When a believer begins to defend the King James Version, unbelievers immediately commence to bring up various questions and problems in the effort to put the believer down and silence him. Let us therefore consider some of these alleged difficulties.
(A) THE KING JAMES VERSION A VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New
Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus [Scrivener,
Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 60].
Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.
The King James translators also placed variant readings in the margin, 37 of them according to Scrivener [Ibid., pp. 58-59]. To these 37 textual notes 16 more were added during the 17th and 18th centuries [Ibid., pp. 56-57], and all these variants
still appear in the margins of British printings of the King James Version. In the special providence of God, however, the text of the King James Version has been kept pure. None of these variant readings has been interpolated into it. Of the original 37 variants some are introduced by such formulas as, "Many ancient copies add these words"; "Many Greek copies have"; "Or, as some copies read"; "Some read". Often, however, the reading is introduced simply by "Or", thus making it hard to tell whether a variant reading or an alternative translation is intended.
One of these variant readings is of special interest. After John 18:13 the Bishops' Bible (1568) had added the following words in italics, "And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." This was a conjectural emendation similar to one which had been suggested by Luther and to another which had been adopted by Beza in his Latin version on the authority of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). The purpose of it was to harmonize John 18:13 with Matt. 26:57, which states that the interrogation of Jesus took place at the house of Caiaphas rather than at the house of Annas. The King James translators, however, along with Erasmus and Calvin, solved the problem by translating John 18:24 in the pluperfect, "Now Annas HAD sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." This made it unnecessary to emend the text at John 18:13 after the manner of the Bishops' Bible. Hence the King James translators took this conjectural emendation out of the text and placed it in their margin, where it has retained its place unto this day [see The New Testament Octapla, edited by Luther A. Weigle, New York:
Nelson, 1962].
Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate. One well known passage in which they did this was Luke 23:42, the prayer of the dying thief. Here the Greek New Testaments of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza have, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest IN Thy kingdom," with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. But all the English Bibles of that period (Tyndale, Great, Geneva, Bishops', Rheims, King James) have, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest INTO Thy kingdom," with the Latin Vulgate and also with Papyrus 75 and B.
At John 8:6 the King James translators followed the Bishops' Bible in adding the clause, "as though He heard them not." This clause is found in E G H K and many other manuscripts, in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of Stephanus.
After 1769 it was placed in italics in the King James Version.
Similarly, at 1 John 2:23 the King James translators followed the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible in adding the clause, "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also," and in placing the clause in italics, thus indicating that it was not found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts or in the earlier editions of the Textus Receptus. Beza included it, however, in his later editions, and it is found in the Latin Vulgate and in Aleph and B. Hence modern versions have removed the italics and given the clause full status. The Bishops' Bible and the King James Version join this clause to the preceding by the word "but," taken from Wyclif. With customary scrupulosity the King James translators enclosed this "but" in brackets,thus indicating that it was not properly speaking part of the text but merely a help in translation.
(B) THE EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS COMPARED THEIR DIFFERENCES LISTED
The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully listed by Scrivener (1884)
[Authorized Edition of the English Bible, pp. 56-60,242-63] and Hoskier (1890) [A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, by H.C. Hoskier, London: David Nutt, 1890, Appendices B & C]. The following are some of the most important of these differences.
Luke 2:22
"their purification" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts.
"her purification" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate
(?).
Luke 17:36
"two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other left" -- Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Stephanus 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir have it with D, Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Syriac.
John 1:28
"Bethabara beyond Jordan" -- Erasmus, Stephanus 3 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir, Pi 1 13, Old Syriac, Sahidic.
"Bethany beyond Jordan" -- Stephanus 1 2, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 66 & 75 Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.
John 16:33
"shall have tribulation" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, D 69 many other Greek manuscripts, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate.
"have tribulation" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts.
Rom. 8:11
"by His Spirit that dwelleth in you" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, Aleph A C, Coptic.
"because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including BD, Peshitta,
Latin Vulgate.
Rom. 12:11
"serving the Lord" -- Erasmus 1, Beza, King James, Elzevir, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 46 Aleph A B,
Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.
"serving the time" -- Erasmus 2345, Stephanus, D G.
1 Tim. 1:4
"godly edifying" -- Erasmus, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.
"dispensation of God" -- Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including Aleph A G.
Heb. 9:1
Here Stephanus reads "first tabernacle," with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Erasmus, Beza, Luther, Calvin omit
"tabernacle" with Pap 46 Aleph B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. The King James Version omits "tabernacle" and regards "covenant"
as implied.
James 2:18
"without thy works" -- Calvin, Beza (last 3 editions), King James Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.
"by thy works" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza 1565, majority of Greek manuscripts.
This comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other
are very minor. They are also very few.
According to Hoskier, the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of
Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times.
What a contrast!
The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God's special
providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum. But these disagreements were not eliminated
altogether, for this would require not merely providential guidance but a miracle. In short, God chose
Go here for the rest of this great article on KJV:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htm
I have been studying Transmission of Scripture for many years. Textual Critism among Scholars seems to bea welcomed effort. But, these kinds of examination done between knowledgeable Christians are mostly limited to writings on the internet or books that are available. My concern and desire is to advance these kinds of examinations in our local Churches. Questions like; How do we go about getting local Pastors to permit another denominational Scholar to hold a Seminar on Transmission and Textual Critism of Bibles?
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Your above Text of the Textus Receptus would be a grea start.