Against KJV-Onlyism: Stop Usurping the Original Text

          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.      

         

 

The Role of Tradition in New Testament Textual Criticism

            Yesterday, Joshua Gibbs of the Talking Christianity podcast hosted a round-table discussion on the subject of the role of tradition in New Testament textual criticism, with guests Jeff Riddle (representing a Confessional Bibliologist approach), Peter Gurry (representing a Reasoned Eclectic app, and myself (representing an Equitable Eclectic approach).  A looong discussion commenced.  Here it is in two parts.  (At one point my internet connection died, but then it got better.)

Part One:

And Part Two: 

Sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy!

Here is the text of my closing statement:

          In closing, I’d like to briefly consider three different approaches to the role of tradition in the compilation of the text of the New Testament. 

          One view is to look at how much agreement there is, along all transmission-lines, and conclude, “Textual variants do not matter.  Everyone agrees that you’ve got the basics of the gospel if you use the Textus Receptus.  So let’s use that, for the sake of stability.” 

          Another approach is to focus on the disagreements.  A person might say, “This is very complicated, and we just can’t tell what the original readings are.  The safest course of action is to just go on using what the church has traditionally used.” 

          If one defines “the church” in terms of what emerged from the Reformation, that approach will provoke the adoption of the Textus Receptus.  If one defines “the church” in a wider sense, the traditional Greek text is the Byzantine Text.  Ecclesiastical approval is on its side.

          But both of those approaches are basically appeals to authority:  authority in the form of tradition.  And an appeal to authority is not the same as an appeal to evidence.  A reading is authoritative because it is original – not simply because it is thought to be original.  Except for scribal blunders, practically all major readings were thought to be original by somebody; that is why they are in the manuscripts.  It takes more than being accepted by someone to vindicate a reading.

          When dogmatic statements are used instead of arguments from evidence, it’s like saying, “We have been using mumpsimus, so mumpsimus is what should be said.”  But readings do not become authoritative by being used.  An original reading is authoritative at the point of its inspired creation.   And scribal corruptions are never authoritative, because they are not inspired – no matter how many people like them.       

          There is also a third view, in which someone says, “If ecclesiastical usage is what endows a reading with authority, then all readings are valid, because they all have at least a little bit of ecclesiastical usage in their favor,” and this provokes a temptation to clutter the margins with a multitude of textual variants.  Not only does this render the text more unstable than ever, inviting readers to pick and choose, but it is the exact opposite of what textual critics are supposed to do, which is, make decisions about textual contests. 

          I suggest that tradition does have a valid role, though, in certain cases:

          ● if two competing textual variants both have strong external support, and

          ● they convey two different messages, and

          ● neither is shown by internal considerations to be non-original, and

          ● one or both readings says something that is not confirmed in other passages,

that is a situation that merits a footnote. 

          But which reading goes into the text, and which one goes into the margin?  After those qualifications are met, there is something to be said for the principle that possession is nine-tenth of the law.   If one reading consistently dominates the other, in terms of widespread and longstanding use, then, instead of having a relatively brief Council of Bishops to break the tie, we have a very long Council of Use.  This approach might not resolve every case, but it will help keep textual instability to a minimum, without giving tradition the right to veto the original text.

Five Bad Reasons to Use the Textus Receptus

            The Nestle-Aland text of the Greek New Testament is over 95% Alexandrian at points where the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts meaningfully disagree (i.e., where they disagree in both form and meaning, not in mere matters of spelling and transpositions).  This means, among other things, that this modern critical text almost always adopts readings found in a small minority of manuscripts – the “oldest and best manuscripts” that the ESV’s footnotes refer to – and almost always rejects the readings in the vast majority of manuscripts, including the manuscripts upon which the New Testament in the King James Version (and other Reformation-era versions such as Tyndale’s version and the Geneva Bible) was based.

            This poses a problem for some individuals in the Reformed tradition, which in several creeds (such as the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith) affirms that the original Hebrew and Greek text of the books of the Bible have been, by God’s singular care and providence, “kept pure in all ages.”  The New Testament text that the formulators of this doctrinal statement had in mind was not theoretical:  it was in their hands, in the forms of the Textus Receptus which had been published up to that time.  The editions of the Textus Receptus that had been made by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza had some variations (at Romans 12:11 for example) – but not much. 

            It has been proposed that inasmuch as (a) the Greek text of the New Testament was kept pure in the age of the Reformation, as in all other ages, and (b) the Textus Receptus is pure, it follows that other forms of the text – especially in cases where the form of the text is so thoroughly changed as to mean something that the Textus Receptus does not mean – must be corrupt.  This logically leads to a rejection of the UBS/Nestle-Aland compilation.

