The New Testament: Which
Text?
Pastor William P.
Terjesen
http://www.ourredeemerlcms.org/articles.html
If you have
made any extensive use of the variety of Bible
translations available today, you may have noticed that
the King James Version and the New King James Version
include words, phrases, verses, and even whole
paragraphs of text that are missing from other modern
translations. You may have also noticed that many modern
translations have marginal comments regarding ancient
manuscript evidence for certain inclusions or deletions
that sound, well, rather snippy. What’s going
on?
You probably
know that whatever English Bible you use is a
translation from the original languages in which the
Bible was written. The Old Testament was written in
Hebrew (except for a few Aramaic chapters), and the New
Testament was written in Greek. You probably also know
that until the invention of movable type and the
printing press in the 1400’s, publishing and preserving
documents and books meant hand copying; a very difficult
and expensive endeavor. So, from the days of the
Biblical authors on until just prior to the Reformation,
the Bible was published and preserved by being hand
copied by scribes.
There are
thousands of these hand copied manuscripts of the Bible
in existence. There are also ancient translations of the
Bible into Aramaic, Latin, Egyptian, etc., preserved in
manuscript form, as well as hand copied church
lectionaries (appointed readings for each day and each
holiday of the church year), and quotations of Scripture
in the writings of the ancient Church Fathers such as
Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, etc. So the evidence for
the text of the Bible is very extensive and compelling.
In the secular realm the text of an ancient book is
accepted with confidence on far less than ten percent of
the textual evidence that exists for the
Bible.
Now, just
about the time that Dr. Martin Luther was beginning to
study and teach the Biblical truths that led to the
Reformation, a humanist scholar by the name of Erasmus
published the first printed and mass produced edition of
the Greek New Testament. His printed text was based on
the relatively small number of late manuscript witnesses
that were available to him at the time. What has been
discovered since his day dwarfs what he had available to
him. Yet, we should not for this reason undervalue the
manuscripts he worked with, or the text of his Greek New
Testament. The manuscripts he used were late, but they
were faithful exemplars of the vast majority of New
Testament manuscripts used throughout the church since
the apostolic era. Therefore Erasmus placed in the hands
of the Reformers a printed Greek New Testament with
genuine catholicity, which presented what had been
preserved as sacred text in the church throughout its
history.
It is
important to realize, lest anyone deceive you in this
regard, that the vast majority of ancient witnesses to
the text of the New Testament favors this Ecclesiastical
Text, Traditional Text, Majority Text, Received Text, or
whatever else you want to call it. With Erasmus’ Greek
New Testament, and with other editions of that basic
text by editors who followed Erasmus, scholars had at
their disposal a printed edition of the consensus of
ancient witnesses to the preserved, catholic, sacred
text of the New Testament. In time, these printed
editions became known as the Textus Receptus, or,
Received Text. When Luther and the Reformers urged us
"Back to the Sources", it was to these extant texts, not
to some hypothetically reconstructed original autograph.
It was the texts in hand that the Reformers and
confessors called inspired and infallible. Unlike the
Anabaptists, who believed that we must reject everything
in the western church and go back to the first century
(primitive restorationism), Luther and the Reformers
corrected only the errors that had crept into the
church. Luther was a "catholic preservationist". Hence,
all of the Bible translations produced during the
Reformation and post-Reformation eras, were translations
of the received Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and
the received Greek text of the New Testament, not some
hypothetical reconstruction of lost original
autographs.
So, Luther’s
1545 edition, the Authorized (King James) Version (AV or
KJV), and all of the updates of the Authorized Version
such as the New King James Version, are based on the
Ecclesiastical Text of the New Testament. Other modern
translations of the Bible such as the New International
Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American
Standard Version, and others, are based on a somewhat
different edition of the Greek New Testament, based on a
minority of witnesses. This text is called by some the
critical text. The most common publised edition of this
critical text is the 27th edition of the
Nestle Aland Greek New Testament.
