There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article because we’ll look at these topics in exhaustive detail.
And I do mean exhaustive detail.
This is the second longest article on this website (after the one on Revelation), but that’s because it’s extremely complete. After reading this one article, you’ll know more about these topics than the overwhelming vast majority of Christians.
So let’s get started. 🙂
What is Textual Criticism?
Here is an excellent definition of Textual Criticism from Dan Wallace, who is one of the most respected Textual Critics in the world today.
Textual Criticism is:
The study of the copies of a written document whose original (the autograph) is unknown or non-existent, for the primary purpose of determining the exact wording of the original.
The practice of Textual Criticism is not “criticizing the Bible“, it’s trying to recover the Bible’s original text. A “textual critic” is not someone who criticizes the Bible, but someone who tries his best to reconstruct the original text.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but we don’t have the original documents that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and other New Testament writers wrote. They were originally written on either papyrus (essentially paper) or possibly parchment (animal skins) which have long since degraded with time and use. However, the originals were copied many, many times. Those copies were copied, which were copied, which were copied, which were…
Well, you get the idea.
So what we have are copies of copies of the original (sometimes many generations of copying deep). Before Gutenberg invented the printing press in the early-mid 1400s, everything was copied by hand. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the scribes who did the copying occasionally made some mistakes.
When two copies disagree with each other, you have a variant in the text between two documents: this is (unsurprisingly) called a “Textual Variant”.
Clever, right? 😉
What “Textual Variants”? How bad are They?
Fortunately, they just aren’t that bad. 🙂 We can broadly class all Textual Variants into two classes.
- Meaningful Variants. These textual variants have an impact on what the text means. For example, if one manuscript says”Jesus was happy” and another says “Jesus was sad”, that’s a meaningful variant because it changes the meaning of the text.
- Viable Variants. These Textual Variants have a decent chance of having the wording of the original document. Some variants appear in only a single (late) manuscript, and thus the chances of them being in the original text are extremely low.
From those two options, we can create a list of four types of Textual Variant.
- Neither meaningful nor viable (they don’t change the meaning and have no chance of being original)
- Viable but not meaningful (they don’t change the meaning and have a chance of being original)
- Meaningful but Not viable (they do change the meaning, but have no chance of being original)
- Both Viable and meaningful (they do change the meaning and do have a chance of being original)
We’ll look at #1 and #2 two together
Textual Variants that are NOT meaningful, even if viable.
These are Textual Variants that have no effect on anything. These comprise over 75% of all textual variants, which means over 75% of textual variants have no effect on anything whatsoever.
In fact, the most common type of Textual Variant is spelling differences, often a single letter. Remember, there was no dictionary in ancient times, and thus no defined right or wrong way to spell a word. The single most common textual variant is called a “moveable Nu“, with “Nu” being the Greek letter that sounds like our “N”.
In English, we have this rule too. (Sort of).
In English the indefinite article “a” gets an “n” added when the next word starts with a vowel. For example:
- “This is a book.”
- “This is an owl.”
Greek applies this rule more frequently, and that’s the most common textual variant. Does it matter much if Paul wrote “a owl” vs “an “owl”? Exactly. It simply doesn’t matter to the meaning. In fact, this Textual Variant (movable Nu) is the single most common Textual Variant.
Other examples include when one manuscript has “Jesus Christ”, and another has “Christ Jesus”, with only the order changed. Again, it simply doesn’t matter which is original because there’s no impact on meaning. (You’ll know this is especially true of Greek if you’ve read my A Few Fun Things About Biblical (Koine) Greek article) Another example: perhaps one document will only have “Christ” and another only has “Jesus”. Again, this doesn’t change the meaning much, even if it does change the text slightly.
Again, over 75% of all Textual Variants are not meaningful, even if they are viable. (Viable = possibly original)
So don’t worry, your Bible isn’t filled with mistakes. 🙂
Textual Variants that are Meaningful, but not viable.
These are variants where it’s essentially impossible for them to have been original, even if they would change the meaning of the text. Typically, these variants are found only in a single manuscript, or in a small group of manuscripts from one small part of the world. Most often, they are simple scribal errors.
I have a rather humorous example:
1 Thessalonians 2:7
But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children.
There’s a Textual Variant for the word “gentle”. Most manuscripts read “gentle”, some read “little children” and one manuscript reads “horses”. It’s easy to explain these variants when you see how these words are spelled in Greek, so here are the first three words of the verse in each Textual Variant:
- Alla Egenēthēmen ēpioi (gentle)
- Alla Egenēthēmen nēpioi (little children)
- Alla Egenēthēmen hippioi (horses)
Context tells us that nēpioi (little children) can’t be intended, and since the previous word begins with “n”, it’s easy to see how the mistake was made (doubling the “n”). Often, one scribe would read while several other scribes copied. If you heard it read, you’d realize it’s an easy mistake to make because they sound almost identical. (Because the previous word ends with an “n” sound)
Further, there’s no possible way that hippioi (horses) was intended. It was a simple scribal error, easily noticed and just as easily corrected. (With a good chuckle. 🙂 ) Both Textual Variants are meaningful, but it’s nearly impossible for them to be original (they aren’t viable).
These types of Textual Variants make up ~24% of all Textual Variants.
Combined with the ones that aren’t meaningful, you have over 99% of all Textual Variants make no impact on meaning whatsoever.
Pretty cool right? 🙂
Textual Variants that are Meaningful and Viable
These Textual Variants have a good chance of being original (viable), and change the meaning of the text (meaningful). They comprise less than 1% of all Textual Variants.
We’ve examined one of these Textual Variants here on Berean Patriot before, namely: The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? Other major Textual Variants include the story of the woman caught in Adultery (also called the “Pericope Adulterae”, and I do have an article on if it’s original or not) and the last 12 verses in Mark’s Gospel (I have an article on that as well). Those three are probably the most well-known, but there are many more.
Next, we’ll look at the three competing theories on how to handle the less-than-1% of places where the text of the New Testament isn’t completely agreed up on.
The Three Competing Theories – Overview
Here is a short summary of each theory, with more detail to follow in each theory’s section.
“Reasoned Eclecticism” or the “Critical Text” Theory
This method applies a series of rules to the various manuscripts we’ve found (we’ll look at those rules in a moment). Using these rules – and a healthy dose of scholarly input – they decide what was likely added, removed, or changed, and therefore what’s likely original. The result is called a “Critical Text”. This is the position held by a majority of New Testament Scholars, and nearly all modern Bibles are translated from the Critical Text.
The Majority Text Theory
Majority Text scholars take a more mathematical approach to deciding what the original text of the New Testament was. Their approach is to take all the manuscripts we have, find which Textual Variant has support among the majority of manuscripts, and give that reading priority. This is based on the assumption that scribes will choose to copy good manuscripts over bad ones, and thus better readings will be in the majority over time. There are good mathematical reasons for this method (which we’ll look at lower down). Because most of our New Testament manuscripts come from the Byzantine Text family (which we’ll explain lower down), the document that results is often called the “Byzantine Majority text”.
The “Confessional” Position, or “Textus Receptus Only”
This position takes its name from where it starts: a “confession of faith”. The Confessional view holds that God must have preserved the scriptures completely without error. (We’ll look at the verses they use to support this statement lower down.) They believe that God kept one particular text completely free of error, and that text is the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is a 16th-century Greek New Testament on which the King James Bible is based (in the New Testament). They will typically only use the King James Bible (KJV) or New King James Bible (NKJV) as an English translation, but some will only accept the KJV.
Now that we have a basic overview, we’ll look at each theory in (exhaustive) detail. Again, this is one of the longest articles on this website, but it’s so long because the topic is complex and our treatment of it is fairly complete. Hopefully, this can be a “one stop shop” for anyone wishing for an introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism.
Before we look at each theory though, we need to understand what are called “text types”
New Testament Textual Families or “Text Types”
Among the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there are three major divisions based on their content. These divisions aren’t hard and fast, but rather provide a framework to talk about the different Textual Variants.
Each textual family (or “text type”) tends to contain similar readings to other manuscripts in its family, but the readings are different from the readings of other textual families. (Again, in that less than 1% where it matters) Notice they only “tend to”. There are variations within each family, but overall, their Textual Variants share a familial linkage with other members of their family.
There are three major textual families/text types.
Alexandrian Text Type
The Alexandrian text type will need little introduction because nearly all modern Bibles are based on the Alexandrian text type. If you pick up any popular Bible (except the KJV and NKJV) it’s almost certainly translated primarily from the Alexandrian text type. Almost all of the oldest manuscripts we have are of the Alexandrian text type, probably due to the climate in the location where they are typically found (Alexandrian is in Egypt, and its dry climate is ideal for preservation.) The Alexandrian text type is slightly shorter than the Byzantine text type.
Western Text Type
The Western text type is different from the other textual families mostly because of its “love of paraphrase”. One scholar said of the Western text type: “Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness.” Unsurprisingly, they aren’t given too much weight because of this freeness. Further, we have relatively few Western text-type manuscripts.
Byzantine Text Type
We have more manuscripts of the Byzantine text type by far than the other two families combined. Robinson-Pierpont said in their introduction to their Greek New Testament “Of the over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basically Byzantine Text form“. However, the majority of these manuscripts are later than Alexandrian manuscripts. The Byzantine text type does have some very early witnesses, (in papyri from the 200s and 300s) but these often contain Byzantine readings mixed in with the other text types. The Byzantine text type is noticeably longer than the Alexandrian text type.
(Note: the Byzantine Text type has several names, including the Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, and Syrian Text.)
Now that you understand the three text types/families, we’ll move onto discussing the most popular of the three theories.
The “Critical Text” Theory, aka “Reasoned Eclecticism”
Reasoned Eclecticism uses a set of rules to sift through all the Textual Variants and arrive at what they believe is original. Since the rules are so central to their philosophy, we’ll take some time to examine them. Further, understanding how these rules work and their place in Bible history will help you understand the modern Critical Text.
The Rules of Textual Criticism According to Reasoned Eclecticism
There are several different sets of rules for Reasoned Eclecticism. (You can look at several here.) However, we’ll only concentrate on the two most influential. Those are the Westcott & Hort rules, and the Aland/Aland Rules.
In 1881, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort published “The New Testament in the Original Greek“, which is the grandfather of the Greek Critical Text that most modern Bibles translate from. It’s so well known that it’s often just called “Westcott & Hort”.
Their rules for textual Criticism are below:
(Note: I condensed these from here, at the bottom of the page.)
- Older readings, manuscripts, or manuscript groups should be preferred
- Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses
- A reading combining two simple, alternative readings is later than the two readings comprising the combination. Manuscripts that rarely or never combine readings are of “special value”.
- The reading that best conforms to the grammar and context of the sentence should be preferred
- The reading that best conforms to the style and content of the author should be preferred
- The reading that explains the existence of other readings should be preferred.
- A reading that shows better grammar at the expense of theology is likely not original.
- The more difficult reading should be preferred.
- Prefer readings in manuscripts that habitually contain better readings, which is more certain if it’s also an older manuscript and if it doesn’t contain combinations of other variations (as in rule #3). This also applies to manuscript families.
Please notice, Westcott & Hort’s first rule is basically “older is better”. (Majority Text advocates disagree, but we’ll look at their objection later.) Now, because all the oldest manuscripts we’ve found are of the Alexandrian text type/family, it’s unsurprising that they ended up with a basically Alexandrian document. Further, they didn’t include any Western or Byzantine readings on purpose.
Why?
Well, remember how the Western text type was famous for paraphrasing and the quote for it? Well, it was Westcott & Hort who said of the Western text: “Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness.” Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising that they basically ignored the Western text type.
They are rarely – if ever – faulted for that.
To understand why they didn’t use any Byzantine readings, we need to look at their 3rd rule again: “A reading combining two simple, alternative readings is later than the two readings comprising the combination.” Further, remember that “latter readings” were ignored by Westcott & Hort.
So here’s the why:
Westcott & Hort believed the Byzantine text type was a combination of the Alexandrian and Western text types.
More recent manuscript findings have proved this wrong, but more on that later. Westcott & Hort thought the Byzantine text family resulted from some scribes combining the other two text types to try and get closer to the original document (much like they were doing).
Remember the rules:
- If the Byzantine text type was a combination of the Alexandrian and Western text types,
- And if “combination” manuscripts were always later, (rule #3)
- And if “earlier is better” (rule #1)
- Then the Byzantine text type should be ignored as a latter, less-authentic text type.
So that’s exactly what they did.
They ignored all Byzantine readings and rejected them as being later and therefore not worth looking at. In their own words:
“All distinctively Syrian (Byzantine) readings must be at once rejected.” – Westcott & Hort
Again, in the last 100+ years, we’ve found manuscripts that prove the Byzantine text type isn’t a combination of the Western and Alexandrian text types. Unfortunately, this bias against Byzantine readings persisted until later, to Kurt Aland. (He was the primary editor of the modern Critical Text, which is the basis for nearly all modern translations.)
In a similar vein, Kurt Aland considers Greek manuscripts which are “purely or predominately Byzantine” to be “irrelevant for textual criticism.”
Again, Westcott and Hort were mistaken as nearly all major textual variants had appeared before the year 200. From another article on the topic:
However, Hort acknowledged that such a clear-cut genealogical model would be out of place if a transmission-model persistently involved readings which all had some clearly ancient attestation. [See Hort’s Introduction, page 286, § 373.]
This very thing, or something very close to it, was subsequently proposed by textual critics in the 1900’s. Eminent scholars such as E. C. Colwell, G. D. Kilpatrick, and Kurt and Barbara Aland maintained, respectively, that “The overwhelming majority of readings,” “almost all variants,” and “practically all the substantive variants in the text of the New Testament” existed before the year 200. Nevertheless the Hortian text has not been overthrown.
Again, the Westcott & Hort Critical Text is the grandfather of nearly all modern Bibles, KJV and NKJV excepted. We’ll look more at how we got to the present Greek Critical Text soon.
As an aside:
There remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in Reasoned Eclecticism/Critical Text advocates. Here’s Dan Wallace – arguably the most respected New Testament textual critic alive today – talking about one of our oldest manuscripts, specifically Codex Alexandrius.
“Codex Alexandrius is a very interesting manuscript in that in the Gospels, it’s a Byzantine text largely, which means it agrees with the majority of manuscripts most of the time. While as, in the rest of the New Testament, it is largely Alexandrian. These are the two most competing textual forms, textual families, text types if you want to call them that, that we have for our New Testament manuscripts. So when you get outside the Gospels, Alexandrius becomes a very important manuscript.” – Dan Wallace
Source: YouTube. (Only 1:35 long, starting at about 0:53)
Please notice the casual dismissal of the Byzantine text type by one of the most respected textual critics of our age. I’m honestly not sure why it’s dismissed so easily. Codex Alexandrius is the third oldest (nearly) complete manuscript, dating from the early 400s. Why dismiss the Gospels just because they are a different text type?
But I digress…
The Aland Rules of Textual Criticism
We won’t spend much time on these because the Westcott & Hort rules were more influential. However, they’re worth noting.
The “Aland” rules get their name from Kurt and Barbara Aland, who were instrumental in the publication of the Greek Critical Text that nearly all modern New Testament are based on: The Nestle-Aland “Novum Testamentum Graece” (The New Testament in Greek)
The first edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece was published by Eberhard Nestle in 1898, but an updated version was introduced in 1901. It was a combination of primarily Westcott & Hott’s work, along with two other Greek New Testaments. Later it was taken over by his son, and eventually by Kurt Aland and his wife, along with others. It’s commonly referred to as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece after the two most significant contributors. (Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland)
It’s often abbreviated as “NA” plus the version number, for example: “NA28”. It’s currently in its 28th edition (as of spring 2020).
The Aland rules generally follow the Westcott & Hort rules with one major difference. I’ve copy/pasted the two rules that conflict just below:
Westcott & Hort rule #9: Prefer readings in manuscripts that habitually contain better readings, which is more certain if it’s also an older manuscript and if it doesn’t contain combinations of other variations (as in rule #3). This also applies to manuscript families.
Aland rule #6: Furthermore, manuscripts should be weighed, not counted, and the peculiar traits of each manuscript should be duly considered. However important the early papyri, or a particular uncial, or a minuscule may be, there is no single manuscript or group or manuscripts that can be followed mechanically, even though certain combinations of witnesses may deserve a greater degree of confidence than others. Rather, decisions in textual criticism must be worked out afresh, passage by passage (the local principle).
(Note: I’ve copy/pasted the only relevant difference, but you can: Click here to expand the full list of the Aland rules of Textual Criticism.)Click here to collapse the full list of the Aland rules of Textual Criticism.)
- Only one reading can be original, however many variant readings there may be.
- Only the reading which best satisfies the requirements of both external and internal criteria can be original.
- Criticism of the text must always begin from the evidence of the manuscript tradition and only afterward turn to a consideration of internal criteria.
- Internal criteria (the context of the passage, its style and vocabulary, the theological environment of the author, etc.) can never be the sole basis for a critical decision, especially when they stand in opposition to the external evidence.
- The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the Greek manuscript tradition, with the version and Fathers serving no more than a supplementary and corroborative function, particularly in passages where their underlying Greek text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty.
- Furthermore, manuscripts should be weighed, not counted, and the peculiar traits of each manuscript should be duly considered. However important the early papyri, or a particular uncial, or a minuscule may be, there is no single manuscript or group or manuscripts that can be followed mechanically, even though certain combinations of witnesses may deserve a greater degree of confidence than others. Rather, decisions in textual criticism must be worked out afresh, passage by passage (the local principle).
- The principle that the original reading may be found in any single manuscript or version when it stands alone or nearly alone is only a theoretical possibility. Any form of eclecticism which accepts this principle will hardly succeed in establishing the original text of the New Testament; it will only confirm the view of the text which it presupposes.
- The reconstruction of a stemma of readings for each variant (the genealogical principle) is an extremely important device, because the reading which can most easily explain the derivation of the other forms is itself most likely the original.
- Variants must never be treated in isolation, but always considered in the context of the tradition. Otherwise there is too great a danger of reconstructing a “test tube text” which never existed at any time or place.
- There is truth in the maxim: lectio difficilior lectio potior (“the more difficult reading is the more probable reading”). But this principle must not be taken too mechanically, with the most difficult reading (lectio difficilima) adopted as original simply because of its degree of difficulty.
- The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior (“the shorter reading is the more probable reading”) is certainly right in many instances. But here again the principle cannot be applied mechanically.
- A constantly maintained familiarity with New Testament manuscripts themselves is the best training for textual criticism. In textual criticism the pure theoretician has often done more harm than good.
Westcott & Hort preferred to take manuscripts they deemed “more reliable” (read: “early and Alexandrian”) and rely on their readings more. However, Aland took the opposite approach, preferring to look at all the evidence in each passage separately. These different philosophies naturally produced slightly different results…
…but only slightly different
Overall, the Critical Text of the modern Greek New Testament bears a remarkable resemblance to the original work done by Westcott & Hort. The following is a quote from the (excellent) blog The Text of the Gospels, doing a comparison of Westcott & Hort’s original 1881 text (WH1881) to the modern NA27 (Nestle-Aland 27th edition) and NA28. (34 readings were changed from the NA27 to the NA28)
Adding to this the 34 new readings in NA28, the total number of full disagreements in the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece against WH1881 is 695.
This is particularly interesting when one turns to the Editionum Differentiae (Appendix III) in the 27th edition of NTG, which lists (among other things) the differences between NA27 and NA25. (The text was essentially unchanged in the intervening 26th edition, which had essentially the same text as the third edition of the UBS Greek New Testament.) There one can observe that between NA25 and NA27, there were 397 changes in the Gospels, 119 in Acts, 149 in the Pauline Epistles, 46 in the General Epistles, and 29 in Revelation, for a total of 740.
(Emphasis added)
The modern NA27 and NA28 are closer to Westcott & Hort’s 1881 text than the NA25.
The reason we’ve spent so much time talking about Westcott & Hort is because the New Testament Critical Text that nearly all modern Bibles are based on is virtually unchanged since 1881. Now, that could be a good thing if you believe Westcott & Hort did a good job originally.
So we’ll look at their methodology, and the methodology of Reasoned Eclecticism in general.
Reasoned Eclecticism Methodology
Again, we’ll go back to Westcott & Hort because they did the original work that virtually all modern New Testament translations are based on. Remember, their #1 rule was “earlier is better”. Consequently, their New Testament relied heavily on the two earliest (nearly) complete manuscripts we have:
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which we’ll look at in detail shortly
Since these were the two oldest (nearly) complete texts available at the time, Westcott & Hort gave them tremendous weight. Remember their #1 rule was “Older is better”. And if “older is better”, then it follows logically that the two oldest manuscripts are the best. (Others disagree, but we’ll get to those arguments later.)