            It also leads to a complete embrace of the Textus Receptus, minority-readings and all.  For those who believe that divine authority rests in the original text, and not in readings created by copyists, this is not a good idea.  Here are five reasons why a dogmatically-driven adherence to the Textus Receptus – Textus Receptus-Onlyism, one might say – should be avoided.

ONE:  God has promised to make every word and letter of the original text available to me. 

            There is no divine promise that God will make His exact written words perpetually available to His people on earth.  Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” in Matthew 24:35.  Peter likewise affirmed the words of Isaiah:  “The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever.”  And in Psalm 12:6, following the statement that the words of the Lord are pure words, Psalm 12:7 says, “You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.”  Specialists might argue that the text of Psalm 12:7 has been miscopied or mistranslated, and that the subject of Psalm 12:7 is not God’s words, but God’s people; this is why the NIV, CSB, et al translate the verse differently.  But even if were granted that God will preserve His words forever, why should anyone interpret this to mean anything except that God’s declarations, emanating from an unchanging and eternal God, do not change?

            Greater consideration should be given, when affirming that heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever, that the material which constitutes copies of the New Testament (whether papyrus, or parchment, or paper) is part of the earth which shall pass away.  But more pertinent to the subject at hand is the point that saying “I will always keep My word and I will never forget what I have said” is not the same as saying, “I will make sure all Christians have every word I revealed to the authors of the New Testament in the exact form in which it was first written down.”  The approach of “Confessional Bibliology,” however, seems to equate the two.

            Historically, there is no evidence that the exact words of the Gospels were ever copied with 100% accuracy in a single manuscript.  If we look at the early versions – the Old Latin, and the earliest known form of the Sahidic version, for example – and reconstruct their base-texts, we can see that they were different.  And if we look at the early papyri, we can observe that that they, too, often differ from one another.  Of course, it can be claimed that the early Sahidic version is corrupt because it was based on Greek manuscripts that were corrupt; it was not (the theory runs) descended from the manuscripts of Christians, but from the manuscripts of second-century heretics in Egypt.  So little is known of the state of Christianity in Egypt in the 100s that it is difficult to prove or disprove such a theory.  But let anyone select whatsoever early version of the Gospels, from whatsoever locale, and see if it agrees with the Textus Receptus in all respects.  He will find that it certainly does not.
            Likewise, if we survey all surviving manuscripts of the Gospels, do we find any which contain the exact words found in the Textus Receptus, 100%, without any deviation?  If very late manuscripts which were based on printed copies of the Textus Receptus are set aside, the answer is No.  There is simply no reason to posit that God has ever promised to make every letter of the original text of the New Testament perpetually available to the church on earth; nor is there evidence that God has actually done so, for if we were to collect half a dozen Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, from whatsoever ages and locales, and compare their texts, we would find some differences.

TWO.  If the Textus Receptus was good enough for the formulators of the Westminster Confession of Faith, it’s good enough for me.

            The discussions of text-critical issues in the Reformation period is often belittled nowadays, as if people in the 1500s and early 1600s had little awareness of controversies involving, for instance, the ending of the Gospel of Mark, or the story of the adulteress in John 7:53-8:11, or the doxology of the Lord’s model prayer in Matthew 6:13.  However, if one were to consider just the comments of one obscure writer of the day – the Roman Catholic scholar Nicholas Zegers – one would see that these textual contests, and many others, were carefully studied. 

            Such research did not suddenly cease when the Westminster Confession of Faith – or any other creed – was formulated and approved by leaders in the Protestant churches.  The Reformers’ belief that the text in their hands was pure did not spur them to stop accumulating evidence (in the form of manuscripts, patristic writings, etc.) that would potentially confirm or challenge specific readings in that text.  James Ussher (1581-1656), an important Protestant scholar of the time, does not seem to have regarded the readings of the Textus Receptus as irrevocable in all respects; as Peter Gurry has observed, Ussher wrote that when it comes to most textual contests, it is clear what the original reading was, but in the cases where  a decision is very difficult, one may maintain indecision without drawing into question any point of doctrine.  Here we may see the application of a less exact, but more realistic, understanding of what was meant by “pure” in the Protestant creeds’ statement about the Greek text:  the point was not that every textual question was settled, or that the Textus Receptus could not possibly resemble the original text more than it already did, but that the still-unsettled points in the Greek text of the New Testament (in which, in some editions, many textual variants were noted) in their hands did not pose any doctrinal danger.

John Mill's 1723 Greek New Testament
- with variant readings.

