In the second half of the 1800s, some textual critics were
wary of the momentum that was building in England
and the United States
in favor of a revision of the English Bible.
(Some individuals had already made new English translations – such as Living
Oracles and The
Book of the New Covenant – but they had little impact.) But the situation changed when the Revised
Version was published in 1881. Its New
Testament base-text reflected, for the most part, an abandonment of the
Byzantine Text (which generally has the support of most Greek manuscripts), and
an almost complete embrace of the Alexandrian Text, especially at points where
the Alexandrian Text is supported by two early manuscripts, Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus.
Meanwhile in America, defenders of the
traditional text – as reflected in the English King James Version – tended to
be suspicious of textual revisions, mainly for three reasons. I give them in no particular order: (1)
Some of the individuals calling for revision were doctrinally aberrant
(with Unitarian tendencies). (2) Much analysis still needed to be done upon
both already-known and newly discovered materials. (3) Future
discoveries of pertinent materials were likely to make revisions obsolete virtually
before the ink dried. (The short
lifespan of revisions was illustrated in Tischendorf’s eighth edition of the
Greek New Testament, following his encounter with Codex Sinaiticus, in which
Tischendorf changed the text in 3,505 places, compared to the seventh edition.)
But no one, generally speaking, was saying that
text-critical endeavors were not worthwhile.
No one opposed the Revised Version with more vigor than John Burgon, but
Burgon was not categorically opposed to revision. Burgon wrote (in Revision Revised, 1883, the following, in a footnote on p. 21:
“Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood
that we do not, by any means, claim perfection
for the Received Text. We entertain no
extravagant notions on this subject.
Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g., at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction. We do but insist (1) That it is an
incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or
Tregelles has produced : infinitely preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ of the
Revisionists. And, (2) That to be
improved, the Textus Receptus will
have to be revised on entirely different ‘principles’ from those which are just
now in fashion. Men must begin by
unlearning the German prejudices of
the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts.”
Notice Burgon’s statement that “the Textus Receptus needs
correction.” Burgon argued, though,
that much more work needed to be done on the text before such a revision could
be successfully undertaken: in paragraph
23 (p. xxix) of the Preface to Revision
Revised, Burgon stated, “After many years it might be found practicable to
put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received
Greek text.” Burgon also wrote (Revision
Revised, p. 20), “Nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except
on evidence which shall clearly
outweigh the evidence for retaining it.”
It is now 2022. Much
of the study and research that Burgon hoped would be undertaken – and more – has
been undertaken. The Byzantine Text has
been published, and is available to the public in the Robinson-Pierpont
Byzantine Textform and, with some differences, in Hodges & Farstad’s The Greek New Testament According to the
Majority Text.
Yet congregations have arisen in which the King
James Version’s base-text – the Textus
Receptus – is regarded as perfect and incapable of correction. The Textus
Receptus has even been treated as if it is immutable and authoritative by
“Confessional Bibliologists.” At least, I have never seen a “Confessional
Bibliologist” agree with Burgon that the Textus
Receptus needs correction, or say forthrightly that any reading anywhere in
the base-text of the KJV New Testament is not original.
Progress has been made since Burgon’s
time – but KJV-Onlyists have either not acknowledged it, or else regarded it as
unpalatable when served up on the same plate as the heavy pro-Alexandrian bias that
is on display in the Nestle-Aland and UBS compilations (the main base-text for
the NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NLT, and NRSV).
Some textual changes which impacted English Bibles in 1881 and more
recently (looking especially you, TNIV and NIV 2011) were steps backwards.
But today, let’s consider the points in the text of the Gospels where
definite progress has been made, away
from the compilations of the 1500s and early 1600s, toward the original text.
Specifically: look at these readings which are supported not
only by the Westcott-Hort compilation, and by the Nestle-Aland compilation, but
also by Hodges & Farstad’s Majority Text and by the Robinson-Pierpont
Byzantine Textform. In other words, look
at all the places in the text of the Gospels where the basis for what is read
in the KJV is NOT the majority
reading, and where the Textus Receptus
is not, and never has been, the “Antiochan line” that KJV-Onlyists routinely pretend that it is).
A very thorough list
of readings in the Textus Receptus that are not in the Majority Text has been
made available online by Michael Marlowe. Marlowe has presented detailed lists of such
readings found in Acts
1-14, Acts 15-28, Romans, First & Second Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First & Second
Thessalonians, First
& Second Timothy, Titus,
Philemon, Hebrews, James, First & Second Peter, First, Second, &
Third John, Jude, Revelation 1-11, and Revelation 12-22 (and he
has also made a collection of variations found in different
editions of the Textus Receptus that
were published in the 1500s).
Focusing on the Gospels, here are 100 readings
which everyone should acknowledge as improvements on the King James Version.
MATTHEW
4:18 – do not include the proper name “Jesus.”