In the 1700’s
and 1800’s, as more and more ancient manuscripts and
sources became available, it was discovered that some
few of these witnesses differed substantially from the
Ecclesiastical Text in numerous places. These variant
readings were seized upon by rationalistic, skeptical
scholars in order to attack the church’s doctrine of the
verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Many conservative
scholars responded to this threat by maintaining that
the Ecclesiastical Text was the sacred text that God had
preserved through the church throughout the centuries,
and regarded the variant readings in the minority texts
as either intentional or inadvertent corruptions. They
were not overly intimidated by the variant
readings.
However, some
conservative scholars bought into the rationalistic
argument that the Ecclesiastical Text was an
ecclesiastical corruption of the text of the NT in the
interests of orthodoxy. Conservatives began saying that
the church had corrupted the NT by smoothing it out and
taking out the rough edges. They began to assert that
the inspiration and infallibility of the NT resided only
with the original autographs, and that it was the task
of conservative textual critics to use the "earliest and
best" manuscripts and witnesses in order to reconstruct,
as closely as possible, the text of the autographs. Thus
conservatives turned against the Ecclesiastical Text and
minimized the doctrine of divine preservation which had
always gone hand in hand with the doctrine of
inspiration. They felt safe in locating inspiration and
infallibility in the (as far as we know non-existent)
autographs, and they confidently began the quest for the
original text.
It didn’t seem
to bother them that behind their quest lay the idea that
for 1900 years labored with a "weak" text while the
"purer" manuscripts lay mouldering in forgotten corners,
only to be brought to light in an era noted more for its
apostasy than for its faithfulness. Is it an accident
that the Reformation had the Ecclesiastical Text as its
sacred text?
The nineteenth
century culmination of the new approach to the text of
the New Testament came with the publication of the
English Revised Version of 1881. This granddaddy of all
modern Bible translations reflects the text critical
outlook of two famous English scholars, Messrs. Westcott
and Hort. They and the translation committee that worked
with them were charged by the Anglican Church to revise
the Authorized version as gently and sparingly as
possible, making only patently necessary changes. So
what did they do? Well, first they edited an altogether
new edition of the Greek New Testament which reflected
their preference for a small minority of ancient
manuscripts that differ sometimes sharply from the
Byzantine/Majority text. Then they translated their new
text into English rather than following the text used by
the Authorized Version translators. They made
unnecessary changes to the wording of the AV, even when
this made their version more obtuse and stilted, and
unleashed it on the world.
How did the
world react? First, the scholars. By and large they
liked Westcott and Hort’s new Greek Text, but were mixed
about the quality of the English translation. The
nineteenth century was a time when people snapped
hungrily at any novel new idea. And just as they had
done with Darwin and evolution, so they did now with an
amazing fascination for discarded old manuscripts dug
out of monastery wastebaskets and cellars. In the
scholarly world Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament,
and the multitudinous revised editions of it throughout
the 20th century, have become the almost
universally recognized New Textus Receptus.
But among
ordinary folk things were different. This newfangled
revision was stiff and stilted, retaining little of the
beauty of the AV. And many words, phrases, verses and
even parts of chapters were missing or altered. Where
disputed passages were retained, there were crabby
little comments in the margins to aggravate the reader’s
doubt. By and large, the laity would have none of it and
continued to use the AV as if the Revised Version didn’t
exist, and for the most part, forced the clergy to do
likewise. The RV was dead at the starting
gate.
It wasn’t
until the Bible translation mania of the post World War
II era that the AV slowly began to make room for various
modern versions. The Revised Standard Version, the New
English Bible, the New American Standard Bible, An
American Translation, etc. all had their small niches in
the Bible reading world. But it wasn’t until the
publication of the long awaited New International
Version that the AV was given a run for its money. Not
that the NIV was so good; it wasn’t. It was dull and
two-dimensional, wordy and unmemorable. But it was
marketed like no other Bible in history. It became the
Big Mac of the Bible publishing world. The Rupert
Murdock owned Zondervan Publishing Co., which is the
main publisher of NIV Bibles, claims that sales of their
baby have outstripped the old AV. This is probably hype,
but despite continued strong sales of the old AV, it
looks as though we are entering a post-King James
Version era. With the exception of the recent New King
James Version, nearly all modern translations of the
Bible are in the Westcott and Hort tradition of New
Testament textual criticism.
