Sounds like those Greek scribes who copied the Byzantine text of the NT were not as diligent as the Hebrew scribes who copied the Hebrew Text of the OT. The Orthodox should have hired the Jews to make copies, don't you think??? or maybe the scribes who copied the Byzantine Text accurately thoughout history were Jews, Christian Jews or Jewish Christians.
You need to get your fact straight: between 80and 90% of the wording of the Geneva Bible is Tyndale's.
But we're talking about the KJV not the Geneva Bible, and the KJV used Beza's 1598 Greek Text for its translation.
You have questioned everything so far without proving a single objection. Your major one was whether Erasmus's work involved retro-translation from Latin to Greek. It did. I have backed up everything I have said while you sit and wait for me to give you facts so that you can switch gears. Well, keep your seat.
Oh please, get a grip. We agree on much of what you have said. However you are overstating your case. Most of Erasmus's First Edition of the Greek Text came from Greek manuscripts and you know that because you have already provided a list of five of them and there were others besides those five. And he used other manuscripts to improve on that one for his Second Edition.
It is well known that he did have to translate the Vulgate back into the Greek for the latter part of the Book of Revelation in his first edition, but let's get real, to say that his entire translation was a retro-translation when only a few verses came from the Latin is an exaggeration of monstrous proportions. Anyway Jerome's Latin Vulgate, since it was based upon Alexandrian Texts, would not have translated back into the Byzantine Text of Erasmus' Greek Text, right??? So your "retro" theory falls flat on its face.
And the fact remains that Erasmus's Greek Text was improved upon, revised, corrected, confirmed by Stephanus and later Beza and it was Beza's 1598 Greek Text that was used by KJV translators for their English NT.
You guys yap about "tradition" but the fact remains that the Byzantine Text that underlies the KJV is the traditional text of the Orthodox Church which the Greek scribes and monks knew and transmitted and sent to the West --- a fact of history that the modern day Orthodox seem to have ignored in their disdain for those big bad Protestants.
You haven't answered my question: Just when did the Orthodox Church abandon the Byzantine Text [also known as the Antiochian Text] and adopt the Codex Alexandrinus Text for their scriptures with the Byzantine text in the Gospels but the Alexandrian Text for the Epistles and Acts???. Could you search that out for me and tell me what Church Council made that decision and when???
We know that the Roman Church decided upon Jerome's Latin Vulgate for its official Bible, and that the Council of Jamnia fixed the Hebrew Text that was used by Origen, Jerome, and the Masoretes, but just when did the Greek Orthodox officially adopt Codex Alexandrinus as its official bible???? When was that???
I don't think it had top do with diligence, or lack of it. Christianity had an agenda, which started when it was obvious that the Church will not make it in Israel. The more "Christianized" scriptures enjoyed favor of the Church.
But we're talking about the KJV not the Geneva Bible, and the KJV used Beza's 1598 Greek Text for its translation
My understanding is that KJV is based mostly on Textus Receptus. The Geneva Bible is based on Beza's Greek.
In either case, the problem with the so-called Majority Text (Byzantine-type) is that it is 'too polished,' redacted, etc. compared to the Alexandrain-type.
My understanding is that the Greek Orthodox Church uses Byzantine-type for the Gospels and Alexandrian-type for subsequent books, which corresponds more or less to Codex Alexandrinus.
I don't think there was ever an official 'switch' after C. Alexandrinus came out in the 5th century. C. Alexandrinus was never a pure Byzantine-type canon.
The only reason the Byzantine-type was instrumental in make its way into the Protestant Bible is its numerical superiority. As you probably know, the Byzantine-type text represents over 90% of extant Greek biblical text.
However you are overstating your case
How many errors are acceptable in the "word of God?" Six, ten, one hundred...? Erasmus did what he did because he wanted to beat a deadline. He cut corners, even admitted so, just to meet the deadline.
Later on he accepted a forgery (Comma) as 'genuine' Greek text. One must seriously question his selectivity and ethics of 'means justified the end' approach. It is certainly unfitting for a Bible.
The first edition of KJV came out with admitted cornucopia of errors, along with the authors' admission that their work was not inspired. Why would such a Bible, based on Textus Receptus, a highly corrupted collection of already doctored Greek sources, become a 'standard" is beyond me.
As an Orthodox Christian I disagree with the Greek Church's continued adherence to Byzantine-type sources and to the KJV as its English 'equivalent.' But to do otherwise would mean the Church was wrong. It will never happen. Eventually, it may silently 'morph' into more neutral, Alexandrian-type sources, but never overtly or publicly.