What manuscripts did the KJV translators use?
There are many different arguments that are used against those who proclaim to be either KJV only or those that claim the KJV is the only English version that should be used.
One such argument is that the KJV is based primarily on the Greek New Testament text compiled by Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus used just a handful of late Greek manuscripts when composing his text and that since the KJV was published in 1611 many new manuscripts that are older and better have been discovered. Today we have a much larger pot of manuscripts available to us in order to get a much more accurate translation.
Daniel Wallace stated that Ersamus primarily used just 3 manuscripts, while he used 3 others sparingly and then 2 more to check his work. (None before the 11th Century)
Text and Canon Institute says 8 manuscripts were used by Erasmus in his first edition that date between the 10th and 15th Centuries
Erasmus used the only Greek New Testament manuscripts available in Basel at his time. These eight manuscripts were written between the 10th and 15th centuries.
https://textandcanon.org/erasmus-and-the-search-for-the-original-text-of-the-new-testament/
Bart Ehrman doesn’t give us an exact number but seems to assert that just a small number were used.
It appears that Erasmus relied heavily on just one twelfth-century manuscript for the Gospels and another, also of the twelfth century, for the book of Acts and the Epistles — although he was able to consult several other manuscripts and make corrections based on their reading. For the book of Revelation he had to borrow a manuscript from his friend the German humanist Johannes Reuchlin;
Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus page 78
James White claims that Erasmus used 10 manuscripts, although he says that the details manuscripts he used are a bit of a mystery.
The actual texts utilized by Erasmus for his Greek testament are a bit of a mystery. Different writers say different things. It is agreed that Erasmus had ten man scripts: four from England, five from Basle, and one borrowed from his friend John Reuchlin.(10) Reuchlin’s codex seemed to Erasmus the oldest, though it is actually from the 10th or 12th century. It represented the best of the available codices, yet Erasmus distrusted it, and utilized it only for the book of Revelation.
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/king-james-onlyism/erasmus-of-rotterdam-his-new-testament-and-its-importance/
I think its a mystery how scholars make these claims and then people seem to think that the KJV was based on just these manuscripts. As we see, while most scholars will claim that Erasmus used just a small number of manuscripts, the exact number of manuscripts is not agreed on.
The simple fact is that the argument is not only incorrect, it does not even come close to telling the whole truth
While it is, possibly true, that Erasmus used somewhere between 6-10 Greek manuscripts for his 1st edition of his Greek NT in 1516, although this number is probably higher, he stated he used more than 7 for 1 John 5:7 alone, it is either through sheer lack of knowledge, being disingenuous with the truth or by complete and utter deception to claim that the translators of the KJV were limited to or only used this text and therefore these few manuscripts when translating the KJV. It must be pointed out that although Erasmus only used these few manuscripts that he had available to him in Basel during the compilation of his 1st edition, which took him 2 years to complete, I do not know of any scholar who has properly studied this subject who would claim that Erasmus had only been exposed to these few manuscripts during his life before engaging on this translation. Erasmus was a serious scholar who travelled Europe looking at manuscripts and recording their readings.
When he was leaving England on one occasion he had his manuscripts confiscated by customs. He said that they had stolen his life’s work. The manuscripts were returned to him in a few days.
I will just point out here that numerical manuscript attestation is not a good argument when it comes to modern textual criticism, as the Longer Ending of Mark is rejected with only 2 Greek manuscripts to support its exclusion).
It must also be noted that MUCH had happened in the near 100 years between the first edition of the Greek NT composed by Erasmus and the translation of the KJV. It is simply incorrect to understand that after the 1516 edition of Erasmus the next event was the translation of KJV. The KJV is NOT translated from ANY of the editions of the Erasmanian texts.
Erasmus himself admitted that there were errors in his first edition. Erasmus however, would go on to edit his own work no less than 4 more times, where Erasmus addressed the mistakes and issues of his first edition. These editions were completed in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.
And what need was there to call it a retractation when I promised even in the first edition of the book that I would
change in the second edition whatever mistakes had been made in it?185
Nor do I conceal in the second edition that I changed my mind in many
places, that some things were rephrased – in a word, that everything had
been improved.