There is a system for naming manuscripts of the New Testament. In this system, Codex Vaticanus is also called manuscript “B”, and Codex Sinaiticus is also called manuscript “א” (aleph, which is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet)
Westcott & Hort believed that any place where those two manuscripts agreed:
“…should be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary,”
They also said of where those two manuscripts agreed:
“No readings of אB can safely be rejected absolutely,”
Yes, they believed these two manuscripts were that important, and this understanding follows naturally if you believe their #1 rule that “earlier is better”. (Which many dispute, but we’ll get to that later.)
These two codices – Codex Vaticanus (“B”) and Codex Sinaiticus (“א”) – are the foundation for nearly all modern New Testaments.
We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. In the last ~140 years since the Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text, we’ve discovered Papyri from the 300s, 200s, and even a few from the 100s. Despite this, the Critical Text of the New Testament remains virtually unchanged from ~140 years ago.
No joke.
In fact, when you see a Bible footnote that says “the earliest and best manuscripts”, they are almost universally talking about these two manuscripts, and only these two manuscripts.
Please remember that.
It is no exaggeration to say that Codex Vaticanus (“B”) and Codex Sinaiticus (“א”) are the foundation for virtually all modern New Testament Bible translations. Because these manuscripts are so foundational to modern Critical Text, they bear a closer look.
Codex Vaticanus – aka Codex “B”
The Codex Vaticanus gets its name from the place where it was stored, the Vatican library. It is regarded as the oldest extant (existing) Greek copy of the Bible and has been dated to the early-mid 4th century. It’s over 90% intact/complete, which is incredible for a manuscript of its age.
The Codex Vaticanus also contains several of the deuterocanonical books, namely: the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and the Letter to Jeremiah. (There’s an article about these other books here on Berean Patriot entitled: The Bible: 66 books vs 73 and Why (the “Apocrypha” Explained).)
Codex Vaticanus (“B”) is an excellent example of the Alexandrian Text type, and many scholars think it’s the most important Greek manuscript we have (again because it’s the oldest). In fact, the primary author/editor of the modern Critical Text (Kurt Aland) said this:
“B is by far the most significant of the uncials” – Kurt Aland
Source: “The Text of the New Testament” By Aland
(Note: “Uncials” is the plural of “uncial”, which refers to an all-capital font. We have four nearly complete Uncial manuscripts dating from before the year 1000. These four are often called the “Great Uncial Manuscripts”)
It’s curious that Codex Vaticanus is given the position of “most important” when the actual quality of the transcription leaves something to be desired.
Dean Burgon describes the quality of the scribal work in Vaticanus:
Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.
The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs,
“It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”
Now, I think they are overstating the case slightly (as you’ll see when we look at Codex Sinaiticus). But the principle remains that the Vaticanus scribe certainly wasn’t top tier. Some scholars would say he wasn’t even middle of the pack. Probably the most balanced view of the Vaticanus scribe is found in the quote below, in an article published to respond to someone claiming the Vaticanus Scribe made very few errors.
It seems to me that while the scribe of Codex Vaticanus is certainly not the worst scribe ever (a title that must go to the scribe of Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis), his execution leaves something to be desired, and the claim that he hardly ever made blunders must be regarded as an exaggeration.
Source. (Emphasis added)
In the 10th or 11th century, at least two scribes made corrections to the Codex Vaticanus. This isn’t altogether uncommon with ancient manuscripts, but it does mean some places represent a 10th or 11th-century version, not a 4th-century version.
That leads to the possibly the most humorous – and unsettling – thing about these correctors: the addition of a rebuke by one corrector to another.
The copyist of Codex Vaticanus had written Φανερων in Hebrews 1:3, and a corrector had replaced that with the correct reading, Φέρων (which is supported by all other manuscripts, including Papyrus 46). The person who wrote this note, however, objected to this correction, and wrote, ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἂφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει. Metzger translated these words as, “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone, and not alter it!” Another rendering: “Untrained troublemaker, forgive the ancient [reading]; do not convert it.” He re-wrote Φανερων, erasing most of the corrector’s Φερων. Apparently, the note-writer regarded Codex Vaticanus as a museum-piece to be protected and preserved, rather than as a copy of Scripture to be used as such.
Source. (Emphasis added)
To be clear, the scribal quality of Codex Vaticanus isn’t terrible, but neither is it incredible. Mediocre might be the best description, though some would say “poor”. There is some disagreement on the actual level of quality.
Again, Codex Vaticanus is regarded as the single best New Testament manuscript by the adherents of the Reasoned Eclecticism/Critical Text theory. There are only two reasons for this: (1) it’s nearly complete, and (2) the “older is better” mantra.
Codex Sinaiticus – aka Codex “א”
Codex Sinaiticus takes its name from where it was found: at the base of Mount Sinai. Sadly, there is much propaganda and misinformation regarding its discovery. Many claim it was “found in the trash” while others claim it was carefully preserved by monks. To dispel the confusion, I’m going to quote from the primary source: the finder’s own account of how he found it.
Codex Sinaiticus was found by a man named Lobegott Friedrich Constantin (von) Tischendorf, at St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. You can read Tischendorf’s entire account of finding it – in his own words – here. The two relevant excerpts are below.
It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript.
He was able to view 43 sheets, which was a third of the sheets that were to be burned. Therefore, ~130 pages were going to be burned. It’s worth noting that Codex Sinaiticus is far longer than 130 pages. The British museum has 694 pages, which is over half the original length.
So no, the entire Codex Sinaiticus wasn’t going to be burned.
It seems likely from Tischendorf’s description that only some worn-out pages from Sinaiticus were going to be burned, but it’s hard to be sure. Tischendorf himself might not have been sure.
He returned to the monastery some 15 years later, partially in hopes of recovering the manuscript.
On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: “And I, too, have read a Septuagint“–i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.
From this account, the accusation that “it was found in a wastepaper basket/trash can” is technically true, but is rather misleading. It seems obvious that the entire thing wasn’t going to be burned.
BTW, you can read all of Codex Sinaiticus online if you wish at the Codex Sinaiticus Project website.
Now, about the quality of Codex Sinaiticus.
Even those who love the manuscript will admit it has serious quality problems. Even the official Codex Sinaiticus Project website (link above) admits this:
No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.
They aren’t the only ones to say this either. The manuscript’s finder Tischendorf – who reckoned it as the greatest find of his life – said the following:
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.
Tischendorf also said that he: “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” He goes on to say:
The New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words, even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
By any conceivable metric (except age), Codex Sinaiticus is one of the worst manuscripts that we’ve found. You probably couldn’t find a scholar who would praise the scribal work in Sinaiticus, and it’s easy to find those who deride it as the worst scribal work among the manuscripts we’ve found.
Comparing Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
As we’ve just seen, Codex Vaticanus is a mediocre-to-poor quality manuscript. Codex Sinaiticus is among the worst manuscripts we have. Now, we’ll look at how they compare to each other, and how much they agree with each other.
(Note: the “He” in the quote below is Dean Burgon)
He also checked these manuscripts for particular readings, or readings that are found ONLY in that manuscript. In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus has 197 particular readings, while Sinaiticus has 443. A particular reading signifies one that is most definitely false. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings loose respectability. Thus, manuscripts boasting significant numbers of particular readings cannot be relied upon.
The Textual Variants between them are numerous.
According to Herman C. Hoskier, there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone
Assuming that the same ratio of variants persists in the rest of the New Testament and doing the math, that’s ~3434 additional variants, for a total of ~6470 variants between them. There are 7956 verses in the New Testament. That’s an average of 0.81 variants per verse between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Therefore, roughly 4 out of every 5 verses (81.3%) in one manuscript disagrees with the other manuscript in at least one place. (On average. In reality, the distribution is never that perfect.)
According to Dean Burgon:
“It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”
Despite the numerous Textual Variants between them, there’s an interesting theory about their origin.
The manuscript is believed to have been housed in Caesarea in the 6th century, together with the Codex Sinaiticus, as they have the same unique divisions of chapters in Acts.
There’s no other evidence for this – so take it with a grain of salt – but they are the only two manuscripts that share that characteristic. The fact that they share a unique characteristic makes it more likely they came from the same general area. That’s pure theory without other evidence, but it’s interesting.
Corruption of the Alexandrian text type?
I’m almost hesitant to include this, as it comes close to an Ad Hominem attack on the entire Alexandrian Text type/family. However, I have included it for completeness.
The following is regarding the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts.
However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts were already corrupt by the third century. Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:
“…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.”
(Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152).
Origen is of course speaking of the manuscripts of his location, Alexandria, Egypt. By an Alexandrian Church father’s own admission, manuscripts in Alexandria by 200 AD were already corrupt. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, “Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted — within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse”
There’s an argument to be made that the Alexandrian Text type was corrupted very early. It’s by no means an ironclad argument, but I would’ve been remiss if we didn’t talk about it here. (We’ll come back to it later.)
Westcott & Hort had… questionable beliefs?
There is some evidence that Westcott & Hort didn’t have a high opinion of the Bible. There’s further evidence – based on quotes they said – that they didn’t take the Bible seriously, literally, and endorsed the Theory of Evolution.
However, to simply say their Critical Text is bad because of their personal views is… problematic.
While the character of the workers can shed some light on the work, I prefer to judge a work based on its merits, not what the authors might have believed. Therefore, if this line of reasoning interests you, you can read more here. I will devote no more space to it in this article because I don’t think it’s relevant, and only mentioned it for completeness.
The one thing I will mention is Hort at least was motivated to eliminate the Textus Receptus from the public eye, as he considered it “vile”.
“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus … Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” – Fenton Hort
Again, this is because of his “earlier is better” philosophy.
Reasoned Eclecticism / Critical Text Conclusion
In the end, the greatest strength of the Critical Text is also its greatest weakness: man’s involvement. If you forced me to pick one of the three major theories (instead of the blend I prefer) I’d pick Reasoned Eclecticism… but with a different set of rules.
The problem was Westcott & Hort’s application of the theory.
The original rules set down by Westcott &Hort aren’t consulted very often anymore. However, their original work is still with us. All the modern Greek Critical Texts bear an extremely strong resemblance to Westcott & Hort’s original 1881 Critical Text. Their text was heavily based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. These two documents are rather flawed, especially Sinaiticus.
They also discounted the entire Byzantine text type based on an assumption which has now been proved wrong. Despite the Byzantine text type being vindicated by extremely early manuscript findings, there remains a persistent bias against Byzantine readings for no apparent reason.
Further, it means all the manuscript findings of the last 140+ years are given very little consideration in modern Bibles.
Personally, I think that’s a problem.
To be clear, the theory of Reasoned Eclecticism is sound; it’s the application of it (thus far) that leaves something to be desired.
Please don’t mistake the one for the other.
The modern Critical Text is based primarily on two flawed documents, without the benefit of the findings of the last ~140 years. If you could alter the rules – or simply remove the bias against the Byzantine text type – Reasoned Eclecticism stands a very good chance of producing the best results.
The Majority Text Theory
Einstein once said:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
The Majority Text theory is that to a “T”. It’s simplicity itself, but under-girding that simplicity is profound sophistication. It definitely has flaws (which we’ll discuss later), but it also has some significant strengths.
What is the Majority Text methodology?
The basic premise is extremely simple:
“Any reading overwhelmingly attested by the manuscript tradition is more likely to be original than its rival(s).”
Source: The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, p. xi.
Essentially, whenever one reading has more manuscripts supporting it than the other variants readings, it’s more likely to be the original reading. Or to put it another way:
The Majority Text method within textual criticism could be called the “democratic” method. Essentially, each Greek manuscript has one vote, all the variants are voted on by all the manuscripts, and whichever variant has the most votes wins.
It might sound simplistic, but there’s a good mathematical reason and a good common sense reason behind it.
Further – and I can’t stress this enough – there is more to the Majority Text theory than simply counting manuscripts.
At face value, that’s it.
However, real Textual Criticism with a set of rules still must be applied. Very few – if any – scholars would argue that the Majority wins all the time. You still need to sift through the manuscripts and apply a more careful methodology than simple “nose counting”. We’ll talk more about this later.
For now, we’ll look at the underpinnings of the Majority Text theory.
Note: it will sound like I’m strongly biased in favor of the Majority Text while I present the “pro” side of the argument. I’m not. It has significant downsides which we’ll look at after the “pro” side.
The Mathematical Case for The Majority Text
This is easiest to explain with an example.
Several of Paul’s letters were encyclical, meaning they were intended to be passed around from church to church. So let’s say one of Paul’s letters arrives at your church and you’re supposed to pass it on. However, you’d like to keep a copy, so you hire a scribe to copy the letter before passing it on.
For simplicity’s sake, let’s assume the letter went to five churches, and then is accidentally destroyed. Now you have five copies in five different locations, but no original. Further, let’s assume that each scribe accidentally made a different error while copying, as happens when copying by hand.
The odds of all the scribes making the same error are extremely low. Even if two scribes (40%) did, the majority of scribes (60%) will have preserved the correct reading.
Now, let’s take it a step further.
Let’s say that the five original copies each had five copies made of them, all made by faithful scribes. That brings us to 30 total manuscripts. Further, we’ll assume the “persistence of errors”, meaning faithful scribes will copy even the errors of previous scribes.
Again, the odds of all those scribes making the same error is vanishingly low. (In most cases, more on that in a minute)
Now, let’s assume at this point intentional corruptions enter into the manuscripts that were copied from those 30. Let’s say 2 or 3 scribes start making changes to suit their own theological biases. Under ordinary circumstances, they will never be able to outnumber the scribes who tried to be faithful.
Further (unless they are working in concert) the odds of them coming up with identical changes is minuscule. So instead of creating a new popular reading, they’re more likely to create several unique readings… and even these are in a small minority.
Thus, the theory goes that in most any given time span, the readings in a majority of manuscripts are most likely to reflect the original.
Ironically, Westcott & Hort recognized this too.
As soon as the numbers of a minority exceed what can be explained by accidental coincidence, … their agreement … can only be explained on genealogical grounds. We have thereby passed beyond purely numerical relations, and the necessity of examining the genealogy of both minority and majority has become apparent. A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa… [but this] presumption is too minute to weight against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds.
“Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: With Notes on Selected Readings” by Westcott & Hort.
Notice that Westcott & Hort recognized the Majority Text theory, but then summarily dismissed it saying “the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds” was enough to overthrow it. That seems more like personal bias talking than scholarly work, and it persists to this day. (As we’ve seen)
Interesting, no?
Again, they believed that the Byzantine Text type was a combination of the Alexandrian and Western text types. Thus, they felt free to ignore them (as we’ve already discussed). Their theory has since been categorically proven wrong, partially by new manuscript findings. These findings include – but aren’t limited to – Papyrus from the 200s and 300s.
However, Some say this mathematical model is Wrong
The typical examples of how to break this model are well-covered in this YouTube video. However, the examples leave out one very important factor (which we’ll get to in a moment.)
For example, let’s say we’re copying the shortest book of the New Testament, 3 John with 219 words (in Greek). It seems likely a decent scribe could copy 219 words without error. For a sense of scale, there are exactly 219 words from the beginning of the last quote to the end of the last section. (Don’t ask how much re-writing that took.)
Further, let’s tip this against the Majority Text.
We’ll assume two scribes copy correctly and one incorrectly. Let’s further assume the “persistence of errors”, which assumes every mistake is copied down to every manuscript after it. So each correct manuscript will always spawn 2 more correct manuscripts, but also each incorrect manuscript will spawn 2 more incorrect manuscripts (and no correct manuscripts).
Here’s what we get. (Just for each generation, not cumulatively.)
- 1st generation: 2 correct copies, 1 incorrect copy (2/1 ratio)
- 2nd generation: 4 correct copies, 3 incorrect copies. (1.75/1) ratio)
- 3rd generation: 8 correct copies, 7 incorrect copies (~1/1 ratio)
- 4th generation: 16 correct copies, 22 incorrect copies (~1/1.4 ratio)
- 5th generation: 32 correct copies, 60 incorrect copies (~1/2 ratio)
By the 5th generation, you can see that the number of manuscripts with errors outnumber the ones without errors nearly 2-1.
This looks like it completely destroys the Majority Text theory… but does it?
First, remember that the worst manuscript in the 5th generation has exactly – and only – 5 mistakes (one added every generation). Only 5 mistakes in 219 words is still pretty good. Over a quarter (16) of the incorrect manuscripts will only have a single mistake, most of the rest will only have 2-3.
If you assume the mistakes are fairly randomly distributed, the Majority holds up quite well. Further, remember that 99% of Textual Variants don’t change the meaning, even if they are original. (And many of these variants would be spelling errors.)
Further, this method of disproving the Majority Text makes an incorrect assumption: that errors are tenacious, i.e. that errors never disappear but instead are copied down through the generations. (Which they aren’t.)
The Myth of Tenacity (of errors)
The basic idea is explained below.
On page 78 of The King James Only Controversy, author James White states: “Once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn’t simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts.” To support this statement, White appealed to Kurt & Barbara Aland’s similar statement: “Once a variant or a new reading enters the tradition it refuses to disappear, persisting (if only in a few manuscripts) and perpetuating itself through the centuries. One of the most striking traits of the New Testament textual tradition is its tenacity.” – Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 56.
However, this can be easily disproved using common sense and a touch of data. For context, a “singular reading” is a Textual Variant that appears in only one manuscript and no other manuscripts whatsoever.
Now consider the mass of evidence against the concept of tenacity: the hundreds of singular readings that appears in ancient manuscripts, but of which there is no trace in later manuscripts. How many such readings are there? Greg Paulson wrote his 2013 thesis on singular readings in the codices Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (À), Bezae (D), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and Washingtonianus (W) in the Gospel of Matthew, and he mentioned how many singular readings – i.e., readings that do not recur in any other Greek manuscript – each one of these codices has in its text of Matthew. Paulson’s data:
- Vaticanus: 97.
- Sinaiticus: Scribe A: 163.
- Bezae: 259.
- Ephraemi Rescriptus: 75
- Washingtonianus: 112.
I emphasize that these numbers – showing that five important early manuscripts combine to produce a total of 706 singular readings – only taking the text of Matthew into consideration.
And that’s not all the singular readings. If you look at the earlier papyrus, there’s even more singular readings.
Royse provides a chart which conveys that Papyrus 45 has 222 significant singular readings; Papyrus 46 has 471 significant singular readings; Papyrus 47 has 51 significant singular readings; Papyrus 66 has 107 significant singular readings; Papyrus 72 has 98 significant singular readings; Papyrus 75 has 119 significant singular readings. (In a footnote, Royse helpfully defines “significant singular readings” as “those singular readings that remain after exclusion of nonsense-readings and orthographic variants.”)
The existence of these “singular readings” disproves the myth of the tenacity of errors completely. If mistakes were tenacious, then there would be very few singular readings because these mistakes would’ve been passed down to each successive manuscript.
But they weren’t.
These singular readings disappeared, never to be seen again. Presumably, the scribes didn’t keep the errors because they recognized them as errors. This brings us to one of the strongest arguments for the Majority Text theory: that scribes preferred to copy better manuscripts.
Was There a Scribal Preference to Copy Better Manuscripts?
This could be called the “common sense” side of the Majority Text theory. It goes like this:
Please imagine that you were a scribe charged with copying the New Testament. Further, assume you had two manuscripts to choose from when copying. One appears to be of mediocre quality, the other of good quality.
Which text would you copy?
One of the major underpinnings for the Majority Text theory is that scribes will generally choose to copy better manuscripts over worse manuscripts. (Assuming they had multiple manuscripts to choose from.)
I think this makes sense.
It’s what almost anyone would do.
Again, let’s assume you were in charge of copying the New Testament with several manuscripts to choose from, say five. One of them appears to be of poor quality, one of mediocre quality and the remaining three appear to be of decent quality and – a few small variants aside – appear to be in near perfect agreement. Nearly everyone would choose one of the three to copy from. Or perhaps you’d use all three, using the combination to correct the few small variants between them.
And by the way, I do mean “near perfect agreement” even according to Westcott & Hort.