            In addition, it should be kept in mind that in the late 1500s and early 1600s, the main question about Biblical authority was the question of whether or not the Latin Vulgate should be considered authoritative.  The Council of Trent, in the mid-1500s, had advanced a position that the Vulgate was the “authentic” text, and that no one was to dare to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.  This was commonly understood by Roman Catholics to mean that if the time-honored Vulgate meant something different from the text found in Greek manuscripts, the proper conclusion is that the Greek text, not the Vulgate, should be considered defective.  The Protestant reaction against this decree involved the affirmation that the Roman Catholic magisterium does not have the authority to toss out original Greek readings in favor of non-original readings supported by the Latin text.  Roman Catholic scholars responded, in turn, that the Greek text cannot be trusted because – as the Preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament asserted – the Protestants’ compilations of the Greek text contained poorly attested readings, occasion retro-translations based on versional evidence, and even the compilers’ conjectures, and were “infinitely corrupted.”     

            The Protestant adoption of the Textus Receptus was primarily an answer to the larger question – Vulgate versus Greek – rather than an answer to the various smaller questions concerning variants in the Greek manuscripts.  When Protestant scholars such as Brian Walton, John Fell, John Mill, and Johann Bengel subsequently investigated textual variants, their conclusions were either scientifically accepted, or they were scientifically challenged; no one responded by saying, “What are you doing, heretic; it has all been settled by the Westminster Confession of Faith.”  The Protestant approach to the text has always been based on evidence, not on the decrees of ecclesiastical assemblies.

THREE.  The Textus Receptus always has the evidence on its side.

          Some modern versions of the New Testament, based primarily on the Alexandrian Text, have drawn many readings into question even though the readings are affirmed in ancient patristic compositions and are supported by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts.  This is true of Mark 16:9-20, which is included in over 99.5% of the existing Greek manuscripts of Mark; only two Greek manuscripts end the text of Mark at 16:8 followed by the closing subscription to the book “The end of the Gospel according to Mark,” and in both of those manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) there are anomalies which strongly indicate that their copyists were aware of the absent verses.  Why are the headings in the ESV and CSB about the ending of Mark so vague and imprecise?  Because if they said, “Two manuscripts from the 300s end the text at 16:8; over 1,600 manuscripts support the inclusion of verses 9-20, including Codices A, D, and W, and Irenaeus, around the year 180, specifically quoted Mark 16:19,” the note would not have the effect upon readers that the translation’s note-writers wanted it to have – that is, it would not induce readers to reject verses 9-20.

            Similarly, if the CSB’s footnote mentioned the age and quantity of manuscripts that support the inclusion of “and fasting” in Mark 9:29 – including Papyrus 45 from the 200s and over 99% of the Greek manuscripts – the CSB’s footnote would not have quite the same effect as its present footnote to Mark 9:29, which only mentions that “Other mss add and fasting.” 

            The frustration that some advocates of “Confessional Bibliology” feel, when they discover that the footnotes in the NIV, ESV, and CSB habitually spin the evidence so as to elicit a false impression which induces their readers to adopt an uninformed prejudice against readings in the Textus Receptus, is understandable. 

            However, while it is generally true that in Matthew-Jude, the reading that is found in the Textus Receptus has many more manuscripts in its favor than the alternate reading found in the Nestle-Aland compilation, this is not always the case.  To restate: although most of the time, an overwhelming quantity of manuscripts agrees with the reading in the Textus Receptus, there are some exceptions.  To re-restate:  the Textus Receptus contains some readings which are only supported by a small minority of Greek manuscripts, and some readings for which the Greek manuscript support is negligible, and even a small number of readings which have no Greek manuscript support.
            Consider, for example, the words, “‘It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me do?’  And the Lord said to him,” in Acts 9:5-6 in the KJV.  The late Bruce Metzger stated in his Textual Commentary on theGreek New Testament, “So far as is known, no Greek witness reads these words at this place; they have been taken from 26.14 and 22.10.”  Some claims that Metzger made have not aged well, but as far as I know, this one remains valid.  Erasmus added the passage known as Acts 9:5b-6a to correspond to the Vulgate, which supports their inclusion.  But if we answer the question, “Vulgate or Greek?” as the Reformers answered it, in favor of the text found in Greek manuscripts, then we should not claim that every part of Acts 9:5-6 as printed in the Textus Receptus is the original text of the passage.
            And consider the word κοινωνία (koinōnia) in Ephesians 3:9.  This word is in the Textus Receptus, and is rendered “fellowship” in the KJV.  But in the majority of Greek manuscripts, what we find is not the word κοινωνία.  The Byzantine Textform reads, instead, οἰκονομία (oikonomia), which means “dispensation” or “administration.”  Most manuscripts, whether Alexandrian or Byzantine, do not support κοινωνία; they support οἰκονομία.  Pickering’s reconstruction of family 35’s archetype has οἰκονομία in Ephesians 3:9.  Antoniades’ 1904 compilation of the ecclesiastical text has οἰκονομία in Ephesians 3:9.  It should not be difficult to see that the Textus Receptus contains a corruption at this point, and quoting the formulators of the Westminster Confession of Faith will not change that.
            More examples of minority-readings in the Textus Receptus could be considered; there are hundreds of them – in Matthew 7:2, Mark 4:18, Luke 7:31, etc., etc.  (A list of the many differences between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Textform is online.)  I do not mean to suggest that textual critics ought to adopt a policy of the-majority-of-manuscripts-is-always-right; nor am I proposing that there is no such thing as a minority reading for which a persuasive case for genuineness can be made.  What I am saying is that some ultra-minority-readings in the Textus Receptus demonstrate that it is capable of improvement as a representation of the original text.