Erasmus Apologia Edward Lee
But Erasmus did not believe that there were serious mistakes in his work.
So far I have spoken as if I had made dangerous mistakes in a good
many places. If that were so, I would have it in common with the most
approved authors of our religion. But as it is, may I be struck dead if
you can find two among Lee’s notes that are of any significance.
Erasmus Apologia Edward Lee
It must be noted that Erasmus used manuscript 1 the text of which has lineage back to Origen
William Tyndale wanted to make a translation in English available for anyone. He used the Greek text of Erasmus to make a translation into English in 1534.
Tyndale was executed by the Catholic church in 1536 when he was strangled and then his body was burned.
His infamous last words were reportedly “Lord open the King of England’s eyes.”
Tyndale’s words were considered so well translated that approx 70% + of the words that are found in the KJV NT are taken from his translation.
The work of Erasmus was continued by Robert Estienne probably better known as Stephanus. He himself produced 4 editions of the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550, and finally in 1551
This was followed Theodore Beza who also updated the Textus Receptus a total of 5 times between 1565 and 1604. All of these updated versions of the TR were done with much more care and attention than the first edition of Erasmus.
The KJV translators used these updated versions during their translation process.
The KJV translators also had access to the Complutensian Polyglot, a multi lingual translation which included Greek (as did Erasmus for his 4th and 5th editions) . This was completed in 1514, 2 years before Erasmus completed his first edition. The Complutensian Polyglot was not published until 1522.
The Complutensian Polyglot was an independent edition of the Greek New Testament produced in Spain by 42 translators that used different Greek manuscripts from Erasmus, yet the text is very similar in comparison to the TR and also includes 1 John 5:7
Furthermore the KJV translators also had available to them but not limited to, the Bibles of Myles Coverdale (The Coverdale Bible) 1535, John Roger’s Matthew’s (The Matthew’s Bible) 1537, The Great Bible 1539, Richard Tavener’s 1539, the Geneva Bible 1560 and the Bishops Bible 1568 which was revised both in 1572 and 1602.
The translators also had the Catholic readings as they had use of the Rheims-Douai (Douay–Rheim) 1582. They of course also had the latin Vulgate as well.
It was never the intention of the translators to start from scratch. There were already good translations of the Bible available.
The translators wrote.
“Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark” (The Translators to the Reader, 1611 KJV, ninth page).
It is true that new manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was published, however, in these manuscripts hardly any NEW readings have been found. Almost all of these new readings are clearly non original. The vast majority of these newly discovered manuscripts support the readings of the KJV.
The translators of the KJV had access to, and all the known readings were at their disposal, even if they did not have all manuscripts. Also the vast and overwhelming majority of these newly discovered manuscripts actually support the text of the TR.
There are over 5800 manuscripts available today and the vast majority of these, at least 95%, agree with and support the textus Receptus. In certain places this rises to 99% agreement.
There are only a handful, approx 45-50 manuscripts that support the text that underlines the modern versions and this text is itself primarily based on just 2, Codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus. So to use the argument that the KJV translators used just 6-10 manuscripts would be slightly hypocritical even if it were true…which it isn’t. (I will deal with the text that underlines the modern versions in a further writing). It is slightly disingenuous to assert we have such an abundance of manuscript evidence available today when the vast majority are ignored when it comes to textual criticism.
It is also incorrect to say that only later manuscripts were used in the compiling of the Textus receptus. This again is only based on the 1st edition of Erasmus and not later editions or the TR of Stephanus and Beza.
Erasmus used Codex 1 and also minuscule 69 noting some of its readings. Beza used Codex Bezae which is dated to around 400 AD and also Codex Claromontanus that dates to the mid 6th Century. Stephanus used Codex Regius (L, 019) Which dates from the 8th century. It is considered one of the most accurate copies of the gospels.
Stephanus also stated that 9-16 manuscripts that he used for 1 John 5:7 contained the comma. This shows that manuscripts that were available to Stephanus are no longer available to us today.
