MSS Available in 1611 and Now

In the effort to show that the material available for the early translations of the Bible were practically as good as the more abundant material available in later times, the following quotation is found on page 78 of the author’s book: “On the whole the difference in the matter of the sources available in 390, 1590, 1890 are not very serious.” On page 81 he says; “The problems presented by these two manuscripts (Vatican and Sinai) were well known, not only to the translators of the King James, but also to Erasmus. Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Received Text was correct.”RABV 60.2

These statements are all entirely unwarranted, as is shown by the following testimony taken from many of the same general character:RABV 61.1

1611 MSS of late date and few in number.—“With regard to the Greek Text (used in 1611), it would appear that, if to some extent the Translators exercised an independent judgment, it was mainly in choosing amongst readings contained in the principal editions of the Greek Text that had appeared in the sixteenth century. Wherever they seem to have followed a reading which is not found in any of those editions, their rendering may probably be traced to the Latin Vulgate. Their chief guides appear to have been the later editions of Stephanus and Beza, and also, to a certain extent, the Complutensian (Catholic) Polyglot. All these were founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number, and used with little critical skill. But in those days it could hardly have been otherwise. Nearly all the more ancient of the documentary authorities have become known only within the last two centuries; some of the most important of them, indeed, within the last few years. Their publication has called forth not only improved editions of the Greek Text, but a succession of instructive discussions on the variations which have been brought to light, and on the best modes of distinguishing original readings from changes introduced in the course of transcription. While therefore it has long been the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness.”—The Parallel New Testament, Greek and English, Revisers’ Preface, pp. vii, viii.RABV 61.2

About 25 MSS in 1611 versus 3000 now.—“The TR (Textus Receptus) is consequently derived from (at most) some 20 or 25 MSS, dating from the last few centuries before the invention of printing, and not selected on any estimate of merit, but merely as being ready to the editor’s hands. They may be taken as fairly representative of the great mass of Gr. Test MSS of the late Middle Ages, but no more. At the present time we have over 3000 Greek MSS of the NT, or of parts of it, and they range back in age to the 4th cent., or even, in the case of a few small fragments, to the 3rd. The history of Textual Criticism during the past two centuries and a half has been the history of the accumulation of all this material (and of the further masses of evidence provided by ancient translations), and of its application to the discovery of the true text of the NT; and it is not surprising that such huge successions of evidence, going back in age a thousand years or more behind the date of Erasmus’ principal witnesses, should have necessitated a considerable number of alterations in the details of the TR.”—Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by James Hastings, D. D., p. 916.RABV 61.3

Now over 4000 Greek MSS besides other ancient evidence.—“The literary evidence to the text of the NT is vastly more abundant than that to any other series of writings of like compass in the entire range of ancient letters. Of the sacred books of the Heb. Bible there is no known copy antedating the 10th cent. A. D. Of Homer there is no complete copy earlier than the 13th cent. Of Herodotus there is no NS earlier than the 10th cent. Of Vergil but one copy is earlier than the 4th cent., and but a fragment of all Cicero’s writings is even as old as this, of the NT, however, we have two splendid MSS of the 4th cent., (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) at least ten of the 5th, twenty-five of the 6th and in all a total of more than four thousand copies in wholeRABV 61.4

or in part of the Gr NT. To these copies of the text itself may be added the very important and even more ancient evidence of the VSS of the NT in the Lat, Syr, and Egyp tongues, and the quotations and clear references to the NT readings found in the words of the early Church Fathers, as well as the inscriptions and monumental data in Syria, Asia Minor, Africa, Italy, and Greece, dating from the very age of the apostles and their immediate successors. It thus appears that the documents of the Christian faith are both so many and so widely scattered that these very facts more than any others have embarrassed the final determination of the text. Now, however, the science of textual criticism has so far advanced and the textual problems of the Gr Testament have been so well traversed that one may read the Christian writings with an assurance approximating certainty,”—Charles Fremont Sitterly in “The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, “Vol. 5, p. 2950.RABV 61.5

Latest Inventory.—“The last inventory of NT MSS (that of von Soden) contains 1716 copies of the Gospels, 531 of Acts, 628 of Pauline Epp., and 219 of Apoc.; and of this total, as stated above, less than l60 are uncials.”—RABV 61.6

Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by James Hastings, D. D., p. 918.RABV 61.7

Science of textual criticism sprung up since 1611.—“He (the reader) will have seen also (to recapitulate here for greater clearness)—(1.) that in the present day we have access to a treasury of ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations such as the scholars of King James’s day had never dreamed of; (2.) that the science of textual criticism, which teaches the value and the best methods of dealing with these documents, has entirely sprung up since; (3.) that our scholars are better acquainted with the Sacred languages, and able to distinguish delicate shades of meaning which were quite lost on their predecessors; and (4.) lastly, that owing to the natural growth of the English language itself many words in the Authorized Version have become obsolete, and several have completely changed their meaning during the past 300 years.”—” How We Got Our Bible,” J. Paterson Smyth, LL. B., B. D., pp. 112, 113.RABV 61.8

Where then is the “massive evidence” of Erasmus’ day that led him to “consider that the Received Text was correct,” as set over against the thousands of much later date?RABV 61.9