Textus Receptus and model breaking

The name TR = Textus Receptus means "received text" and sometimes called the "majority text" (a misnomer). This was originally compiled by the Dutchman Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 and used for the basis of translations such as the KJV = King James Version.
Tyndale used this Greek translation as the basis for his translation. Other translations include the Spanish "Reina-Valera" and the Russian "Synodal Bible". In some places, lacking complete Greek manuscripts, Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to back-translate (i.e., fabricating) some of the TR.

Starting in 1894, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (and later others) began to modify the TR to make it more in line with the KJV.

Details are left as a future topic.

The TR often adds or changes (or removes) words that break a model of the underlying passage. Detecting this requires recognizing that a model exists and then how that model is broken with the changes.

Recognizing models or patterns help establish the semantic meaning of the passage in a fault-tolerant error-correcting way such that changes to the text that break the model or pattern become more evident.

This content is a start at consolidating some examples of this model-breaking in the GNT (Greek New Testament).

NA28, Nestle-Aland 28 (Novum Testamentum Graece) to NIV (converse error)
TR to KJV (and back, so appears to match since TR often changed to match KJV)
Byzantine has a few differences to NA28

... more to be added ...

Since Matthew, who took notes on what Jesus said, has very intricate and carefully worded discourses with play on words, double meanings, etc. Thus, Matthew is a good place to discover models and how the TR appears to have broken the models with changes.

Some of these changes appear to have been in trying reconcile the more literal Luke, recorded by Luke some twenty years later based on people's memories, with Matthew and his notes on what Jesus actually said.

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [kjv]

ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη ου μοιχευσεις [gnt]

The "by", "them" and "of old time" were added in the TR.

This commandment to not "commit adultery" stands by itself and is from God.

As often is the case, the changes in the TR tend to break the pattern or model established by other verses or the context of those verses.

More: Matthew 5:21 The killing judgment

More: Exodus 20:1-26 The Ten Commandments

More: Matthew 5:33-37 Reasoning about oaths - yes no

Matthew 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? [kjv]

και εαν ασπασησθε τους αδελφους υμων μονον τι περισσον ποιειτε ουχι και οι εθνικοι τοαυτο ποιουσιν [gnt]

The KJV often uses the word "heathen", "pagans" or "gentiles". Here, the TR changes this word to "tax collectors" which breaks the model. The Greek word is that of "ethnicity" having to do with people in general. The ancient Greek word "ἐθνικός" ≈ "national" and comes from the ancient Greek word "ἔθνος" ≈ "tribe, family, nation" but can mean any group such as a group of animals (flock, herd, etc.).

In Jewish and Christian terminology, this word often means gentiles. Does it always mean gentiles? Jesus tends to use the word to refer to the "fish" in the "sea" of humanity and calls on disciples to be "fishers" of "men" (i.e., "fish").

More: Matthew 5:47-48 Be purposeful

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. [kjv]

εαν δε αμαρτηση ο αδελφος σου υπαγε ελεγξον αυτον μεταξυ σου και αυτου μονου εαν σου ακουση εκερδησας τον αδελφον σου [gnt]

The TR adds the "against thee" which breaks the model. A "sin" is, literally, anything that is "not a witness". The Greek for "gained" means that the two are in "agreement" since they have "gained" each other in a win-win situation.

The verse says nothing about which side was "right" or "wrong".
In a simple analysis, looking at only one issue, there are four possibilities. Cases 2 and 3 are less likely.

More: A martyred witness to a translation error

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. [kjv]

There are two cases that are more likely in the case of "agreement" where each brother has "gained" the other brother in a win-win situation. Would a compromise in cases 2 and 3 be considered a win-win situation?

The verse says nothing about which side was "right" or "wrong".

More: Matthew 18:15-17 Conflicting and faulty resolutions

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. [kjv]

παλιν αμην λεγω υμιν οτι εαν δυο συμφωνησωσιν εξ υμων επι της γης περι παντος πραγματος ου εαν αιτησωνται γενησεται αυτοις παρα του πατρος μου του εν ουρανοις [gnt]

The ancient Greek word "πάλιν" ≈ "again, once more" and can mean "back in time" and is related to the ancient Greek word "παλιά" ≈ "old". The modern Greek word "πάλιν" (PA-leen) ≈ "again".

Hebrew (often) uses repetition of the same thing in different ways so that one does not misinterpret what is being said. This appears to be mostly for small sound-bites.

Dilbert manager: If you do not understand, try saying it slower and louder.

How does Jesus say the same thing in different ways for entire discourses so that one does not misinterpret what he is saying? Jesus sometimes uses the word "again". So when Jesus says "again", one should look at what has just been said (i.e., in that same discourse) to see to what the "again" refers.

The TR adds the "of you" which breaks the pattern model of the discourse where one of the two is Jesus.

More: Steganography: hidden messages

More: Matthew 18:18-20 Middle agreement to have anything done

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. [kjv]

και πας οστις αφηκεν οικιας η αδελφους η αδελφας η πατερα η μητερα η τεκνα η αγρους ενεκεν του εμου ονοματος πολλαπλασιονα λημψεται και ζωην αιωνιον κληρονομησει [gnt]

A logical disjunction is an inclusive "or" that is true if any or all of the arguments are true. A natural language disjunction is an exclusive "or" and expects only one argument to be true.

The TR adds "or" "wife" which appears to break the model. What about a "wife" leaving her "husband"?
Does this only apply to these "twelve" "disciples" who will become known as the "apostles"? What about Judas?

It appears that there are so many criteria in this disjunction that it is vacuously (i.e., almost certainly) true.

More: Disjunction in Matthew

More: Matthew 19:26-30 Division of thrones

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; [kjv]

εποιησεν τε εξ ενος παν εθνος ανθρωπων κατοικειν επι παντος προσωπου της γης ορισας προστεταγμενους καιρους και τας οροθεσιας της κατοικιας αυτων [gnt]

We are all "one" "blood" in the sight of Jesus. All races are related. The TR adds the word "blood". The ancient Greek word "ἄνθρωπος" ≈ "person, humanity, man". [world vs. Bible view]
The KJV translates as "nations" The ancient Greek word "ἔθνος" ≈ "group of people" and is the source of the English word "ethnic".

Book: One Race One Blood (Revised & Updated): The Biblical Answer to Racism, ISBN 13 9781683442035, Master Books, New Leaf Publishing Group, Inc., 179 pages. Contributers: Charles Ware , Ken Ham.

More: Song: Jesus loves the little children

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; [kjv]


Reflexive	Symmetric	Transitive

If "race" can be precisely defined, the "race" relation is an equivalence relation in that it is "reflexive", "symmetric" and "transitive". If "race" cannot be precisely defined, the logical implication is that only both of the following equivalence sets hold (and nothing else).

More: Equivalence relations: math

More: Ken Ham

Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. [kjv]

"εί" ≈ "if, whether".
"μὴ" ≈ "not" (potential).
"εἰμί" ≈ "I am".

More: Jesus as Messiah and King

The TR adds this verse. Thus, there is no play on words for "if" "not".

More: Jesus as Messiah and King

More: Matthew 17:14-21 Healing of the lunatic child and moving mountains

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. [kjv]

λεγω δε υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται [gnt]

"εί" ≈ "if, whether".
"μὴ" ≈ "not" (potential).
"εἰμί" ≈ "I am".

More: Jesus as Messiah and King

The TR adds "if". Just the "not" is in the Greek. Thus, Jesus is not actually saying "if" "not" so there is no play on words here.

More: Jesus as Messiah and King

More: Matthew 19:1-12 Joined together

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [kjv]

ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου εις εστιν ο αγαθος ει δε θελεις εις την ζωην εισελθειν τηρει τας εντολας [gnt]

"εί" ≈ "if, whether".
"μὴ" ≈ "not" (potential).
"εἰμί" ≈ "I am".

More: Jesus as Messiah and King

The TR adds words that add "if" and "not" (and several other words). Thus, there is no play on words here.

More: Jesus as Messiah and King

More: Matthew 19:13-26 Perfect end complete perfection

Matthew 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: [kjv]

παλιν ομοια εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων εμπορω ζητουντι καλους μαργαριτας [gnt]

Instead of allowing "man" to be inferred, the TR adds "man" in the dative case which breaks the model.

More: Identity of the man in dative in Matthew