MODERN BIBLES - the Dark Secret

Scholars who favour the newer translations have had a ready answer for this question, "Conflation." They've said that the King James text conflated or combined readings of the different "text types" or manuscript groupings. For example, if in a certain passage, one group of manuscripts reads "Peter walked by the sea," but another "John walked by the sea"; the manuscripts which form the basis of the Received Text merely combined the two, "Peter and John walked by the sea." This has been the standard explanation for the Received Text's greater length. But, as is now known, conflation cannot begin to offer any such explanation, and today textual scholars are reluctant to appeal to it.

Conflation is but one aspect of what is known as The Westcott and Hort Theory. Last century about the time when Darwin was trying to show how there could be a creation without a Creator, two Cambridge professors, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort built up an elaborate argument in favour of the shorter text and against the Received Text. Others before had laboured to the same end, but Westcott and Hort developed the various facets into a powerful and plausible argument. Their theory of the New Testament text has dominated the views of Bible translators this century. But what is so remarkable: its major tenets have been disproven or diminished by scholars and yet still appealed to by them. Textual Criticism has reached a blind alley with little left to argue the point. One thing has become obvious, they seem no more likely to return to the KJV type of text than an evolutionist whose theories have also been disproven would come back to the Genesis account of creation. Textual critics merely continue to cleave to, and attempt to rehabilitate the wreckage of the Westcott and Hort theory.

Opponents of the Authorized Version have had a very big task on their hands. They must explain the dominance and uniformity of the Traditional / KJV Text. About 90% of known manuscripts fall into this category, and they are strongly cohesive. Further, they must describe the means by which it "became longer."

Here then are the major points of the Westcott and Hort Theory:

To approach the Scriptures with anything less than the greatest reverence and respect is a reproach to its Author! God has committed Himself to His Book in its inspiration, preservation, and transmission. Textual scholars and translators who have not taken this into account have made a fatal error which reveals itself only too readily in the product.

Two: "Because of their age (mid fourth century), the primary basis of the Greek text is to be found in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts."

These two well preserved manuscripts contain most of the New Testament. Vaticanus has for centuries been in the Vatican library, while Sinaiticus, which was discovered last century in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, is on display at the British Museum. They exhibit the shorter text and are the chief reason for the new versions being shorter. They are corrupted by Adoptionism. They, with a few allies, constitute the main pillars of the modern Critical Greek Text. They are continually referred to in footnotes as the "oldest and best manuscripts." They are old but certainly not the best! Their great age and good condition can only point to disuse by the early church. How else could they be in such remarkably good condition? We have very little evidence of copies being made from them in subsequent centuries. The comparatively few manuscripts which also exhibit the shorter text frequently disagree with them in other particulars. In fact, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree between themselves over 3000 times in the four Gospels alone. The source of this shorter text seems certain to have been Alexandria, Egypt, and it did not spread and become an accepted text outside of that area. These two primary representatives of the Alexandrian Text remained in their places of disuse for the better part of the Christian era only to be retrieved last century to form the basis of the Modern Bibles.

Three: "Despite its numerical advantage, the Received or Byzantine Text (as it is called) is merely one of three or four competing text types."

This was the great "leveller" used by textual critics when faced with the overwhelming numbers of the Received Text. Rather than view manuscripts on a 90 to 10 ratio (that is 90 for the Received and 10 for the others), the Received Text was made merely one of several competing families. The others being said to be the Alexandrian, Western and possibly the Caesarean.

Now for a start, to divide ten percent of the remaining manuscripts among three textual groupings, shows how small each would be. Today it is admitted that because of their lack of uniformity the Western and Caesarean can no longer be regarded as text types. This leaves the Received and Alexandrian. And the Alexandrian is very small as the following shows

(1) There are 88 papyri fragments (2nd, 3rd centuries). Many are too fragmentary to show whether they support the longer or shorter text. Coming as they do from the Alexandria area we would expect them to support the latter. Scholars such as Fredrick Kenyon usually single out between nine and thirteen in support of the Alexandrian Text. But, as shown below, the papyri also supports the AV Text.

