Understanding the Printed Greek Texts
Now that we’ve looked at the different text types from the extant MSS , we need to proceed to the next step in the process of how we got our Bible. The next step is to compile the extant MSS, compare them look for differences in the readings and make educated decisions about which reading is the right one. Then when the evidence has been weighed and measured, then a standardized Greek NT or Hebrew OT must be compiled so that a translation can be made into the receptor language. So, let’s look at these standardized Greek texts and how they came into being. The process by which scholars compare MSS and make decisions as to which reading was the original is called “textual criticism”. This is not to be confused with “Higher Criticism” which is the study of events in the Bible and then determining whether the events, people, and sayings are really true. This is generally an academic endeavor by liberals who want to disprove the Bible from the start. Textual Criticism, however is simply the process by which the original reading of the Bible is discovered in the multitude of MSS available.
1. The Textus Receptus
The first one I want to talk about is what has been called “the Received Text” in Latin “textus receptus”. This is really the first of the text that for the most part, your KJV and NKJV is translated from. The history of this text begins with a man named Desedrius Erasmus who was really the first textual critic. Erasmus was born in 1466 and lived during the time of the Reformation. He was a brilliant Roman Catholic scholar who became famous for his writings. He was an upright and moral man, but there’s little evidence that he ever was born again because he never left the Catholic Church when there was ample opportunity to do so in the middle of the Reformation. Church historian Philip Schaff writes of Erasmus:
“He desired a reformation by gradual education and gentle persuasion within the limits of the old Church system. He disapproved of the violent measures of Luther and Zwingli, and feared that they would do much harm to the cause of learning and refined culture, which he had more at heart than religion. The truth is that Erasmus was a critical scholar and not a man of action or of deep conviction. AT best, he was a moralist, he went through no such religiouns experiences as Luther, and Luther early wrote of Erasmus that he “feared Erasmus knew little of the grace of God.”
In the year 1515, Erasmus was in England when a printer named John Froben pleaded with him to put together a Greek NT that would make a great product for both of them to profit from and also be a blessing to the church scholarship. Erasmus gathered all the Greek MSS he could find in Basle England, and came up with five, none of which contained the entire NT (all were dated 12th century or later). He had to borrow a MSS of Revelation from a friend but it lacked a sheet containing several of the last verses. In this case, he took readings from the Latin Vulgate and translated them back into Greek. All of his MSS were of the Byzantine text type because that was all that was available back then. He could have used Codex Vaticanus which is Alexandrian, but for some reason turned it down. It could be because of all the scribal errors that would have slowed down his work. After all, he was in a hurry to be the first one to print a NT Greek text.
A year later, he published his first edition in 1516 and it was dedicated to Pope Leo X. However, because he did this work in such a hurry, there were a many typographical errors. Afterwards, he made corrections and in the succeeding years, five editions were printed. Erasmus’ work made it possible to now translate a version of the Bible into another language from the original languages. Luther used his second edition for his famous German translation.
Some years later between 1546-1551, a Reformer named Robert Estienne aka Stephanus was a royal printer in France who carried on the work of Erasmus’ textual work with 15 other MSS and during his life, he printed four editions of the Greek NT which included a critical apparatus. This was a marginal writing that documented his decisions on which readings he chose and why.
Then again sometime between 1565-1604, another man came on the scene to further the textual work. His name was Theodore Beza. He was the successor to John Calvin. He took over Calvin’s ministry when he died and was a well respected scholar. He published about nine editions of the improved text. This last edition of the Greek Text was used in 1611 to translate the King James Version.
Afterwards in 1633, two brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir continued the textual work of Beza and published several more editions. In an advertisement, they wrote in Latin: “You have therefore a text now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.” This is where the name Textus Receptus came from and from now on, we will refer to it as the TR.
Later on in 1707, a man named John Mills published another edition of the TR where he continued the Textual work by looking at over 100 MSS.
So far what we’ve seen is that the TR went through at least 20 editions and I believe it was further updated by Fredrick Scrivener in the 1800’s. Many KJVO advocates like to say that the TR is the preserved Text, but then the question is raised: which TR? There are at least 20 editions of them. Again, we go back to our understanding of Biblical Inspiration and preservation. God did not tell us he would preserve His words in one MSS family, one published text or any translation from any of those texts.