5:27 – do not include “”by them of old time”
6:18 – do not include “openly”
7:2 – do not include “again”
8:5 – do not include the proper name “Jesus”
8:15 – replace “unto them” with “unto him”
8:23 – replace “a boat” with “the boat”
9:4 – replace “knowing” with “seeing”
9:36 – replace “weary” with “were harassed”
11:16 – read “others” instead of “fellows”
12:8 – do not include “even” after “Lord”
12:35 – omit “of the heart” after “treasure”
14:22 – replace “his disciples” with “the disciples”
14:22 – replace “a ship” with “the ship”
18:28 – replace “that” with “what”
18:29 – remove the word “all” at the end of the verse
19:9 – replace “except it be for fornication” with “except
for fornication”
20:21 – replace “the left” with “your left”
20:26 – replace “let him be your servant” with “must be your
servant”
24:17 – replace “any thing” with “things”
24:27 – remove the word “also”
25:44 – remove the word “him”
MARK
4:4 – remove “of the air”
4:9 – remove “unto them”
5:11 – replace “mountains” with “mountain”
6:15 – remove “or”
6:33 – replace “the people” with “they”
6:44 – remove “about”
7:3 – replace “oft” with “with the fist” or “ceremonially”
8:24 – add “I see them” between “I see men” and “as trees
walking”
8:31 – include “of the” before “scribes”
9:7 – remove “saying”
10:2 – remove “the”
10:14 – remove “and” after “Me”
10:28 – remove “Then”
10:29 – include “sake” after “gospel’s” at the end of the
verse
11:4 – replace “the” with “a”
12:20 – remove “Now” at the beginning of the verse
12:23 – remove “therefore”
12:32 – remove “God”
13:9 – replace “be brought” with “stand”
14:9 – include “And” at the beginning of the verse
15:3 – remove the words “but he answered nothing”
LUKE
2:21 – replace “the child” with “him”
2:22 – replace “her” with “their” (As far as I know, no
Greek manuscript made before the time of Erasmus which reads “her”)
3:2 – replace “priests” with “priest”
3:19 – replace “his brother Philip’s” with “his brother’s”
4:8 – remove “for” before “it is written”
5:30 – include “the” before “publicans” (or “tax
collectors”)
6:10 – replace “the man” with “him”
6:10 – remove “so”
6:26 – remove “unto you”
6:28 – remove “and” before “pray”
7:11 – replace “the day after” with “soon afterwards”
7:31 – remove “And the Lord said” at the beginning of the
verse
8:3 – replace “him” with “them”
8:34 – remove “went and”
8:51 – replace “James and John” with “John and James”
10:6 – replace “the son” with “a son”
10:12 – remove “But”
10:20 – remove “rather”
11:54 – remove “and”
12:56 – replace “of the sky and of the earth” with “of the
earth and of the sky”
13:15 – replacd “hypocrite” with “hypocrites’’
13:35 – remove “Verily”
16:25 – inclde “here” after “now”
17:6. Read “you have” instead of “you had”
17:9 – remove “him”
17:24 – remove “also”
19:23 – remove “the” before bank”
20:5 – remove “then” after “Why”
20:9 – remove “certain” before “man”
22:17 – remove “the” before “cup”
22:42 – . Read “willing to remove” instead of “willing,
remove”
22:45 – replace “his” with “the”
23:25 – remove “to them”
23:55 – remove “also”
JOHN
1:28 – replace “Bethabara” with “Bethany”
1:29 – replace “John” with “he”
1:39 – remove “for”
1:43 – remove “Jesus”
1:43 – add “Jesus”
2:22 – remove “unto them”
3:2 – remove “Jesus”
4:30 – remove “Then”
4:31 – remove “his”
6:24 – remove “also”
7:16 – include “Therefore” after “Jesus”
7:29 – remove “But”
7:33 – remove “unto them”
7:50 – remove “Jesus”
9:36 – include “And” before “Who”
10:16 – replace one fold” with “one flock”
13:25 – include “thus” after “lying”
14:23 – replace “words” with “word”
14:30 – remove “this”
16:3 – remove “unto you”
17:20 - replace “shall believe” with “believe”
20:29 – remove “Thomas”
Two non-original readings outside the Gospels may serve (as
representatives of a much larger number of readings) as examples of inaccuracies
in the Textus Receptus that impact translation. (1) In Philippians 4:3,
most manuscripts read Ναι
(“Yes”) instead of Και (“And”) at the beginning of this verse. (2) In
Colossians 1:6: most
manuscripts include the words καὶ αὐξανόμενον (“and growing”), a phrase which
would be vulnerable to accidental loss due to its occurrence between the words
καρποφορούμενον and καθως.
The original readings listed here all
have one thing in common: they are
doctrinally benign. Everyone interested
in maintaining the actual traditional text, and not a compilation marred by
non-original scribal inventions, should accept these God-given readings, and reject
the readings in the Textus Receptus that
were concocted by scribes. Whatever
rationale KJV-Onlyists have had to prefer the Textus Receptus – sentimentality, the influence of propaganda, stability
for stability’s sake, or whatever – should be outweighed by the rationale that
prefers God-given readings over readings (or absences) made by scribes. A thief does not become king by sitting on
the king’s throne, even if he sits there a long time.
