A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
Yes, three good examples of readings verging on the nonsensical that even the KJV translators did not follow.Another is EK in James 2:18.
The KJV editors could always flee to the Vulgate when they didn't like a Greek reading, although it isn't strictly fair to lay all the blame on the Vulgate directly. They could usually find support for any reading they chose within the TR tradition itself (in either a Greek or English edition).
"... three good examples of readings verging on the nonsensical that even the KJV translators did not follow."in Acts 18:17: EMELEN is read by the TR, Erasmus, and KJV. In 2PET. 2:18 the KJV has "clean escaped"following the MT and TR reading ONTWS.
The difficult reading in 2 Peter 2:18 was followed by the KJV. I do not know whether the other two were available to the KJV translators, but at any rate the easier readings were available in early TRs. No need to appeal to the Vulgate.
RE: 2PET. 2:18 OLIGWS and ONTWSOLIGWS is a rare form but it would have been easily understood from OLIGOS which is not rare. OLIGWS might have been substituted for ONTWS to *semantically harmonize 2Peter with Jude. (*There is no verbal parallel). The MT reading TOUS ONTWS APOFUGONTAS seems to imply that there is no real danger from DELEAZOUSIN EN EPIQUMIAIS SARKOS ASELGEIAIS. But in Jude there is real danger (Jude 22-23). TOUS ONTWS APOFUGONTAS only appears to contradict DELEAZOUSIN EN EPIQUMIAIS SARKOS ASELGEIAIS because we assume Jude's scenario where there is real risk and danger. There is nothing inherently contradictory about enticing someone to sin who is not subject to failure. However the tone of the letter certainly supports the notion that there is real risk therefore ONTWS is a difficult reading. Not an insurmountable difficulty however.