2. The Majority Text
The next text I’d like to take a look at is the majority text which also comes from the Byzantine Text Type. Many times, people mix up the TR with the MT. This is a mistake because the TR doesn’t always favor the Majority text readings. There are minority readings in the TR and conversely, in the KJV also. Like we mentioned before, I John 5:17 is one of those examples of a minority reading. The Byzantine text type makes up the vast majority of the 5487 ancient MSS. What is interesting is that there are 1838 different readings from the MT and the TR. So far there has only been two publications of a Greek Text taken from the MT published in 1982 and 1985 by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad by Nelson publishers. The MT has not yet been the basis of any English translation although the NKJV favors some of the MT readings and thus differs from the TR and the KJV in some places as a result. Although in the past there has not been a lot of favor for a MT position in modern scholarship, scholars like Harry Sturz have been championing the MT as the favored text based on early witnesses to the Byzantine text type as superior to the early witnesses to the Alexandrian text type. The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 — 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text. The earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text is the Syriac Peshitta; usually dated to the 4th century; although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses.
Personally I would prefer an accurate “word for word” type of English translation from the Byzantine MT over the TR and if one was to be translated, I would consider using it as my preferred version over the KJV. However, at this time, the KJV and the NKJV are the only two versions in English that come from the same Byzantine text type and so I prefer them. The other advantage that the Byzantine MT has is the use of the churches through out history.
2. The Eclectic or Critical Text
Since the discovery of Codex Sinaiaticus in the 1840’s, most textual scholars have believed that the older Alexandrian MSS more accurately resemble what the originals would have said above what the later Byzantine MSS witness. So, the first Greek text based on the Alexandrian MSS was published by Tischendorf in the 1849’s , who found Codex Sinaiaticus.
After his work, the textual work that is most notable is that of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton Anthony Hort. These men were two Anglican bishops who worked for nearly 30 years with the two oldest MSS (Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus) to compile a new textual base for translation that was published in 1881. At this point in the discussion, a lot of accusations are raised against these two men; some true and some not true.
Here’s an example of a false accusation by Gail Riplinger, the author of “New Age Versions”:
“Riplinger accuses Westcott of being a “spiritualist,” although there is no evidence of this in any of Westcott’s or his son’s books. In New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger states:
The Greek Text used to translate the NIV, NASB and others was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seances), who believed he was in the “new age.”
Here Riplinger cites Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 2, by Arthur Westcott. There is nothing in the book implicating Westcott as a “spiritualist”; the page cited contains a letter written by the Bishop in 1898, concerning the uncertainty of changing times as a new century was about to begin and the Industrial Revolution was advancing more rapidly. In the letter, Westcott notes “the struggles of a new age.” The “new age” Westcott is referring to was the “new era” of change. The term “New Age”, as it is used today, was not yet heard of in 1898.
Anyway, some of the things that I have seen that are attributed to their writings seem to question the six day creation which was pretty clear that he didn’t believe. I’ve read other things said about him such as in David Sorenson’s book where he obviously is looking for something to use against him such as on page 113, 115. I am not an expert on these men, and have not read much of their writings and I am reluctant to cast a judgment upon them especially since much of what I have seen written against them is not true.
Westcott and Hort put together a new set of rules by which to weigh textual evidence instead of counting it. They believed that each MSS family could be traced back to a common relative by which the others had been copied and that no matter how many MSS there were in a particular family, it should be weighed with the same amount of importance as a MSS where there are very few copies. They basically believed that the older MSS that had been recently found in their day were the most accurate to the originals and that their readings should be favored when they differed from the Majority of MSS. They taught that if there were two readings that differed, the more difficult reading should be preferred because they presumed that scribes would simplify rather than complicate the text and that the shorter reading should be preferred because scribes would include more possible variants rather than exclude any possible words from the text. They felt that the Byzantine text was conflated – it included extra words and phrases in order not to leave any that are possibly legitimate parts of the sacred text. However, Harry Sturz, the MT advocate notes that in numerous cases, such apparent conflation in older MSS are found in even the Alexandrian MSS. So, this idea can’t be fully trusted. Using these kinds of rules of textual criticism, they put together their Greek NT which became the basis of the 1901 American Standard Version.
Later in 1898 Eberhardt Nestle published another Greek NT comparing Westcott and Hort’s work with Tischendorf’s. In 1927, his son Erwin Nestle continued published the 13th edition of his father’s work and in 1950 another man named Kurt Aland became Erwin Nestle’s associate in the textual work. The latest edition of the Nestle Aland text was published in 1993 in it’s 27th edition. In the most recent editions, this text has given more serious consideration to the readings of the Byzantine MSS.