(2) There are 267 uncial or large-lettered manuscripts (4th-l0th centuries). Advocates of the Alexandrian Text claim support from only about nine.

(3) There are 2401 minuscule or small-lettered manuscripts (l0th-l6th centuries). Supporters of the shorter text are prepared to list only about twenty-two for their side. Thus the Alexandrian manuscripts comprise only a small fraction of those discovered. Further there is wide variation among them, far more so than the great mass of manuscripts which comprise the Received Text. We are actually being quite generous to give as many as 40 manuscripts to the Alexandrian side, for frequently they display the shorter text in only a portion of a manuscript. There is in fact only one cohesive text type:- that which underlies the King James Version. Most of what remains is total confusion! We are bound to ask: If the shorter Alexandrian Text used in the modern Bibles is the true one, why did the early church make so few and widely variant copies?

Four: "The numerical preponderance of the Received Text can be explained by a study of the genealogical descent of its manuscripts. If, for example, of ten manuscripts, nine agree against one, but the nine have a common original, the numerical advantage counts for nothing. It is merely one to one."

This was the classic argument W&H used to deny the Received Text any preference on the basis of numbers. The argument implies that many of the Received Text manuscripts are but copies of each other or of near ancestors. Surprisingly, W&H merely theorized at this point. They did not present actual data of parent-to-child and ancestral relationships between manuscripts. Research since W&H has shown that the great mass of Received Text manuscripts are not "mimeographed" copies; very few have a parent-child relationship. Instead they are individual representatives of lines of transmission which go deep into the past.

Five: "The Received Text is fuller due to conflation. It combined the variant readings of other competing text types (usually the Western and Alexandrian). Rather than choose between one or the other, both were used. Much of this took the form of an official revision sanctioned by the Byzantine Church, probably under the leadership of Lucian (died 311 A.D.) bishop of Antioch."

If this were true, then most of the underlined KJV passages in our lists— which have been omitted from the modern version—should in fact be combinations of material from existing text types. Yet a search of the Alexandrian and Western texts in these passages reveals that there is seldom enough material for the Received Text to make such a conflation. Thus, wherever the unique KJV readings came from, it most certainly was not from that source. This is clearly the reason why Westcott and Hort, who were long on theory but short on demonstration, presented only eight "examples" of conflation. And frankly, the eight are not very convincing. To make conflation the reason for the greater length of the KJVwould require virtually thousands of clear instances.

Coming to the second part of the argument, that this conflating was officially carried out around the year 300 A.D., history has left not the slightest trace. This historical blank has led modern scholars to speak of the "lengthening" of the Received Text in terms of a "process which occurred over a considerable time, possibly centuries." Yet how such a process—again unnoticed by history carried out by many scribes, over centuries, across a vast geographic area, could achieve the widespread uniformity so apparent in the Received Text manuscripts is beyond imagination.

Six: "The distinctive Received Text readings (i.e. those we have underlined in the lists) are not generally seen before 350 A.D. For the most part they are absent from the Greek manuscripts, Versions, and Scripture quotations of the Church Fathers."

For a full discussion see the author's "Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version."
But, to summarize, the following may be said:

Let it be pointed out first that to expect a manuscript to hold up under the copying process for 1650 years is of course to expect the impossible. It is abundantly clear that these few manuscripts endured precisely because they were not so used. Where are the copies? Further, coming as they do from Egypt, they had the benefit of being stored in a dry climate which greatly contributed to their preservation.

