King James Only?

Blogging our way through the King James Only debate

Acts 3:13 in the King James Version and Its Manuscript Support

The verse Acts 3:13 offers a useful case study in New Testament textual criticism. In the King James Bible the passage reads: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go." The word "Son" translates a Greek term whose manuscript support is divided between two different words, and the choice between them affects how the verse is rendered in English.

Advocates of the King James Only movement frequently cite Acts 3:13 as proof that the Authorized Version preserves a reading modern translations have obscured. They argue that any version substituting "Servant" has tampered with the text. The claim deserves examination against the manuscript record and the history of how the verse was translated before 1611.

Modern translations render the verse differently. Some follow the King James reading closely, while others substitute "servant" for "son" after weighing the older Greek manuscripts. For Christians in Australia who use the NIV, ESV, or NASB in church services and home groups, understanding the textual issue explains why the pew Bible differs from the KJV their grandparents read.

It examines the two Greek terms, surveys the manuscript support for each, traces the verse's history in English translation, and weighs the KJV Only argument, with references to Bible Society Australia and Matthias Media resources serving the local Bible-reading community.

The Greek terms behind the verse

The Greek text behind the King James Version of Acts 3:13 contains υἱόν, the accusative of υἱός, meaning "son." Several of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts contain παῖδα, the accusative of παῖς, which can mean "child," "boy," or "servant." This divergence is not a matter of spelling variation but a genuine difference in how ancient scribes transmitted the verse.

The lexical range of παῖς is significant. In the Septuagint, παῖς frequently translates the Hebrew עֶבֶד, meaning "servant," and serves as a title for Moses, David, and the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah. When New Testament writers quote Isaiah 53, they sometimes use παῖς for the Messiah in his role as the suffering Servant. This is the case in Acts 3:13 and 3:26, where Peter's sermon emphasises the suffering and exaltation of Jesus. The shift from παῖς to υἱός in some manuscripts likely reflects a theological instinct among later scribes to clarify the messianic status of Jesus, and the principle of lectio difficilior potior often favours the less theologically polished παῖς.

Manuscript support for each reading

The manuscript evidence for παῖς includes some of the oldest and most respected New Testament codices. Papyrus 74 (third century), Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), Codex Vaticanus (fourth century), Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century), and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (fifth century) all contain the παῖς reading, and Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian translations align with it. The internal evidence of the passage, with its allusion to the Servant of the Lord, supports παῖς as the more likely original.

Key manuscripts that read παῖδα in Acts 3:13 include:

The reading υἱόν is found in the majority of later Byzantine manuscripts behind the Textus Receptus and in Codex Bezae. The support for υἱός is broad in number but narrow in age and quality, with the earliest and most reliable Alexandrian witnesses consistently favouring παῖς. Textual criticism operates on the principle that manuscripts are weighed rather than counted, and in Acts 3:13 the qualitative evidence favours παῖς.

From Tyndale to the Authorized Version

The English translation history of Acts 3:13 explains why the King James Version contains "Son." William Tyndale rendered the verse with "son" in his 1525 New Testament, and this rendering was carried into the Coverdale Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. The KJV translators, valuing continuity, inherited the "son" reading and saw no strong reason to depart from it.

The influence of the Bishops' Bible on the KJV translators is significant. The Bishops' Bible of 1568 served as one of the primary bases for the 1611 translation, and the translators were instructed to follow it where no compelling reason existed to do otherwise. The detailed story of how phrasings were carried through the line of English Bibles is examined in How the Bishop's Bible Shaped the King James Translation, which traces the transmission of readings from one revision to the next.

The English translators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries worked almost exclusively from Byzantine manuscripts that contained υἱός. They did not have the benefit of Codex Vaticanus or the early papyri that now support παῖς. The Complutensian Polyglot of 1514 and Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum of 1516 presented the Textus Receptus, which became the foundation for the chain of English Bibles leading up to the Authorized Version. The "son" rendering in the KJV is a faithful translation of the Greek text the translators had, though that text may not preserve the original wording.

How recent translations render Acts 3:13

Modern English translations have generally followed the Alexandrian text and rendered the verse with "servant" rather than "son." This choice reflects the textual evidence and the lexical range of παῖς, and represents a responsible application of textual criticism to the manuscript evidence.

Widely used English translations render the verse as follows:

Translating παῖς as "servant" does not deny the sonship of Jesus; it identifies him as the Servant of the Lord prophesied by Isaiah, a messianic title that complements his divine sonship. For Australian Christians reading the NIV at a Bible study in Melbourne or using the ESV in a church in Sydney, the translation reflects a careful assessment of which Greek word most likely stood in the original text.

Weighing the King James Only argument

KJV Only advocates argue that the "son" translation is the only faithful rendering and that modern translations have tampered with the text. The argument runs: the majority of manuscripts support υἱός, the Textus Receptus contains υἱός, the KJV translated it as "son," and any deviation is a departure from the preserved Word. This reasoning has several weaknesses.

First, it conflates the Textus Receptus with the original text and ignores the substantial manuscript evidence for παῖς. Second, it treats the English word "son" as part of the inspired text, when the issue concerns which Greek term the translator had. Third, it does not reckon with the possibility that "son" may be a later alteration by scribes who wished to clarify the verse's theological thrust.

A balanced approach recognises that the KJV translators did admirable work with the resources available, and that later discoveries of older manuscripts have allowed scholars to refine our understanding of the original wording of various passages. This refinement does not undermine biblical inspiration or the trustworthiness of Scripture; it reflects the providential preservation of the text through thousands of manuscripts. For a Bible study leader in Brisbane working through the early chapters of Acts, the variant in verse 13 provides an opportunity to teach the group about the history of the text.

Why this textual issue matters

The variant in Acts 3:13 has practical implications for how Christians understand and apply the verse. If παῖς is original, Peter identifies Jesus as the Servant of the Lord prophesied by Isaiah, emphasising his suffering and exaltation. If υἱός is original, the verse highlights the divine sonship of Jesus and his vindication by the Father. Both readings are theologically orthodox; the difference is one of emphasis rather than contradiction.

For readers who use the King James Version as their primary Bible, the "son" reading remains meaningful and faithful to the manuscript tradition the KJV translators inherited. For readers who use modern translations, the "servant" reading brings out a dimension of the verse that the Authorized Version does not foreground. Neither rendering compromises the core proclamation of Acts 3, which announces that the God of the patriarchs has glorified the Messiah whom the people rejected and whom Pilate had planned to release.

Engaging with these textual questions deepens appreciation for the complexity of Scripture and the careful transmission of the text through the centuries. Readers who want to explore further how the Bishops' Bible shaped the Authorized Version can pursue the resource cited above, and those who wish to examine the manuscript evidence behind specific verses can consult the textual commentaries recommended throughout this site. Continue investigating the textual basis of your favourite passages, share what you learn with your home group or church in Perth, Adelaide, or wherever you gather around the Word, and support ministries that take both the history of the text and the authority of Scripture seriously.