The United Bible Society led by Eugene Nida had also published its first Greek NT in 1966 and four editions have been published since, the last of which was published in 1993. This Greek text is very similar to the Nestle Aland 27th edition. What troubles me about the UBS is editorial board have overseen these Greek NT’s. There is a Roman Catholic, a Greek Orthodox and several theological liberals.
3. What is the difference?
The TR has 140,744 words 100% point of reference for the sake of comparison.
The MT has 140,259 words 99.65% compared to the TR
The NA27 has 138,019 words. 98.06% compared to the TR
There are few verses which the NA27 and the MT do not include in their texts. Almost 10% of the 2725 TR words not included in the NA27 are in just 17 passages. Three of these passages are not included in the MT either. All of these passages appear in the NA27 and MT footnotes.
The absence of these passages is not necessarily due to some conspiracy, but to the ancient testimony of Greek Bibles used by Christians living in the first few centuries. Almost all the modern versions also carry these verses in the margins. In addition to these 17 passages absent from the oldest MSS, there are 6 more which include up to 31 verses, yet in the modern versions, these verses are given the benefit of the doubt and are put in. Not one of those variants from the older MSS changes any doctrine that cannot be found elsewhere in the scripture.
Conclusion: All modern versions of the English Bible are translated from the NA 27 or the UBS 4th Edition and none use the old Westcott and Hort Greek NT. The only two that have not been translated from one of these texts is the KJV and the NKJV. Because of the fact that these Alexandrian MSS have been hidden for so long and the church got along fine using Byzantine type of MSS to base their translations on; and so many questionable people have been on the editorial boards of these many editions of the critical text, I am not inclined to trust their scholarship.
Even so, after I spent hours reading all kinds of diatribes against Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland and the United Bible Society in the attempt to convince the reader that their Greek texts are totally corrupted and of the devil. The truth is, the differences are so small, it boggles my mind that some of these authors would spend their entire lives trying to destroy these men’s reputations when their Greek texts have such a small difference. Like I said before, you have to weigh the evidence and make a decision yourself as I have and I’d rather stick with church history and the reformers text than the modern text, but in the end, it doesn’t make as big a difference as the controversy has made it out to be.
For the record, here are the major variants that I mentioned earlier:
The 17 Minor Variants
Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mark 7:16 16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 9:44 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
John 5:3b-4 …of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15:34 34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24:6-7 nd would have judged according to our law. 7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The other SIX major variants
Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mark 16:9-20 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12 ¶ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 ¶ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Luke 22:43-44 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
John 7:53 – 8:11 And every man went unto his own house. KJV John 8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Romans 16:25-27 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Bible Versions, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, Manuscript Evidence, Preservation, Textual Criticism, Textual Variant
The Geneva Bible is an excellent English translation based on the Byzantine MT. In many passages, the language is more direct than the KJV and closer to our modern usage.
Since 2006, the 1599 Geneva Bible has been available with modern spelling and updated type.
First, a response to the ‘guest’ comment claiming that the Geneva Bible is based upon the Byzantine (or Majority) Text: that is wrong, since the Geneva is TR-based. The MT as a critical text was not defined until the mid-1980s.
Second, a response to the author of the article concerning these two inaccurate statements: “Personally I would prefer an accurate “word for word” type of English translation from the Byzantine MT over the TR and if one was to be translated, … the KJV and the NKJV are the only two versions in English that come from the same Byzantine text type and so I prefer them. First, there are already at least three New Testament translations based upon the Majority Text, and one I like is called the Anylitical-Literal Translation (ALT) by Gary Zeolla. Second, there are several other TR-based translations of the NT, such as The People’s New Testament by Roger Chenault, The NT in It’s Original Order by Fred Coulter, Young’s Literal Version, the KJV3 by Jay Green, and some more. Norlie’s translation of the NT also retains all the TR-variant readings.
sorry, that should be Analytical
Thanks for the contribution here Franklin, I have heard of the Youngs literal version – I have it in Bibleworks, but I didn’t know that it was MT based. I didn’t know about those other translations either, I’d like to get a hold of them too. I’ll check Bibleworks to see if I have them.
Young’s is not “MT based”, it is TR-based. Do you not make a distinction between these?
Nope, I just have Youngs in BibleWorks 7
Just for the record, there are actually some 200 whole and half-verses deleted out of most modern critical texts, and English translations. (In most cases they are bracketed or put in the margin, or footnoted).
Obviously, to say “the differences are so small” is also somewhat of an understatement, considering things like John 7:53-8:11, a large and significant incident, and one which is integral to the completeness of John’s Gospel.