There is, however, clear evidence for the longer TR readings in these few very early relics. Harry A. Sturz in his book "The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism" strikes a devastating blow at arguments which seek to minimize the fact that distinctive Byzantine readings do appear in the early papyri. He lists 150 Received Text readings which though not supported by the early Alexandrian and Western manuscripts are read by the mass of later manuscripts and by the early papyri. He lists a further 170 TR readings which again run counter to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but in this case find support from the Western manuscripts. These also are supported in the early papyri. In fact Sturz demonstrates papyri support for a total of 839 readings which in varying degrees would be classed as "distinctly Byzantine." As the papyri are available for only 30% of the New Testament, existing evidence allows us to reasonably project that the story would be the same for the rest of the New Testament. What is especially remarkable about this is, the papyri come from that area where the Alexandrian / shorter text was prevalent. Nearly all of the 267 uncial manuscripts move strongly to the side of the AV Text, with the same being true of the minuscules.

One view of the origin of the Old Latin is that it was translated in Antioch, Syria, by missionaries to the West. Support for this view is demonstrated by the strong Syrian and Aramaic tendencies in the existing manuscripts. If this is the case then the Old Latin is associated with that city which was not only the missionary center in the Book of Acts, but also the place that history accords as the fountainhead of the Received Text.

The 65 or so existing manuscripts often disagree among themselves and are probably not very good reflections of the original Old Latin text. Those associated with North Africa show some strange additions as well as subtractions, whereas the manuscripts connected with Europe are generally favourable to the Received text. It is this African strain of the old Latin that is often termed "the Western text type." One thing is certain; the Old Latin whether European or African does not give much support to the Alexandrian / Modern Version text!

It is the branch of the Old Latin used in northern Italy that attracts our interest most, and establishes one of the crucial chapters in Bible transmission history. This version, known as the Itala, is associated with the Christians of the Vaudois — the valleys of northern Italy and southern France. These noble believers withstood every attempt of Rome to "bring them into the fold." From the days of Pope Sylvester (early 300's) unto the massacres of 1655, they were slaughtered, their name blackened, and their records destroyed; yet they remained true to the Scriptures. They are known by a number of names, but best as the Waldensians. Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a lineal descendant of the Old Latin Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in the Waldensian form, and is firmly in the Received Text tradition. The same can be said of other Bibles belonging to those groups who remained separate from Rome. Thus, in the Received Text we have the convergence of the Greek-speaking East and the non-catholic Latin-speaking West.

Coming now to the third primary version, the Syriac Peshitta, we have a curious case of textual history being rewritten. From the days of Westcott and Hort and the establishing of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the basis of the new Bibles, every attempt has been made to discredit all pre-350 A.D. evidence for the Received Text. This is nowhere more apparent than with the famous Syriac Peshitta.

The importance of this version and the church it came from cannot be overemphasized. The virtual centre of first century Christianity was Antioch in Syria. "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:20). Paul's great church planting ministries had their base in Antioch. Syrian Christianity had a close proximity and linkage with many of the churches that had received the inspired New Testament letters. The Syrian church had direct contact with the Apostles and writers of the Scriptures, therefore the Syrian version may have been written with direct access to the original autographs. Indeed, Bishop Ellicott in 1870 wrote, "It is no stretch of imagination to suppose that portions of the Peshitta might have been in the hands of St. John."

Now, in the years following 1870 the good bishop must have bit his tongue for so openly stating this commonly held view concerning the near apostolic age of the Peshitta. For in the movement to bring out a revised Bible, in which he himself played a leading role, the Peshitta posed a major stumbling block. Its manuscripts (now numbering over 259) are in line with the Received Text! Thus, practically by itself the Peshitta could undermine the entire Westcott and Hort superstructure. The answer was to take two other Syriac manuscripts (one discovered in 1842, the other in 1892) which differed from the Peshitta, and call them the "Old Syriac." The Peshitta was then made to be a revision of this so-called Old Syriac. To make the story complete, the Peshitta's date was moved back from 150 to about 425 A.D., with the "revision" being performed by a certain Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa in Syria.