We also know that Erasmus used the Biblical quotations found in the writings of the church fathers including Irenaeus which goes back to the 2nd Century. In 1533 Erasmus was also provided with a list of over 300 readings from Codex Vaticanus, the main manuscript of the Critical text. (Possibly up to 365). The dating of this would mean that Erasmus did not have access to these readings in his first editions, although he likely had some readings of Vaticanus, including the reading of 1 John 5:7, provided to him in communications with Paulus Bombasius who was prefect at the Vatican Library.
M.A Screech makes note of this in his introduction to Erasmus Annotations on the New Testament edited by Anne Reeve.
“At all events, Erasmus was not gullible enough to accept uncritically the evidence of four or five Greek manuscripts. His Annotations show him contstantly learning from a wide range of evidence. He had far less to go on than modern editors, but his methods were similar, statements to the contrary in general histories of New Testament scholarship can safely be discounted. It does set one dreaming, though, to realise that, through Paul Bombasius, he actually had indirect access to readings of the codex Vaticanus.”
introduction to Erasmus Annotations on the New Testament edited by Anne Reeve. page 18
Here is what Erasmus stated in his annotations
Additionally, Paolo Bombace, a learned and honest man, made a literal transcription of this passage at my request from a very ancient codex in the Vatican Library, in which the testimony of the Father, Word and Spirit is not mentioned.3 (If the authority of antiquity impresses you, the book was extremely old; if you are impressed by the authority of the pope, it is his library from which this witness was sought.
Erasmus Annotations
If every hour that he lived had been ten, he worked hard enough to occupy them all. He spent his time in the great libraries, devouring all the books that he could find. He toiled harder than ever at his Greek in competition with his friends in England. He studied the Greek poets and philosophers ; he studied the Greek Christian Fathers; he translated Greek plays, translated Plutarch, translated Lucian—all under enormous difficulties, for printed books were scarce, and MSS. jealously guarded.
Froude life and letters of erasmus: lectures delivered at oxford 1893-4 page 63
Erasmus actually rejected Codex Vaticanus as an authoritative manuscript.
The manusrcipt to which Erasmus refers at the end of this passage is the Codex Vaticanus par excellence, now Gr 1209, designated as B. Erasmus regarded the text of this codex as influenced by the Vulgate and therefore inferior. For the same reasons he had earlier, in 1515/6, also excluded Gregory I as an inferior manuscript, from the constitution of the Greek text of his own Novum Instrumentum although this manuscript is now generally regarded as more reliable than the Codices which Erasmus preferred and made use of. Erasmus passed the same verdict on the Codex Rhodiensis (minuscule Wettstein Paul 50 = Apostolos 52) from which Stunica cited readings in his polemic against Erasmus.
De Jong *
Erasmus’ view, according to which Greek manuscripts had been adapted to Latin, was indeed applicable to the Codex Britannicus, the Comma Johanneum was no more than a retroversion of the Vulgate. But for most other manuscripts, it was no more than an idee fixe. The Bulla aurea of the Council of Ferrara and Florence says nothing at all of any decision to revise Greek biblical manuscripts in accordance with the Vulgate. In 1534 Erasmus admitted that he had not read the bull himself, but only knew its content from hearsay. He maintained, however, that even if the bull did not say anything about the intended latinisation of Greek manuscripts, this latinisation had in fact been carried out in some cases.
De Jong *
In 1534 Erasmus responded to the objection of Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda that Erasmus had not utilised the codex.
Sepulveda and Erasmus had been in contact on numerous occasions by letter.
According to a letter from Sepulveda to Erasmus, Erasmus was provided a list of 365 readings from Codex Vaticanus although the specific readings that were supplied are not recorded.
Erasmus suspected that the manuscript may have been a back translation from the Latin.
Selpulveda himself said that at least one back translation was probable.
Letter of Sepulveda in Erasmi Opera, iii. col. 1762. *
We should also make note that Erasmus made use of the quotations of church fathers in his work. So had access to readings that may even predate any known manuscript that we have today.
Erasmus was also around many top scholars and printers through much of his life.