FOUR.   Treating the Textus Receptus as if it is the original text resolves the question, “If God inspired the New Testament, why didn’t He preserve it?”.

          The advocates of “Confessional Bibliology” are not the only people who have asked such a question.  Bart Ehrman similarly asks, in Misquoting Jesus, “If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of Scripture, what would be the point if we don’t have the very words of scripture?”.  Instead of concluding, with the Confessional Bibliologists, that we must have all of the original text of the New Testament, and that the Textus Receptus is it, and instead of concluding, with Ehrman, that we don’t have all of the original text, and this somehow renders the extant text unreliable, I would start by asking another question in the “Why didn’t God do it like this” category:  why didn’t God ensure that everyone would interpret the New Testament the same way? 

            If we are to ask, “Why inspire the text without guaranteeing its preservation?”, why not also ask “Why preserve its form without preserving its meaning?”.  For it is indisputable that the meaning of a statement matters more than the form in which it is expressed.  So, if God inspired the New Testament text, why didn’t He guarantee that everyone’s interpretation of it would be identical?  If one is going to pose questions at the intersection of textual criticism and the motives of God, I think this is a much better question.  But people can easily see the answer:  it was not God’s will to compel all interpreters to form a specific interpretation.   Similarly, it was not God’s will to compel all copyists to write a specific text, exactly the same in all details.  God’s will for perfect performance in the task of copying and interpreting is no doubt real, but not at the expense of the autonomy of copyists and interpreters. 

            God values human liberty, to an extent.  And why would God deprive copyists of that liberty if He looked forward in history and foresaw that text-critical problems involving manuscripts used by the church would matter as little as they do?  Inasmuch as God always knows the future, why would He not entrust the ship consisting of His inspired words to a crew of fallible copyists, knowing that while the ship’s hull might many times be scratched, and that barnacles would become attached to it, the net effect of the journey upon the cargo would be benign?  This is not to say that there are not some manuscripts with wildly anomalous texts, such as Codex Bobbiensis and the Sinaitic Syriac, but these “stray cat” manuscripts have not had a consequential influence on the church’s text as a whole.

FIVE.  Using the Textus Receptus as my authoritative standard simplifies sermon preparation.

            No doubt, having an authoritative textual standard – any textual standard – simplifies sermon preparation.  The question is, how closely does that textual standard convey the meaning of the original text?  A preacher with confidence in the Textus Receptus may live in the same city as a preacher with confidence in the Sahidic version, and a preacher with confidence in the NIV may live nearby, next door to a preacher with confidence in the Peshitta.  Does their confidence resolve anything?  No; all that has happened is that we have gone from a situation in which manuscripts disagree to a situation in which preachers disagree.  The confidence of preachers does not make the textual questions go away.
            It is one thing to resort to accepting the text that one has received from one’s trusted elders when one is a novice.  It would be another thing to avoid learning about textual evidence and its implications for simplicity’s sake.  How will the textual contests ever be resolved, if every preacher is content to say, “I embrace the text that was handed down to me, and that is that”?   And which congregation is likely to be more confident that its preacher is sharing the Word of God:  the congregation of the preacher who engages the evidence, and develops the skill to make a scientific case for every textual variant that he endorses, or the congregation of the preacher who tells his flock that he is deliberately wearing blinders to avoid doing so?
            No doubt many occasions may come along when a busy preacher or isolated missionary is compelled by circumstances to utilize a New Testament passage without really taking the first proper step of all hermeneutics – confirming what the text is.  But this ought to be a last resort, not a goal. 