But not everyone has jumped on the
bandwagon. Back in the nineteenth century a small number
of scholars contended vigorously for the Traditional
Text; among them, John William Burgon and F. H. A.
Scrivner, two massively gifted textual critics. Now,
while their work has been largely ignored by the
majority, there has always been a small but ardent group
of scholars who have kept the home fires burning for the
Traditional Text of the New Testament. Outstanding
modern exponents of this outlook are Dr. Edward F. Hills
(now deceased) and Dr. Theodore
Letis (very
much alive). Hills’ book, The King James Version
Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament
Manuscripts, and Letis’ book, The Ecclesiastical
Text are notable for their defense of the
Traditional Text from an ecclesiological and theological
perspective.
The work of
Hills and Letis must be contrasted with other groups of
scholars who support the Traditional Text for different
reasons. One group has become known as the "King James
Only" group. They believe that the AV is the perfect,
preserved Word of God for the English speaking world.
For them, the AV is equal in authority to the original
Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments. The
"King James Only" group generally consists of a small
group of fundamentalist Baptists who have little
positive impact on the world of scholarship with the
exception that some among them have managed to keep the
works of Burgon and Scrivner in print, despite the fact
that Burgon and Scrivener would never subscribe to their
views.
A second group
of scholars that must be distinguished from the work of
Hills and Letis is the Majority Text school. This
school, again, mostly fundamentalist Baptist, have
produced two recent notable editions of the Greek New
Testament. Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont have
edited The New
Testament in the Original Greek According to the
Byzantine/Majority Textform (1991). This is the
Byzantine Greek Text found in many Bible Software
programs such as BibleWorks, Logos, and the Online
Bible. Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad have edited The
Greek New Testament According to the Majority
Text (1985). It is important to note that the
Majority Text school is in no way made up of "King James
Only" advocates. The fact is that the KJ-Only people
consider the Majority Text people to be in league with
the devil! Be that as it may, what the Majority Text
school is up to is attempting to purge the Traditional
Text of it’s slight "corruptions" in the interest of
making it conform more closely to the hypothetical
original autographs. They, like the critical school of
textual criticism, are primitive restorationists, with
the exception that they hold that the Byzantine
manuscripts and witnesses better reflect the originals
than do the Alexandrian texts. But like the critical
school, they are attempting to get behind the church’s
preserved texts to the posited originals. Both groups
assume that the church, to some degree, corrupted the
originals.
Hills and
Letis, like Burgon, are not primitive restorationists.
They are, to use a term borrowed from Letis, "catholic
preservationists". This means that they believe that
God, who inspired the infallible Scriptures, has,
through His church, preserved what he gave for the
church’s use and benefit. The inspired, infallible
sacred text is not some minority text hidden in a corner
for 1900 years and only lately rediscovered. Rather, the
inspired, infallible sacred text is the text everywhere
preserved and used in the church throughout its history.
The best text of the New Testament reflects the
consensus of this catholicity of witnesses. Therefore
the text of Erasmus and his successors, the text that
formed the basis of all Reformation era Protestant Bible
translations, which reflects this preserved catholic
consensus; the text which Letis calls The Ecclesiastical
Text, but which is also known as the Byzantine Text, the
Majority Text, or the Textus Receptus, is rightly to be
regarded and received as the sacred text of the churches
of the Reformation.
As I said
above, when Luther and the theologians of Lutheran
Orthodoxy urged, "Back to the sources!" it was to the
extant Hebrew and Greek texts in hand to which they were
pointing, and not to some repristinated original
autographs. When they spoke of the Scriptures as
inspired and infallible, it was the texts in hand and in
use to which they were referring. What God gave, He has
preserved, not in a dark corner, but in the use of the
church catholic.
