The Narrow Path Ministries

I understand that Steve favors Textus Receptus and KJV which follows it. I've been reading a lot of criticism about the text and especially how quickly it was put together using only a small bit of ancient texts by a single man.

I would appreciate any illumination on this point.

The question of the proper text of the New Testament is one that, I think, cannot be resolved by scholarship at its present state of knowledge.

Modern scholars seem to prefer what is sometimes called the Alexandrian Text, which is representative of the two earliest manuscripts of the New Testament that have been found to date—Codex Sinaiticus (c.370) and Codex Vaticanus (c.325). This text is somewhat briefer than that of the Textus Receptus (TR), because certain words, phrases and verses that are found in the TR are absent from these older manuscripts.

Scholars who prefer the Alexandrian Text do so because they believe that the older manuscripts, being nearer in time to the original writings, would better preserve the original words. Also, they believe that the briefer text is more likely to be correct, because they feel it was a habit of those charged with re-copying the aging manuscripts to insert words and commentary into the text, which were written in the margins by the previous custodians.

Those who favor the TR believe that it is better because its readings agree with the vast majority of the 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, as opposed to there being only two manuscripts supporting the Alexandrian readings. They argue that the Alexandrian Text survived in so few manuscripts because early Christians recognized them as flawed, and did not copy them in great numbers.

Also, supporters of the TR sugeest that the fuller text is morte likely to reflect the original, because it is easier to omit words and phrases while copying than to create them de novo. Thus, the briefer, Alexandrian Text is thought to be the product of accidental (or deliberate) omissions by copyists.

Of course, there are also those conspiracy-minded King James-only types, who think that the Alexandrian Text was a deliberate corruption of the text, perpetrated by Gnostics attempting to undermine the deity of Christ and other key Christian doctrines. They speak of all translations other than the KJV as "New-Age Translations" and see a satanic plot to destroy the scriptures here.

This New-Age conspiracy explanation of the Alexandrian Text seems completely devoid of sensible support. Every major doctrine that can be drawn from the Textus Receptus can be found as conspicuously taught in the Alexandrian Text. An examination of the modern translations (which use the Alexandrian Text) will reveal that there is no consistent omission of verses declaring the deity of Christ, or any other Christian doctrine, as one would expect to find if a gnostic conspiracy had altered the text.

The Textus Receptus was put together by Erasmus (a Roman Catholic, contemporary with Luther), from the best Greek manuscripts existing in his day. These manuscripts represent what is called the "Byzantine Text" which some would date back as far as 347—407 AD.

The Textus Receeptus does not represent some coherent, monolithic text, flawlessly passed-down from apostolic times, as the "King James-only" people like to imagine. It was an ecclectic compilation of the best readings of several manuscripts, as judged by Erasmus. It would be a mistake to suggest that the Textus Receptus is without defects, since it is a product of human effort, entirely susceptible to error. However, it was a good ecclectic text, derived from a number of good Greek manuscripts, and produced by a competent scholar.

One famous defect (as it would appear) is the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 (the only verse in the Bible that clearly states the doctrine of the Trinity). Erasmus originally left this verse out of his text. When challenged about this by the Catholic authorities, he said that he did not include it because it was found only in Latin versions, and was not in any Greek manuscript. He said that if they could find a Greek manuscript containing the verse, he would include it.

The Vatican then managed to deliver to him a Greek manuscript containing that verse, which he (along with most scholars today) believed to be spurious. Because of his promise, he then included 1 John 5:7 in his text, but added a footnote, in which he confessed his doubts about its authenticity. The inclusion of this verse, therefore, seems to be a weakness of the Textus Receptus, and of the translations that use that text.

Another famous distinctive of the Textus Receptus is its inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. The last twelve verses of that gospel are missing from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, though they are found in almost all other Greek manuscripts of Mark. For this reason, the verses are included in the King James and other Bibles that use the Textus Receptus, but omitted from most newer translations.

