I've heard that there have been many manuscripts discovered since 1611
that the King James translators didn't have access to. Do these strengthen
or weaken the King James Bible?
They strengthen the King James Bible.
There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no
new READINGS found.
Many critics of the Word of God have used the argument of "new
evidence" that the King James translators didn't have as a basis to
degrade its authority. The fact is, that the King James translators had
all of the readings available to them that modern critics
have available to them today.
One of the most prominent manuscripts which has been discovered since
1611 is the Sinaitic manuscript. This witness, though horribly flawed, was
found amongst trash paper in St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt.
Sinai in 1841 by Constantine Tischendorf.
Sinaiticus is a sister manuscript of the corrupt manuscript,
Vaticanus. Both read very similarly. So, although the Sinaitic manuscript
was discovered over 200 years after the Authorized Version was translated,
its READINGS were well known to the translators through
the Vatican manuscript which was discovered in 1481 and also through the
Jesuit Bible, an English translation of 1582.
So we see that there are no readings available today to scholars which
were not already in the hands of the King James translators. We might
further add that an honest scholar will admit that this
"great number of newly discovered manuscripts" that are trumped abroad,
agree with the Greek text of the Authorized Version rather than