The Mumpsimus Mentality

           In the summer of 1516, Desiderius Erasmus, who had compiled the first published printed Greek New Testament earlier that year, wrote an interesting letter to his friend Henry Bullock.  In that letter, he described his frustration with some people who objected to his translational and text-critical work on the grounds that he was introducing changes to the Scriptures:

Erasmus of Rotterdam

           “Do they allow any changes in Holy Writ, or none at all?  If they allow any, why not examine in the first place whether it is right or no to make the change?  If they do not, what will they make of those passages in which the existence of a corruption is too obvious to be denied or overlooked?  Would they rather imitate on this point the mass-priest who refused to change the word mumpsimus which he had used for twenty years, when someone told him that sumpsimus was what he ought to say?  They burst out in horror crying, ‘O heavens, o earth!  This man is correcting the Gospels!’  But with how much more justice one would cry out upon the man who fills them with error, ‘Rank sacrilege!  This man corrupts the Gospels!”¹

            Mumpsimus and sumpsimus?   What do these words mean?  Erasmus was referring to the traditional Latin prayer which is offered by Roman Catholic priests near the end of the Eucharist-service; the relevant line goes, “Quod ore sumpsimus Domine pura mente capiamus,” meaning, “May what we have received with our mouth, O Lord, be received with purity of mind.”  The scene pictured by Erasmus (popularized, with some embellishment, by Richard Pace shortly thereafter) is one in which a priest was in the habit of saying this part of the prayer with the term “mumpsimus,” which is not the correct Latin word (and which, if not for Erasmus inventing it, would not be a real word at all), and when a learned visitor priest told him (correctly) that he ought to say “sumpsimus” instead, replied that he would not abandon the traditional “mumpsimus” in favor of the new-fangled “sumpsimus.”

             The term “mumpsimus” quickly became a designation for incorrect things – whether incorrect forms of words, or incorrect interpretations, or incorrect textual decisions – that some people prefer merely because, as far as the people who prefer them are concerned, they have been favored by tradition.  The term “mumpsimus” is found in statements by William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, Henry VIII, and Hugh Latimer; Latimer, in a sermon in 1553 (two years before his martyrdom), memorably said, “Some be so obstinate in their old mumpsimus that they cannot abide the true doctrine of God.”

            One could say nowadays that there are some who are so sure about their old textual mumpsimus – poorly attested readings that are perpetuated in the Textus Receptus – that they cannot abide the original text.  In the case of readings for which there is barely a whiff of Greek manuscript-support, and even less Greek patristic support, what is the reason to prefer such poorly attested readings, except a preference for what is traditional over and above what is true?  

            It has been said by some defenders of the King James Version and its base-text that the Textus Receptus represents the “Antiochan line” of reliable manuscripts, as opposed to the Alexandrian line, which is represented by fewer (but older) manuscripts.  But the Textus Receptus contains some readings which most manuscripts do not support.  Consider the following ten readings from the Gospel of Matthew which are in both the Byzantine, or “Antiochan” Text (representing a large majority of manuscripts) and the Nestle-Aland compilation (representing mainly the Alexandrian text), contrasted with the KJV’s base-text: 

                                                               

● Matthew 4:18:  Περιπατων δε (And walking). 

              KJV/TR:  Περιπατων δε ο Ιησους (And Jesus, walking).   

● Matthew 5:27:  ερρεθη (it was said). 

              KJV/TR:  ερρεθη τοις αρχαίος (it was said by them of old time).

● Matthew 6:18:  αποδώσει σοι (shall reward thee).

              KJV/TR:  αποδώσει σοι εν τω φανερω (shall reward thee openly).

● Matthew 7:2:  μετρηθήσεται υμιν (it shall be measured to you). 

KJV/TR:  αντιμετρηθήσεται υμιν (it shall be measured to you again).

● Matthew 8:5 – Εισεθόντι δε  (And when he had entered). 

KJV/TR:  Εισεθόντι δε τω Ιηοου (And when Jesus was entered).

● Matthew 8:15 – και διηκόνει αυτω (And she arose and ministered unto him.) 

KJV/TR:  και διηκόνει αυτοις (And she arose and ministered unto them.) 

● Matthew 9:36 – εσκυλμένοι (harassed). 

KJV/TR:  εκλελυμένοι (fainted).

● Matthew 12:35 – θησαυρου (treasure). 

KJV/TR:  θησαυρου της καρδίας (treasure of the heart).

● Matthew 18:29 – και αποδώσω σοι (and I will pay thee).

KJV/TR:  και πάντα αποδώσω σοι (and I will pay thee all).

● Matthew 25:44 – Τότε αποκριθήσονται και αυτοι (Then shall they also answer).

