The Committe of the Revised Standard Version - What They Believed

Yes, Erasmus, as with most early reformers, had some beliefs which I believe to be wrong. Look at his debate (via letters) with Martin Luther which resulted in Luther's "The Bondage of the Will."

And there is no doubt the TR (whichever of the 31 different editions you choose) has some flaws, some more serious than others.

Even the defenders of the TR over the text of Westcott and Hort, such as John William Burgon, believed the TR was in need of revision and suggested over 150 changes in just the book of Matthew.

Any time anyone picks a translation (such as the KJV) and insists it is the "only inspired word of God in English" we already know this person is abysmally ignorant of bible inspiration, preservation, and translation.

And "TR Only" is that abysmal ignorance one step removed. When we actually learn about the manuscript evidence and begin to see how the Greek New Testament was passed down through the intervening ages from 100 AD unto today, only then do we begin to see how we actually got our bibles.

When we apply rational criteria to the manuscript evidence we deduce that the best criteria are:

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnesses against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to by a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

8. Geography. The area of origin of the manuscript. Did the manuscript originate in a geographic location to which books of the New Testament were addressed? A geographic location where the autographs may have existed for as much as several hundred years to which early copies could be compared with and corrected from.

When these rational criteria are critically applied to the manuscript evidence the result is a strong indication that what we now call the Byzantine Textform is most likely to represent the original autographs.

But always remember, Versionism is not a matter of doctrine (nowhere does the bible teach any version or any manuscript tradition is the only correct version/manuscript). It is a matter of scholarship. And modern scholarship in the area of textual criticism is showing a observable shift toward the Byzantine textform as more and more textual scholars begin to question the former presuppositions which resulted in the Critical texts so popular today.

 

The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version, 1881 was published 3 years after FHA Scrivener's death.

It is an eclectic, critical text, that did not exist until Scrivener compiled it in the late 1880s.

What most KJV/TR defenders often fail to realize is that Scrivener did not believe Matthew 16:2b–3 belonged in the bible.

Did not think Luke 22:43-44, Christ's agony at Gethsemane, belonged in the bible.

And that John 5:3.4, the troubling of the waters at Bethesda, and the healing of the first to jump in, did not belong in the bible.

Nor did the Pericope Adulterae, John 7:53-8:11, belong in the bible.

 

It's a Greek text.

They would be mistaken.