Article: Text Selection by Lawrence E Bray

From Textus Receptus

There are over 5,350 New Testament manuscripts in existence today ^[1]. Each manuscript is considered part of a family. Families are organized by common traits found in the manuscripts. These traits include style, content, and age. For our purposes we will focus on the two main families – Alexandrian and Byzantine. Scholars differ as to which family of manuscripts are the closest to the originals. Some who advocate the Byzantine text will argue that since the majority of manuscripts are from the Byzantine family, they must be the ones that the Church considered were derived from the originals. Those who advocate the Alexandrian text will argue that since the Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest, and therefore closest to the originals, they must be the ones with less corruption and which are derived from the originals.

When considering the text to use we must not simply count the number of manuscripts, we must weigh them. If ten manuscripts were copied from the same source we should not count them ten times since it is truly only one source that they represent. Likewise, when we have five manuscripts copied from different sources we should take that into consideration as having more weight than if they were from the same source.

Another element we need to consider is corruption of the text. Whenever corruption is evident it should be excised. Some have pointed to what they consider corruptions in the Received Text. This text is from the Byzantine family, and it was the text used to translate the KJV and the NKJV. The Received Text was an early effort in textual criticism as it was a New Testament text derived from various extant Greek manuscripts of the time. Some of the corruptions noted in this text are as follows:

• No Greek manuscript was used for the last six verses of Revelation, instead the Latin Vulgate was used for this portion.

• In 1 Jn 5:7, the Trinitarian formula of, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” are only found in a few manuscripts, none earlier than the sixteenth century.

There are also problems with the critical text, which gives much weight to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. In particular the critical text favors the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Some problems with this text are as follows:

• Mk 1:2 has a quote from Isaiah, As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,", but that quote is actually from the prophet Malachi. Malachi 3:1 reads, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.”

• The UBS critical text uses the Greek word “prwthS” in Acts 16:12. The problem is that this word is not found in any Greek manuscript. The reading should be “prwth” without the “S.” Adding the “S” onto this noun makes it genitive, and that changes the whole meaning of the text. So the Critical Text says that Philippi is a city of the first district of Macedonia. The actual Greek manuscripts say that Philippi is a first city of Macedonia.

There are a couple of things to note here. First, the problems that are pointed out in the Received Text are not really errors. Just because something was translated from the Vulgate does not mean that it shouldn’t be in the text. And just because something has few and late manuscript support doesn’t create a definite error. However, quoting Isaiah with the words of Micah is an actual error. With regard to Acts 16:12 it is worth mentioning that most translations that use the Critical Text depart from it at this point because of it having absolutely no manuscript support.

We will now show the support for maintaining the text that the Church has used for hundreds of years, the Received Text. We will do this by looking at various aspects including manuscript evidence, Church history, and the internal evidence of the scripture itself.

Let’s look at one of the arguments others posit for using the Alexandrian based manuscripts. Some suggest that because of their early date these texts have had less opportunity to become corrupt. It is also more important that the type is of an early date than the document itself 2. This would imply that corruptions and heresies were something that came about with time. But does the bible give us any clues regarding this argument? The bible tells us plainly that corruptions and heresies were from the beginning. Look at some of these passages:

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2Co 2:17)

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2Co 4:2)

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. (2Th 2:2)

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2Pe 2:1)

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.(Gal 1:6-8)

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jud 1:4)

We see from these passages that corruption of the Christian faith was from the beginning. Just as Satan was at the beginning of God’s creation trying to lead man away from God’s Word –

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Gen 3:1)

As Satan was in the original creation he was also in the beginning of God’s new creation wrought through Christ trying to lead men away from God’s Word. Since it is plain that corruptions were from the beginning, the argument of “the earliest are the best” just isn’t logical.

We can also look into the discrepencies within the families of manuscripts themselves. The two most trusted manuscripts from the Alexandrian family (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ from each other in numerous places. In the gospels alone they disagree over 3,000 times 5. The Critical Text that is used in modern translations is characterized by language that is difficult, abrupt, and even impossible 5. Whereas the Byzantine family of manuscripts have remarkable congruance. Some have even speculated a formal Church edit of the Byzantine manuscripts because they are so similar in content and style. But there has never been any proof offered for such an official editing of the manuscript text.