KJV/TR:  Τότε αποκριθήσονται αυτω και αυτοι (Then shall they also answer him).  

Other minority-readings are scattered through the rest of the New Testament in the Textus Receptus,² and are reflected in the KJV; here are some samples:

● Ephesians 3:9 – οικονομία (dispensation, or, administration).

KJV/TR:  κοινωνια (fellowship).

● Philippians 4:3 – Ναι ερωτω και σε (Yes, I entreat thee also).

KJV/TR:  Και ερωτω και σε (And I entreat thee also). 

● Colossians 1:6 – και εστιν καρποφορούμενον και αυξανόμενον (and is bringing forth fruit, and is growing).

KJV/TR:  και εστιν καρποφορούμενον (and is bringing forth fruit).

● First Timothy 5:4 – τουτο γάρ εστιν απόδεκτον ενώπιον του Θεου (For that is acceptable before God).

KJV/TR:  τουτο γάρ εστιν καλον και απόδεκτον ενώπιον του Θεου (For that is good and acceptable before God).

● Second Timothy 2:19 – το ονομα Κυρίου (the name of the Lord).

KJV/TR:  το ονομα Χριστου (the name of Christ).

● Hebrews 12:20 – λιθοβοληθήσεται (it shall be stoned)

              KJV/TR:  λιθοβοληθήσεται η βολιδι κατατοξευθήσεται (it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart)

● First John 5:7-8 – Οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν (For there are three that bear record, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree in one.)

KJV/TR:  Οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, και το αγιον πνευμα· και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν.  Και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω γη, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν.  (For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one).

● Revelation 22:19 – του ξύλου της ζωης (the tree of life).

KJV/TR:  του βίβλου της ζωης (the book of life).

In these 18 minority-readings, the causes of corruption in the Textus Receptus are usually not difficult to perceive: 

● Matthew 4:18:  Jesus’ name was added at the beginning of a lection.      

● Matthew 5:27:  Conformation to 5:21.

● Matthew 6:18:  Conformation to 6:4 and 6:6 (as read in the Byzantine Text).

● Matthew 7:2:  Harmonization to Luke 6:38.

● Matthew 8:5 – Jesus’ name was added at the beginning of a lection.

● Matthew 8:15 – Scribes were probably confused by an abbreviated word. 

● Matthew 9:36 – A quirk-reading, perhaps the result of Erasmus’ awareness of the reading in Codex Regius (L).

● Matthew 12:35 – Harmonization to Luke 6:45.  

● Matthew 18:29 – Conformation to 18:26.

● Matthew 25:44 – Conformation to 25:37.     

● Ephesians 3:9 – An exemplar was misread (or miswritten).

● Philippians 4:3 – An exemplar was misread (or miswritten).

● Colossians 1:6 – A parableptic error (-μενον, -μενον).

● First Timothy 5:4 – Harmonization to 2:3. 

● Second Timothy 2:19 – An interchange of sacred-name contractions; the more specific name was written to replace the less specific name.

● Hebrews 12:20 – An expansion to conform more precisely to a Septuagint-reading. 

● First John 5:7-8 – An expansion added (initially in an Old Latin transmission-line) as an allegorical interpretation of the three transposed witnesses “the water, the blood, and the spirit.”

● Revelation 22:19 – A result of Erasmus’ retro-translation of the last six verses of Revelation from a form of the Latin Vulgate.

                     

              The sense of all 18 of these readings has been perpetuated in English (and other languages) for hundreds of years, but that does not make them the original text that God inspired.  At every one of these 18 points, the Textus Receptus departs from the Byzantine Text, and simultaneously disagrees with the Alexandrian Text as well.  What may appear to be the “traditional” reading, from the perspective of an individual who knows the Scriptures primarily via the KJV, has the support (in these 18 places) of neither the most numerous manuscripts, nor the oldest manuscripts, nor the most widespread manuscripts, and internal considerations point toward an origin for each one that is elsewhere than in the autographs. 

              Since the Textus Receptus’ readings at these points are not original, they should not be considered authoritative.  There is no good reason to make the original text give up its seat to the creations of scribes.

              Nevertheless there are some individuals who insist that each and every word of the Textus Receptus must be original.  This is mainly because they have misinterpreted passages about the eternality and immutability of God’s Word as if those passages mean that every letter, and every part of a letter – every jot and tittle – must be available to the people of God, at all times.  After all – as Bart Ehrman and John MacArthur have said – why inspire the words without preserving them? 

