KJV Flashcards
To be able to defend the reliability and accuracy of the King James Version of the Bible. (65 cards)
Haven’t many manuscripts been found since 1611?
There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no new READINGS found. The fact is, the King James translators had all of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them today.
The majority of manuscripts that have been discovered and catalogued in the past four hundred years agree more with the TR than with the NA/UBS text; most are in the “Byzantine” tradition.
Where, when and by whom was Sinaiticus (Aleph) found?
By Constantine Tischendorf on the 4th February 1859, in a wastepaper basket in St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai.
How many correctors tried to correct Siniaticus (Aleph)?
Tischendorf conjectured seven.
When was the majority of the NT canon accepted?
By AD 200.
Which 5 books were not accepted as early as the others in the NT canon? When were they accepted?
2-3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation. These were accepted by the 4th century.
What was Kurt Aland most notable for?
He was a principal editor of the UBS Greek text and an associate editor of the NA text.
What did Kurt Aland say regarding the canonicity of some disputed books?
“The only group among the Apostolic Fathers which, by their content and spiritual authority, tower far above the average, are the Epistles of Ignatius… Jude, 2 and 3 John, for example, even 2 Peter, are clearly surpassed by them.” (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, 1961)
What did Kurt Aland say regarding the authorship of Jude (and others)?
“…[T]he Epistle of Jude (and others), because of the declaration of authorship which concealed the real situation, presupposed an apostolic author…” (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, 1961)
What did Kurt Aland say regarding the source of the four gospels?
“The starting point must, however, generally have lain with one Gospel, which was the Gospel… the use of several Gospels together… represents a later stage…” (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, 1961)
Did Erasmus have Vaticanus available to him?
Yes. He rejected it as corrupt.
What did Kurt Aland conclude if the epistles were written really by their claimed authors?
“If the catholic epistles were really written by the apostles whose names they bear and by people who were closest to Jesus… then the real question arises: was there really a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived, if the writings of his closest companions are filled with so little of his reality?” (A History of Christianity, 1985)
Who are the United Bible Societies?
An ecumenical umbrella society of national Bible societies which are also ecumenical in purpose and membership.
Why is the NA/UBS text so widely accepted?
It is the standard text of the Roman Catholic Church. The intro to NA27 says: “The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, an following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.”
How did Hort make judgments on readings in texts?
“The decision may be made either by an immediate and as it were intuitive judgment…” or “congruity to the usual style of the author…” (The Westcott-Hort text, 1882)
Why can we not trust theological liberals with textual criticism?
1 Cor. 2:14-16 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
Don’t newly discovered manuscripts prove that the Textus Receptus falsely adds words?
They may suggest this; but in numerous cases in revisions of modern versions, verses have been removed because of this and then added again in later revisions as evidence proved that the readings were meant to be there in the first place.
Aren’t Textus Receptus readings based on late 12th century manuscripts?
Yes; Erasmus used manuscripts from the 12th century or onwards. But most Textus Receptus readings are supported by early manuscripts that date to within 100-200 years of the earliest manuscripts of those readings.
By what date were Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt? By whose admission?
AD 200, by Origen’s: “…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.”
Why is it erroneous to rely solely on Egyptian manuscript witnesses from the 2nd-4th centuries on the basis of their age?
Early churches could not even agree on the books of the canon, so what basis is there to presume that they had textual uniformity?
What is a physical reason that relying solely on manuscript age is biased towards Alexandrian manuscripts?
Egypt alone has a hyper-arid climate of all the early centers of Christianity, and thus the best climate for preservation of manuscripts.
What is one major reason (other than climate) that early manuscripts throughout the Roman Empire would not exist today?
Persecutions, especially that of Diocletian; manuscripts - especially those from houses and churches, i.e. those most likely to be held as authoritative - were confiscated and burned.
Don’t readings 100-300 years younger (as Byzantine ones are) mean they are further removed from the true reading?
No. 100-300 years is small in terms of manuscript transmission. Erasmus used manuscripts from the 12th century to compile TR in the 16th century (400 yr generation). Beza consulted Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus, from the 5th century, to compile his TR edition in the 16th (1100 yr generation). Westcott/Hort used Vaticanus & Sinaiticus from 4th century to compile their text in the 19th (1500 yr generation).
How could Erasmus have made good decisions based on only six manuscripts?
Erasmus had studied variant readings of the New Testament throughout his life prior to publishing the Textus Receptus. His knowledge concerning the Greek New Testament and its variants did not come solely from looking at these few manuscripts in the two year period.
Didn’t Erasmus back-translate the last six verses of Revelation for his 1516 edition?
If so, then not blindly. Erasmus included a reading in Revelation 22:20 that exists in the Greek and not in any edition of the Vulgate (i.e. “αμην ναι ερχου (Amen. Even so, come)” instead of “amen veni (Amen. Come)”).
Furthermore, there were later revisions of the Textus Receptus made before Beza’s 1598 edition used by the KJV translators, which changed some of Erasmus’ readings. (This strongly implies access to Greek manuscripts for this passage.)