“The [fourth-century] text of Chrysostom and other Syrian [= Byzantine] fathers … [is] substantially identical with the common late text”
“The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian [= Byzantine] … text of the second half of the fourth century… The Antiochian Fathers and the bulk of extant MSS … must have had in the greater number of extant variations a common original either contemporary with or older than our oldest extant MSS”
“Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: With Notes on Selected Readings” by Westcott & Hort
The (Byzantine) manuscripts from the Medieval period were “substantially identical” and “beyond all question identical” to those known in the “second half of the fourth century”. That’s from the later 300s to the 1400s; that’s 1,100 years (over a millennia) with virtually no change.
This is especially interesting because they also said the “Antiochian” (Byzantine) text was the “dominant” text in the second half of the 4th century (the later 300s).
Further, Westcott and Hort agreed that the “common text” (Byzantine text) had at its root a text that was as old as – or older than – their oldest manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Again, the only reason they didn’t give them any weight was because they (incorrectly) believed the Byzantine text was a combination of the Western and Alexandrian Text types.
Again, we now know this isn’t the case.
Eminent scholars such as E. C. Colwell, G. D. Kilpatrick, and Kurt and Barbara Aland maintained, respectively, that “The overwhelming majority of readings,” “almost all variants,” and “practically all the substantive variants in the text of the New Testament” existed before the year 200. Nevertheless the Hortian text has not been overthrown.
Plus, there are papyrus fragments from quite early that contain Byzantine readings, though often mixed with the other text types.
Further, this argument for Scribes choosing better manuscripts has parallels from the Textual Criticism of non-Biblical works too.
It’s true.
Parallels with Textual Criticism of Non-Biblical works
In the Textual Criticism of Homer’s works, we see excellent parallels with the New Testament, even so far as reproducing similar “text types”.
17. A transmissional approach to textual criticism is not unparalleled. The criticism of the Homeric epics proceeds on much the same line. Not only do Homer’s works have more manuscript evidence available than any other piece of classical literature (though far less than that available for the NT), but Homer also is represented by MSS from a wide chronological and geographical range, from the early papyri through the uncials and Byzantine-era minuscules. The parallels to the NT transmissional situation are remarkably similar, since the Homeric texts exist in three forms: one shorter, one longer, and one in-between.
18. The shorter form in Homer is considered to reflect Alexandrian critical know-how and scholarly revision applied to the text; the Alexandrian text of the NT is clearly shorter, has apparent Alexandrian connections, and may well reflect recensional activity.
19. The longer form of the Homeric text is characterized by popular expansion and scribal “improvement”; the NT Western text generally is considered the “uncontrolled popular text” of the second century with similar characteristics.
20. Between these extremes, a “medium” or “vulgate” text exists, which resisted both the popular expansions and the critical revisions; this text continued in much the same form from the early period into the minuscule era. The NT Byzantine Textform reflects a similar continuance from at least the fourth century onward.
21. Yet the conclusions of Homeric scholarship based on a transmissional-historical approach stand in sharp contrast to those of NT eclecticism:
We have to assume that the original … was a medium [= vulgate] text… The longer texts … were gradually shaken out: if there had been … free trade in long, medium, and short copies at all periods, it is hard to see how this process could have commenced. Accordingly the need of accounting for the eventual predominance of the medium text, when the critics are shown to have been incapable of producing it, leads us to assume a medium text or vulgate in existence during the whole time of the hand-transmission of Homer. This consideration … revives the view … that the Homeric vulgate was in existence before the Alexandrian period… [Such] compels us to assume a central, average, or vulgate text.
(Source for this quote is: “Homer: The Origins and the Transmission“, by Thomas W. Allen)
22. Not only is the parallel between NT transmissional history and that of Homer striking, but the same situation exists regarding the works of Hippocrates. Allen notes that “the actual text of Hippocrates in Galen’s day was essentially the same as that of the mediaeval MSS … [just as] the text of [Homer in] the first century B.C. … is the same as that of the tenth-century minuscules.43
23. In both classical and NT traditions there thus seems to be a “scribal continuity” of a basic “standard text” which remained relatively stable, preserved by the unforced action of copyists through the centuries who merely copied faithfully the text which lay before them. Further, such a text appears to prevail in the larger quantity of copies in Homer, Hippocrates, and the NT tradition. Apart from a clear indication that such consensus texts were produced by formal recension, it would appear that normal scribal activity and transmissional continuity would preserve in most manuscripts “not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text.”
Source. (An excellent article by the way, though a bit technical.)
So in the “text types” of Homer, you have:
- Short = Alexandrian, reflecting “scholarly revision”
- Medium = Widely believed to be the most accurate because it maintained a near-identical form across 1000+ years, and most manuscripts are of this type
- Long = characterized by Scribal “improvement” and expansion.
In the New Testament, you have:
- Short = Alexandrian Text type,
- Medium = Byzantine Text type, characterized by near-identical form over 1000+ years, and most manuscripts are of this type
- Long/paraphrase = Western Text type, characterized by its “love of paraphrase” is like the “uncontrolled popular text” of Homer
Among scholars, there’s little doubt that the “medium” text type of Homer is the original, while the short is the result of “scholarly revision”. (The long is discarded because of its poor quality) In the New Testament, it’s the complete opposite, except the discarding of the poor quality of the Western Text. The “medium” Byzantine text with its near-identical form for 1000+ years is ignored, and the shorter Alexandrian text is preferred.
Why?
Why discard a Text Type that remained virtually unchanged for 1000+ years?
It doesn’t make sense (to me).
Notice too, that – in Homer – the shorter Alexandrian “text type” was regarded to be the result of “scholarly revision”. I’m going to re-quote something we looked at earlier.
(Note: The following is regarding the Alexandrian Text type manuscripts.)
However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts were already corrupt by the third century. Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:
“…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.
(Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152).Origen is of course speaking of the manuscripts of his location, Alexandria, Egypt. By an Alexandrian Church father’s own admission, manuscripts in Alexandria by 200 AD were already corrupt. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, “Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted — within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse”
As we’ve already seen, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were certainly of mediocre to poor quality. It has often been stated by Majority Text advocates that “good money pushes out bad“, and the same principle can be applied to Textual Criticism. They believe that – over time – good manuscripts will push out bad manuscripts.
Are scribes more likely to add or subtract?
One of the major arguments against the Majority Text by those who prefer the Critical text is the accusation that scribes added the “extra” content. One of Aland’s rules for Textual Criticism is:
The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior (“the shorter reading is the more probable reading”) is certainly right in many instances. But here again the principle cannot be applied mechanically.
As you may remember, both Aland and Westcott & Hort had trouble sticking to their rules (except “older is better”). They both believed that scribes were more likely to add content than remove content. Therefore, they had the saying “the shorter reading is the more probable reading.”
But is the shorter reading more probable?
There is a well-known error when copying manuscripts by hand called “parablepsis”. (It’s also called “Haplography”, but the two are technically slightly different”) This error occurs when two words or phrases end with the same letters/words, and the scribe accidentally skips everything in between.
For example:
This is our example, but
we’ll need some words so
This is our sample text
You’re copying it down,
but this clause in red is
sadly skipped because
because the next line also
contains the word text
Thus your eye jumps from
the first occurrence of the
word “text” to the second,
and you accidentally skip
everything between them,
which is everything in red.
The scribe’s line of sight skips from the first instance of the word “text” to the second instance of the word “text”, accidentally skipping everything in between (the red text in the example). This is a well-known, well-documented scribal error, even having its own name. You might’ve even made this error yourself, just likely not on New Testament manuscripts. 😉
Further, this can happen in smaller increments too.
The original texts were written in all capital letters and there were no spaces between the words. Therefore, it wouldn’t be hard to skip some intervening letters to drop a word. (Greek words often have similar endings because of the nature of the Greek language.) These errors of parablepsis and haplography are commonly known and well-documented.
These errors alone account for hundreds of differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine Text types.
Seriously.
As we’ve seen, the Byzantine Text type is significantly longer than the Alexandrian Text type. This accidental skipping could account for a very significant portion of the longer Byzantine Textual Variants. If you’d like to read a longer treatment of this topic, I highly recommend this article.
Further, if you remember from our discussion of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, this type of omission is recognized in them.
“It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”
Source: The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible
And the man who found Codex Sinaiticus (Tischendorf) considered it the greatest find of his life, but he still said:
The New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words, even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
So, is there a Scribal preference to add rather than subtract?
Certainly not in all cases.
There are plenty of Textual Variants between the Alexandrian and Byzantine Text types (where the Alexandrian is shorter) which can’t be explained this way. However, a significant number of variants can be explained by this simple scribal error.
This author is completely unaware of any proof that scribes preferred to add rather than subtract. It has been asserted many times, but it never seems to be accompanied by proof. It might be out there, but I haven’t seen it. (Please send me an email via the contact page if you find some.)
(Additionally and anecdotally, I’ve done a fair bit of copying in my life, and when I’m quoting someone else, I’ve never been tempted to add to the quote because that would be dishonest. It’s not a stretch to imagine that Christian scribes would feel the same, especially about Scripture.)
Now, we’ll look at the arguments against the Majority Text.
Arguments Against the Majority Text
Despite the strong support we’ve just seen, the Majority Text theory does have some significant weaknesses.
One of the greatest supporters of the Critical Text is Daniel Wallace. He wrote a long “rebuttal” of the Majority Text entitled: “The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?” That appears to be the standard “go to” article for rebutting the Majority text. James Snapp Jr. wrote a rebuttal to Wallace’s article in four parts. (Part one, part two, part three, part four.)
Majority of What Manuscripts?
The early Christians translated the New Testament into other languages, and we have many of these translations. If you only include the Greek manuscripts, then indeed the Byzantine Text type is the majority. However, the picture changes if you include translations into other languages.
While translations aren’t very useful for deciding the exact wording of Greek, they can be very useful in deciding if certain words, phrases, and/or verses were included.
The translations into other languages are called “versions”, and Dan Wallace said this:
Second, the extant versional manuscripts are virtually triple the extant Greek manuscripts in number (i.e., there are about 15,000 versional manuscripts). The vast majority of them (mostly 10,000 Vulgate copies) do not affirm the Byzantine text. If one wishes to speak about the majority, why restrict the discussion only to extant Greek witnesses and not include the versional witnesses?
Source. – Daniel Wallace
And from another source:
However, it must be noted that the Western church changed languages in the 600’s with the adoption of the Vulgate as its official version. From that point forward, the Roman Catholic Church preferred to keep their manuscript tradition in Latin rather than Greek. In the Vulgate, we find over half of the Alexandrian readings. The Alexandrian text is about 5% smaller than the Byzantine text, and there are some differences in words between the two texts. No Christian doctrine is omitted from the Alexandrian text, but some appear strengthened in the Byzantine text.
So the Majority Text changes very significantly when you include just the other versional manuscripts. (And that’s not including quotes by including the early church fathers). That alone changes things a lot. So if you hold to the Majority Text theory, you’ll need to decide if you’ll only include Greek manuscripts. If so, you’ll need a good reason to exclude the various versions.
One reason could be that “something is always lost in translation”. A poor translation can obscure many things about the original language, making it difficult to know. For example, imagine trying to reconstruct the Greek text by having several different English translations. If you were working from an NASB or NKJV, you might have some luck. But if you’re working from poor translations like the NLT, NIV, or any of the paraphrase translations, you’re basically out of luck.
However, even the worst of these can tell you about the presence or absence of a verse.
Majority at What Time?
Let’s assume – for the sake of argument – that the Majority Text is essentially identical to the original. The question then becomes:
The Majority Text at what time?
If you take the Majority Text theory and apply it to modern times, then there are clearly more copies of the modern Critical Text than the Majority Text. Whether you count Bible translations based on the Critical Text vs Bible translations based on the Majority Text; or copies of the Greek Majority Text vs the Greek Critical Text, the Critical Text becomes the clear winner.
If you backup to the first 500 years of the Church, the Byzantine Text type is in the clear minority of the manuscripts we’ve found. (Though as we’ve already seen there’s reason to think it was the dominant text.)
Disproportionate Copying
The mathematical model for the Byzantine Majority Text relies on an assumption. The assumption is that each manuscript was copied a relatively equal number of times. However, that’s not necessarily the case.
For example, let’s say that three scribes copied from the original, and one of them made an error. But what if a very passionate scribe decided to make a lot of copies… but he was copying from the manuscript with the mistake? It’s easy to see how you could end up with a disproportionate number of copies with errors. It doesn’t mean they will enter the majority, but it’s a possibility.
You might say, “But that wouldn’t happen.”
Actually, we know it did… we just don’t know if it happened with errors.
The fact that the Byzantine Text type dominates the manuscript copies is proof of disproportionate copying. (Or that other manuscripts were destroyed, which we’ll look at more in a minute.)
This disproportionate copying could be a good thing, as we saw in the section on whether scribes copied better manuscripts. However, that doesn’t mean it was a good thing. There’s simply no way to know if the more accurate manuscripts were preserved this way. You would need to trust that scribes did indeed copy the best manuscripts.
Removing Copies from the Stream of Transmission
Further, the Majority Text theory could be in trouble if it could be proven that large chunks of manuscripts were lost. Unfortunately, we know that happened in at least two ways.
Accidental Loss Through Age and Use
The first manuscripts were copied onto either papyrus (ancient paper) or parchment (animal skins). Neither survives through the ages well. That’s why the overwhelming vast majority of our earliest Greek manuscripts come from one of the driest climates on the planet: Egypt. Being so dry, Egypt has an ideal climate for such preservation.
Majority Text advocates will typically argue that the earliest Byzantine manuscripts were lost because no other climate on earth is as favorable for preserving documents as Egypt. Thus, they say there were Byzantine Text-type manuscripts elsewhere, but they didn’t survive because the climate wasn’t as suitable for preservation. That’s definitely possible – maybe even likely – but by no means certain.
Intentional destruction via persecution
A sad fact of history is that when Christians are persecuted, copies of the Bible are usually caught in the crossfire. In fact, it was Roman policy to destroy Biblical manuscripts at one time.
A vast number of early manuscripts were destroyed in the early persecutions of the Church. There were already ten major periods of persecution of Christians before Nicea:
- Persecution under Nero (64-68).
- Persecution under Domitian (90-96).
- Persecution under Trajan (112-117).
- Persecution under Marcus Aurelius (161-180).
- Persecution under Septimus Severus (202-210).
- Persecution under Decius (250-251).
- Persecution under Valerian (257-59).
- Persecution under Maximinus the Thracian (235-38).
- Persecution under Aurelian (270–275).
- Persecution under Diocletian and Galerius (303-324).
One of the most ruthless of these persecutions was that of Diocletian in the early 4th century. Eusebius, Church historian of the same era, recorded that many “Scriptures” were burned during the Diocletian persecution. He writes in Church History (VIII:2):
“All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, “Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way.”
[…]It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour’s passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom.”
Many Christians who could not withstand the persecution handed over their Scriptures to the authorities to be publicly burned.
Source. (Emphasis added)
That same article goes on to reason that:
Since so many approved manuscripts were deliberately destroyed, the body of extant evidence most likely does not reflect the text which the early Church upheld to be the best text.
Now, this argument can be used both for and against the Byzantine Text type.
As the quote above indicates, it’s possible that the best copies of the scriptures were destroyed. This is usually the position taken by Majority Text advocates to explain why there are no purely Byzantine manuscripts in the early centuries. It makes sense, but that doesn’t mean it happened. It’s possible, but definitely not certain.
That covers the early manuscripts, but what about the later ones?
However, this argument can be reversed later as evidence against the Byzantine Text type. The short version is this.
The western part of Christendom stopped using Greek as their primary language in the mid-1st millennium. They began speaking Latin, and thus moved away from Greek scriptures and into Latin translations. Because of this, there are nearly no Greek manuscripts from the West. (Though there’s an abundance of Latin manuscripts)
Meanwhile, North Africa and the East were conquered by Muslims. The Muslims destroyed Biblical manuscripts as a matter of course, meaning very few manuscripts survived from the regions they controlled.
Thus, the only major Christian center left is the Byzantine Empire.
So it’s possible that without the south and east falling to the Muslims and the West turning to Latin, the majority of manuscripts wouldn’t be of a Byzantine Text type. There’s no proof of that, but it’s possible.
Majority Text Theory Conclusion
The Majority Text position does have some strong arguments for it. The idea that Scribes chose to copy better manuscripts makes perfect sense. Further, the Byzantine texts went 1000+ years with manuscripts changing very little. It’s not hard to imagine they were fairly pure for the ~300 additional years it would take to get back to the originals. (Majority Text advocates will say this is the most likely scenario.)
On the other hand…
However, things change if you include the Latin manuscripts we’ve found. If you do, the Majority Text would look radically different than the mostly pure Byzantine Text that currently comprises the Majority Text. It would likely end up looking like an Alexandrian/Byzantine hybrid.
Further, there are actual rules for Textual Criticism in the Majority Text theory.
It’s not as simple as simply “counting noses” as its critics say. And further, the rules only have a few small differences from the typical Critical Text rules. However, small changes can have large effects. (You can see one such set of rules here, as part of a longer treatise on the Majority Text.)
The “Confessional” Position
The foundational premise for the Confessional Position is quite different than the other two theories. The Reasoned Eclecticism and the Majority Text theories are two different ways to take the manuscripts we have and try to assemble the original text.
The Confessional Position is the exact opposite.
The Confessional Position says that God must have “kept (the scriptures) pure in all ages”. By this, they mean that God wouldn’t allow the true version of the Scriptures to be replaced with a corrupt version of the Scriptures. Or at least, He would preserve a true version for His faithful followers. They have several verses they use to support this (which we’ll look at in a moment).
Another stating of their position goes like this:
“The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue. The Scriptures were not corrupted before Christ’s time, for then Christ would not have sent the Jews to them. He said, ‘Search the Scriptures’. He knew these sacred springs were not muddied with human fancies.” – Thomas Watson (from “A Body of Divinity“)
Most people who hold the Confessional Position would say that a Bible from other Greek texts (such as the Majority Text or Critical Text) contain the scriptures, just not all of them. They would say they are incomplete and/or corrupted, so why use them?
(Note: some are near militant on the importance of the Confessional Position. Some even go so far as to say that other Bibles/translations are heretical and you can’t truly be saved with them. We will be ignoring this segment and focusing on their more genial and reasonable counterparts.)
In the end, the entire Confessional Position can be boiled down to a single question:
Did God Preserve the Scriptures Perfectly in All Ages?
This is the issue for the Confessional Position. Like most Christians, they affirm that the original text of scripture in the original language – as penned by the original authors – is completely without error. However, the Confessional Position argues that it doesn’t matter if God inspired the Scriptures if He didn’t preserve them too.
They argue that “any uncertainty is 100% uncertainty”.
There’s a certain sense where this is true, but it simply doesn’t matter in practice.
For example. I’m writing this paragraph very early in the morning. My wife didn’t sleep very well last night so she’s still in bed… or is she? There’s a closed door between us (so I don’t disturb her sleep) so I can’t actually see her in bed. There’s a window in our bedroom she could’ve climbed out of. I haven’t heard a sound from the bedroom, but perhaps she suddenly learned how to be ninja-quiet? So who’s to say that my wife isn’t running around town in her Pajamas? (Even though it snowed last night, she wouldn’t be caught dead outside our home in her pajamas, and her shoes are in the living room.) I mean, it’s possible… Right?
“Any uncertainty is 100% uncertainty”… Right?
Regardless, that is the Confessional Position. Again, it takes its name from a “confession of faith”. The most commonly cited confession of faith from Confessional Position Christians is the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The Westminster Confession of Faith & The Doctrine of Preservation
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.
This is the basic view held by the Confessional Position. This is the essence of what’s called the “Doctrine of Preservation”. The idea that God – through His power and wisdom – perfectly preserved the scriptures for faithful Christians to use in all ages.
I have yet to hear of a person who holds the Confessional Position who doesn’t choose the “Textus Receptus” as the text that was “kept pure in all ages”. As this is the text chosen by the Confessional Position, it obviously bears some looking at.
The Confessional Position Text: The “Textus Receptus”.
The “Textus Receptus” is Latin for “Received Text”. If you ask most people, the “Textus Receptus” is the Greek text assembled by Erasmus from which the King James Version was translated.
Unfortunately, that’s not quite true.
It’s close-ish, but the actual path was slightly more convoluted than that.
The History of the Textus Receptus
The primary Greek source for the King James Version was the 1598 version of Theodore Beza’s Greek New Testament. The main source for Beza’s New Testament was Robert Estienne’s 1550 Greek New Testament. (Estienne was also known as Stephanus.) Estienne’s New Testament is remarkably similar to Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, but Estienne claimed he didn’t use Erasmus’ work as a source. The first document to be called “Textus Receptus was the 1633 printing of the Elzevir Greek New Testament, which was substantially identical to the 1565 version of Beza’s Greek New Testament.