Needless to say, there is not a trace in Syrian ecclesiastical history of such a thing happening. As Arthur Voobus writes "this kind of reconstruction of textual history is pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it" (Early Versions of the New Testament, Estonian Theological Society, 1954, see pp. 90-97). Further, the view is contrary to established facts of history. In Rabbula's day a massive split occurred in the Syrian Church. The opposing sides were known as the Nestorians and Monophysites (led by Rabbula). Yet, both sides regarded the Peshitta as their authoritative Bible. It is impossible to believe that the side bitterly opposed to Rabbula should at the same time embrace unanimously his "revision" of the Scriptures. Further, such a unanimous acceptance by both parties in the early 400's argues powerfully for the Peshitta's early origin.

Regarding the two sole manuscripts of the so-called Old Syrian text. They are not all that close to each other. One denies the virgin birth of Christ in Matthew 1:16. Nor do they lend particularly convincing support to the Alexandrian Text. In fact, they contain a significant number of Received Text readings. They are merely corrupted copies, all but ignored by the Syrian church, yet with the Received Text base still discernible.

The other European versions — the Gothic (350 A.D.), Armenian (early 400's), and Georgian (mid-400's) — follow the Received Text. Even the Ethiopic (400), despite its proximity to Egypt, is basically Received Text. Therefore, in the early versional history support for the Received Text, in contrast with the Alexandrian Text, is overwhelming.

3. The Scripture Quotations of the Early Church Writers

In this entire inquiry it cannot be overstressed that in early textual history the Received Text is most directly associated with those places that were either the senders or recipients of the original New Testament autographs, i.e. Antioch, Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia. While volumes of theological literature poured out of Alexandria, North Africa and Italy, very little is available for us prior to 350 from the eastern areas. Yet even with this disadvantage, the Received Text can be shown to prevail in the Alexandrian / Western writings.

Toward the end of last century John Burgon compiled an extensive index of Scripture quotations from the early Church Fathers. In mentioning Burgon we come to the man who so powerfully and eloquently fought against moves in England to replace the Received Text. Attempts have been made to discredit this good man's massive labours. It certainly cannot be done on the basis of his scholarship. After matriculating at Oxford with honours and taking his B.A. and M.A. there, he was to spend most of his adult life at that famous university. Burgon was Fellow of Oriel College, vicar of St. Mary's (the University Church) and Gresham Professor of Divinity. During his last twelve years he was Dean of Chichester. Unlike many of his contemporaries his was a "scholarship on fire." He believed and loved the Bible, and had a great zeal to defend it. While we cannot go along with his high churchmanship, we acknowledge him as a worthy champion of the Faith, and strongly urge the reading of his books.

Coming now to the index, Burgon cited 4,383 Scripture quotations from 76 writers who died before the year 400 A.D. Edward Miller carried on the work after Burgon's death and put the material in a tabulated form showing the times a Church Father witnesses for and against the Received Text. He found the Received Text had the greater support by 2,630 to 1,753 or 3 to 2. Keeping in mind the Alexandrian and Western localities of these 76 Fathers, we have here quite a strong majority for the Received Text. Had the quotations of the Eastern Fathers been available, all indications are that the support would have been quite overwhelming. But the above evidence shows clearly also that there was a struggle over the text of Scripture in those early centuries. But, there was a clear winner!

Miller concluded his research with the following challenge:

"As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and Aleph (i.e. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before our reader."

"In regard to my references to the Church Fathers, I am sure that if you examine the notes to my King James Defended and my Believing Bible Study? you will see that I have taken care to look up all the Burgon's references in the most modern editions available. During the years 1950-55, I spent many weeks at this task... In fact, the newer German editions of the Church Fathers differ little from those of the 17th and 18th centuries. Certainly not enough to affect Burgon's arguments." (Letter from Edward F Hills to Theodore P. Letis, February 15,1980, as quoted in Theodore P. Letis, "Edward Freer Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical text," unpublished M.T.S. Thesis, Emory University, 1987).

