs were divinely inspired.

By the same token it is a blatant lie to claim that the KJV is "an interpretation". The King James Bible translators translated the Hebrew and Greek word-for-word faithfully (as much as it is possible given the differences of languages) and where necessary it has included explanatory words in italics. Their goal was to make an exceptional translation to which no one could take exception. But no other English translation has been as reliable and faithful as the Authorized Version for over 400 years. Not a single conservative commentator has ever questioned its reliability and accuracy, and all the Bible study tools were based on the King James Bible. That speaks for itself.

It is only since about the start of the 20th century that people have been denigrating this Bible. But even the enemies of this translator could not help praise its excellency in the 19th century. Now go do your homework.

A word for word translation is never the best translation. But before I get into that, you should consider lowering the temperature of your replies. A blatant lie? That's alot of drama for no reason and it does not help or make you more credible.

Moving along, when something is translated word for word it is quite possible to miss the intent of the original manuscript and end up with something that is NOT IN the original. For example, we have the ever popular supposed possession of a person by a demon when the original is actually stating that the person is possessing or has a demon and NOT the demon has the person. There are literally thousands of people whose understanding has been corrupted by this one item alone, not to mention others.

There are instances of possession wherein a person is no longer capable of directing themselves, such as the Gadarene demoniac, but for the most part, most people are co-operating with their demons such as liars and murderers who know what they do is wrong but keep doing it.

And good for you if you never stated the KJ is not inspired since you well know many have said that very thing and in this very forum. So good on yah, but you made up for it with your dramatic accusation that has no substance other than your desire to come across as some kind of authority.

Not a single conservative commentator has ever questioned its reliability and accuracy, and all the Bible study tools were based on the King James Bible. That speaks for itself.

I just pointed out a word for word that went off into the woods and has caused people anguish and trouble. You are creating a smoke screen for the actual problem and that would be YOUR personal preference is the final say.

It is not and there are a good number of mistranslated items in the good ole KJ so you need to deal with it instead of trying to make it seem anyone who does not acknowledge your POV, is heathen and a liar.

 

[Niki7]

One thing more....when I stated what I did concerning 'inspiration' I was referring to the claim some are making. That seems to be the chief complaint people have concerning the KJ and that is what I was referring to in reference to your words

As to all the mockery of the King James Bible, the mockers and scoffers should understand that for millions of Christians for over 400 years this was (and is) the written Word of God. Those who mock, mock at their peril. These same scoffers really have no clue as to the reasons for the rejection of the critical texts and the modern versions. Chances are that not one of them has read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon.

No one was or is mocking and that is why I repeated that the KJ is not inspired. I believe you probably knew that but chose to create a response indicating lying was involved. Ridiculous at this point and the only thing inspired, is the drama some choose to go out of your way to create in order to avoid the actual problem, which and again, is the nonsense that the KJ version is actually inspired as were the original manuscripts.

smh

There has been NO mockery of the KJ Bible and you know that.

No one really cares if the only Bible you study or read is the KJ. There is no Bible on earth that has created forgiveness of sins or salvation so have at your KJ as your preference. But be aware there are errors in translation contained therein. The perfect is not the book we reference as the Bible, even though God has ensured it's existence through the ages.

 

[Inquisitor]

It should say "in the end of the sabbaths".
RECEIVED TEXT
Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθε Μαριὰ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία, θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
LITERAL INTERLINEAR
After then [the] sabbaths, it being dawn toward [the] first [day] of [the] week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the tomb.
King James Bible
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

As you can see other than the singular for "sabbath" the KJV follows the Greek text. The KJV only took the actual 7th day Sabbath into account. But the previous day was also a Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is this an error or was it an interpretation?

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
b. plural, τά σαββάτων (for the singular) of a single sabbath, sabbath-day (the use of the plural being occasioned either by the plural names of festivals, as τά ἐγκαίνια, ἄζυμα, γενέσια, or by the Chaldaic form שַׁבָּתָא (Winers Grammar, 177 (167); Buttmann, 23 (21))): Matthew 28:1

You will notice that σαββάτων also means "week" in this verse.

I am curious to know why you called the first day of Unleavened Bread, a sabbath?

As you can see other than the singular for "sabbath" the KJV follows the Greek text. The KJV only took the actual 7th day Sabbath into account. But the previous day was also a Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is this an error or was it an interpretation?

The definition of a sabbath day is the seventh day of the week.

The Passover and the days of Unleavened Bread do not occur on a sabbath day very often.