Yeah, that’s a lot; so here’s a picture to make sense of it.
(Each had several editions; I’ve only included the relevant ones for clarity)
Note, all of the above are very similar. There are differences, but they aren’t large (relatively speaking).
Now, the first document to be called “Textus Receptus” – was published in 1633. The name “Textus Receptus” comes from the preface to the 1633 edition of Abraham & Bonaventure Elzevir’s Greek New Testament. The relevant portion says:
“Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus”
(Roughly Translated: “so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing (is) corrupt”.)
The two words “textum” and “receptum” were changed from the Latin accusative case (direct object) to the Latin nominative case (subject) to render it “Textus Receptus”. That’s how it got its name… because of a marketing ploy. Let me say that again:
The “Textus Receptus” got its name because of a marketing ploy.
The Elzevirs might have thought it was without error (doubtful) but remember that all marketing is subject to hyperbole. It’s far more likely that the sentence was there as a not-so-subtle marketing tactic. Who wouldn’t want to have a Bible in which “nothing was corrupt”? The Elzevir 1633 text promised just that in their marketing.
It remains effective to this day.
(Side note: I’ve spent some time in the marketing world in my life. I’m truly awed that someone created a single sentence for marketing that has echoed through the centuries. That one sentence defines a whole doctrine – the Confessional Position – for millions of Christians. That’s both amazing and very scary.)
The 1633 Elzevir was extremely similar to the other editions mentioned, especially the Beza 1565
The Elzevir text is practically a reprint of the text of Beza 1565 with about fifty minor differences in all. The Elzevirs were notable printers, and their editions of the Greek New Testament were accurate and elegant. Throughout Europe the Elzevir editions came to occupy a place of honor, and their text was employed as the standard one for commentary and collation.
As an aside – because the KJV is often central to the Confessional Position – it’s worth noting that the KJV wasn’t translated from any one single text. Again, Beza’s 1598 text formed much – but definitely not all – of the basis for the KJV. (Also known as the “Authorized Version”, or “AV” for short.)
F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza’s Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop’s Bible and other earlier English translations. In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Estienne. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.
Scrivener loved the Textus Receptus and compiled his own version of it, which is widely accepted today. More on that in a moment. He wasn’t the only one who thought this either:
In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza’s edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version.
Further, if you take Robert Estienne at his word when he says he didn’t use Erasmus’ Greek Text as a source for his Greek text, then Erasmus had literally nothing to do with the King James Version or the “original” Textus Receptus. The claim seems very unlikely though because Estienne’s Greek Text is very close to Erasmus’… but it’s possible.
In modern times, all of these various Greek manuscripts we’ve just discussed are called the “Textus Receptus”.
While the name was originally only applied to the 1633 printing of Elzevir’s Greek text, it eventually came to include all of them. The first was Erasmus though, so we’ll take a closer look at it.
Erasmus’ Textus Receptus
Erasmus originally assembled his Greek text based on 7 Greek manuscripts and published it in 1516 as the “Novum Instrumentum omne“. In the second edition, he changed the title to “Novum Testamentum omne“, and used an additional manuscript for the compilation. There’s good evidence that he had more manuscripts to choose from, but decided to use only those 7 (presumably because they were of the best quality, but we don’t know for sure). The table below shows the texts from which Erasmus assembled his Greek New Testament.
| Name of Manuscript | Content of Manuscript | Date of Manuscript |
|---|---|---|
| Minuscule 1 | Entire New Testament except Revelation | 12th century |
| Minuscule 2814 | Only Revelation | 12th century |
| Minuscule 2 | Only Gospels | 12th century |
| Minuscule 2815 | Acts, Paul's Epistles, General Epistles | 12th century |
| Minuscule 2816 | Paul's Epistles | 15th century |
| Minuscule 2817 | Paul's Epistles | 12th century |
| Minuscule 817 | Only Gospels | 15th century |
| Minuscule 3 | Entire New Testament except Revelation | 12th century |
It’s worth noting that:
Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly 2000 readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the “Majority Text” of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989).
Erasmus’ Text Receptus maintained a text form that’s similar to the Byzantine Majority Text, but they’re definitely not the same. Again, they differ in ~2000 places. That might seem like a lot, but remember the New Testament is just shy of 140,000 words (in Greek). That’s a ~1.4% variation, which is still fairly significant.
So when you see people (mostly Confessional Position and/or KJV-Only Christians) try to use the Majority Text to bolster their case for the Textus Receptus, please realize they’re misinformed. The two definitely share similarities, but they definitely aren’t the same.
For a sense of scale, we’ve already seen that (doing the math and estimating) there are ~6470 textual variations between the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Byzantine Majority Text and the Textus Receptus have ~2000 differences between them. So the Textus Receptus is definitely a Byzantine text, but far from a purely Byzantine text. (More on this in a moment.)
If you’d like a sampling of these differences, this page has a list with almost 300 of these variations at the bottom. To be clear, this list isn’t exhaustive. However, it’s a good representation of the differences and contains many of the major points of variation. You can read the full list here, but it contains the actual Greek variations so you’ll need to know Greek to read it.
(One of the major places they differ is in The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8, and there’s an article about whether it was added or removed right here on Berean Patriot.)
Scrivener’s Textus Receptus
Of the various different versions of the Textus Receptus, Scrivener’s is notable. The following quote is from the Trinitarian Bible Society, who publish the “Textus Receptus”
“The AV [Authorized Version, i.e. the KJV] was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.”
G. W. Anderson and D. E. Anderson, “The Received Text: A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus.” (Trinitarian Bible Society, 1999)
Scrivener’s Textus Receptus is the closest to the Greek text which underlines the KJV. However, it’s an attempt to reconstruct that text, not that actual text itself. It’s almost certainly extremely close, but it’s almost certainly not identical.
The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation
Now that we know what Greek text the Confessional Position uses, we’ll take a closer look at the various scriptural passages they use to support the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”).
Psalm 12:6-7
The root of this is an error in translation, as we’ll see in a moment.
Psalm 12:6-7 KJV
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Read simply, you can see how someone would get the Doctrine of Preservation from this passage. However, the word I’ve highlighted in red isn’t plural (them); it’s singular (him). You can double-check me by looking at Psalm 12:7 in an interlinear Bible. However, don’t trust the English there, look at the shorthand underneath the English words.
Notice: it’s singular:
V‑Qal‑Imperf‑2ms | 3mse
Other translations render this correctly, and we’ll add verse 5 for some context.
Psalm 12:5-7 NASB
5 “Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy,
Now I will arise,” says the LORD; “I will set him in the safety for which he longs.”6 The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.7 You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.
God “will keep them” (His words) by setting “him” (the man) in safety like He said He would in verse 5.
Now some might object by saying the King James translators used a better source document. However, the King James Translators used the 1525-1525 Masoretic Text by Daniel Bomberg as the basis for the Old Testament. (The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew text, and contains far fewer textual variants than the New Testament.) Every other modern translation I’m aware of – including the NASB – uses the Masoretic text also. Further, the NASB uses a modern reprint of the exact same text underlying the KJV.
So no, this verse doesn’t teach the Doctrine of Preservation.
Psalms 100:5
Psalms 100:5 (KJV): For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalms 100:5 (NASB): For the LORD is good, and His loving devotion endures forever; His faithfulness continues to all generations.
I think you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation, but it seems quite a stretch. It seems even more like a stretch when you know the definition of the Hebrew word. The word that’s highlighted is Hebrew word “אֱמוּנָה” (emunah). And it means:
- literally firmness, steadiness:
- stead-fastness,
- faithfulness, trust: a. of human conduct
So, “truth” in the KJV isn’t unwarranted, but hardly the primary meaning. Therefore, this verse doesn’t teach Preservation either.
Psalm 117:1-2
Again, this is a stretch but we’ll deal with it.
Psalm 117:1-2 KJV
1 O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.
2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.
The Hebrew word there is “אֶמֶת” (emeth), and it means:
- reliability, sureness
- stability, continuance
- faithfulness, reliableness
- truth
- as spoken
- of testimony and judgment
- of divine instruction
- truth as a body of ethical or religious knowledge
- adverb in truth, truly
Nearly every translation (besides the KJV, NKJV, and NASB) translates it as “faithfulness” or something similar.
Psalms 119:160
You can see where they get it, but it’s such a stretch.
Psalm 119:160 (KJV)
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Clearly, it’s the judgments that are enduring, not “the word”.
Isaiah 40:8 & 1 Peter 1:24-25
These two passages go together because 1 Peter 1:24-25 is quoting Isaiah 40:8. However, truly understand these verses, we need to consider the context. we’ll look at Isaiah 40:8 first.
Isaiah 40:8 KJV
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Now just taking this verse by itself, it’s easy to see the Doctrine of Preservation. However, proper context changes the sense radically. First, we’ll look at a passage that will become important to understanding these two verses.
John 1:1 (KJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Remember “The Word” is one of Jesus’ main titles, especially in the writings of John. Next, we’ll look at Isaiah 40 with more context, and you’ll see it’s clearly a Messianic passage. We’ll go through it one chunk at a time.
Isaiah 40:1-5 (NKJV)
1 “Comfort, yes, comfort My people!”
Says your God.2 “Speak comfort to Jerusalem, and cry out to her,
That her warfare is ended,
That her iniquity is pardoned;
For she has received from the Lord’s hand
Double for all her sins.”3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
“Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make straight in the desert
A highway for our God.4 Every valley shall be exalted
And every mountain and hill brought low;
The crooked places shall be made straight
And the rough places smooth;5 The glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
And all flesh shall see it together;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
All four Gospel writers apply verse 3 to John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Jesus. (Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4-6, John 1:23) Luke also applies verses 4-5 to the Messianic age. Please note how “The glory of the Lord” will be revealed. In so many places, Jesus is called the Glory of the Lord.
Let’s continue.
Isaiah 40:6-8 (NKJV)
6 The voice said, “Cry out!”
And he said, “What shall I cry?”
“All flesh is grass,
And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.7 The grass withers, the flower fades,
Because the breath of the Lord blows upon it;
Surely the people are grass.8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”
Hmm, could “the Word” here be Jesus? It gets clearer in a few verses, and even clearer when you read 1 Peter 1.
Isaiah 40:9-11 (NKJV)
9 O Zion,
You who bring good tidings,
Get up into the high mountain;
O Jerusalem,
You who bring good tidings,
Lift up your voice with strength,
Lift it up, be not afraid;
Say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!”10 Behold, the Lord God shall come with a strong hand,
And His arm shall rule for Him;
Behold, His reward is with Him,
And His work before Him.11 He will feed His flock like a shepherd;
He will gather the lambs with His arm,
And carry them in His bosom,
And gently lead those who are with young.
Notice that “Like a Shepherd” appears to be an obvious reference to Jesus given the context. However, we don’t have to guess, as Peter – under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration” – explicitly applied this passage to Jesus. We’ll back up to get some context.
1 Peter 1:18-23 (NKJV)
18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
Please remember that the original Greek texts were all capital letters, so the translators added the capitals. Further, no Christian was ever “born again” through the Bible; we are “born again” through Jesus’ blood and His work on the cross. The whole passage so far has been talking about Jesus, who is the “Word of God” as in John 1:1.
Why would Peter suddenly be talking about the Bible?
Further, the Bible doesn’t “live” or “abide” because it’s a book. (And before you bring up Hebrews 4:12, realize that in context it’s talking about Jesus there too)
Now we’ll look at the rest, starting with verse 23.
1 Peter 1:23-25 (NKJV)
23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the Word of God (Jesus) which lives and abides forever,
24 because
“All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
25 But the Word of the Lord (Jesus again) endures forever.”Now this is the Word (Jesus yet again) which by the gospel was preached to you.
Certainly, the Word of God (Jesus, as in John 1:1) will live and endure forever. Amen! But Jesus isn’t the Bible, and neither Peter nor Isaiah were talking about the Bible; they were talking about Jesus.
Matthew 5:18
Context helps a lot here too.
Matthew 5:17-19 (NKJV)
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
In context, Jesus is simply saying that the law wouldn’t end until “all is fulfilled”. Notice, he specifically said “the law”. He didn’t say the scriptures, and not even “the word”; just the (Mosaic) law. Jesus Himself said it was fulfilled when he said “It is finished” on the cross. Christians don’t need to obey the Mosaic Law anymore. (Read Galatians if you disagree.)
Further, The Greek lends more clarity on this.
The Greek word that’s translated “pass” is “παρέρχομαι” (parerchomai). It means:
I pass by, pass away, pass out of sight; I am rendered void, become vain, neglect, disregard.
You could translate it “will by no means be voided from the law“. Same idea. Remember the verse before Jesus talked about how He wasn’t going to destroy the (Mosaic) Law. However, the New Covenant superseded the Old, and at that point, the Old “passed away” or was rendered void… Just like Jesus said.
Words That Won’t “Pass Away”
This is also recorded in Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33, but we’ll look at the Matthew version because it’s more commonly cited.
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
First, please notice that it’s “words” (plural) not “word” (singular). God didn’t write multiple Bibles, did He?
Second, this is Matthew 24; nearly the entire chapter is prophecy. Is it possible that Jesus is talking about His prophecies in that chapter? This actually makes a lot of sense if you look at the Greek word used. It’s “παρέρχομαι” (parerchomai), just like in Matthew 5:18 which we just looked at. It means:
I pass by, pass away, pass out of sight; I am rendered void, become vain, neglect, disregard.
Could it be that Jesus was saying “My words shall not be rendered void“? i.e. His prophecy won’t fail. That makes sense, or at least more sense than applying it to the Bible.
The Biggest Problem with the Confessional Position
We’ve just seen that it doesn’t originate in the scriptures. That begs the question: “Where did it come from?” The answer is in the name: it comes from a (man-made) confession of faith. There’s no problem with confessions of faith in general. However, there’s a very big problem when someone makes a dogmatic doctrinal position without the support of scripture. While the Confessional Position does claim that support, they don’t have it.
That means the only support for the Doctrine of (perfect) Preservation is the tradition of men.
There is no other support pillar.
Now, it’s clear God did preserve His scriptures extremely well over the years. That much is obvious. But nowhere did God claim He would preserve it perfectly and without error.
He just didn’t.
That makes the Confessional Position interesting, but ultimately not rooted and grounded in scripture. If the basis of your faith is the Westminster Confession of Faith, I would humbly suggest you move to a firmer foundation.
I humbly suggest what was breathed out by God and “is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”. Just be careful that you aren’t “teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”, which honestly is the biggest problem with the Confessional Position.
However, there’s another problem that’s far more practical.
Which Textus Receptus?
According to Textus Receptus Bibles (.com), there are no less than 27 different versions of the Textus Receptus!
Here is their list:
Complutensian Polyglot
- 1514 (Complutensian Polyglot)
Desiderius Erasmus
- 1516 (Erasmus 1st Novum Instrumentum omne)
- 1519 (Erasmus 2nd)
- 1522 (Erasmus 3rd Novum Testamentum omne)
- 1527 (Erasmus 4th)
- 1535 (Erasmus 5th)
Colinæus
- 1534 (Simon de Colines)
Stephanus (Robert Estienne)
- 1546 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 1st)
- 1549 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 2nd)
- 1550 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 3rd – Editio Regia
- 1551 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 4th)
Theodore Beza
- 1565 (Beza 1st)
- 1565 (Beza Octavo 1st)
- 1567 (Beza Octavo 2nd)
- 1580 (Beza Octavo 3rd)
- 1582 (Beza 2nd)
- 1589 (Beza 3rd)
- 1590 (Beza Octavo 4th)
- 1598 (Beza 4th)
- 1604 (Beza Octavo 5th)
Elzevir
- 1624 (Elzevir)
- 1633 (Elzevir) edited by Jeremias Hoelzlin, Professor of Greek at Leiden.
- 1641 (Elzevir)
- 1679 (Elzevir)
Oxford Press
- 1825
Scholz
- 1841 (Scholz)
Scrivener
- 1894 (Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ)
So if the Confessional Position wants to say the Textus Receptus was perfectly preserved by God and inerrant, then then we must ask: “Which Textus Receptus?” You need to ask which of the 27 possible versions they will pick, because none of them are identical with another.
It’s a problem.
Further, all of these manuscripts which can be called the Textus Receptus contain unique readings not found in any other manuscripts whatsoever. How can the scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages” when – if the Textus Receptus is “pure” – it has readings that never existed before?
Even more problematic from a practical standpoint: every Textus Receptus is different than every other Textus Receptus (even if only slightly), and all are different than any manuscript that existed before them. Therefore, if the Textus Receptus is the manuscript that was perfectly preserved, that means that there was no perfectly preserved manuscript until the Textus Receptus came along.
It’s a problem for the Confessional Position.
“Okay, But is the Textus Receptus a good Document?”
Even if you don’t hold to the Confessional Position, you might think the Textus Receptus is the best/most accurate edition of the New Testament. You might think this based on empirical/research grounds, not on a “confession of faith”. This might be surprising to hear after what you’ve just read, but you might be right.
Seriously.
There are definitely places in the Textus Receptus that are wrong, and we know this from manuscripts we’ve found that they didn’t have access to then, but overall it’s a very good document. One could even make the case that the Textus Receptus is overall the best Greek New Testament out there. I’m not sure I would agree, but I’m not sure I’d disagree either.
It certainly agrees with the Byzantine Majority Text quite well, and the differences are not typically very large (though certainly some are). Personally, I would say the Textus Receptus is overall a very good document. Not perfect by any stretch and it definitely has mistakes, but very good overall.
Confessional Position Conclusion
God certainly preserved the scriptures through the ages. However, He never promised to preserve them perfectly and to assert that He did is to put words in God’s mouth. That’s a bad idea. There’s no scriptural basis for the idea whatsoever, and so asserting it dogmatically is a very bad idea.
We know God preserved the scriptures because even in the New Testament, over 99% of the Textual Variants have no effect on anything. The remainder don’t impact major doctrines, and certainly nothing concerned with salvation or the Gospel. God certainly preserved it with remarkable accuracy, but that doesn’t mean that He preserved a single text with word-perfect accuracy.
While the Confessional Position holds no water, the Textus Receptus itself is a very good document. Not perfect by any stretch, but very good.
Summary of the Critical Text vs. The Majority Text vs. The Textus Receptus
First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament. The core message of the gospel isn’t compromised in any of these documents. Some lesser, non-salvation-related doctrines are affected, but many of those are arcane topics that rarely – if ever – touch on the Christian life. Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus, but no major, central part of the gospel is affected.
With that said, we’ll do a quick recap:
The Reasoned Eclecticism theory created the modern Critical Text (NA28/UBS5), which is what most modern New Testaments are based on. It uses a set of rules to create their text, but never got very far away from Westcott & Hort’s original 1881 work. There remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in the Critical text, which is very unfortunate. Its major weakness is outright dismissal of certain readings (without evidence), and that it’s based on essentially only two manuscripts of dubious quality.
The Majority Text theory gives an extremely high weight to readings that are supported by the majority of manuscripts. This results in a text that aligns extremely closely with the text the church has used since the 4th century, and it has changed very little in that time. However, it completely ignores evidence from versional manuscripts (translations) and the early church fathers. Despite this weakness, in this author’s humble opinion, it’s more likely to have the closest readings to the original in a majority of places. Certainly not all, but quite possibly a majority.
The Confessional Position maintains that God must have perfectly preserved the Bible “pure in all ages”. Besides the obvious problem with saying that God “must” do something, there’s no basis for that assertion besides a few man-made creeds. The scriptures certainly don’t support it, and therefore the Confessional Position simply holds no water. However, the text they’ve chosen (the Textus Receptus) isn’t a bad text. There’s good reason to think it’s actually a very good document, and it aligns well with the Majority Text. It’s by no means perfect and certainly has flaws, but overall it’s quite good.
My Personal Opinion
As I said, I prefer a blend.
My personal opinion is that the Majority text is an excellent starting point. Given its long history of transmission with very little change and the common sense idea that scribes will choose better manuscripts, I think that makes sense. However, I would only make that the starting point. The Majority Text isn’t perfect, and there are places where adjustments need to be made based on the evidence. (Like the Johannine Comma, which the Majority text doesn’t include, and the story of the woman caught in adultery, which it unfortunately does include. I have articles on both passages.)
By evidence, I mean quotations from the early church fathers and looking at the versional manuscripts (translations). I would give the translations somewhat less weight than Greek texts, but not discard them entirely.