Such a view allowed Hort to treat the text of Scriptures as he would any other work of ancient literature (see point one). If he admitted that there had been a significant attack with fairly wide spread results then he would not (or only with greatest difficulty) have been able to introduce his other theories of genealogy, conflation, official revision, and text types. An unpredictable variable would have been introduced which these neatly packaged theories could not have handled. Textual Criticism approaches the history of the Bible much in the same way an evolutionist does the history of the planet: no direct reaction, no flood, all has been left to natural processes, no direct intervention of any kind!

In the face of widespread testimony of early Church Fathers to the contrary, it is hard to believe that Westcott and Hort were ever very serious about this point. But, the tenet had to be accepted if the rest of the theory was to have a chance of standing.

Tertullian of Carthage is typical of many early Fathers. He accused heretics of tampering with the Scriptures in order to gain support for their special views. Around the year 208 A.D. he urged these men to compare their copies with those in the cities where the Originals had been sent. Tertullian may actually be referring to the original autographs of the Epistles of Paul, but if not they were most certainly first generation copies.

"Run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read. Achaia is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia you have Philippi... and the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there come even into our hands the very authority of the apostles themselves."

We are faced with the most direct question. Is the longer or the shorter text the offspring of these attempts at corruption? Did the 100 year period when deliberate alteration took place produce the text which more fully presents the Names, Person, and Work of Christ or the one which tends to diminish them? Which would be more likely:- a believer adding to the Scriptures, or an enemy of the Faith deleting from the Scriptures? Which would be easier and less liable to immediate detection: adding words and phrases or removing them? Which could be more consistently and uniformly done? And which of these two kinds of text did believers through the centuries feel convinced to be the right one, and demonstrate their conviction by multiplying copies?

By now, you probably know the answer!

Eight: "The shorter reading is to be preferred. Corruption by addition is much more likely than corruption by omission."

This is clearly a case of devising a theory to fit the shorter Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. As with the other theories it has no real basis in fact. Regarding deliberate alteration, it is far easier to remove a word or passage and get away with it (for a while!), than to add material. And when there is no particular attempt to editorialize, constant copying will result in accidental omission far more often than accidental addition.

But apart from the omission of significant words and passages, the Modern Version Text is shorter in another kind of way. It is more terse and not as lucid as the Received Text. And here it betrays the secret that it is not the original text of the first century, but rather one that is altered and secondary.

In Biblical times there were two major kinds of Greek dialect: Classical or Attic (the dialect of Athens on the Attica Peninsula), and Hellenistic or Koine. Though terse and compact, Attic was considered the more "elegant" of the two. It was the language of the golden age of Greece, and was in vogue from about 480 to 323 B.C. After Alexander the Great, the more simple and explicit Koine (meaning common dialect) began to be spoken, and became the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean region until the fourth century A.D. when it was superseded by Byzantine Greek.

Importantly for us, Koine was the dialect of the New Testament. This is a remarkable evidence of God's providence. The Attic left too much to the imagination, whereas Koine with its greater fullness could be more precise. It was simple, lucid, plain, and full; yet without the affected pretense of the Attic.

As time passed there were attempts to return the Attic to its former place. The second century A.D. was known as the "century of Atticism" when many did revert back to the Attic brevity. And as it was an occasion for attack against the Scriptures that they were written in the less cultured Koine, a significant number of "Christian" scholars were caught up in this. As we might expect, signs point to Alexandria being the prime mover to bring the Scripture Text into line with the Attic dialect. The manuscripts associated with that locality, certainly beyond all others, favour the Attic-like terseness.

When Westcott and Hort convinced textual scholarship to revise the N.T. away from the Received Text and toward Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the implications of Attic and Koine Greek were not fully understood. Classical brevity was to them an attraction. Subsequent research has shown how wrong they were: the shorter, not the longer, is the altered text!