Although many modern scholars are fond of the Alexandrian type texts, the methods that they use for their textual criticism is suspect at best. The basic criteria for externally assessing variant readings is as follows 2:

1. The older the manuscript the better.

2. The wider the geographical dispersion of a variant the better.

3. Witnesses are to be weighed by family, not simply counted.

The basic criteria for internally assessing variant readings is as follows 2:

1. The more difficult the reading the better.

2. The shorter the reading the better.

3. The reading that is in verbal dissidence with other readings is better.

4. The less refined and more rough reading is to be preferred.

The first issue of this modern critical approach is that it is all very suppositional. As a matter of fact, now that a very good Alexandrian text-type manuscript (manuscript 2427) is believed to be from a late date (fourteenth century), critics are suggesting that this later manuscript may be more preferred than the older ones. It appears that their critical approach is quite flexible to whatever will best support their cause. Aland puts this manuscript at category I - "Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the original text." (To this are added all manuscripts prior to the fourth century.) It is also strange that one would find it hard to phathom that God could have His Bible written smoothly and with a measure of refinement. The point that is the most unbelievable is that the modern textual critic will find manuscripts that are in opposition to other parts of the Bible to be more trustworthy. It would seem this particular rule of criticism is fairly new. We read from Loraine Boettner’s Studies in Theology (pg 32), “…the accepted principle of interpretation is that the meaning which assumes the document to be self-consistent and reasonable is to be preferred to the one which makes it inconsistent and unreasonable. To act on any other basis is to act with prejudice and to assure error rather than to prove it. The critics of the Bible, however, have often been only too glad to neglect this rule.” As a matter of fact, as we read the current criteria for internally assessing variant readings we find that they have actually made the reading that is in dissidence with other readings the acceptable reading!

When we consider the Byzantine family we find that they are not of an early date. However, they are in great agreement with each other. These texts do not contradict other parts of the bible, but form one cohesive whole – as the Bible should be. The region they are most focused in is the Byzantine empire, where the originals were actually dispersed. Consider that false documents may have been circulating with the originals as is hinted to in 2 Thess 2:2 (That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand). Then consider how difficult it would have been to denounce false documents without the originals to test them against. The Byzantine region had the originals to test other writings against, while the Alexandrian region did not. This is why the texts in the Alexandrian region not only differ from the Byzantine text but also differ from each other; while the Byzantine texts are in remarkable agreement with each other.

Even though the Byzantine manuscripts are generally of a later date there are early witnesses of such a family of New Testament text. Some of the early Church Fathers used this same family of text when refering to the Bible that they read. One such example is Polycarp (70-155 A.D.). He was Bishop of Smyrna and a student of the apostle John. His witness to the ancient Biblical text is important because he cites many New Testament quotations in his letter to the Philippians. Most of these are quoted from the epistles of Paul. Polycarp’s quotations reflect the Traditional Text over the Alexandrian Text. Polycarp wrote, "knowing that by grace ye are saved; not by works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ … he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also raise up us in like manner … For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is Antichrist: and whoever does not confess his suffering upon the cross, is from the devil. And whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts; and say that there shall neither be any resurrection, nor judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore leaving the vanity of many, and their false doctrines; let us return to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning. " 6 (Phili. 1:5,1:8; 3:1-3). Clearly if age is an important characteristic of good manuscripts early Church Fathers such as Polycarp would add credibility to the Traditional Text.

References

1. – Philip W. Comfort, Ph.D., “Essential Guide to Bible Versions”, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2000, p 60
2. – Bruce M. Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament – It’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992, p 209

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Internal Links

Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900

New Testament KJV 2016

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus

2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based)

Russian Synodal Version (TR Based)

Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based)

Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Ephesians 3:9

Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3

Will Kinney

List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

List of New Testament Papyri

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 ·