There is one man who has proposed another model I find agreeable, and I confess I got many of my ideas from him. His name is James Snapp Jr. and he owns the blog: The Text of the Gospels, which I highly recommend. In fact, it’s usually the first place I look for answers on questions relating to Textual Variants. He proposed an approach that he calls “Equitable Eclecticism” which he explained in two articles. Part 1 is mostly a history lesson for context, and is well worth reading. Part 2 focuses more on the actual methodology.
Personally, I would like to see the bias against the Byzantine text type eliminated so that Byzantine readings will be on a level playing field with all other manuscripts. That alone would be a huge improvement in modern Textual Criticism.
Conclusion
Wow, if you’ve stayed to the end I congratulate you on your tenacity. Not many people would sift through an 18k+ word article. Hopefully you found it useful, complete, and you now have a good understanding of Textual Criticism. Hopefully, this will provide a better background for you when making your own decisions about source texts.
God Bless, and venture forth armed with knowledge. 🙂
(Note: I have an article titled What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why? It goes into just as much depth as this article, including what God Himself said in the Bible about its translation – yes He commented indirectly – and the article even includes mini-reviews of the most popular Bible translations.)
Wonderfully written…easy for a truck driver to understand…The subject is like mind-candy for me…I’ve read many articles on the topic…I am biased because I agree with you on many points…I’ll keep using my NKJV!
Berean Patriot,
Thank you for a very educational and splendid essay on comparative text types. I must admit it took me 2 evenings to seriously digest the information, take notes, cross reference and meditate on the essay. One thing i wanted to mention is i recently came into possession of the Eastern Orthodox Bible, New Testament. A translation based on the official text of the Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople. References have been made to other textual platforms, such as Nestle-Aland Critical Text, the Majority Text and Textus Receptus. It is a great Bible for reading and study too and i am thoroughly enjoying it. I believe it should be very highly in my humble opinion.
apologies…i left our highly “considered”, in my last sentence. No scribal duties for me.
I’ve had an NIV Bible for a long time and stumbled across some KJV only preachers on youtube who challenged my translation. Lately, I’ve been looking to getting a new Bible anyway because I’ve somewhat grown out of my NIV Bible, but I’ve been going back and forth trying to figure out if the KJV only idea is legit. They did have some very solid points! I have to say though that this article was a HUGE help in my deciding factor of what to do. I am so glad I sat down and read this all the way through! I think I’m gonna get either the NKJV or NASB. Whichever one is closer to the majority text.
I’m glad it helped you. 🙂
The NKJV is definitely closer and also the only translation I would recommend if you want one based on the TR. I have a whole article on Bible translations if you are interested.
I started with a NKJV, then last 10 years or so a NASB. I just bought a World English Bible.”This is where the World English Bible (also known as the WEB Bible) comes to the rescue. The WEB is a revision of the ASV. It gets rid of archaic words and phrases, provide quotation marks (they were not in the ASV), and resolves textual issues that have appeared after 1901. It is easier to read than the ASV, yet the WEB stays close to the “Rock of Biblical Honesty”
One has to wonder why we have the WEB, when we have a New American Standard Bible updating the ASV. The Web sticks closer to the ASV text and the NASB says in its preface that it was following only the “spirit and intent” of the ASV.
While the ASV used Westcott/Hort’s Greek New Testament text, the Web uses the Greek Majority Text. For example take John 11:38 “Jesus wept.” If 25 manuscripts contain “Jesus was upset,” 30 said “Jesus was filled with compassion,” and 50 said “Jesus wept,” because the majority say “Jesus wept,” that will be in the WEB.
The WEB is the first major translation to use the Majority Text. As most of the 5700 manuscripts are the type that was used in the King James/New King James, which sometimes uses renderings not found in the Greek manuscripts, especially in Revelation, where the Latin Vulgate Bible was copied and translated into Greek and used in the KJV and the NKJV did not correct it. As a result, there are parts of Revelation in the KJV/NKJV not supported by a single Greek manuscript. The KJV NT was based on 25 manuscripts, as did the NKJV.
The WEB fixed that problem as it uses the majority of the manuscripts, and also removes verses or phrases that are not in the majority of the manuscripts, including Revelation. It corrects the manuscript errors in the KJV while not letting in the Gnostic influence in manuscripts from Egypt that are used in more modern translations. You will find more additions than subtractions. The WEB reads like a smooth ASV in the New Testament. The manuscript differences between the Greek text that the KJV was based on, the majority Greek text, and the modern Greek text are in agreement 98 percent of the time; the other 2 percent does not affect doctrine.
Another great thing about the WEB: The makers of this Bible wanted to fill a void, to create a modern translation with no copyright, a Bible that can be freely shared, or the whole Bible printed out and given to a friend without a royalty. The only limitation is if someone change the words in the WEB to create a new translation. According to WEB’s rules, that person should rename his Bible translation.
One issue, a minor one, the majority of Greek manuscripts show the content of Romans 16:25-27 actually belongs in 14:24-26. Only WEB has a 14:24-26. But the Romans 16:25-27 and 14:24-26 text are identical.
I think that it is time for the WEB to pick up the mantle of the ASV. I’ve been running a WEB/ASV parallel Bible and the WEB cleverly updates the ASV, without sacrificing accuracy.” Quoted from “biblemegasite.com”.
I gave it a look and was far from impressed. In fact, it blatantly and grossly mistranslates at least one very important verse that will lead some into sin. Likewise, the footnotes betray a liberal bias. While the text itself seems less liberal in many places, the places it is liberal are very important. I like the no copyright, but I wouldn’t quote it or use it.
I know too much Greek to accept something that was (seemingly) intentionally mistranslated. I say “intentionally” because in at least one place, there’s no other reason to translate the way they did other than a desire to change the text. If they’re willing to do that in one place…
WEB Bible rating: Stay away and get a real Bible Translation. (NKJV or NASB, though the ESV barely eeks out an “acceptable” rating if you find the other two are too hard to understand.)
Can you state the ‘one very important verse that will lead some into sin’ that is in the WEB bible.
EDIT: I finally got around to writing an article on the topic, which you can read here. Does 1 Corinthians 11 Require Women To Wear “Head Coverings”
1 Corinthians 11:10, which I’ve copy/pasted below with verses 8-9 for a bit of context.
Here’s the same verse properly translated, in an (unfinished) translation that’s fast becoming my favorite. (though I’m biased… 😉 )
If you click the link, the footnotes are well worth reading, especially on “is morally obligated” because this translation nailed it. (though again I’m biased) I think the contradiction is clear, and the WEB Bible completely flipped this verse upside down seemingly on purpose, because there’s absolutely no justification whatsoever in Greek for their “over her own head” translation. This makes it sound like women should not be under male authority, instead of saying they are morally obligated to be under male authority because of why they were created.
I spent much of my (unfinished) series on marriage unpacking how this rebellious idea has catastrophic results when put into practice. More importantly, it’s patently unbiblical.
Berean Patriot,
I think you are grossly mistaken about the WEB’s translation of 1 Cor 11:10. The translation is quite in order and your accusation of intentional mistranslation is unfounded.
The Greek word kephalē has two meanings: 1 (primary meaning) the part of the body called the head; 2 (symbolic meaning) the chief, master or lord. The context would determine which of the two meanings are to be used. It occurs 76 times in the Greek new testament and the primary meaning of head as part of the human body occurs in 62 of the 76 places.
Kephalē is found nine times in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. In verse three it refers to head as chief or lord (God the Father is head of Christ, Christ is head of man, and man is head of woman). The other six occurrences in 1 Corinthians, including verse 10, all refer to the head as the body part that rests on the shoulders. The context and the discussion of a covering as a symbol over or upon the woman’s head makes this clear.
Let us look at 1 Cor 11:10.
The transliterated Greek reads: dia touto opheilei hē gunē exousian echein epi tēs kephalēs dia tous angelous. Literally this means: because of this ought the woman authority to have over the head because of the angels.
The KJV reads: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (‘her’ is supplied and not in the original but makes it clear that it is the woman’s head that the symbol is placed upon).
The NKJV reads: For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ( ‘a symbol of ‘ and ‘her’ are supplied and not in the original but states the obvious that the head covering is a symbol and that it is placed on the woman’s (her) head.
The WEB translation reads: For this cause the woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. ( ‘her own’ are supplied and not in the original but like the KJV and the NKJV versions makes it clear that the authority or symbolic authority is placed on or over the woman’s own head).
The Greek word ‘epi’ when used with the genitive as in ‘tēs kephalē’ means over or upon.
The head referred to in verse 10 cannot refer to Christ nor any man as it would make nonsense of the preceding verses. Indeed the man’s head must not be covered as Paul instructs. The context makes it clear that verse 10 is referring to the human body part known as the head. The symbolic head covering cannot be placed over/upon a man’s head but rather it must be placed over/upon a woman’s head. The WEB’s ‘authority over her own head’ is quite in order. It has nothing to do with a woman not being in subjection to male authority. Her head or her own head is just that. It is her own head that she carries on her shoulders.
The authority (the symbol) is placed over her own head because of the angels. Whenever a woman puts on the head covering she is proclaiming a message to the angels. She reproves the angels of Satan declaring that she will submit to the authority of God, even though they did not. She also causes rejoicing among the angels of God who are obedient and submissive to the authority of God. Such is the power/authority of the covering on the head of the woman.
EDIT: I finally got around to writing an article on the topic, which you can read here: Does 1 Corinthians 11 Require Women To Wear “Head Coverings”
The WEB’s “over her own head” makes it sound like the woman must listen to no one but herself because she is under her own authority. You yourself said “her own” was added for ‘clarity’, and that changes the meaning, without textual basis.
That’s my objection.
You said applying verses 10 to male authority doesn’t make sense, but it makes perfect sense. To condense/paraphrase verses 9-10: “woman was made for man, so she must be under male authority.” Contextually, that makes perfect sense. To be sure that’s not politically correct, but that’s what the passage is saying and the Bible is very consistent on this. (see 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, Numbers 30, etc.)
Notice verse 15b, which says “For the long hair was – and is – given to her instead of a covering.” Thayer’s specifically mentions this verse as a place that ἀντὶ should be translated “instead of”. A woman’s long hair is the symbol of authority, and notice that feminists almost universally have short(er) hair.
Coincidence?
The Feminist in Paul’s day shaved their heads too. Verse 5 references “the woman who did – and does – shave her head.“, which is almost certainly referring to the women on the Isle of Lesbos nearby, who shaved their heads to indicate they wouldn’t be under male authority. Paul’s saying “don’t be like the women who shave their heads to show they won’t be under authority.” The covering is a woman’s long hair (as verse 15 says) and the passage is about women being “moraly obligated” to be under authority. (This is made even more clear by the chiastic structure of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, which places verse 10 at the apex/focal point)
The WEB’s “over her own head” betrays a feminist bent by the translators, and looking at some of the their footnotes in other places confirms this bias.
Thank you for creating an such a well constructed article. I’ve been studying on my own for quite sometime and read cover to cover various translations but could never understand the debate. Obviously they were different and didn’t always agree. I studied up on each translation but could never get a good grasp on the origin of the text. I even purchased an interlinear bible because I wanted to know what was really said. (Not a big deal for you, I’m sure, but I’m just s single mom of three with a thirst for the Word.) The definitions and theories were laid out very distinctly and well sourced. I finally feel i have a grasp on the topic. The links in this article will be read later. You did warn us it was long. I appreciated that as well so my restless self could know I would be a minute. 😄
Thanks again!
You’re welcome. 🙂 Also, if you want to look up Greek or Hebrew words words, I highly recommend the interlinear bible on biblehub.com. It’s a great tool for those who don’t know Greek or Hebrew, and a very useful tool even if you do.
I don’t hold to a Confessional Bibliology, I believe they don’t actually take their reasoning to its actual logical end. But I find your interpretation of Psalms 12, while correct in a literal sense, wrong in a prophetical sense. Because if you apply the same reasoning to Messianic prophecies in Psalms, it will show that those texts actually apply to David, not Jesus, etc. a lot of times. Messianic prophecies are out of context! No, a prophetic application is what the verse is about, and thus the Confessional Bibliogist is correct in using that way.
So – just to make sure I’m understanding you correctly – it sounds like you’re saying it’s reasonable to ignore whether a word is singular or plural when exegeting the scriptures? (as long as you’re making a prophetic application) Is that what you’re saying? Is that really a position you want to take?
Please can you help?
My Bible study group were puzzled that the NKJV Bible ends Matthew 20 with an extra sentence which doesn’t appear in the more recent translations:
Matthew 20:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Matthew 20:16 New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.’
Could this have been mis-transcribed from the end of chapter 19:
Matthew 19:30 New King James Version (NKJV)
30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
Any thoughts please?
The longer reading is found in the Majority Text, but not in the Critical text. It’s possible the longer reading was copied over from Matthew 22:14, but I would lean toward original. I haven’t spent much time researching it though, so it’s merely an “at a glance” opinion. I did a quick search and found this article on a website I often look at for textual variant information. I hope that helps.
Thank you! That’s very helpful.
Andrew
Great info, to the point, well done. Coming from a KJV is the preserved words of God or as close as anyone has it in English AND holding a “confessional” position in regard to that, I find it refreshing to discover a critic who concedes and is open about the KJV’s unique eclecticism in its origins as opposed to the usual inaccurate treatment of it as wholly Majority Text as opposed to mainly Majority Text with reasoned deviations. My issue is with what I feel, based on your obvious biblical knowledge and intelligence, is a purposeful ignoring of the Holy Ghost’s practice of making statements that have multiple and equally valid applications or truths when dealing with passages on “the word” “words” and Christ. While indeed some of the favorite passages among my ilk are weak in conveying what Confessionalists say they do, some are quite clear, particularly Peter and Christ’s own statements to the longevity of His owm words, which would include any words of God unless He expressly stated otherwise. Further, you note, correctly of course, that the Bible doesn’t save anyone…Christ and His work provide salvation…you, in exhaustion I hope and not in dishonesy, fail to deal with the fact that this offer of salvation is conveyed to us by God’s words or not at all. No words and we never hear the gospel, and it is in His words that God’s truth to us regarding Jesus Christ is conveyed…and He says He has put His words above His very name. Granted, unlike some of my brethren, I fully accept that the enduring words of God preserved in English can also be found in most translations, even the those that are Critical Text products… but as one cannot separate the promise God made Abe from the word that Abe believed on, one cannot separate THE Word from the words of God that have occasioned and compelled our faith in Christ having done and doing what God said He would. Perhaps you could address that in any amended versions or separately.
Thank you again for a wonderful and concise article, Ill be recommending it to many.
Apologize for typos, kind of hurriedly typed that up on my phone.
Terrific article. Thank you for your hard work.
I am researching Matt 10:10, specifically the word ῥάβδον – staff.
The TR had the singular in 1550 but was changed to the plural ῥάβδους in the 1894 TR.
Any insights would be appreciated.
George
Thank you. The 1894 TR would be Scrivener’s, which is an attempt to make a Greek New Testament which is identical to the KJV. My guess – and it’s only a guess – is that the Latin Vulgate had the plural (staves) and so the KJV translators went with that. I know almost nothing about Latin, or I’d check. Since the KJV had plural, the 1984 TR has the plural.
Thank you for this wonderful, well informed article. I knew basically nothing about Textual Criticism before reading this. I’ve really enjoyed it and I’ve learned a lot!
You’re welcome, and I’m glad it blessed you. 🙂
Wonderful read, a real blessing.
Wow, great article. I’m 23 (born again when I was 20) and have been studying which Greek textual basis best reflects the NT Scripture as originally penned for about 2 1/2 years now. This is the best I’ve read on this topic so far. It was shockingly balanced, very respectful, and based upon facts. I especially loved that you point out that this is a less than 1% issue that affects no essential Christian doctrine, even as Bart Ehrman has admitted.
I agree with you regarding English translations as well. NASB95 and NKJV are by far my favorite, with ESV as the distant runner-up.
Have you heard that with the new and unfortunate NASB2020 revision, Master’s Seminary has undertaken the “Legacy Standard Bible” project? Their desire is to preserve the legacy of the NASB95, as well as incorporate two major changes:
1. The Tetragrammaton (over 6,800 times in the OT) will be rendered as “Yahweh”.
2. doúlos (127 times in the NT) will be consistently rendered as “slave”.
This translation will be available by the end of year 2021. God bless you, brother. Looking forward to reading more of your articles.
Thank for the kind words, and I’m so glad you enjoyed the article. 🙂
I have heard about the NASB2020 and it seems to be like everything else about 2020: extremely disappointing. I like my NASB95, but wouldn’t touch the NASB2020 with 39 1/2 foot pole (allusion intended) I’m looking forward to the Legacy Standard Bible, especially because of the Tetragramaton being translated “Yahweh” (though I think there’s a better pronunciation of YHWH, I’ll take it!) It’s definitely a step in the right direction. I’m planning to get an LSB when it comes out, and I too am looking forward to it.
Comment on God preserving His Word
Read Jeremiah 1:11-12
I’m not a KJV only follower
Prefer NKJV NASB
Believe there is error
In many modern renderings
Of example
Isaiah 7:14
Virgin Birth NASB KJV NKJV ESV
Not a scholar but just a few thoughts
Vs pregnant woman 🙄
GNB NET NRSV
Great explanations of Varying
Textual criticism
Very Helpful
Because I’m
No Scholar 🙂
I wonder if you have heard of Ivan Panin? He lived in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. He used the mathematical structure of Greek to figure out which variants were the original using the Weston Hort as a reference. You can see his New Testament at a French website by an internet search. The words are in English.
His translation can be purchased for about $10. I recommend the version sold by New England Bible Sales for around $25. His work was largely ignored during his lifetime but the English Standard Version largely agrees with his translation. He put the universal Catholic epistles before Paul’s so the beginning and ending letters of all of the epistles would form a mathematical pattern.
He found the old testament was accurate.
Thanks for all the hard work! This was helpful. (I confess I skimmed through parts)
I am wondering why you say that it is a matter of “less than 1% of the New Testament.” I’ve found this information in various books:
“The fact of the matter is that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by deletions, in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude and Revelation” (Thomas Strouse, Review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,” November 2000).
Also, it seems to me that the Critical Text differs from the TR in most of the passages that refer to the deity of Christ. I don’t see how it can be other than deliberate; one or the other was edited.
Remember that the “less than 1%” number includes ALL the variants, not just the differences between the TR and the CT.
Those numbers sounded HIGHLY suspect to me, so I did some looking. With slight variances depending on version, the TR has about 140,100 Greek words, and the CT has about 138,100. That’s only a 2400 word difference (1.7%), and just two variants (the ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery) account for a significant portion of that difference. Further, many of those differences are too subtle to even translate. Obviously some aren’t, but that article makes the differences sound much larger than they actually are.
Wow! Thank you for all of your hard work and you’re opinion and your honesty! I have to say that spiritually, I agree with your “Spoiler Alert” and recommendations before I even read them 🙂 The Holy Spirit truly guides us into all truth! Bless you for all of your hard work, many Christians are highly caught up in fear of being misled by the written word. Your article referring back to the early church fathers is especially important. Ken Johnson also does an expose on the issues and older documents. Be Blessed brother 🙂
I found a scribal error and did not want it passed down for the next 100 generations.
In the Erasmus’ Textus Receptus section, you wrote: “For a sense of scale, we’ve already seen that (doing the math and estimating) there are ~6470 textual variations between the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Vaticanus. ” You have Vaticanus twice.
The article was excellent and I appreciate the effort you put into compiling the information. I still have not settled on a position and am not sure I ever will. The way I see it Jesus is the only 100% true word of God and I need to rely on His Holy Spirit to guide me every time I open the Bible. Hmmm, ….maybe that’s what He intended.
Fixed, thank you for pointing that out. 🙂
Do you have a post describing the actual biblical texts that have meaningful differences between the majority and critical texts? And if verses left out make for significant doctrine left out that isn’t discussed elsewhere in scripture? I currently hold a KJV only position, but am curious as to whether other versions don’t speak as much to sin or disregard significant doctrine?
I don’t have a link, but might add one. There’s a wikipedia article, but it’s wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt.
Thankyou so much for all your research and sharing your knowledge. I first read the NKJV cover to cover 2 years ago and then last year I discovered the NASB which I am now reading cover to cover. I find it ironic that these were the two versions that I was drawn to. Devine guidance maybe?
I would like to cite this article. The author’s name is not listed. How should I cite it?
You can simply cite the website. I have some controversial articles for which I’d prefer not to be doxxed, so I’m going to keep my real name off the website.