In 1497 Erasmus came to England for the first time. He was introduced by Mountjoy to Colet who would later become the Dean of St.Pauls, also to Grocyn, who was teaching the rudiments of Greek at Oxford. He was friends with the Cardinal of St George. He was well respected and Pope Julius II tried to get him to set out his works for him.
Thus he left Rome as he had come, carrying only with him the respect and regard of the Cardinal of St. George and the more famous Cardinal who was to succeed Julius as Leo X.
Life page 92
Erasmus lectured at Cambridge University while in England (at least in his 2nd and likely 3rd visits to England).
In fact, he lived with Aldas for 7 months. It is simply ridiculous to assert that his final edition, or even his first was based on such few manuscripts.
The fact is that we just do not know how many manuscripts that Erasmus used, we only think we know have identified some of them. We do not know what manuscripts were available to scholars 500 years ago. We know manuscripts get lost, damaged or destroyed. The fact that Stephanus refers to manuscripts that we do not have today shows this to be true.
The reality is that the KJV basically reads as the 1598 version of Beza. There are approximately 20 places where the KJV differs from this text.
In 1881 Scrivener produced a Greek text that supposedly underlies the KJV. This text differs from the Text of Beza in 190 places. Scrivener was not a TR scholar. He was actually on the side of Westcott and Hort and believed there were words and verses that should be removed from the biblical text of the KJV.
It is asserted by many that Scrivener back translated the KJV into Greek. this is actually inaccurate. Scrivener actually started with the text of Beza and simply adapted it where he believed the KJV differed in its readings. However, many of the differences are actually untranslatable. In many places the difference is simply down to a spelling.
Here we shall just look at a couple of differences that are not really differences at all, and a few of the ones that are.
The first two differences of Scrivener’s list involve a name.
Matthew 1:8 and Matthew 1:9
Scrivener records the name Ὀζίαν
Beza has Ὁζίαν
The difference is minimal. This is a “rough” and “smooth” reading of the name Ozios
You can read the difference between the two here. Greek diacritics – Wikipedia
We would understand this in the way we pronounce the word. the Rough sound would be Hozios and the smooth would be Ozios. The rough has a H sound at the start (although in Greek spelling it does not have the H) The sound is dictated by the.diacritical mark at the beginning of the name.
The King James Bible has the smoother Ozios reading, without the H sound at the start.
Here is the reading of the 1611 KJV
And the reading as is found in the KJV today.
Matthew 1:8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
The KJV followed the Bishops Bible reading which read Ozias
There were a number of reasons why the KJV translators went with this reading over the hard sound reading. The KJV translators were given a set of rules to follow.
The first rule stated that they should follow the Bishops Bible wherever it was accurate in its reading.
The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
The 2nd Rule stated tha the names of the prophets, holy writers and other names should be retained to how they were spoken “vulgarly”, meaning in common use.
“The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.”
So working with these two rules, the name Ozios was commonly pronounced with the softer reading, along with this being the reading of the Bishops Bible, the KJV translators went with this reading.
Another example of this difference between the text of Beza and the KJV can be found in Matthew 3:3
The Text of Scrivener reads Ἠσαΐου with a soft reading.
The text of Beza has the rough reading Ἡσαΐου
The KJV has the softer reading Esaias
The Bishops Bible had a softer reading Esayas
Matthew 3:3 For this is he, of whom it is spoken by the prophete Esayas, saying. The voyce of one crying in the wyldernesse: prepare ye the way of the Lorde, make his pathes strayght.
We must also remember that the KJV is not simply a translation of the Textus Receptus but it is in itself a version of the Textus Receptus.
OLD TESTAMENT
When it comes to the Old Testament, the text is based on the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text goes back to the middle ages. It is a representation of the Aaron ben Moses ben Asher text (the Hebrew text with vowel pointing). The Oldest complete manuscript we have of this text is the Leningrad Codex which dates to around the 11th Century. There is also the Aleppo Codex which dates to the 10th Century. It was once the oldest complete manuscript in existence but this was damaged in 1947 in a fire during the Palestine Civil war. There is a “theory” that some of the pages, most likely from the Torah, were removed and hidden before the damage happened, but this has no real evidence to support it, it remains speculation.