As far as I can determine, the first day and the last day of the week of Unleavened Bread, are rest days. These rest days are similar to a sabbath rest day. That is, rest days from all laborious work. By definition, the first day and last day of Unleavened Bread cannot be called sabbath days.

A sabbath day begins at sunset and ends at sunrise.

Mary was going to the tomb after the sabbath had ended.

 

[Nehemiah6]

As far as I can determine, the first day and the last day of the week of Unleavened Bread, are rest days. These rest days are similar to a sabbath rest day.

There's your answer. "Sabbaths" (plural) would include the first day of Unleavened Bread + the weekly seventh day Sabbath.

 

[Inquisitor]

There's your answer. "Sabbaths" (plural) would include the first day of Unleavened Bread + the weekly seventh day Sabbath.

The first day of Unleavened Bread cannot be a sabbath.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The first day of Unleavened Bread cannot be a sabbath.

You already said that it can be as a day of rest!

 

[williamjordan]

Neither is it wise to base your whole scholarship on a few manuscripts and say: Yep, they're the oldest—case closed. Textual critics on the whole despise any manuscripts that don't fall into line with their minority manuscripts. If they were smart they'd look at all the evidence before making a decision.

There's a lot at stake: Bible publishers churn out Bible after Bible based on the critical text; they can't afford to have it challenged. That might upset the gravy train.

I don't think that you have necessarily framed the argument correctly.

No one here is talking about a “few” manuscripts. In fact, why don't you take a gander over to this thread ("Ommitted verses"), and see exactly where I'm coming from? Begin at Post #70, and read through all my interactions with fredoheaven (up to Post #301). As made clear to fredoheaven, the debate is not simply about what is “oldest,” yet it is often framed in that light (and incorrectly so) by detractors of the "earlier" witnesses. There are a number of other criteria at play in addition to early attestation that text critics apply to determine the authenticity of a variant. It is all of these things combined (plus more) that text critics look at:

• Early attestation
• Geographic distribution
• Internal data
• Which variant is most difficult, and thereby can best explains the rise of other variants?
• Geographic scribal practices

For example, in the case of 1 Peter 3:15, κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν is not only the “earliest,” but also the most broadly attested reading, existing in multiple geographic textual streams by the 4th century. To have that kind of widespread geographic attestation (and from a very early period) sheds light on the most “common” and widely circulated variant in the “Christian world.” And the only "gravy train" that upsets, are... KJV Onlyists.

 

[ResidentAlien]

No one here is talking about a “few” manuscripts.

Simple then. What manuscripts were used in the formulation of the USB Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text? Everyone knows about Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. What others? If you don't know of the top of your head maybe you know of a website.

 

[williamjordan]

Simple then. What manuscripts were used in the formulation of the USB Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text? Everyone knows about Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. What others? If you don't know of the top of your head maybe you know of a website.

Um.. quite a number, actually. Thousands. It really depends on the text under discussion. Some mss only contain sections of Paul, or may only contain the first few chapters of John. You'll need to be a lot more specific, because as I continue to say, text critics go word-by-word to make a determination. And sometimes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is included in the data they used to help make that determination. But the idea is to cross reference various witnesses as it pertains to a specific text.

It's not like they just default to Vaticanus or Sinaiticus simply on the basis of them being earlier. For example, in 1 Peter 3:15, UBS cites p72 א A B C Ψ 33 614 1739 itar vg syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo) arm Clement in support of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν. While Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are amongst those cited, there are other witnesses that are cited as well. But if you go to another text, different witnesses may be cited, because some papyri may only contain portions of a specific book.

For example, 1 Corinthians. There are numerous amount of mss for this Pauline epistle, but each mss may (due to age) only contain part or section of the book. So everything is done on a word-by-word basis. Cross referencing the textual data one word at a time with the witnesses that have withstood the test of time.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν

? "LORD of Christ" Correct?:

1Pe 3:15 "But sanctify The LORD God in your hearts..."?

So, what's the problem? Upsets the unitarian gravy train that trinitarians
"sanctify Father, SON, and Holy Spirit in our hearts"?

 

[williamjordan]

? "LORD of Christ" Correct?:

1Pe 3:15 "But sanctify The LORD God in your hearts..."?

So, what's the problem? Upsets the unitarian gravy train that trinitarians
"sanctify Father, SON, and Holy Spirit in our hearts"?

Two things.

The reason I brought 1 Peter 3:15 up, is because it is the text under discussion in the thread that I had previously made reference to. That is why I also brought it up here as an example. I invite you to read through the thread that I provided a link to in my previous post.