I read this article and the one you did on the best Bible version. My question is if the Critical Text is the text behind the NASB and comes primarily from two manuscripts that are of “dubious quality,” why do you prefer the NASB? Is there a translation that uses a blend of the Critical Text and the Majority Text? Thanks for your research!
I am still working on this article but I skimmed through to try and find a list of the 1% variants that are viable and change the context in a meaningful way. I would very much like this short list. I have a few books that help me find such things however, as I am sure you know, if someone has already done much of the legwork it gives you a good place to start.
Also, I am building my book collection and I wanted to see if you recommended any books that translate some of these Greek texts that should be considered when translating new bibles.
Thanks,
Donnie
PS: If possible please e-mail me unless I will get an email notification of a reply to this comment.
I really enjoyed reading your thorough treatment above; Because there’s not a Snapp Eclectic Greek NT and a related English translation of the SEGNT, I’m less sure what it means in practical terms of buying a Bible and which actual Bible your analysis would lead you to pick off the shelf? How does this article fold in with the “Best Bible Version” article?
The “1% argument” almost makes it seem not to matter between the TR and Alexandrian-focused textual lines … but … maybe that only applies to the NASB 1995 for reasons you indicated in the other article?
I’ll freely admit that this article isn’t “practical” for most Christians. My goal in writing it was two-fold. First, I couldn’t find an article like this when I went looking so I figured I’d have to do the research myself. Once the research was done, I just needed to type it up, which I do anyway to organize my thoughts. Second, I’m hoping to steer the discussion on biblical text somewhat in the direction of not completely dismissing the Byzantine text out of hand. I’m not pushing it and I’m not saying it’s better; just that it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
The best translations article is much more practical. Since the two best translations on the market (NASB95 and NKJV) differ on their source text, if someone had strong preference for the Critical Text or Texus Receptus, that could be a deciding factor. I like the textual basis of the TR slightly better, but prefer the NASB95’s features and especially its treatment of gender. It’s just about the only translation that renders it properly as “sons of Israel” instead of “children/people of Israel” in the OT.
Thank you for writing this article. I have been struggling with translations ever since the NIV translators pulled their stunt in 2011. It literally broke my heart and almost devastated my faith in Bible translations. Up until then, the original NIV was my Bible. Ever since then, I have done a lot of study on Bible manuscripts and I have been struggling a lot with the differences between the textus receptus and the critical text. I currently bounce back and forth between the nkjv and the nasb 95. I want to get as close as possible to the original text. Any further input that you have would be appreciated. Thanks again and God bless you.
You’re welcome. 🙂
NASB95 and NKJV are the two translations that I recommend, see my article on Bible translations for more detailed info on why. I would also suggest you look at the Biblehub.com interlinear bible for looking up original words. (search at the top) It’s very useful and helpful, plus beginner friendly.
Any thoughts on the New English Bible translation of the 1960s? I think this Bible has been changed significantly in the Revised English Bible (1989) translation to be gender inclusive. Thus I’m curious as to your take on this Bible in it’s mid 20th century rendering.
The litmus verse in 1 Cor is classically Critical-Text butchered but they also have the virgin option written in the inline notes for the verse (these are footnotes in a cheap printed binding of this version which I have of this text). Full NEB text is available online at site I linked below.
They do a bit of tap-dancing in their Introduction to the NT indicating they’ve taken a different route than Westcott & Hort. The first page of the intro seems to be a Critical Scholarship appeasement statement but then they get into some clear differences from the typical CT approach. See their intro to the NT here: http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/NT-Introduction-1970.pdf
Thoughts? Are there other signs that this translation is really not that different from other modern translations?
The NEB is an extremely loose paraphrase; even the NIV looks better from the little looking that I did. It’s butchered so badly that it almost doesn’t even sound like the Bible in places.
Thank you! This is a wonderful article and I enjoyed reading it as much as anything I’ve read in the last year or so.
You say, “The practice of Textual Criticism is not ‘criticizing the Bible’, it’s trying to recover the Bible’s original text. A ‘textual critic’ is not someone who criticizes the Bible, but someone who tries their best to reconstruct the original text.”
I believe you are a liar. If you believe man can determine the mind of God by trying “their best to reconstruct the original text,” then you believe God has failed us. You should keep your mouth shut. All of these “versions”, (do you see the problem?), have aided the enemies of God, not His church. You will stand and give account for spreading the lies that you and these so-called scholars have preached as the truth.
What is your alternative solution then? On which manuscript(s) should we base our translations?
The B-I-B-L-E,
Yes, that’s the book for me,
I stand alone on the Word of God,
The B-I-B-L-E.
Which one?
I believe, for English-speaking Christians, the one that has been used by God for the longest, the KJV, or received text. For every problem others find with it, I find the solution in it. It is amazingly accurate and when there is a “problem,” the solution is well worth searching out from God. Thank you.
Are you aware that the Received Text (Textus Receptus) is essentially a 16th century Critical Text? (as shown in the article) Further, which Textus Receptus should we use? Again as shown in the article, there are no less than 27 different versions, so which one should we use?
Let’s start with the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture:
“The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. You shall keep them, O Lord, you shall preserve them from this generation forever.” NKJV
Has recent textual criticism increased our faith in God?
You might want to check the original language in that verse, because it actually says “You shall keep him“, singular, not “them” plural. I cover this fact with proof in the article, under the heading “The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation”. (You can use the expandable table of contents at the beginning of the article to jump right to that part.) I also cover the other major verses used to support the doctrine of preservation.
You asked: “Has recent textual criticism increased our faith in God?“. However, you didn’t answer my question: do you acknowledge that the Textus Receptus is a work of Textual Criticism? (As shown in the article)
And by the way, I do have a high opinion of the TR and prefer it to the Critical text in many ways. The NKJV is one of two translations I recommend in my article on Bible translations. (The other being the 1995 NASB). My biggest gripe with the TR is that it includes the story of the woman caught in adultery, despite the text of the story itself proving that it’s not scripture. (More info in my article on it; if you disagree please comment on that article to keep things on topic.)
You have become another critic and not a defender of the faith. I’m finished.
Nice article, well-balanced and thoughtful. I had concluded before reading this that the Byzantine texts are likely the more accurate ones, since the Alexandrian texts have far more frequent errors and deviations between the copies. Your article clarified a few things for me and added some detail. My current go-to Bible is the MEV (Modern English Version).
Have you even attempted to understand the woman taken in adultery? Try shaping your theology to the words of God, instead of what you are now doing, and I believe you will get a better understanding of just Who our Lord is and His power to save, even whores and people like you and me.
Listen to this:
11 Teach me Thy way, O Lord; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear Thy name.
12 I will praise Thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart: and I will glorify Thy name for evermore.
13 For great is Thy mercy toward me: and Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.
14 O God, the proud are risen against me, and the assemblies of violent men have sought after my soul; and have not set Thee before them.
15 But Thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, long suffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
These few words would have guided her. I believe she got more.
I’m more than happy to discuss the story, but please comment on that article to keep things on topic (as I’ve already requested).
I want to save you the embarrassment of standing before God having led others astray.
I think if you want to be a textual critic. I am exposing what a textual critic, like you, really believes. You believe yourself, not the text.
You previously said we should use the TR, or KJV which is based on the TR. However, the TR is an example of 17th century textual criticism. How can you that claim textual criticism is bad and yet support a document that was created via textual criticism?
No, no, no, no! What I am trying to say is that we have had a sure word for five hundred years. Textual critics want us to believe it needed an overhauled. I don’t think so. They have thrown the baby out with the wash. Look at your own readers. They are confused, just like you, and I. I love studying to see what God has said as clearly as I can, so using all the versions aid me. But I would give them all up to dispel the confusion and go back to studying the original languages, which I use Jewish-English, an LXX-English translation, and a lexicon to do. Your treating of the KJV reveals you have little concern for text and more concern for your understanding. I deal with people, mostly Jews, who see errors in the New Testament, so I must know how to defend God’s words. They will not hear because of blindness. I fear the same about you.
Sorry about my declining math skills. I believe it has something to do with age and heredity. I am concerned that we let others tell us what to believe when we do have a sure word of prophecy. I have strong views on some scripture that I share with very few. Our opinions must be subjected to the word of God. I read some of your beliefs and found them wanting. I don’t know what to tell you to change your mind. That will take a willingness on your part and revelation on God’s. I pray you will seek the truth at all costs. That is what is required.
I enjoyed reading your article. I found it reasonably through. I am wondering about your opinion of Wilbur Pickering and his stand on Family 35. At this time I consider myself a textus receptus guy and find his position interesting. Your thoughts I would appreciate.
The outstanding feature of family 35 is the consistency between manuscripts. It’s a basically byzantine textform, which I do like. The consistency is excellent, but we don’t know on which manuscripts it was originally based. Family 35 doesn’t include any Uncials and I believe the oldest manuscript in the family is late-ish; early second millennium. That said, they do seem to be of higher quality that other manuscripts of their respective eras. I could certainly see a case for making them the representative of the Byzantine textform, or even a starting place for a “base text”.
However while I would certainly give them more weight because of the consistency, I’m certainly not inclined to trust them mechanically. For example, they it omit the Johanine comma and include the Pericope Adulterae. (I have articles: the comma belongs, but the Pericope doesn’t; though they do include an obelus to indicate doubt on the Pericope, so that’s something.)
Thank you for this article. It put a ton of accurate info in one place. This will definitely be my ‘ go to” when I need to refresh my memory about the mysterious “M”, “NU” footnotes in my bible 🙂 . I admire the zeal textual scholars have in combing through myriads of manuscripts in an effort to better understand God’s word. Great work!
This was an interesting article. I have gone back and forth myself on this issue. I find the whole thing to be disconcerting, frankly. I find the KJV Onlyists’ arguments to be extremely weak, to be honest, though it’d be nice if that were the answer to this problem of textual and translational variation in Bibles. KJV Onlyism, in my view, is culturally triumphalist and myopic in that it holds up a particular 17th century English translation of what were originally Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as the standard. I mean, how arbitrary can you get? BUT, it is the expression of a very real concern for Sola Scriptura Christians — where can I find the full, complete, and accurate words of God? Every translation in every language, and every manuscript on which they’re based, differs. What are God’s actual words? Do specific words even matter, or is it the message that is the most important thing?
The words do matter; please see my article on Bible translation for powerful evidence of that. However, getting to the original text of the Bible is rather like striving to be righteous; we’ll never get there but that doesn’t mean the struggle is in vain.
Wow! I’m no stranger to this subject but am far from an expert. I’ve probably researched it over the years far more than most average lay folks, but it’s not something I can keep top of mind all the time. I lead a men’s Bible study which is currently discussing truth and questions came up over the parenthetical thought in 1 Tim 2:7 (“αληθειαν λεγω εν χριστω ου ψευδομαι ” vs “ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι”). Most of the men were curious about my reference to textual critisism so I thought I’d include a link for further reading. I’m so thankful that your article was one of the first I came across. Much of what I’ve read over the years tends to elevate personal opinion and mud-slinging over an objective summary of the subject. I want to give the men knowledge without taking a side (although I certainly have my own preference).
I really appreciate your work here. Thank you.
I should say that I’m also extremely thankful that, unlike the masses throughout history, the average Joe (or Josephine) has access ready access to multiple versions and original texts. I use a couple of versions as my preferred reading bibles (one from each side of the debate), but through the blessing of computers and powerful mobile devices, regularly reference many English and Greek editions.
I’m really glad you enjoyed the article. Also, I agree 100% about computers and mobile devices. Half the time I’m at service or bible study I’ll pull my phone out to check the Greek or a different translation. They are indeed wonderful. 🙂
Well, an informative and diligent article, so I want to thank you for that.
But, as all human works, it suffers from some of the same failings it decries. Let’s begin with Erasmus.
“Erasmus originally assembled his Greek text based on 7 Greek manuscripts and published it in 1516 as the “Novum Instrumentum omne“. In the second edition, he changed the title to “Novum Testamentum omne“, and used an additional manuscript for the compilation.”
The writing, inadvertently, I believe, gives the unfamiliar reader the false impression that Erasmus only possessed 7-8 manuscripts as a starting point. However, that is not the case, as Erasmus had been collating Greek texts for at least two years. Maybe you should have explained that, out of those manuscripts he consulted, he selected 7-8 fit enough to produce his text. Of course, that is assuming the number is correct. For I found no discussion of the effort to reduce the number of copies Erasmus had available.
“Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the Book of Revelation and translated the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate to finish his edition.”
Are you aware that that is a myth, or at least that that assertion has been shown of many to be false?
I refer you to the following article, quoting the beginning paragraph of the counter-argument:
https://www.christianhospitality.org/wp/bible-fraud7/
The myth of Erasmus’ “back translating” is based on a misconstruction (to put it in the kindest possible light) of statements made by Erasmus in his Apologia addressed to Stunica of the Complutensian team, in his Annotations to the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, and in his replies to the criticisms of Lee. Erasmus used an expression in the course of his Apologia addressed to Stunica which was misunderstood by the eighteenth-century Pietist Bengel (one of the two leading lights of Pietism at that time, the other being Zinzendorf), and the misunderstanding encouraged Bengel to give less credit than deserved to Erasmus’ work on the Book of Revelation. This was a springboard for Bengel’s own critical work on the text, which was of particular interest to him as a student of Biblical prophecy. Semler took up Bengel’s initiatives in the text-critical field, and Griesbach followed on from Semler. Griesbach at the end of the eighteenth century produced a critical text and a critical theory which provided the model for the nineteenth-century assault on the Textus Receptus. Bengel himself was a conscientious scholar, though prone to fits of erratic exegesis, like his prediction, based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of chronological statements in the Book of Revelation, that Christ would return on 18th June 1836! This should warn us to beware of novel theories broached by Bengel and to examine with more than normal diligence statements made by him in support of such theories. Bengel’s criticism of Erasmus’ textual work on the Book of Revelation falls in this bracket.
You sourced the second quote, but not the first. Do you have a source for the first one? Also, do you have another source for what the second quote states? It certainly seems like the kind of thing that could happen, but I’d need to see more evidence (quotes from the source documents perhaps) or other sources. I poked around a bit on that website you linked to and they have some… odd beliefs that make me want other sources to corroborate.
Fair enough on the first one. Church historian Timothy George says that Erasmus’ project’s terminus a quo was 1504 when he discovered an ancient manuscript by Lorenzo Valla with notes about Paul’s Epistles based on various Greek manuscripts. He says that Erasmus “collected manuscripts from all the places he could go — universities and monasteries that kept these manuscripts — brought them together, and began to collate them” till 1516. So from 1504 to 1516 he was collating manuscripts. (I misread “two” years somewhere).
http://www.westernrecorder.org/825.article
More importantly, Erasmus references in sundry of his letters some of the manuscripts he used. There is no way to reduce Erasmus’ entire pool to 7-8 manuscripts. I don’t have particular references for that other than reading quotes of his letters to that regard here and there.
About the myth of Erasmus’ backtranslation, this site references some sources:
https://confessionalbibliology.com/2016/06/08/erasmian-myths-revelation-back-translated-from-the-vulgate/
Okay, I’m not 100% convinced about Revelation, but you presented enough evidence to cast enough doubt that I made an edit to remove references to Revelation. I also added that there’s evidence that he had more manuscripts, but only chose to use the 7-8. I decided to take a middle road on the manuscript count, since it’s still debatable but leans towards him having more.
Thank you for this article. But please how do I study the bible in the Greek language and how to I find the meaning of the words.
I recommend my article: A Few Fun Things About Biblical (Koine) Greek since I have some resources at the end which should help. I also recommend you read the article, since it’s a good primer on the basic structure of Greek.
Thank you for this, I learned a lot. Confirms what I had already come to believe, but with a lot of supporting information.
The logic on that Confessional Bibliology page regarding Rev 22:19 linked above is truly puzzling. It is acknowledged that Erasmus stated in his annotations:
“I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin.”
and
“I supplied the Greek out of our Latin version. I did not want to conceal this from the reader, however, and admitted in the annotations what I had done. My thought was that the reader, if he had access to a manuscript, could correct anything in our words that differed from those put by the author of this work.”
Regardless of the third quotation they bring up, why is it ridiculous if that’s what Erasmus explicitly stated he did, and included this statement in his annotations, and gave the reason why he included it in his annotations? Obviously he did it, so the logic that it would be ridiculous for him to does not follow.
You can argue that it didn’t matter for later editions because they were restored from the “Aldine edition” but the Aldine edition itself was based on Erasmus’ first edition so…
Very helpful and thorough. I really appreciate your article
Hi Author,
I just wanted to say thanks for putting in the time and effort to write up this article and to link the sources as well (I’m a scientist, so I really want to go to the original sources of information as much as possible).
I’d also like to thank you for writing in a manner that is rather humble and identifying when you’re putting forwards your opinion as well – personally I’ve always used the KJV, got saved using the KJV and have sought to know God better through the KJV etc, so when I started looking into this topic it was quite discouraging hearing/reading people absolutely castigating the Textus Receptus, saying it’s rubbish and is full of additions which weren’t part of the original text [speaker/author advocated critical text] it kind of made me rather depressed as it seemed as if everything I believed was based upon a lie and that the Bible which had gotten me through so many storms in life seemed to be shaky 🙁 Honestly it truly was a stumbling block and something that I’m still working through (planning on talking to my pastor about this whole topic haha~), so I can understand why the natural response for many Christians is to grow angry and condemn anyone who would seemingly attack the certainty of the Bible.
I’ll probably have to look at the following topics in more depth
– The quality (or lack thereof) of Sinaticus and Vaticanus (also how did Westcott/Hort reconcile differences between the two codices)
– The testimony of the papyruses – aligning with Alexandrian or Byzantian manuscripts
– The Greek manuscripts upon which the KJV is based
Anyhow, thanks again for this good primer on the different manuscripts.
God bless!
A fellow Christian from Australia ^^
Epic brother, thank you so much for putting in the time to teach a simpleton such as myself. Great attitude also, I appreciate your openness. Thanks again, giving honor where honor is due.
This is so helpful. Thank you for your labor of love for the body of Christ. Much to chew on.
Very helpful articles. I was reading on a KJV only website that the NKJV does actually refer to the Hort text, just not as much as other modern versions. Is this true?
He also says that it uses a different Old Testament text than the KJV. Is this true?
So, some information first. The is no Greek or Hebrew text upon which the the original KJV translators based their text. We just don’t know what they used. No one does, since they incorporated vulgate and LXX readings, among many other sources. So of course the NKJV has differences with the KJV in the underlying text since no one knows exactly what the KJV translators used. So yeah, it probably does have some influence from Hort, and yes the OT base isn’t exactly the same; it literally can’t be the same since hte only people who know have been dead for hundreds of years.
However, that website simply doesn’t know the history of the KJV. I don’t have time to go through it, but he’s got his wires crossed. There’s a great book I recommend if you are interested in learning more. It’s titled: “In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture” by Alister McGrath. Good read for the history and context of the KJV.
One thing the KJV had translation rules that were decided by the politics of the time, and those rules included this:
So they used all those old Alexandrian manuscripts that the author of that article hated. Off hand I can think of one or two places where the KJV follows Jerome’s vulgate. So yeah, it’s WAY more complicated than that article makes it seem.
Here is the website
http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/nkjv/alexandrian_corrupt_source.htm
The information in this article is to be greatly commended and respected, but far more, the humility from which it is written. When I am seeking to learn from someone, their attitude and heart are some of the primary things I pay attention to when I give consideration as to how much weight I will allow their teaching to bear on my mind. I have nothing but respect and admiration for your work here, brother. This is a stark contrast to many who write or preach a “My Version Only” message. (Trying not to accuse anyone in particular there.)
It’s not just the article itself where your humility is to be commended, but even in numerous responses that you gave to comments. May the Lord continue to grow this character trait in you and continue to bless your studies and teaching skills. I am very thankful to have found your work. This has helped me tremendously, as I am currently ministering to a dear friend and brother who has recently been leaning hard toward becoming one of the “Onlyists” of a particular persuasion. Thank you again.
Thank you. 🙂 I’ve rarely received such a nice comment.
Comments made on Psalm 12:7 are either intentionally or mistakenly deceptive and misleading. I assume the author of this article knows that the Hebrew word in question is also translated correctly “every one of them.” Not brining this out may have been an error in thorough study, or intentional bias. I’m not sure which.