The oldest manuscripts of the Masorectic text date to the 9th Century. It is very likely that the Masoretic text that the KJV translators used was the 1525 produced by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, and published by Daniel Bomberg. The KJV has only a few places of disagreement.
It has been argued that the text of Jacob ben Hayyim was only based on late manuscripts. He did not have access to the older manuscripts. However, the text of Jacob ben Hayyim is almost identical to the Leningrad codex differing in just 9 places (vowel pointing and paragraph division.)
These are found in 1 Kings 20:38; Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12.
His work included the Masoretic text, Jewish commentaries and targum translation.
It is often assumed that the Mosoretic text thus is not a reliable text. With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in the 1940’s where many new manuscripts were discovered, with many variants and differences from the Masoretic text, it has been asserted that the Masoretic text is a later adaptation of the original Hebrew text. This is simply not correct. I won’t go into detail about the dead sea scrolls here, I shall do that on another post, but it is a fact that the dead sea scrolls are a mix of texts, agreeing with the Masoretic text in places, with the LXX in others and neither in other places. There are even places where a reading is supportive of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
The Masoretic text is based on the proto masoretic text. This text is written in consonants only. The Masoretes only added the vowel pointings.
We have very few manuscripts of the Proto Masoretic text, which equates to around 5% of the Old testament text. However, when compared, the two texts are almost identical, showing the faithfulness of Jewish scribes in their copying process. 25 manuscripts have been discovered after the Qumran manuscripts, in other sites (away from Qumran, where the dead sea scrolls were discovered). Masada, Wadi Murabba‘at, Wadi Sdeir, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal ‘Arugot, and Naḥal Se’elim, These manuscripts, unlike those at Qumran, are always Masoretic text manuscripts. These manuscripts date to around 50BC – 135AD, thus showing a text that aligns almost identically with the Masoretic text, in consonant form, existed 1000 years prior.
Here are some of the manuscripts that have been found since the 1960’s
Masada Psalms scroll copy a (MasPsa) – dating to the end of the 1stcentury BCE, and containing one complete and two fragmentary columns.
Masada Leviticus scroll copy b (MasLevb) – dating to 30 BCE–30 CE, and containing five fragmentary columns.
Psalms scroll from cave 5/6 in Naḥal Ḥever (5/6ḤevPs) – dating to 50–68 CE, and containing twelve fragmentary columns.
Murabba‛at scroll of the Minor Prophets (MurXII) – dating to c. 115 CE and containing major parts of these books in 21 columns
The Dead Sea Scrolls – MUR Minor Prophets
En-Gedi scroll of Leviticus 1-2 – ascribed to the 1st–2nd century CE as shown by Segal et al.[6]
It has been carbon dated as being 3rd-4th Century but this was disputed by Ada Yardeni who argued that the lettering meant it should be dated to 50-100AD. This itself has been disputed by Drew Longacre who argued that the text can be dated to the same date as the carbon dating.
“The En-Gedi scroll was radiocarbon dated using the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry technique by Dr. Elisabetta Boaretto at the Weizmann Institute D- REAMS Radiocarbon Laboratory. The test results indicate a probability of 68.2% that the scroll dates between 235–340 CE, and a probability of 88.9% that it dates between 210–390 CE. They allow for a 6.5% probability that the scroll dates to the 2nd century CE.”
This manuscript was discovered in 1970. It was damaged in a Synagogue fire around 600AD. It was scientifically “unwrapped”, the text was read using a non invasive method in 2015. Its text is identical to that of the Masorectic text, Leningrad codex, in both consonant form and paragraph division.
So we now have manuscripts that support the Masoretic text that date all the way back to and probably before the time of Jesus.
Most targums in general support the Masoretic text type. However, this is not always the case and especially the Qumran Targum on Job and the Samaritan Targum do not support the MT.
The simple fact is that the KJV translators not only had access to but also utilised a lot more than the 6-10 manuscripts that supposedly formed the 1st edition of Erasmus. Any understanding contrary is simply wrong.
If you would like to support my work https://cash.app/LJFollowInTruth
If you liked this study please subscribe here ,
please also consider supporting my page, for details click here