              This approach has gained some momentum in parts of Reformed Protestantism.  Some individuals who subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith have pointed to its affirmations as if they express such a view – particularly the affirmation that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek “being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.”  Working from the premise that “kept pure” must mean “preserved exactly,” these individuals proceed to deduce that inasmuch as the formulators of the Westminster Confession of Faith used the Textus Receptus, the Textus Receptus should be regarded 100% as the original text. 

              Such an approach requires some rather acrobatic reasoning.  The formulators and past defenders of the Westminster Confession of Faith do not seem to have harbored objections against the practice of textual criticism; they seem to have acquiesced to the textual research undertaken by James Ussher, Francis Turretin, Gerardus Vossius, Brian Walton, John Lightfoot, Edward Pococke, Patrick Young, et al in the 1600s.  Certainly their predecessors in the 1500s did not object to the textual research that resulted in the different compilations that they used; even the Elzevirs in the 1620s and 1630s were still tweaking their Greek compilations (for example, in Mark 4:18 and Second Timothy 1:12).  And Benjamin Blayney was neither executed nor excommunicated when he undertook a mild revision of the KJV in 1769, in which dozens of textual changes were introduced.³

              Those who exaggerate and inflate the Westminster Confession’s statement that God has kept the text of Scripture “pure in all ages,” so as to insist that the Textus Receptus is indistinguishable from the original text in every detail, contort their creed and the Scriptures themselves, and ignore historical facts.  For where and when did a Greek manuscript contain a text identical to the Textus Receptus in all respects, with αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22, and with και ὁ ἐσόομενος in Revelation 16:5, and with the 18 minority-readings already listed?  If it were true that the Textus Receptus has been kept pure in all ages, completely unchanged, then the answer would be, “All the time in all places,” but our manuscripts say, “Nowhere and never.”  

              So-called Confessional Bibliology assumes that if a variant circulated in print in the 1500s and early 1600s, it must be authentic, and on that premise, many variants which are found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts are rejected by adherents of this approach, and are allowed to be usurped by scribal corruptions.

              Such an approach is fundamentally unsound.

              Consider geocentrism.  Some individuals not only believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but that the sun must revolve around the earth or else the Bible is not true.  Empirical evidence is superfluous to these individuals; Scripture, they say, decides the question.  But they are not truly being led by Scripture; they are misled by their flawed interpretations of Scripture.

              Confessional Bibliology is the textual equivalent of geocentrism.  Positing the idea of “verbal plenary preservation” by asserting that various passages in the Bible require one to believe that the Greek text of the New Testament has been preserved completely intact in its pristine form, they proceed to claim that the text has providentially been made available to the church in every age, and from there, they proceed to claim that the Textus Receptus must be the original text, dismissing observable evidence that forcefully shows that the Textus Receptus contains some scribal corruptions.    Regardless of how these individuals insist that they are defending God’s integrity, I have no doubt that if Erasmus could see them, he would undoubtedly declare that they are overly attached to their mumpsimus.   

_______________

Footnotes

1 – See Letter #456 on page 46 of The Correspondence of Erasmus, Letters 446 to 593, 1516 to 1517 (Volume 4), translated by R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson, and annotated by James K. McConica.  © University of Toronto Press, 1977. 

2 – Dr. Daniel Wallace has reported that he counted 1,838 differences between the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and the 1825 edition of the Textus Receptus.  A substantial number of these differences, however, consist of readings that are only discernible in printed editions of the text, and which would not be perceptible in manuscripts written in scriptio continua, and with contracted sacred names.  An even greater number of the differences counted by Wallace are incapable of having an impact on translation. 

3 – It should also be observed that many Reformed ministries, such as Ligonier Ministries and some members of The Gospel Coalition, presently promote the Westminster Confession of Faith and yet routinely use English versions with New Testament base-texts that reject hundreds of readings found in the Textus Receptus.  

Matthew 2:11 and the Westminster Confession of Faith

Mt. 2:11 in the 1611 KJV.

In Matthew 2:11, in the passage where the wise men visit Jesus and present their gold, frankincense, and myrrh, there is a difference between the early English Bibles of the 1500’s and the King James Version:

            William Tyndale made his English translation from a printed Greek compilation that had been made earlier by Desiderius Erasmus.  Since Erasmus’ Greek compilation had the word ευρον (euron) here, Tyndale’s English text said that the wise men found the child.
            The Coverdale Bible, in 1535, also stated that the wise men “found the chylde.”

            The Geneva Bible, in 1557, was also based on a Greek base-text with ευρον, so it also said that the wise men found the child.

            The King James (Authorized) Version of 1611 says that the wise men saw the young child.  This implies that ειδον (eidon) was in the KJV’s Greek base-text.