Lutherans,
both pastors and laity, should carefully read the
section on "Holy Scripture" in Francis Pieper’s,
Christian
Dogmatics, Vol. 1, pp. 193-370. At a time
when primitive restoration was being urged by such
notables as B. B. Warfield, Francis Pieper wouldn’t
bite. While he is neither threatened nor opposed to the
use of modern critical editions of the New Testament,
his comments on textual matters, and on divine
inspiration, show that he was solidly in line with the
catholic preservationism of our Lutheran forebears. This
shows itself in his defense of the Traditional Text. His
words, especially in our day, are judicious and
wise.
Now in all
that I’ve said above, it is not my intention to impugn
the scriptural commitment of those who prefer the modern
critical texts and the translations based on them, but
to urge a reconsideration of a view that has a long and
distinguished place in the churches of the Reformation.
Nor am I urging the exclusive use of the AV. It would be
nice to see some modern translations of the Bible based
on the Ecclesiastical Text. The New King James Version
is a good start. Indeed, the movement in this direction
is encouraging. The number of Lutheran pastors who are
rediscovering the Traditional Text is growing every day.
In this day, when so many are gaining a new appreciation
of catholicity on the one hand, and the failure of
modernism on the other, it is a wonder that more
scholars aren’t adopting catholic preservationism. Well,
all in good time.
Finally, any
discussion of these issues runs the risk of creating the
impression that the differences between the various
editions of the Greek New Testament are more numerous
than they are. Therefore, we should keep in mind that
the textual differences between any given edition of the
Ecclesiastical Text amounts to no more than about two
percent. And the textual differences between the
Ecclesiastical Text and the modern critical texts
amounts to no more than about fifteen percent.
Therefore, over 85% of the text in all manuscripts and
witnesses is identical. It should be obvious then, that
we are not talking about two entirely different kinds of
New Testament. The layman should keep this in mind while
studying these matters. This amazing textual agreement,
even between the divergent Ecclesiastical and critical
texts, makes the New Testament by far the best attested
ancient text ever.
But we must
not be sanguine. While we do not want to be hysterical
or to get caught up in wild conspiracy theories after
the manner of our fundamentalist counterparts, neither
do we want to minimize the fact that the modern critical
texts, at certain strategic places in the text make
omissions, or alterations that are far from innocuous.
For approximately twenty five years the Revised Standard
Version was published with the last half of Mark 16
relegated to a footnote in accordance with the then
current edition of the Nestle Greek Text. Other
translations, less bold, included the text but added
marginal comments which cast doubt on it. This is not
harmless. Neither should it be a matter of indifference
when Paul’s words concerning Christ: "God was manifest
in the flesh…" are changed to the more ambiguous: "He
was manifest in the flesh" on the basis of a few paltry
textual witnesses against the overwhelming majority (1
Tim. 3:16). Nor should we merely shrug our shoulders
when the overwhelmingly well attested and orthodox
rendering: "…the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father…" is replaced with the poorly
attested and arguably Gnostic: "…the only begotten God,
which is in the bosom of the Father…" (John 1:18). But
enough.
We can be
thankful that even in the most critically reduced New
Testament text the doctrines of the Law and Gospel are
still set forth clearly and accurately for the benefit
of the church. But this does not mitigate the fact that
in the 19th century the discipline of textual
criticism went in the wrong direction; a direction that
has had serious consequences with regard to faith in the
authority of Scripture, even down to our day. Nor does
it absolve us of the responsibility to study these
matters carefully and return the discipline of textual
criticism to the service of the church and its divinely
inspired, infallible, and preserved sacred
text.
The following
is a list of Bible versions currently in print that are
based on the Ecclesiastical Text:
- The
Authorized (or King James) Version (Cambridge
University Press, etc.)
- The New
King James Version (Thomas Nelson Publishers)
- The
21st Century King James Version (Deuel
Publishing)
- The Third
Millenium Bible (Deuel Publishing)
- The
Modern King James Version (Sovereign Grace
Publishers)
If you are
interested in doing further reading on this subject, I
recommend the following books:
- The King
James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills
- The Ecclesiastical
Text, TheodoreLetis
- The
Traditional Text, John William Burgon
- The Last
Twelve Verse of Mark, John William Burgon
- The
Revision Revised, John William
Burgon