The text cannot be understood as the "LORD of Christ." This is not a genitive construction. Notice all the terms are in the accusative case, κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν. So I'm not too certain where you got the genitive ("of") from, take it out. The text would be more appropriately rendered, "Christ the Lord," "Lord Christ," "Christ as the Lord," et al. 1 Peter 3:17 would be an example of the genitive, τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (“the will of God”).

If you're not a KJ Onlyist then you are able to use the text as a reference to the deity of the Son. And you would be on extremely good footing if you did so. But to do so, you would not be able to rely on the KJ for assistance in this occasion. The smart unitarian is going to argue in favor of the KJ, which omits "Christ" and instead makes it a reference to "the LORD God."

The point I was really driving at in my citation of 1 Peter 3:15 is not that the KJ is wrong, but that the UBS cited more than just Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as evidence for κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν, contrary to what has been repeated in this thread. And that was really all I was pointing out.

 

[Inquisitor]

There

You already said that it can be as a day of rest!

There is a difference between a day of rest and a sabbath day.

The seventh day is a day of complete rest, you cannot even prepare food.

Any other day of rest other than the sabbath day rest, does not invoke a complete day of rest. Unless the law indicates the day 'is like a sabbath rest'.

You need to demonstrate from the text where, the first day of UB is a sabbath day rest!

 

[cv5]

Um.. quite a number, actually. Thousands. It really depends on the text under discussion. Some mss only contain sections of Paul, or may only contain the first few chapters of John. You'll need to be a lot more specific, because as I continue to say, text critics go word-by-word to make a determination. And sometimes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is included in the data they used to help make that determination. But the idea is to cross reference various witnesses as it pertains to a specific text.

It's not like they just default to Vaticanus or Sinaiticus simply on the basis of them being earlier. For example, in 1 Peter 3:15, UBS cites p72 א A B C Ψ 33 614 1739 itar vg syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo) arm Clement in support of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν. While Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are amongst those cited, there are other witnesses that are cited as well. But if you go to another text, different witnesses may be cited, because some papyri may only contain portions of a specific book.

For example, 1 Corinthians. There are numerous amount of mss for this Pauline epistle, but each mss may (due to age) only contain part or section of the book. So everything is done on a word-by-word basis. Cross referencing the textual data one word at a time with the witnesses that have withstood the test of time.

Textual criticism is such a rarified field that the vast majority of us cannot contribute much of anything other than (a lot of mostly silly) questions. But.....we don't have to become experts in that field. Not really. The heavy lifting has already been done, and IMO we only need to understand the RESULTS of the foregoing scholarship.

Great little paper here. I would appreciate if you could endorse the contents. I think it is an excellent primer.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

"We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. In the last ~140 years since the Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text, we’ve discovered Papyri from the 300s, 200s, and even a few from the 100s. Despite this, the Critical Text of the New Testament remains virtually unchanged from ~140 years ago.

No joke."

"What “Textual Variants”? How Bad Are They?
Fortunately, they just aren’t that bad. We can broadly class all Textual Variants into two classes.

• Meaningful Variants. These textual variants have an impact on what the text means. For example, if one manuscript said “Jesus was happy” and another says “Jesus was sad”, that’s a meaningful variant because it changes the meaning of the text.
• Viable Variants. These Textual Variants have a decent chance of having the wording of the original document. Some variants appear in only a single (late) manuscript, and thus the chances of them being in the original text are extremely low.

From those two options, we can create a list of four types of Textual Variant.

1. Neither meaningful nor viable (they don’t change the meaning and have no chance of being original)
2. Viable but not meaningful (they don’t change the meaning and have a chance of being original)
3. Meaningful but Not viable (they do change the meaning, but have no chance of being original)
4. Both Viable and meaningful (they do change the meaning and do have a chance of being original)"

"Summary Of The Critical Text Vs. The Majority Text Vs. The Textus Receptus
First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament. The core message of the gospel isn’t compromised in any of these documents. Some lesser, non-salvation related doctrines are affected, but many of those are arcane topics that rarely – if ever – touch on the Christian life. Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus, but no major, central part of the gospel is affected."

 

[Nehemiah6]

You need to demonstrate from the text where, the first day of UB is a sabbath day rest!

Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. (Exodus 12:15,16)

God called the first and seventh days "holy convocations" and no work was permitted other than the preparation of food. For all intents and purposes those two days were sabbaths (days of total rest). So what did "holy convocation" mean? It meant "a sacred assembly" or "a religious gathering". So in fact those two days were of even greater significance than the ordinary weekly Sabbath.

BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS
1 convocation, sacred assembly Isaiah 1:13 (after קְרֹא), Isaiah 4:5; usually explicitly קֹדֶשׁ ׳מ, technical term in P for religious gathering on Sabbath and certain sacred days, Exodus 12:16 (twice in verse) + 14 t. Leviticus 23; Numbers 28:1; Numbers 29, + (plural) Leviticus 23:2,4,37.

 

[Nehemiah6]

First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament.

That is not accurate at all. See The Revision Revised.

 

[williamjordan]

Textual criticism is such a rarified field that the vast majority of us cannot contribute much of anything other than (a lot of mostly silly) questions. But.....we don't have to become experts in that field. Not really. The heavy lifting has already been done, and IMO we only need to understand the RESULTS of the foregoing scholarship.

Great little paper here. I would appreciate if you could endorse the contents. I think it is an excellent primer.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

"We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. In the last ~140 years since the Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text, we’ve discovered Papyri from the 300s, 200s, and even a few from the 100s. Despite this, the Critical Text of the New Testament remains virtually unchanged from ~140 years ago.

No joke."

"What “Textual Variants”? How Bad Are They?
Fortunately, they just aren’t that bad. We can broadly class all Textual Variants into two classes.

• Meaningful Variants. These textual variants have an impact on what the text means. For example, if one manuscript said “Jesus was happy” and another says “Jesus was sad”, that’s a meaningful variant because it changes the meaning of the text.
• Viable Variants. These Textual Variants have a decent chance of having the wording of the original document. Some variants appear in only a single (late) manuscript, and thus the chances of them being in the original text are extremely low.

From those two options, we can create a list of four types of Textual Variant.

1. Neither meaningful nor viable (they don’t change the meaning and have no chance of being original)
2. Viable but not meaningful (they don’t change the meaning and have a chance of being original)
3. Meaningful but Not viable (they do change the meaning, but have no chance of being original)
4. Both Viable and meaningful (they do change the meaning and do have a chance of being original)"

"Summary Of The Critical Text Vs. The Majority Text Vs. The Textus Receptus
First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament. The core message of the gospel isn’t compromised in any of these documents. Some lesser, non-salvation related doctrines are affected, but many of those are arcane topics that rarely – if ever – touch on the Christian life. Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus, but no major, central part of the gospel is affected."

I do think the overall gist of the article is accurate. To be honest, when I read it, i immediately thought it was penned by Dan Wallace. It certainly sounds an awful lot like Dan Wallace; I can hear his voice reverberating in the background. However, there is probably only one sentence I disagree with, and that is where the author says,

"Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus, but no major, central part of the gospel is affected."

The first part of the sentence ("Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus") may or may not be entirely correct. The more accurate thing to say is that the "critical text" is as equally reciprocal. For example, consider the deity of the Lord Jesus. There are texts (1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 3:16, etc.) that are exclusive to the Byzantine tradition. But likewise, there are examples exclusive to the "critical text" (1 Pet. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:1, Jn. 14:14, Jude 5) that are just as (if not moreso) pungeant. Take Jn. 14:14 for example. p66 p75 א B all include a little word ("Me") that shifts the direction of our prayer to Jesus, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." This doesn't mean the KJ doesn't also attribute prayer to Jesus, but that it is just one more text to add to the arsenal.

In 2 Peter 1:1, the TR (under the influence of Beza's Greek apparatus), reads this way:

του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου
our God and our Savior Jesus Christ

If you look at the NA27, however:

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Where Beza's apparatus (and thereby, the TR) places an additional ημων ("our") after σωτηρος ("Savior"), the NA27 does not. The implications of this are huge. Whereas the NA27 refers to Jesus Christ as "our God and Savior," Beza's apparatus (and thereby, the TR) speaks of "our God and our Savior" as two distinct individuals. Further, there are no known mss that feature the additional ημων as found in Beza's text, and so the TR has no textual support for its inclusion. From a stylistic standpoint, Beza's apparatus does not hold water. In every occasion where ημων is used throughout 2 Peter, it is always placed in apposition with an articular substantive,

• του θεου ημων (2 Peter 1:1)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:2)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:8)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:11)
• ο κυριος ημων (2 Peter 1:14)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:16)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 3:15)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 3:18)

That Beza's apparatus places ημων in apposition to an anarthrous substantive (2 Peter 1:1), when in every other occasion ημων is placed in apposition to an articular substantive, goes to support the idea that Beza's text (particularly at 2 Peter 1:1) is not consistent with how the author used ημων elsewhere. Further, following the NA27's rendering, the very same grammatical structure is used in:

• 2 Peter 1:1 - τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")
• 2 Peter 1:11 - τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")
• 2 Peter 2:20 - τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)
• 2 Peter 3:18 - τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)

So while the KJV has variants that the "critical text" doesn't, it is likewise true that the "critical text" also has variants that the KJV doesn't, and are just as strong (if not stronger).