There is a doctrinal position that is held by many theologians which can be summarized with this statement: “We can no more touch the preserved Word of God than we can the incarnate Christ.” From your following statement, it seems clear that this is the position you take. “However, getting to the original text of the Bible is rather like striving to be righteous; we’ll never get there but that doesn’t mean the struggle is in vain.” Taken literally, you are saying that the pure Word of God was originally inspired, but no one today could ever claim to hold that pure Word in their own hands. In your mind there are too many variable and possibilities of human error. Taken seriously, we may be 50 years from new discoveries that will lead us to believe there are tremendous errors and human mistakes that have been passed down. There is no end to where this kind of doubt will lead. It conjures in my mind imagery from that classic “Sir Knight of the Splendid Way” when the Gray Questioner began placing casual doubt in the mind of God’s servant, until he was lost on a sea of doubt and confusion. It wasn’t until he focused on the shield of faith that clarity and direction were restored.
Many times Jesus said, “It is written”. Please explain to your readers the import of the perfect tense used here. Perhaps compare it to the same impact Jesus meant when He said, “It is finished.”
Okay, here’s my question for you: which single document that we have contains the complete, inerrant New Testament without any issues at all? No matter which copy or version you pick (since we don’t have the original) then what about before the copy came into existence? A lot of people claim the TR is inerrant, what about before the 1500s?
We have it incredibly accurately. More accurately than any other ancient document by a HUGE margin… but that doesn’t mean we have it perfectly.
If you will first answer my questions, I will be happy to answer yours. Do you stand on the position that it is impossible for us to hold the preserved Word of God in our hands? Do you believe “We can no more touch the preserved Word of God than we can the incarnate Christ?” Do you believe that we can only do our very best to discern with our human abilities and scientific approach what is correct and what is not? Do you believe that we cannot be certain how much error is in the Word of God? And why would you casually dismiss the spiritual corruption of Wescott and Hort, claim their critical text is based on corrupt texts, and then support the NASB? It certainly doesn’t seem like you take this very seriously.
“Happy indeed art thou,” said the Stranger, “would that I were likewise! But I have met with many whose assurance rested upon strange visions and signs which might be but the likeness of their thoughts and hopes, even as the mirage that shows water in the desert. Forgive me, brave knight, if I desire some firmer ground than that. For I am a seeker of the truth.” Then Sir Constant was silent, for he knew not how to speak. He remembered the Vision in the Chapel of Voices, and the many times when that Vision had gleamed before him since, ever to sustain and cheer, even with the promise of the goal. Could it be that the vision was but a vision, and the glory of the Face but a reflection of the ardent hopes of youth?
Had some armed foe said these things he would have fought him to the last breath; but this man did not deny, and had no word of scorn. He did but question, and who shall give a blow for a question? So Sir Constant held counsel in his troubled heart, while the smooth voice spoke on as the path descended steeply to the lake-side, and the whole world was gray as the speaker’s cloak. (Sir Knight of the Splendid Way, W.E. Cule)
While I do not pretend to know your heart motives, I firmly believe you are of the same nature as the Gray Questioner, and will have the same affect on good people who fall into the web of your communications.
Okay, answering in order then: No, no, not quite since there’s the Holy Spirit, no, and because the NASB 95 has superior translation which makes it overall better than other translations based on texts which you might consider superior. (I did also recommend the NKJV)
Now that I have answered your questions, will you keep your word and answer mine? Here it is again: Which single document that we have contains the complete, inerrant New Testament without any issues at all?
This is my second reading of your article. It has been very helpful! You explain things very clearly. Thank you.
I will answer your questions in the same fashion that you have answered mine, and I’m sure it will be as satisfying to you as your answers were to me.
As surely as God created the stars (more than 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the universe), and has the power to keep one from failing, and even to know everyone of them by name, He has the power to keep the very words He inspired. “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host (stars) by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.” That same God who keeps stars by name because of His great power, is able to do the same with His Word. And “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.” Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know you cannot hear tone in a text reply, so I can only hope that you believe me when I say that I’m not trying to be difficult with you or that I’m angry at you. I just don’t believe you have come to true conclusions. You are basing your conclusions on very little evidence. The verses of God’s Word that clearly promise He will preserve His Word, you have twisted and misled people. Your misunderstanding of the mysterious yet Biblical spiritual oneness of the Living Word and the written Word baffle me! (Please read John 15:5, 7, I Pet.1:23, 2 Pet.1:4, John 6:63) The mistake you have made in seeking to divorce the Living Word from the Written Word in the work of salvation is a grave error. Read James 1:18. You do not understand the context of Hebrews 4:12 at all. The emphasis is clearly on the written Word that was preached (see 4:1-2) and is emphasizing it as a promise not a person. Your treatment of the Word of God must be pointed out. It’s not good to be so confident in your writing and yet be so wrong in interpreting Scripture.
Have you ever studied how many actual Bibles were copied/printed and used by the church between 100-1500? I know there are no exact figures, but there are some historical evidences that give us a good idea. For example, around AD 300, Diocletian burned thousands of Bibles. That gives you some idea of how many more Bibles must have existed in the world. Also study the practice of the Muslims in burning countless Bibles as they advanced. Take a later example from Tyndale (who had the benefit of the printing press). Of the 18,000 Bibles he printed, only 3 of them remain today. I challenge you to study this more in depth, and I think you will come to the conclusion that the 5,000 plus manuscripts that we have today from that period equal less than 1% of Bibles used by the church. Do you really know for a fact what those churches were using during that period, when you have less than 1% of the evidence? Is there not an element of faith in your critique? Seems to me like the evolutionists who take a few bones they find and build a whole monkey-man out of them, claiming they disproved creation. Darwin was so effective at this that he deceived many Christians with his “evidence.” They didn’t want to pretend the evidence wasn’t there, so they tried to harmonize the two – theistic evolution. Two such people were Wescott and Hort, “If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T…, I fear I could not join you.” “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with … My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.” It’s interesting that these are the men who constructed the corrupt text from which the NASB is produced.
It would be okay even if you were angry (though I’m glad you aren’t), I’m nearly impossible to offend. 🙂
However, you haven’t answered my question as you said you would, even in a short form as I did your questions. I didn’t ask if you thought God could preserve it, I asked which manuscript *that we have* do you think is inerrant? You next reply could be 2-3 words long, just enough to give the name of the manuscript and that would be fine… but which manuscript that we have is absolutely and entirely inerrant?
Additionally, That question above is the whole problem for me, or at least most of it. How can I claim modern Bibles (well, the Greek/Hebrew from which they are translated) are entirely inerrant unless I have an inerrant text to translate from? We have an enormous number of copies, and if I was going to claim perfect preservation then I would need to pick one manuscript among the thousands that contains the text perfectly preserved. There may well be one, but I don’t know which one. Because I don’t know which one, it seems prudent to compare the many copies to get as close as possible to the original.
It may even be knowable which manuscript, but I personally don’t know.
Please don’t mistake my question for a mere rhetorical one (though it’s partially that), If perfect preservation is the case, then that’s THE question that matters most regarding Scripture.
Humanists are infamous for starting their arguments down to up: from humans down and then moving up to God. They start with human reason, tangible evidence, and personal experience; then they move to God. So, in short, the humanist way of analyzing is starting from the human and moving to God. The faith perspective is the opposite. It starts with God and His promises and moves down to man. All the theistic evolutionists tend to use the humanistic viewpoint when explaining the first 3 chapters of Genesis. I believe this is the same viewpoint you use when dealing with the text issue. I do not believe you can possibly come to the correct conclusion from this viewpoint, no matter how long you study, how much evidence you look at, or how scholarly you may be. It is the wisdom of the world that is foolishness to God. It is trying to explain God’s promises away because you don’t feel they can possibly be true based on the human evidence you have seen and studied. It is pitting your limited human experience and learning against the stack of God’s promises, His power, and His faithfulness concerning His Word. Regardless of what you might say, you live in a very limited context and are influenced by the small sphere that you live in, therefore, I would stand with God and His Word no matter what you might see in this present time. Given time, God’s promises always hold true.
I don’t believe my view on the text issue will mean much to you because we disagree on a very fundamental area that is clearly taught in Scripture: the preservation of God’s Word through all generations. Without an agreement on that important ground, our talk will go nowhere. I know what you will say, because it’s your go-to answer to all your critics, “Show me the inerrant text!” So you start with the human evidence, not with faith in God’s promises. How can two walk together unless they be agreed?
I believe in the Ecclesiastical Text, meaning that God never promised to preserve a nebulous number of manuscripts floating around in theological circles. I believe God promised to preserve the Word used by His true church. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t battles that have to be fought and frauds to be exposed. It doesn’t mean that God works at man’s whim and timetable. It simply means He has promised to preserve His Word for His true church in every generation. Do you believe that there is no church in the whole world that actually has the preserved Word of God? If so, then we are dependent on people like you to do the research and help us find it. I simply do not believe that. I believe God is still preserving His Word today! It’s not your work, it’s His work. If it were your work, I would have no hope; but it’s not your work. It doesn’t depend on you or your words. It depends on God and His Word. I do not believe that God inspired His Words but left people to guess which ones were His and which ones were not. They knew clearly which ones were the true Words of God. So I believe God deals with His church the same today as He did in days past (why would He not?); He has not left them to wonder which words are God’s Words. He has preserved them for us!
That’s much closer to an answer. 🙂 The “Ecclesiastical Text” has a few nuances of meaning depending on which circles you run in, so which specific manuscript are you referring to? (or which version of the TR if you mean the TR?)
In my statement of faith, I have a line that says “And I believe in The final authority of scripture”. I haven’t seen the promise of perfect preservation of Scripture in Scripture, or I would believe it.
EDIT: I really don’t like Humanism.
Do you see the promise of preservation in the Scripture? I see that you are emphasizing carefully the word “perfect” preservation of Scripture.
BTW: I’ve enjoyed our robust conversations
Aside: I try not to “run in circles” as I have found you don’t get very far!
You still haven’t answered my question about a specific manuscript, since the “Ecclesiastical Text” has a few nuances of meaning depending on who you ask. Again I must ask, which specific text/manuscript do you consider to be perfect/perfectly preserved?
I don’t recall any specific verse that promises the preservation of Scripture right now. It might be there, but I spent all my time looking “perfect preservation” scriptures not preservation in general, so I’d have to look again. Nothing comes to mind right now though.
Sorry for the delay. We’ve been super busy. I want to encourage you to do a more thorough study on “preservation in general” as I feel that is the only basis for a continuing dialog. As those who wrote the Westminster Confession, I do believe that God promised to preserve His Word, and I do not believe that “Verbatim Identicality” infringes on that belief at all. I believe the Verbatim Identicality position was an unfortunate overreach in response to text critics in the late 1800’s. When Jesus quoted the OT to the Pharisees, it was clear that He considered the words to be preserved. The Pharisees did not challenge Him on the accuracy of His quote. However, you will notice many times the words not identical verbatim. Did that disprove the promise of preservation? Not at all. If you don’t believe in any form of preservation, we’re not going to end up with the same conclusions, no matter how long we talk.
I do think God will preserve scripture, I just can’t think of a verse that promises He will. Thus, I treat it as my personal opinion.
Also, I’m still waiting for you to say which text/manuscript you think is inerrant. You did promise to say, but we’re rather a lot of comments deep and you still haven’t said. Which single document/manuscript is perfectly preserved?
You mentioned: “I do think God will preserve scripture, I just can’t think of a verse that promises He will. Thus, I treat it as my personal opinion.” This is a rather dangerous way to come about your convictions and personal opinions. To “think” God will preserve scripture while feeling He has made no promise to do it equals wishful thinking. That is a sinking ship that will not pass through many storms without great changes. Our hope must be anchored in God’s Word!
As I said before, I believe languages change over time, and therefore so will the text of Scripture, as demonstrated by our Lord’s quoting of the OT Scriptures. The English translations of Wycliffe compared to Tyndale’s would show this also. I believe the King James Bible was translated from the preserved Greek text for the NT, but I also believe there are many other hundreds of languages that can say the same thing about the Bible they have. I understand that there are different versions of the Textus Receptus. That does not bother me even a little. As I said, the Lord promised to preserve the Word used by His true church. I’m not shaken by the “Majority Text” position, because it represents much less, MUCH LESS, than 1% of the copies made of the Word of God. That simply cannot be used as evidence to prove there were errors in the Bibles used by the church.
When do you think the church lost the true preserved Word of God? At what time did they stop having confidence that they knew the text they had was pure? And, finally, when do you hope to see the church rediscover what you believe they have lost?
I am still hoping you will take some time to answer my last questions:
When do you think the church lost the true preserved Word of God? At what time did they stop having confidence that they knew the text they had was pure? And, finally, when do you hope to see the church rediscover what you believe they have lost?
I’m still waiting for you to answer my first question. Which single, specific document or manuscript do you think is entirely without error?
I believe there are a great number of such documents or manuscripts. I suppose if you know where all the errors are, you might want to make them publicly known so that they can be corrected. You are arguing from the side opposite of God’s promise to preserve His Word, and I’m sure that you will never win. You might just as well set yourself opposite of God’s very name, for He has magnified His Word above all His Name. Be careful my friend.
The Doctrine of Preservation of Scripture is the foundation problem that exists with those who question the authority of the Bible. Unbelief in the Doctrine of Preservation is a weakness that can wedge a crack in faith in the Word of God. The Bible is clear about the Doctrine of Preservation.
1. The Preservation of the Word of God is a matter of Biblical fact (Psalms 12:6-7; Psalms 119:15; Psalms 119:160; Psalms 138:2; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35; John 17:6; John 17:17; I Peter 1:25).
2. It has been preserved for all time (I Peter 1:23; Psalm 12:6-7; Ps. 111:7-8; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 117:2; Psalm 119:152; Psalm 119:160). Just as the doctrine of inspiration is considered to be foundational to our understanding of the Bible, so should be the doctrine of preservation. They are inextricably linked. An inspired Bible that was not preserved would be little more than a tainted book of history and moral lessons. The Bible’s authority is only as great as our confidence in its reliability. A Bible which was delivered to us inspired, and then was allowed to leaven with the accumulated errors of thousands of years, would hardly point to an all-powerful, all-wise Creator. It would be difficult to entrust our salvation in Jesus Christ to the very same God who could not keep His Word pure.
3. The individual words (plenary) have been preserved (Matthew 24:35; Psalm 12:6-7; I Peter 1:23). This aspect of God’s preservation of Scripture is just as crucial as the first. So that we could not mistake His intentions, the Lord made clear to what degree He would keep the Scriptures pure. He promised us that He would preserve even the very words. We don’t have to wonder whether God merely preserved His thoughts, or His ideas. We know that the very means by which we communicate to each other—words—are crucially important to God. If every word is important, does it not make sense that God would preserve all of His words so that we might nourished and strengthened?
4. They have been made available to every generation (Psalm 33:11; Psalm 100:5; Psalm 119:89-90; Isaiah 59:21). We know that God’s Word has not been hidden or lost to man, since it was first spoken and recorded in God’s written revelation. We can be assured that we have not had to depend on the latest discoveries of the oldest manuscripts, or on the efforts of fallible man to uncover God’s words. God has preserved His Word to all generations, without fail!
5. The Word of God is truth (Hebrews 4:12; Psalms 18:30; Psalms 19:8; Psalms 119:140; II Samuel 22:31; Proverbs 30:5). Not only has His Word been preserved, but it is the only source of divine truth and wisdom. All human knowledge, reason and feelings are fallible and will fail us, but God’s Word is never false, never fails and is our only guide to salvation.
6. All saving knowledge is obtained from the Word of God, through the Holy Spirit (Romans 10:17; I Peter 1:23; John 17:17; John 1:1; John 1:11-14; John 20:31). It is the indispensable means of salvation, and is the foundation of faith for all who believe. We must receive the Gospel message under the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit which brings the faith that gives Salvation.
7. Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, is the Word made flesh that dwelt among us (II Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:8-9; Romans 3:20-28; Acts 20:28; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Colossians 1:20; Ephesians 2:8-10; Revelations 1:5). Jesus is the Living Word, the Word Personified, the Word made flesh. All who will receive Him (meaning through God’s grace are given faith to accept Him as Savior, Lord, and God of their life) are saved from the condemnation of their sins. They are saved by Jesus Christ who washes away sin from them through their Baptism, and gives them eternal life.
8. Believing in Jesus Christ for salvation is the act of trusting Him, and depending on His ability to keep you (Acts 17:30; Mark 1:15; Luke 17:21; Acts 3:19; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20). Believing (trusting) that His work of Calvary is sufficient payment for you as a sinner, and His Word is given for the direction of the repentant life. Literally, Jesus became our substitute in death for sin on the cross by shedding His blood for our redemption and remission of sins, so that repentant believers will trust Him for life everlasting.
9. Repentance is a gift of God that is the sorrow of heart for past sins leading to a change of heart concerning the direction you intend to follow in the future (Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20; Romans 2:4; II Corinthians 7:10; II Timothy 2:25; II Peter 3:9). Believing the Gospel is the act of taking the Word and Christ as direction of the future. True faith understands the consequence of sin and turns in heart from it. The new birth gives a desire of obedience to follow the Lord Jesus Christ in Salvation and bear good fruit.
I have one question regarding the majority text view, which I don’t think you addressed, but I could have missed it – like you said it is a sizable post. Let’s say, as you have postulated, that scribes had a tendency to copy the best copies and therefore the majority of texts would tend to be the most reliable.
My question is around a possible assumption:
“Isn’t this assuming that the majority extant MSS we have today are a true representation of the majaroity texts that were actually copied?”
I know you did discuss the destruction of MSS under the Roman emperors, and Islamic activity, etc.. But who knows what other historical activities were involved with the disappearance of NT Greek MSS and that what we have today truly represents the quality copies that were made? Or does the Majority Text argument also posit that in spite of ALL these obstacles, the copies of the majority MSS made throughout history were so ubiquitous that they overwhelm all of these odds?
I only touched on it where you mentioned, but that’s one of those “known unknowns” that we’ll probably never know for sure. MT advocates would probably say even with all the destruction, good manuscripts would push out bad. I’m not quite in that camp though, and I merely think MT texts shouldn’t be discounted out of hand for no other reason than their textual family.
The NKJV deletes the word “blood” 23 times, from the KJV. Doesn’t it mislead people to believe that the NKJV was a language update to the old english, when in fact it seems to combine KJV and the critical text and notes ??
Jesus is not the word in John 1 1 because he is not God and he is not creator because of Isaiah 44 24. Psalm 40 6.
Read John 1:14
The NKJV is a purification of the KJV. IT is a better translation of the somewhat corrupt TR than the KJV. The NKJV does go with some different readings in the OT but there is so much better original language scholarship today. In any case, there are no NT readings based on the critical text in the NKJV…well, maybe one that looked suspicious.
The Majority Text is merely a statistical fact. It does not say anything about it being original. It does say though that it is the historical NT text of the church. Something that the TR can not boast nor the modern critical texts.
Paul, just because the NKJV is more elegant in rendering “lifeblood” instead of “blood” or “bloodshed” instead of shed blood does not support the nonsensical argument that the NKJV deleted words. Did you even bother to examine those verses? Obviously not! You found a list provided by a deceiver and copy and pasted. That is just sad.
David, you start out with a “possible assumption” and elevate it to “obstacles” and “odds” that need to be overcome. First, it is not possible and you provide no possible logic to support such. Second you elevate it to a greater possibility with zero logic again.
WoW! Thanks so much for all your analysis.
Amazing . . . I appreciate you so much for putting all this work into such an important topic.
Thanks, BP for a really informative article! I have been studying this subject for about 5 years and I have landed more or less where you have i.e., the M-text is a good starting point plus some thoughtful changes taking into account all the available data, such as the patristic quotations and the older translations. I suspect this would get you pretty close to the Textus Receptus. I also strongly agree with your point that overall, the difference between the various texts is not great. However, it is also important to consider the nature of those differences. In this respect, I think the KJVO advocates are right when they point out that Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, et al, show signs of systematic tampering, likely stemming from Adoptionism. I would be very interested to hear your views on this topic.
It’s not directly on the topic of adoptionism, but in my article on the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), I do point to evidence of tampering with the early manuscripts as a result of Arianism. I’d suggest you look at that article for my thoughts.
The NKJV gets the very first verse in the Bible wrong which should tell you something.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The NKJV has “heavens” plural. This would mean God created the first, second and third heaven.
God created in verse 1 is the heaven (singular) and the earth. The heaven where the fowl fly, clouds form and winds blow was not created until the second day in verse 8. You see, in verse one there was only one heaven created by God and it wasn’t until the second day that God made the firmament to divide the waters under the firmament from those above it.
