Greek manuscripts underlying TR mishandled by men

Does KJV-only research acknowledge the fact that the few Greek NT manuscripts that were used in making the printed Textus Receptus editions were mishandled by men in that men had introduced copying errors into them?

Does KJV-only research point out the fact that those few Greek NT manuscripts were incompletely and imperfectly collated so that the TR editors relied upon incomplete and incorrect information?

 

Having read all the KJV-only "research" that I can find (over 100 to 150 books by KJV-only authors), I have seen a few KJV-only authors admit the fact that the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus had a critical apparatus and textual footnotes with different readings from different Greek NT manuscripts. On the other hand, some KJV-only authors attempt to try to deny the truth about the varying TR editions and the varying Greek manuscripts used to make them. I do not recall even one KJV-only author who reveals the truth that the few Greek NT manuscripts used by Stephanus were incompletely and imperfectly collated.

Some clear evidence of the composite nature of the Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts can be seen again in the Greek NT manuscripts used by textual critic Robert Estienne or Stephanus (1503-1559) as he edited some TR text editions. The first two editions [1546 and 1549] of Stephanus' Greek New Testament were a compound of the earlier editions by Erasmus and the earlier Complutensian Polyglot. His third edition (1550) is considered to be an important one. The edition of Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible edited by H. B. Hackett asserted that “numerous instances occur in which Stephens deserts his former text and all his MSS to restore an Erasmian reading” (III, p. 2132). KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Doug Stauffer wrote: “His 1550 edition was the first Greek New Testament with the critical apparatus providing the variant readings and symbols to indicate manuscript evidence” (One Book One Authority, p. 587). KJV-only author Tim Fellure asserted that Stephanus “is generally regarded as the first true textual critic” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 130). Edward F. Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener as edited by Edward Miller maintained that the text of the 1550 edition “is perpetually at variance with the majority” of his fifteen Greek manuscripts and the Complutensian, “and in 119 places with them all” (Plain Introduction to the Criticism, Vol. II, p. 190).

Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448). Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).

Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of these collations that underlie TR editions?

Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Samuel Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214). Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Marvin Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Richard Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv). Is the textual apparatus in the 1550 Stephanus TR edition honeycombed with errors?

In any of their books, do KJV-only advocates deal adequately with these pertinent facts that the collating of the few Greek NT manuscripts that are the basis for the TR editions was incomplete, imperfect, or slipshod, which could suggest the possibility that some of the TR textual criticism decisions may not have been soundly made?

Would D. A. Waite in effect suggest that the verifiable fact of some scribal errors or copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used in preparing the printed TR editions means that those manuscripts cannot be said to be preserved?

 

Instead of dealing soundly and adequately with all the relevant, verifiable facts, some KJV-only authors have made or make unproven or factually incorrect assertions or assumptions that would attempt to dismiss or avoid some of them and that would contradict others.

David Cloud maintained that “no one denies that such a variety [among the Byzantine or traditional Greek manuscripts] exists” (Faith, p. 714)., but perhaps he does not consider what some KJV-only authors have asserted.

For example, KJV-only author Ed DeVries claimed: “Using the legible copies of the Received Text Erasmus typeset a text on the printing press. This new printed text was letter for letter and word for word the same as the Received Text from which it was copied” (Divinely Inspired, p. 14). Ed DeVries declared that “these ‘received’ manuscripts are in complete agreement with each other” (p. 16). Ed DeVries claimed: “No one, not even liberal scholars, questions the fact that the Textus Receptus is a perfect representation of the manuscripts from which it was copied” (Ibid.). Troy Clark asserted that “he [Erasmus] perfectly copied” and that “there was not one Word change from its original form” (Perfect Bible, p. 121). Bob Kendall contended that “the TR has not one footnote” and that “the TR has no footnotes” (How Firm, pp. 28, 41). Troy Clark claimed: “Stephanus used the 16 Majority Text Greek manuscripts in the library of King Francis I and son Henry II. These were all identical, even down to the letter” (Perfect Bible, p. 144). Troy Clark asserted: “The Textus Receptus will always represent the undisputed majority of 95-99% of Greek texts that mirror agreement with each other” (p, 72). Al Lacy asserted: "From God's pure manuscripts came the AV1611" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 18). Al Lacy maintained that “there is a set of manuscripts that are free of error” (p. 85) and that God “kept us error-free COPIES in the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew and the Received Text of the Greek” (p. 116). David W. Daniels claimed that the KJV “was accurately translated from perfect copies of God’s words” (BattleCry, Sept/Oct., 2007, p. 11). Wayne Williams asserted: "There are many infallible manuscripts such as the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus to verify the preserved Scripture" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 21). Bruce Borders claimed that “over 5000 Antiochian manuscripts or parts of manuscripts are in existence today” and that “each completely agrees with the others, with absolutely no discrepancies” (The Only Bible, p. 14). Jeffrey Khoo asserted: “The Lord has certainly kept these [Byzantine] manuscripts pure and uncorrupted throughout the centuries” (Kwok, VPP, p. 129). James Rasbeary claimed that “the Greek texts used by the [KJV] translators were not marred by mistakes and accumulated errors” and that “these [5300] Greek manuscripts are in agreement with each other and with the King James Bible” (What’s Wrong, p. 103). Even D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 95). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite again claimed that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 53). Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132). David Cloud himself claimed: “Though it is true that the Greek Received Text differs from any single manuscript or texttype, it only does so very slightly” (Faith, p. 710).