 

[Inquisitor]

Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. (Exodus 12:15,16)

God called the first and seventh days "holy convocations" and no work was permitted other than the preparation of food. For all intents and purposes those two days were sabbaths (days of total rest). So what did "holy convocation" mean? It meant "a sacred assembly" or "a religious gathering". So in fact those two days were of even greater significance than the ordinary weekly Sabbath.

BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS
1 convocation, sacred assembly Isaiah 1:13 (after קְרֹא), Isaiah 4:5; usually explicitly קֹדֶשׁ ׳מ, technical term in P for religious gathering on Sabbath and certain sacred days, Exodus 12:16 (twice in verse) + 14 t. Leviticus 23; Numbers 28:1; Numbers 29, + (plural) Leviticus 23:2,4,37.

If you can prepare food on those two days, the first day and the last of Unleavened Bread. Then we see the difference between a sabbath day and these two days of UB. Preparing food is not a complete rest day as the sabbath is.

It is important to note, Exodus 12:15-16, does not refer to the first and last day as sabbath days.

No one can call the first and last days of Unleavened Bread a sabbath day. Simply because the sabbath day means the seventh day.

The sixth day of the Jewish week is not called Friday, the sixth day is called the Preparation day.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Preparation, Sabbath, Sunday.

 

[cv5]

I do think the overall gist of the article is accurate. To be honest, when I read it, i immediately thought it was penned by Dan Wallace. It certainly sounds an awful lot like Dan Wallace; I can hear his voice reverberating in the background. However, there is probably only one sentence I disagree with, and that is where the author says,



The first part of the sentence ("Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus") may or may not be entirely correct. The more accurate thing to say is that the "critical text" is as equally reciprocal. For example, consider the deity of the Lord Jesus. There are texts (1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 3:16, etc.) that are exclusive to the Byzantine tradition. But likewise, there are examples exclusive to the "critical text" (1 Pet. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:1, Jn. 14:14, Jude 5) that are just as (if not moreso) pungeant. Take Jn. 14:14 for example. p66 p75 א B all include a little word ("Me") that shifts the direction of our prayer to Jesus, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." This doesn't mean the KJ doesn't also attribute prayer to Jesus, but that it is just one more text to add to the arsenal.

In 2 Peter 1:1, the TR (under the influence of Beza's Greek apparatus), reads this way:



If you look at the NA27, however:



Where Beza's apparatus (and thereby, the TR) places an additional ημων ("our") after σωτηρος ("Savior"), the NA27 does not. The implications of this are huge. Whereas the NA27 refers to Jesus Christ as "our God and Savior," Beza's apparatus (and thereby, the TR) speaks of "our God and our Savior" as two distinct individuals. Further, there are no known mss that feature the additional ημων as found in Beza's text, and so the TR has no textual support for its inclusion. From a stylistic standpoint, Beza's apparatus does not hold water. In every occasion where ημων is used throughout 2 Peter, it is always placed in apposition with an articular substantive,

• του θεου ημων (2 Peter 1:1)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:2)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:8)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:11)
• ο κυριος ημων (2 Peter 1:14)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:16)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 3:15)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 3:18)

That Beza's apparatus places ημων in apposition to an anarthrous substantive (2 Peter 1:1), when in every other occasion ημων is placed in apposition to an articular substantive, goes to support the idea that Beza's text (particularly at 2 Peter 1:1) is not consistent with how the author used ημων elsewhere. Further, following the NA27's rendering, the very same grammatical structure is used in:

• 2 Peter 1:1 - τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")
• 2 Peter 1:11 - τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")
• 2 Peter 2:20 - τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)
• 2 Peter 3:18 - τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)

So while the KJV has variants that the "critical text" doesn't, it is likewise true that the "critical text" also has variants that the KJV doesn't, and are just as strong (if not stronger).

Totally agree with you there. Thanks for the input.

 

[cv5]

That is not accurate at all. See The Revision Revised.

Sure I will take a look at that. If you want to post some excerpts please do so.