In this case, it would seem that the TR is to be trusted more by its inclusion than the Alexandrian by its exclusion. Sometime around AD 180, much earlier than the Codex Vaticanus or the Codex Sinaiticus were produced, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19— "Also, towards the conclusion of his gospel, Mark says, 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven and sits on the right hand of God'" (Against Heresies, Book Three, 10:5-6).

Another lengthy passage included in the TR but omitted from the Alexandrian text is John 7:53—8:11. This passage contains the story of Christ's encounter with the woman taken in adultery. This story is omitted from several manuscripts. It is included, but in various locations, in others. It is found at the end of John's gospel, in some manuscripts, and in Luke's gospel in others. Most evangelical scholars seem to accept it as a genuine story from the life of Jesus, though many doubt that it was written by John. It has more the style of the synoptic writers. This passage will remain a mystery, no doubt, but few evangelicals would object to its authenticity and its inclusion in the Bible—whether in this position in John or elsewhere.

I don't think it matters much which text is used in a Bible translation. The fact that there are these lesser differences only gives more weight to the authenticity of the passages where the different manuscripts are in agreement with each other (about 97.3%)! The portions of scripture where the differences exist in the manuscripts are not those that are essential for the proving of any important point of theology or ethics. Therefore, I never get too excited about which manuscripts a translation uses (I am more concerned about the quality of the translation work).

My preference for the Textus Receptus is more based upon personal factors than scholarly. In general, I trust the more complete manuscripts somewhat intuitively. If I am mistaken, I have lost absolutely nothing by having this preference.

Steve,

I agree 100% with your comments about the translations and that is why I primarily use the KJV. I however would love to have the received text in modern English ! Are you aware of any translations based solely on the Received text that are good translations ?

Mike

I would presume that the New King James Version (NKJV) would have been translated from Textus Receptus. Also KJ21. If this is not the case, I would welcome correction.

I am one of those people who think that the earlier manuscripts are more likely to be correct.

I feel most privileged to be in possession of a book entitled
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts
edited by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett. It contains transcripts of every extant Greek manuscript that was copied prior to 325 A.D., both the papyri and the early uncials. There is an index of the manuscripts in canonical order, so that you can examine the ones for a particular passage in which you are interested.

Sadly, all 559 pages of transcripts do not comprise the entire New testament. Many portions do not exist in these manuscripts, while many others, are recorded in several of them.

Paidion,

Thank you for your response. The NKJV utilizes the Alexandrian texts in various places and at least to me seems to prefer it (based on its notes). The 21st Century KJV follows the Received Text faithfully but still uses the old English (albeit with a few of the very old words changed). Thee's thou's etc. If they used modern English I would buy it ! Reading it online it seems virtually identical to the KJV making it pointless to buy in my estimation.

Mike

Is the Modern King James Version a good translation ? It was done by a Jay P Green Sr. with Sovereign Grace Publishers in 1999 or so. I know it is faithful to the Received Text but I am unsure as to the quality of the scholarship.

Paidion,

Thank you for your response. The NKJV utilizes the Alexandrian texts in various places and at least to me seems to prefer it (based on its notes). The 21st Century KJV follows the Received Text faithfully but still uses the old English (albeit with a few of the very old words changed). Thee's thou's etc. If they used modern English I would buy it ! Reading it online it seems virtually identical to the KJV making it pointless to buy in my estimation.

Mike
My understanding is that the NKJV uses the textus receptus exclusively.

There are a host of "King James Only" people who reject the NKJV out of hand, because it translates some words differently from the AV. Many of their arguments are invalid. They can be found by doing a search for "NKJV" on the web.

The "bible-researcher" website is based on real scholarship, and is a worthwhile site to find genuine unbiased information on many topics.

See:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html

The following information on the text that the NKJV translators used, is taken from the above website:

Textual Base
The New King James Version is a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes). So, for example, the Johannine Comma is printed in the text of 1 John 5:7-8 just as it was in the King James Version (although a note informs the reader that "only 4 or 5 very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek")