Eye-opening bias, isn’t it?
The reason for the difference between English translations which use Latin Vulgate as primary source and those which instead use Greek, is not for some sly substitution having been purposely made (in NT portions) leaving out the word "priest" that was engaged in by KJV translators, but for those laborers having followed the Greek texts, rather than imposing upon their own translations the word "priest" such as Jerome himself did in usage of sacerdos when what otherwise is represented in Greek (as it would translate into English) are the words elder or presbyter, etc.
Words for "priest" exist in both Hebrew and Greek. There is no need now to insert "priest" where other terms are plainly enough used -- with reasons for Jerome having done so perhaps too complex a subject to go into, for the time being.
Do you know that a tertiary source for the KJV was the Complutensian Polyglot "...initiated and financed by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros..."? That was used supplemental to Textus_Receptus which does have it own problems, with some of those being source for weaknesses or flaws in the KJV.
All these links I am providing may be a bit much to absorb all at once, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testamentthis] could be considered as central;
The modern critical text (e.g. Novum Testamentum Graece) is close to the Alexandrian text-type, which accounts for some of the earliest New Testament manuscripts; it stands behind most modern English translations of the New Testament including the ASV, the NIV, the RSV and the ESV.
If you will notice, the modern lines run through Cardinal Cisnero's (also known as Cardinal Ximenes) Complutensian Polyglot Greek (for his was more of the Alexandrian text-type.
Sorry...but for potential "bias" on this particular issue you do have things quite backwards.
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts
Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?
If sacerdotalism takes something of a (small but significant) hit amidst all of this, well then too bad. Cry us a river of uncial.
BlueDragon:
Again, I am not debating the reliability of the NT. So I don’t know why you are posting this to me. Whatever word was used, presbyter which only means literally “older man” the NT very seldom fully defines what their role was. Early Liturgical evidence from Patristic sources see in terms of function, presbyters acting in priestly roles, the evidence for this is in the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc, etc. I have already covered this in numerous texts. There was no rejection of the priest and Bishop [firstmost], and then only presbyters could celebrate the Eucharist when a Bishop appointed him to, of those to offices to be the leaders of Divine worship, the Eucharist and to administer the Sacraments or Holy Mysteries.
The rejection of Bishops, Presbyters, acting as sacerdotal ministers is only found among the followers of the 16th century rebels, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. The Eastern Orthodox, of which Greek is the sort to the primarily historical theological and Liturgical language understands Bishops and Presbyters in the same fashion as the Catholic Church. So if you look at them, you can’t play the Catholics say this but we Protestants say this. The Orthodox Church reads the same 27 NT books as we Catholics and you various Protestant groups, their conclusion, not mine, not other FR Catholics, not the Pope, understood the function of Bishops and Presbyters to more than just preachers, teachers, overseers and to function as administrative elders. The Bishop, and those presbyters appointed by him were the leaders of the Liturgical worship of the Christian community and were the ones give the authority by Christ via the Apostles to administer the sacraments of Eucharist, Baptism, Confession, anointing of the Sick, etc.
BlueDragon:
For the record, I am well aware of the weaknesses of the KJV translation. In addition, I in all honesty don’t want to get involved in this particular thread. Getting into who is saved or not is not something that I debate about. I believe that God saves thru the paschal mystery and person of Jesus Christ and the “normative means” thru which people are saved by Christ is thru his Body the Church, which I understand and believe to be the Catholic Church. However, the Church is the steward of God’s grace, but God can, through means of his own can and does save those who are not fully part of the Catholic Church. So, can protestants be saved, yes. Does the fact that an individual who is Catholic saved by the mere fact he is Catholic? No. Does the Catholic Church, given the fact that it is the apostolic tradition and the fullness of the means of salvation provide the best hope of salvation, I believe that to be yes.
Still, in the end, Only God decides who is with him in eternity and who is not. I had a similar debate about this in another thread with Mr Rogers and metmom regarding certain Catholics and I think my answer there was consistent with mine here.
Well researched post. Thanks.