            Neither reading brings the veracity of the text into question (inasmuch as the wise men found and saw the young child Jesus), but the original form of the passage cannot consist of both readings.            

The textual contest is easy, since the support for ειδον is more ancient, more widespread, and more abundant.  Practically everyone accepts ειδον as the original reading:  it is in the  Byzantine Textform; it is in the 1904 Antoniades compilation; it is in Pickering’s family-35 text; it is in the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation. 

Although ευρον was printed in the 1500’s in Greek New Testaments compiled by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza (and this reading fits the Vulgate reading, invenerunt), it does not have strong Greek manuscript support. 

Lectionary 1599
supports "saw."

In minuscule 2 – a manuscript used by Erasmus in his initial compilation of the Greek New Testament – a page begins in Matthew 2:11 with the word ειδον.  It has ευρον written in the margin; the word is written in different ink than what was used for the main text; the word ειδον appears to have been underlined with the same ink in which the word in the margin was written. 

This little difference in the Greek base-texts and early printed English New Testaments of the Reformation era may shine some light on how subscribers to the Westminster Confession of Faith should interpret their creed’s statements about the preservation of Scripture – specifically, the part that states that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being inspired by God, have been, “by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.” 

A form of “Confessional Bibliology” has arisen which interprets the WCF’s reference to textual purity as a reference not only to the message of the text but to the exact form of the text, as if all text-critical questions are settled.  Since the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that the text has been kept pure in all ages, it is proposed that this means that the Textus Receptus must be upheld as the authoritative New Testament text and that this renders investigations of manuscripts and other textual evidence superfluous; the Textus Receptus is the text. 

GA 439:  One of

hundreds of Greek

MSS that support "saw."

But this variant in Matthew 2:11 shows that to an extent, there was no “the” Textus Receptus in the 1640’s, when the Westminster Confession of Faith was formulated.  There were multiple editions of the New Testament, and their contents varied in small details such as here in Matthew 2:11. 

How could anyone, reading editions of the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza with ευρον in Matthew 2:11, and the Authorized Version that echoes ειδον instead, say that both forms of the verse are pure?  By understanding “pure” as a reference to the general character of the text, and not to every little detail.

The author of the preface to the King James Version, The Translators to the Reader, seems to have had an idea something like that in mind when he wrote the following (slightly modernized): 

“We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”

(Before continuing, I interrupt to explain something:  by “our profession,” the author was referring to the translators’ profession of faith, as opposed to the Roman Catholicism.  The Rheims New Testament, which Roman Catholic scholars had translated from a Latin Vulgate base, had been translated in 1582, but the complete Bible (now known as the Douay-Rheims) had not been read by the author of the KJV’s preface at the time he wrote.  This is the context in which the reference to “profession” should be understood; it is not as if professional butchers and bakers were creating new Bible translations; nor is it as if the author meant that anything with the words “Holy Bible” on the cover is the Word of God; he meant that even the least-esteemed English Bible produced by Protestants, at the time he wrote, was the Word of God.)  

A few sentences later the preface-writer continued:     

“A man may be called comely and lovely, though he has some warts upon his hand, and not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.  There is no reason therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.”

Codex K supports "saw" in Mt. 2:11,
with a spelling-related variant.

Now if a person were to say that regardless of whether an English Bible says “found” or “saw” in Matthew 2:11, it is the Word of God – and the preface-writer affirms this to be the case – then the speaker would have to be referring to the general character of the text, and not its exact form.  Both forms of the text are pure to the extent that neither one teaches an error, even though one of them must be the textual equivalent of a scar left from an injury received from an inattentive or undisciplined copyist. 

The claims of some “Confessional Bibliologists” to the effect that subscribers to the Westminster Confession of Faith are obligated to use the Textus Receptus are therefore not well-grounded.  For although it is convenient to appeal to a “settled” text, the Textus Receptus itself was not 100% settled throughout the 1500s and early 1600s.  Not only in Matthew 2:11, but in some other passages, too, there are variations in the exact form of the Greek text used in that period. 

Minuscule 700, a Gospels-MS
with many unusual readings,
supports "saw" in Mt. 2:11.

Thus, assuming that the formulators of the Westminster Confession wrote from a sufficiently informed position – that they knew about differences in printed editions of the Textus Receptus and about the differences in the English versions based upon it – it seems precarious, presumptive, and arbitrary to assume that they intended for their words to strictly refer to one and only one edition of the Greek text.  Adherents to the Westminster Confession of Faith might feel obligated to refuse to accept Greek variants which convey a meaning opposed to that of the reading of the vast majority of Greek manuscripts – but there are not many such variants.