This then, with a few other arguments of a more secondary nature, is the Westcott and Hort (mainly Hort) theory which has resulted in the shorter New Testament of our day. These are the standard arguments against the Text of the King James Version. They are not fair. They are not honest. They do not deal with the actual facts of the case. Much of the argument was tailor-made by Fenton John Anthony Hort to support his own preconceived malice against the standard text. Ponder what he wrote to a friend in 1851 when only twenty-three years old:

"I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus... Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning intirely on late manuscripts; it is a blessing there are such early ones." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 1896, Vol 1, p.211).

Ernest Colwell wrote:

"The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort's work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus (Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, The Bible in Modern Scholarship, Abingdon, 1965, p. 370)

So, we have a very curious thing today, the shorter Alexandrian text is being circulated more widely than at any time in history largely through a "glorious failure"! The producers of the Modern Bibles have chosen it rather than the Received Text as their base. Now frankly, we can be thankful for this as it places the issues in sharper contrast. It may well be that God has prevented the text He has honoured and blessed from being the base of this endless succession of modern translations! Yet, in view of such a wholesale discrediting of their textual theory, what justification do they offer for continued use of the shorter text?

To a large extent we are now dealing with expediency rather than an honest evaluation of the evidence. The publishing houses have invested (and made!) huge sums in the Modern Versions. The NIV is now beginning to outsell the Authorized Version. Almost all of the world's Bible Societies use the shorter text for their foreign language translations. It is entrenched in practically all theological colleges.
And despite its proven fallacy there is simply not the will to upset the status quo. Nevertheless, they must be able to offer some reasonable justification for its use. They may merely try to repeat the old arguments, or raise some secondary points; but as far as factual evidence they have very little to offer for their case. Recently they have come up with an argument which does not offer any positive support for the shorter text but is more of a reaction against what they know only too well to be the considerable evidence for the text found in the vast majority of manuscripts.

Gordon D. Fee of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts has been at the forefront in seeking to dampen down popular support for the Received Text. He makes the following point:

"But the question still must be answered: How does one account for its dominance and general uniformity?... How did the Byzantine text become dominant?.. .The most important factor for the dominance and general uniformity of the Byzantine text... By the end of the seventh century the Greek NT was being transmitted in a very narrow sector of the church viz., the Greek Orthodox Church with its dominant patriarchate in Constantinople. By the time of Chalcedon (the famous council of 451 AD.) Greek is almost unknown in the west, and after Chalcedon the decline of Alexandria and the subsequent rise of Islam narrow Greek speaking Christendom still further." ("Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus Receptus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 1978, pp. 29, 30).

The argument is not valid:

• 1. At issue here is the shorter text of Alexandria, not that of the West generally. The argument tends to give an impression that the scarcity of Alexandrian manuscripts is due to Greek usage dying out in the West. Alexandria, of course, is not the West.

 
• 2. The Alexandrian Text is precisely what the term implies — the local text of Alexandria! There is little evidence that it spread beyond Egypt. It made no impact on the West or East, neither in Greek, Latin, or the other versional languages.

 
• 3. The Moslem conquest of Alexandria did not take place until A.D. 642. And though the Muslims restricted evangelism, they did not attempt to exterminate Christianity, or compel Christians to convert. Nor does there seem to be evidence that the Muslims halted manuscript transmission in the areas they conquered. Therefore, many centuries were available for the Alexandrian Text to proliferate and establish itself. But it did not! Not only did it fail to make an impression on the surrounding regions, but if surviving manuscripts are anything to go by, it also lost favour on its own home base. This is demonstrated by the fact that the very few manuscripts which display this kind of text often do so only in a portion of their contents. Also one of its two primary representatives, Sinaiticus, has hundreds of scribal alterations made at the time of its production which move back toward the Traditional Text by a five to two margin!

That this issue of missing words and passages is more than mere academic wrangling, but has in fact eternal implications is made plain by the Bible's final warning.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18, 19).