Only if compared to the differences between the TR and the Westcott-Hort recension.
You said that before, and I'm wondering if that is a "guilt by association" argument - if anything I say agrees with anything that's in a Westcott-Hort recension then it's wrong?
As I said before, if you look at the examples in the first 2 major sections of
WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1e there is no pattern of opposition between KJV and NIV -
in fact the opposite is true. Almost every example I looked at had the KJV and NIV saying the same thing in contrast to the Peshitta, and all flagrant bumps in the Greek. His first example is the most extreme: he cites 27 translations contrasting with the Peshitta!
ALT, AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV*, DARBY, Douay-Rheims, ESV*, Geneva, GodsWord, Holman, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MSG, NASB*, NIV*, NIV-UK, NKJV*, RSV, TEV, WE (Worldwide English), Webster, Weymouth, WYC (Wycliffe), YLT
On a straight comparison level the differences are rather large, starting with 1 Timothy 3:16, the Pericope Adulterae, John 1:18, Acts 8:37, the heavenly witnesses and much more. The Peshitta has quite a bit of corruption.
On my scales, those are relatively small.
On my scales, a relatively major tampering in the KJV was by King James I himself. When King James commissioned the King James Version, he decreed
15 principles of translation which were instituted by Richard Bancroft, the bishop of London in 1604. The 3rd rule was:
3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not
to be translated Congregation et. cetera.
Rule 3 is a travesty of Tyndale's life's work. Whilst running and hiding from the agents of a sadistic English Lord Chancellor who wanted him dead, he still took the time to
write a book back at the sadist defending his translation of ekklesia as "Congregation" not "the Word Church". Tyndales book explains in detail his reasons for the critical choices of translation he made of the "et. cetera" words. These changes are major and systematic, and change the whole flavour of the KJV relative to a real Tyndale bible like Matthew's, which nonetheless are the root of the bibles that the KJV was made from (rules 1 and 14).
As James wanted.
As Tyndale gave his life to prevent.
The
PeshittA uses "Assembly", which my Greek speaking friends tell me is just as valid
a translation for ekklesia as what Tyndale used, congregation, the former having less of a religious flavour. As in English: we congregate or we assemble, but our usage is not to congregate for a fire-alarm.
But do I understand you correctly: are you saying these are features of the KJV, not bugs:
1 Timothy 3:16, the Pericope Adulterae, (and I presume
1 John 5:7)?
I stand with
Sir Issac Newton and Whiston on those. The KJV has quite a bit of corruption, as does Erasmus > v2. They're not in the Peshitta, which is a Good Thing AFAICT.
For John 1:18, my point is that
PeshittA should not be swept under a Westcott-Hortian association rug, but be looked at carefully. In this case, for what they give as their literal translation...
The Philoxenian and Harklean are also in the discussion, as Peshitta editions made more in conformity to the Byzantine Greek, around AD 500-600..
Yes, I think those versions were intentionally Greeked - I guess early ecumenicalism? Or was it an early coordinated retranslation effort like we see with Tischendupe+Vaticanus -> Wescott+Hort -> NIV and no Matthew's or AV KJVs (
with preface and notes) left. Pure PeshittAs are getting hard to find -
I'm not sure if there are any hardcover English translations for sale right now.
Personally, I don't want conformance with the Byzantine Greek; I want the best text and translation free from corruption. See
my choice and the reasons why.