Based on which text is “heavens” singular? The NKJV and KJV (and indeed nearly all translations) are based on the Westminster Leningrad Codex in the OT, which is the oldest complete manuscript that we have of the Old Testament. Perhaps you think that another base text would’ve been better, but the KJV simply gets this one wrong. You can double check this in an interlinear bible if you like, and notice the “Art | N‑mp” under “heavens”. If you hover your cursor on a desktop, it’ll come up plural.
It might further interest you to know that in the New Testament, the phrase “kingdom of heaven” is actually plural: “the kingdom of [the] heavens“.
I took some time to engage with your section on the Confessional position.
https://davemallinak.com/2023/02/21/one-example-of-the-shoddy-way-people-treat-the-preservation-passages/
I replied to your article in its comments.
Masoretic Text
The KJV translates Strong’s H8064 in the following manner: heaven (398x), air (21x), astrologers (with H1895) (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
heaven, heavens, sky
visible heavens, sky
as abode of the stars
as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
Heaven (as the abode of God)
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
שָׁמַיִם shâmayim, shaw-mah’-yim; dual of an unused singular שָׁמֶה shâmeh; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve):—air, × astrologer, heaven(-s)
Berean Patriot.
My sincere thanks and congratulations for such a huge work clarifying many points on an important topic. Allthough I am a layman I fully understood your explanations.
Ευχαριστω πολυ.
Great post! You should do one on the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus
Hello, thank you for all the research and the detailed post!
Do you have any plans to write a similar article on the Hebrew manuscripts? And if not, or in the meantime, do you have any brief commentary on Masoretic vs Septuagint vs Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia vs Dead Sea Scrolls etc?
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=is-nkjv-text-same-as-kjv
This article suggests that anything other than the Masoretic text may contain errors or corruptions, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it.
You’re welcome. 🙂
I would love to write such an article about the Hebrew manuscripts, but sadly have far less time than I once had. I would need to do the research as well which I’m sure you can guess takes a LOT of time. Currently I have a slight — and somewhat loosely held due to lack of research — preference for the Masoretic text. However there are some interesting arguments that the LXX preserves OT passages referring to Christ better. (Which includes the genealogy in Genesis 5 interestingly enough. Sadly, the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t contain enough of Gen 5 to weigh in on this.) If that’s the case, then it’s not a simple question of “which one is better”, but rather which one is better in which passage. Sadly, the truth often contains a lot of nuance in these fields.
As to the link, something I’ve noticed over the years is this: KJV-only articles/arguments will have flawed, incomplete, or downright misleading information. That article is no exception. I don’t think the author is intentionally misleading though, most KJV-only guys are simply mislead and propagate the idea that ONLY the KJV counts and literally every other Bible translation is a perversion. It can be entertaining to ask them which version of the KJV they mean though. (Yes there’s more than one)
Yeah that was my impression of it as well. I’ll keep an eye out for your new posts 😉 and in the meantime, I’ll try to see what I can find
So, your whole viewpoint is rooted in unbelief; God simply didn’t care to preserve His words, which means we can’t really know for sure what they are, although we kind of have an idea and that is enough. This is more honest than the critical text “scholars” who love to quote the “original” and lie every time they open their mouth, but the result is the same: no final authority from God – we are on our own at the mercy of scholars and Nikolaitans.
I’ll ask the same question of you that I ask of everyone who believes in perfect preservation: which single specific text that we have is perfectly preserved? (And why that one?) The trouble is, the moment you pick a specific text you are then saying that before that text was copied, there wasn’t a perfectly preserved text because no two texts are 100% identical to each other.
Thank you for researching this and sharing your thoughts. I think I have come to a similar conclusion, but based on a Scripture which you didn’t include in your rebuttal of the Confessional position, namely Isaiah 55:11.
“So shall My Word be that goes out of My Mouth. It shall not return to Me void. But it shall accomplish that which I will. And it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
The issue for me is not whether God has preserved His Word “perfectly”, but rather where He has more “actively” preserved it. In other words, the MT/TR position is more plausible to me because there are so many more copies across history, indicating it was actually “going forth” among the churches.
It did not return void except for the Vatican and in a remote monastery in Egypt until 1859, but has providentially prospered in God’s people (however imperfectly) from Christ and Paul until Erasmus/Tyndale until today. Please disprove this position if you feel led. I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you,
Steve
I would say your position rests on a faulty assumption. Remember that scripture almost never calls itself the “word of God”. It basically never never happens. There’s only a few places where it might, but I can make a strong case that it’s not for each of them. Thus, assuming that God was referring to scripture as a whole in Isaiah 55:11 is dubious at best. Scripture contains God’s words, but the Word of God is Jesus (John 1:1), not scripture. In my opinion, it’s a bad idea to call scripture by the name of God/Jesus.
Ironic that the Berean Study Bible fails the verse litmus test.
Your blanket condemnation of Bible translations that fail to accurately translate the Greek word properly is well applied to Bible translations that claim to be literal, but misses the The point about the subject at hand, namely the proper disposition of betrothed women and the men involved with that decision, be they fathers or the fiancee. This none literal interpretation covers all involved and is more expedient than having additional verses to arrive at the same result.
Sorry about the nitpicking, I very much enjoy your work and wesite.
I think your post really sums up the conclusions I have arrived at since I came into contact with KJVO 5 years ago. I believe that textual criticism needs to focus on the idea of preservation more. As a result I think TR is a better starting point than the majority.
I don’t dismiss the CT that easily though. Vaticanus was available during the reformation but Eramus chose not to use it. And God is working powerfully through the persecuted family churches in China, and they use the Chinese Union Version which is based on the 1881 text.
Thank you so much for your hard work.
It’s very helpful to get an overview of the different viewpoints and the underlying arguments. It helps me to prepare a class on this issue in our church in The Netherlands.
So thanks again and may God bless you.
Brother, thank you for the lengthy and rather complete explanation I have been searching for. The middle ground is usually right as you have made such a point throughout your essay, and I appreciate the level-headed thoughtfulness. I despise the division the militant KJV crowd spurs in Christians and came here on a search about the history and perceived authenticity of the ancient manuscripts that form the base of our English translations, and your essay did not disappoint! It leaves me with some more research to do, namely on the Byzantine text that the Orthodox use. Their ancient tradition of protecting the faith has far more weight than a 17th-century translator, despite it being the translation that the church historically used for many centuries… the Orthodox are simply much, much older. As I anticipated, you brought out the finer nuances between the manuscripts where so many just start from the 17th century and oversimplify the situation. Now, I’m off to read some more. God bless!
Maybe you should double-check those preservation passages with something other than the NKJV (considering it’s not a true translation but a revision of the KJV, and isn’t based off of the Majority Text)
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=Is-NKJV-Text-Same-As-KJV
I mostly quoted the KJV and went to the original language when it mattered. Is there a particular verse/passage you think this affects? If so, which one?
How do you reconcile Ps 138:2 where David says God’s Word is magnified above God’s own name? As Jesus says that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired, and Peter tells us that holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then we can rationally say that God has the highest opinion of His Word. Even if every use of “word” can be rationalized as referencing Jesus, it can still be rationalized just as easily that Jesus is God’s Word personified and the scriptures are His Word written.
Do you think that your position can be considered a perspective of deism towards the scriptures? That God used the Holy Spirit to inspire writers, but then removed Himself from it leaving it vulnerable to total corruption by man? I don’t see that God in the Bible. I see a God who is actively involved with His creation. Whereas He has certainly allowed those to be fooled and hides His words from some people who decide to search the scriptures for their own purposes (cross reference in Matthew where Jesus explains why He starts speaking in parables), I cannot find a biblical case for believing He wouldn’t preserve His scriptures in every language exactly as He intends them to be read. Your position leaves us all at the mercy of the words of men. That only the scholars really know bc they can read the original languages. It’s that not the basic position the catholic church has for centuries while keeping their scriptures in Latin so only the priests could read it bc Latin was not the common tongue?
I also question your conclusion for Ps 12:7 bc according to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon of the Old Testament determines translation for “them” is the Hebrew word “ănăh-nû” which is plural.
The overall position of KJVO people is that there has to be an authority that isn’t man-made, and there is no way to argue that with any version stemming from the Critical Text bc the sources were so heavily altered and the result is an ever-changing alteration based on man’s opinions. Some new critic can rise up and change it. Origen himself was a critic who altered the Bible. Eubesius was an admirer of Origen, which would easily explain why Latin version reflect Alexandrian Text. Further, what does God have to say about Egypt in the Bible? Why would we ever believe that something sacred would come from the nation that symbolizes the world throughout the entire Old Testament? Why would we consider anything correct from the Septuagint when it was not translated by Levites as God had commanded? There just seems to be so much more to consider from God’s perspective, through His eyes, regarding this to just simply trust men who are corruptible and sinful.
I highly enjoyed your entire article, and I believe you did a good job at presenting everything with an unbiased tone. Everything received fair and equal criticism from you, but I’m not inclined to agree with the conclusion. If I can’t confidently say the book I hold is God’s Word, and it is perfect the way He intended in English, I couldn’t trust Him with my eternity. Not if He can’t preserve a book He wanted written for us. That doesn’t make sense.
I actually take “word” in the sense of “commandment”, which is another meaning of that particular Hebrew word. That is, God values obedience more then praising His name.
To your second paragraph, the scriptures aren’t even available in every language. I happen to know that the perverted/twisted Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation is in some cases the only translation available in a few languages of small and remote tribes. It also sounds like you’re arguing that God needs to assure perfect translation as well, but even the KJV doesn’t do that. It has verifiable translation mistakes despite being good overall.
I’m not sure what precisely you’re saying about Psalm 12:7. If you check the interlinear, it’s clearly singular and I didn’t see a mention of Psalm 12:7 in the lexicon, and I used “find on page” to double check. You also appear to have listed the wrong word, since it’s “נָצַר” (natsar), there inflected as “tiṣ·ṣə·ren·nū” not “ănăh-nû”.
I’m glad you enjoyed the article and it’s perfectly fine if we agree to disagree. 🙂
This was an interesting article and you clearly spend a great deal of time compiling the information contained therein. However, as we know from historical examples, it only takes a small initial error to divert one’s research and arrive at an erroneous conclusion.
Your conclusion that modern translations are substantially (almost exclusively according to you article) based upon the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus is incorrect. To say that translators of more modern works like the ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV “never got very far away from Westcott & Hort’s original 1881 work” is misleading. While initially stemming from Westcott & Hort’s work, the so-called ‘Critical Text’ have been revised and updated dozens of times over the decades and now reflect a work that is based upon a much broader number of manuscripts.
While clearly not perfect, the Critical Text is widely accepted by the majority of Biblical scholars as the most accurate compilation of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. The NASB in particular being held froth as the most accurate of the ‘Formal Equivalence’ translations.
I’m using the Logos Bible app, and when I select the word “them” in Ps 12:7, it gives the Hebrew word “ănăh-nû” from the Lexicon.
The dilemma I think I’m having, concisely, is that there has to be an authority. A final authority, which I’m sure you agree, should be God. But the argument you present between scholars and original languages and multiple meanings/definitions for Hebrew words is that we are left with the individual being the final authority bc you can choose which definition you like, which scholar you agree with, which word best suits you instead of saying “this is what God says.” This is the problem I have with other versions. When a verse says “says the Lord,” I ask “does He really?” How can I trust it? Where can I get God’s perfect words as He intends for me to read them in my language? I mean, the original versions basically never existed. The Bible doesn’t support that conclusion as God even commanded in Deuteronomy for the kings to copy the law.. Jeremiah made another copy after his was burnt. Jesus read scriptures in the synagogue and they weren’t originals. The Ethiopian in Acts 8 didn’t have originals. But Paul tells Timothy that all scripture is inspired. God must have protected His Word through the copying process.
Great article: though, I have a couple issues, the whole “Confessional Position” does not inclue the volumes of books written concerning the text behind the AV vs. the CT, why pick the Westminster Confession Of Faith & The Doctrine Of Preservation as the case for the AV? This section is severely lacking in the actual evidence; also, not all Latan texts are created equally, there are the unreliable North African text and the Old Latin, they do not agree, in my opinion this section is very misleading, you have ignored the huge body of work in this area based on actual texts.
(For others reading this comment, “AV” = Authorized version = KJV)
This article doesn’t talk about those books or that case because — by definition — the confessional position isn’t based on manuscript evidence. If you are using textual evidence to support the text behind the KJV, then — by definition — you aren’t a confessional position holder. If you used manuscript evidence to arrive at a preference for the text behind the KJV, then you would technically fall into the CT camp, because the KJV itself was created by a CT process, though they used very different rules than modern CT adherents use. I covered this under the heading “Okay, But Is The Textus Receptus A Good Document?”, and said it was a very good document. However a deeper discussion of the underlying texts was outside the scope of this (already long) article.
The confusion I am having is you first discus the scholarship behind the Ecumenical Bible based on the CT, then you discus the scholarship behind the MT based on 415 of the 5,555 manuscripts available and then make the AV argument about a confession of faith, nothing about the scholarship involved or the manuscript evidence. Even when you mention the Latin Vulgate as relevant manuscripts it sounds like you are lumping all Latin texts together equally and not distinguishing between the Alexandrea and the old Latin that aligns with the Antioch texts. Although the assertion has been made that people are saved by the AV, I am not sure how that works? Every Christian I know has a personal story of how their relationship with God began; in formal terms, my understanding is first we are justified, then sanctified and then glorified, Christians are working out their sanctification with God thru the Holy Spirit. My personal journey of sanctification started with no Bible, just prayer, as God spoke to my heart, I wanted more, I started with the NIV then eventually began to take the Word more literally. The AV is the most literal and biblically accurate text from beginning to end, this was the primary reason for creating the new ecumenical bibles, the justification was based on the Westcott and Hort Lucian Recension Theory, that the AV was too accurate and needed to be dumbed down, the ecumenical bible is very flexible and lends itself to allegorical interpretation, my personal choice which has brought me closer to God is the Antioch text-based bibles. I do realize I am in the minority; given, 80% of the Church denominations prefer an allegorical reading of scripture. Might I recommend the following books as a start: “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” By C. H. Pappas, “Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version” By J. A. Moorman and “Certainty of the Words” By Kyle Stephens. God bless you brother, Ken
You said that I made “the AV argument about a confession of faith”. That’s not the intention, nor what I wrote. I was writing about the confessional position, not the KJV. In fact, I intentionally focused on the Textus Receptus instead of the KJV . I do recognize that there are textual variants among the Latin manuscripts, but discussing those was beyond the scope of this article because it’s focused on the Greek texts.
Additionally, I disagree that the KJV is the most literal and accurate translation “from beginning to end”. Setting aside the issue of language changing in the last 400+ years, I don’t like how it goes gender-neutral in some places, both old and New Testament. It also contain numerous examples of translation bias, like inserting the word “hell” dozens of times where it doesn’t belong, among other issues. It was the best translation available for a few hundred year, but that doesn’t mean it’s still the best. It’s beautiful and better than any new translation released in the last 3+ decades, but not necessarily the best.
In recent years I have tried to stay out of discussions trying to find the Word of God (Jesus, I believe we agree on this point) in the original autographs, it is a rabbit hole that is full of pit falls, pun intended if you know the history of the (single source) modern Lexicons and Dictionaries. Have you ever heard a James White debate? James White is probably one of the most masterful debaters I have ever heard, he does not lose, does that mean he is always correct? I will provide a simple example to illustrate “modern” scholarship that justifies disagreeing with the accuracy of the Antioch text vs the Egyptian texts, I believe the disagreement we have on accuracy is based on having two different standards of accuracy; one, that “modern” scholarship, and recently found lost documents produce a more accurate original language text, correct me if I have falsely stated your position. Whereas, my position is the Antioch text is the most biblically accurate text, my expectation is biblical consistency and accuracy of the bible cover to cover knowing it was written by a single author, that the bible interprets itself cover to cover; simply put, I believe your position is on original language accuracy; whereas, my position is biblical accuracy, these are not the same standard. I also reject the box “modern” scholarship puts around the texts, there are approximately 100,000 Antioch texts that support the AV version of the bible, 415 texts that support the Majority text position and around 27 texts that support the Egyptian text position, the Ecumenical bibles are 90% Vaticanus. As a side note we also have correspondence between the Vatican librarian and Erasmus offering Vaticanus as a reference, Erasmus rejected this offer, Erasmus considered Vaticanus an inferior text, this rejection is repeated by the AV translators, they agreed with Erasmus. Here is the example of where we disagree on accuracy, this is an example that Jame White loves to expound: Luke 2:22 is it “their” or “her” purification, obviously, according to “modern” scholarship it has to be “their”, search the Torah and justify this reading, it is inconsistent with Leviticus 12:2, in my opinion, the AV is the biblically accurate reading. What is the alternative, the Torah is wrong, and Luke is correct, Luke is wrong, and the Torah is correct, what is the message here? Based on “modern” textual criticism there is a mistake in the bible, these mistakes do not exist in the AV, which brings us back to the original argument for a new bible, the AV is too accurate based on the Westcott and Hort Lucian Recension Theory, you can’t have it both ways, I chose biblical accuracy over critical text theory accuracy. If you take an allegorical view of the bible this is not important, if you believe God said what He means and means what He says quite literally, the AV is the best English version of the bible. As a side note, the phenomena you observed of 1,000+ years of near-identical Byzantine Text type, there is an explanation for this. In computer programming there is a way to verify an images authenticity, it is called a checksum, proper rules of copying Hebrew and Greek autographs has a similar method, every Hebrew and Greek character can be designated as a character or a number, after copying a page, the characters are then added up as numbers on each line and then those numbers are then added up to determine the page checksum, if the number does not match the checksum of the page it was copied from, the page is burned and the page is re-copied until it is correct.
This article is greatly appreciated! I’ve been fellowshipping amongst KJV-Only churches for over thirty years, and only in recent years have come to understand that Bible translation is much more complex than the TR position. I even find modern TR-based translations to be choppy and clumsy now, for some reason. The information here can be challenging for entrenched TR/KJVO to receive, but it’s true nonetheless. Thanks for your investment in this subject. God bless!
Hello,
Very interesting read.
I do have a question though: Where can I find an English Bible translation based on the majority (byzantine) text? We’re full of TR and CT Bibles but no MT ones (at least I can’t seem to find one anywhere).
Can you help me out here? You seem very knowledgeable and scholarly 😀
Thank you for the read and the help!
Sadly, I don’t know of a single Bible translation based on the MT that’s worth using; not one. The NKJV would be the closest that’s worth using since it’s based on the TR, but sadly there simply aren’t many options.
Berean Patriot,
Thank you for this fantastic article! Frankly, it should be published in book form and presented in class lecture form on a Christian education site.
I too read Greek fluently and have studied all of the textual criticism books and Greek texts published since the mid-1700s. I am in the 19th year of my Greek Bible study. Mostly, I just enjoy the simple joys of word studies that any Christian person can do – without being able to read Greek. Any Christian can use a Greek Interlinear Bible and a Greek Lexicon (dictionary) to get this same enrichment without any formal training.
As a result, I witness to the truth of your research, analysis, and conclusions. Christian men and women do not need to worry about whether they are reading the “true” Bible. We have the Bible of Moses, Peter, and Paul in our hands within 99.75% absolute accuracy in the Greek. And any good English translation communicates God’s Word faithfully.
I am a KJV man, but I also read the ESV. The NASB is also extremely accurate to the Greek also – just like the KJV and ESV. There are other good, solid English Bibles. So Christian men and women need not worry in their individual faith or in teaching their children.
We are all okay…
Very well done! Thank you and may God bless you always.
Your article is very thorough. You’ve clearly put a lot of work into it!! I have mainly skimmed it and starting to read it more slowly and carefully so I can learn more about textual criticism. My motivation is to better disciple a younger believer. I want to make sure I am learning from good sources. I see some sourcing in this article (e.g. Daniel Wallace, James Snapp). Would you consider putting more thorough sourcing here so that I know the source documents you are relying on to write this article?
The New King James does not use the same texts as the King James Bible: it does not use the Textus Receptus. It uses Roman Catholic approved texts and chooses to pervert the words of God.
Check out this article for some truth.
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=Is-NKJV-Text-Same-As-KJV#note1
You may find the reports of Youtuber ‘Truth Is Christ’ very interesting. He has found and published many mathematical patterns in the KJV which are impossible to happen by chance or man’s hand.
I went looking and it’s pretty interesting. I’ve heard similar math elements like that in other translations as well though, so it doesn’t do much to tip me in the direction of KJV. Further, while it was easily the best translation available for hundreds of years, that’s no longer the case. It has demonstrable, verifiable errors in the translation, (Translating both Sheol and Hades as “hell” comes to mind.) many of which modern translations don’t repeat.