Ephesians 3:9: Textus Receptus vs. Nestle-Aland, James White & TR KJV Bible Version Debate Review 16

In Ephesians 3:9, do the Textus Receptus and the King James Version contain an error? Debate Review part 16 of the James White / Thomas Ross King James Only debate (or perfect preservation, or Confessional Bibliology debate) examines this question.

Dr. James R. White and Dr. Thomas Ross debated:

“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the United Bible Society / Nestle Aland text, is superior to the King James Version, as a representative of Textus Receptus - based Bible translations.”

In their debate, Dr. James White argued extensively from Ephesians 3:9, claiming the 1611 KJV and the Received Text (TR) contain a clear error in that verse.

In the Authorized, King James Version, Ephesians 3:9 reads:

And to make all men see what is the FELLOWSHIP of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things BY JESUS CHRIST.

The Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) reads:

and to bring to light for all what is the ADMINISTRATION of the mystery which for ages has been bhidden in God cwho created all things [OMIT "By Jesus Christ"].

The variants between the two verses are capitalized.

The three between the Textus Receptus and the Textus Rejectus (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society critical Greek New Testament) are:

pantas [In TR & 99% of Greek manuscripts (MSS); omitted by 1% of Greek MSS and questioned in the NA]

dia Iēsou Christou [In 96% of Greek MSS and the TR, omitted in 4% of Greek MSS and the NA/UBS]

koinōnia (TR) / oikonomia (NA) [In 10% of Greek MSS and the TR, omitted in 90% of Greek MSS and the NA/UBS]

James R. White argued:

In Ephesians 3:9 the Textus Receptus follows only one manuscript.

This single manuscript, 2817, contains a scribal error; no earlier MS had its reading.

Before the 11th century, there is not “a single shred” of evidence that anyone “even contemplated the phrase, ‘the fellowship of the mystery,"; all ancient versions, patristic sources, etc. exclude it.

The TR reading is “pitted against 99.5% of all Greek MSS" and is “one of the clearest errors to be found in the text of the TR," which “stands opposed to nearly the entire manuscript tradition of the Greek New Testament.”

“The church, for 1000+ years, exhibits an unchanging, uninterrupted testimony to the [NA] reading [in] Ephesians 3:9[.] [This fact] cannot be dismissed.”

It is wrong to “defend a singular reading from a singular manuscript against the entire Byzantine tradition. … My objection is that … a singular reading in a singular manuscript … has no right to claim to be the original.”

White has made such claims not only in his debate with Thomas Ross, but also in his book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), his article "Ephesians 3:9 and the Distortion of Reformed Bibliology: A Refutation of Dr. Jeff Riddle’s Defense of the Error of the Scribe of Manuscript 2817," and his debate with the Confessional Bibliology advocate Jeff Riddle (Dr. Jeff Riddle vs. Dr. James White | Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text DEBATE | Eph 3:9, October 3, 2020). However, Dr. White's arguments are riddled with factual errors and are inconsistent with his defense of the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus.

The factual errors in White's claims are examined in Ephesians 3:9: Textus Receptus vs. Nestle-Aland, James White & TR KJV Bible Version Debate Review 17. In this debate review, part 16, the inconsistency in White's argument is evaluated and examined.

While White's claim that only 0.5% of Greek manuscripts read with the TR in Ephesians 3:9 is a gross inaccuracy, even were it true, he would have no basis upon which to attack one word in the TR for having a reading supported by 0.5% of MSS when the NA/UBS Textus Rejectus is full of readings supported by only tiny minorities of Greek MSS. For example, every chapter in the NA/UBS in Matthew has one or more readings supported by 0.5% or less of Greek MSS:

Matthew 1:25: TR 99.5%; NA 0.5%
Matthew 2:22: TR 99.7%; NA 0.3%
Matthew 3:2: TR 99.8%; NA 0.2% [brackets]
Matthew 4:23: TR 90.8%; NA: 0.07%
Matthew 5:11: TR 99.8%; NA 0.2%
Matthew 6:7: TR 99%; NA: 0.14%
Matthew 7:5: TR: 99.7%; NA: 0.3%
Matthew 8:7: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 9:30: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 10:2: TR: 99.8%; NA: 0.2%
Matthew 11:8: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 12:35: TR: 99.2%; NA: 0.4%
Matthew 13:22: TR: 99.8%; NA: 0.2%
Matthew 14:18: TR: 99.8%; NA: 0.2%
Matthew 15:6: TR: 98.5%; NA: 0.4%
Matthew 16:19: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 17:9: TR: 99.8%; NA: 0.2%
Matthew 18:8: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 19:10: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 20:6: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 21:5: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 22:35: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 23:17: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 24:37: TR: 99.7%; NA: 0.3%
Matthew 25:38: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 26:44: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 27:16: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%
Matthew 28:6: TR: 99.5%; NA: 0.5%

White is grossly inconsistent!