At our website, we have a special section on new internal evidence for the authenticity and authorship of John 8:1-11:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/index.html
Probably just as important, is getting the right interpretation of these verses, which have been historically subjected to a variety of agendas, including nomism, anti-nomism, panic re: women being encouraged to believe adultery is a minor sin, etc.
We have a good and thorough commentary on the verses here:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/COMM/the-best.html
The Site is loaded with rare and important information on John 8:1-11, and is now the world’s largest database on these verses in John.
We have constructed everything from a believing Christian viewpoint but which is non-denominational so that all Christians can access this vital info on John.
We hope that Christians everywhere will use our research materials to investigate fully this issue of the authenticity and importance of these 12 verses of Holy Scripture.
There are a few other Majority Text Translations. WEB is probably the best known: http://ebible.org/ : which is often overlooked because it is an updated ASV. Nonetheless, it is made to conform to the MT.
There is also the English Majority Text Version: http://majoritytext.com/
Hi Folks,
Nice try, however it would take a while to fix and tweak a lot of the above. Here are a few.
==========================
Hort was not a bishop, although this is correct for Westcott.
==========================
“Westcott and Hort put together a new set of rules by which to weigh textual evidence instead of counting it.”
There was no set of rules of “counting it” .. the Reformation Bible had been developed with respect for the proper use of the Greek and Latin lines, the early church writings and a variety of internal evidences as the main sources.
==========================
The concept of “major variants” and “minor variants” is confusing, liable to foster misunderstanding, since a minor textual variant can be major in meaning, as in 1 Tm 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” and Jn 1:18 “only begotten Son”, both of which are mangled in the modern versions.
==========================
There is direct evidence of seance attendance, during the years of Bible textual analysis (not the college years) mentioned in Hort’s letters.
Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort – p. 33
http://books.google.com/books?id=oxc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA33
==========================
Erasmus had correspondence access to Vaticanus, which he utilized. However there is no case known where an oddball Vaticanus reading, away from the Majority text, affected his text. There is one verse where Erasmus apparently references Vaticanus in the notes, Acts 27:16 and if the heavenly witnesses were in the text (rather than simply an umlaut) that might have changed the Erasmus 1st or 2nd edition.
It is not clear that he could have had physical access to Vaticanus anywhere other than the Vatican, you omit mentioning that Erasmus had seen and corresponded about manuscripts throughout Europe, in addition to those in his posession at the time of the NT labours.
==========================
To talk of Erasmus simply as RCC, without mentioning
the satirical and scathing “Praise of Folly” types of writing, the RCC accusation heresy hearings in Valledoid and the fact that his books, including the Received Text, gloriously made the Index of Forbidden Books (Index librorum prohibitorum) definitely can give a mis-impression.
==========================
“Textual Criticism, however is simply the process by which the original reading of the Bible is discovered in the multitude of MSS available.”
Nothing is “discovered” in textual criticism. Dubious theories are used as a starting point, leading to probabilities, verse by verse. No more that that. One can say that the modern inerations of the theories themselves were designed and honed to replace the “vile” textual receptus (Hort) and whether the current crop of theories are compatible with a faith-based perspective, or are inimical.
The idea of a Chinese wall between textual criticism and higher criticism is dubious, but is too much to go into here. Suffice to say that the leading textual critics (e.g. Metzger, Ehrman) embrace higher criticism principles and deny NT authorship as given in the text.
==========================
“Desedrius Erasmus who was really the first textual critic.”
And I would say this is incorrect terminology. Textual criticism includes paradigms of the Bible text that are very different from those of the Reformation Bible. If you want to emphasize that Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza did textual work, something like “faith-based textual analysis” would be far more appropriate. The paradigms of the text were virtually opposite those of textual criticism.
==========================
The textus receptus name in the Elzivir’s edition was not in an “advertisement”, this was published within the edition as a description. And this has become the accepted name for the dozens of very close Greek editions. Reformation Bible is a similar name (see Reformation of the Bible, Bible of the Reformation by Jaroslav Pelikán) for all the editions in dozens of languages.
==========================
“All modern versions of the English Bible are translated from the NA 27 or the UBS 4th Edition and none use the old Westcott and Hort Greek NT.”
The differences are very minor, one example of a difference is the creating of yet another hard error in the text in Jn 7:8 which has no error in the Reformation Bible “John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.”
==========================
Returning to : “The 17 Minor Variants”
Clearly the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 – put the cursor over the ESV reading of the verse and compare to :
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
are major variants, to put it mildly.
Shalom,
Steven