New Testament Source Documents

What follows is a layman’s explanation of the original texts used to translate God’s word.

Original autographs of scripture do not exist, we do not have the original penned or chiseled documents. We have faithfully preserved copies of New Testament Greek collections.  But wait, there are 3 sets of Greek collections for New Testament translators to pick from.  Here is an interesting question, if you were to read the Greek Bible, would you pick up a TR, MT, or NA Bible?

  1. The Critical Text  or Nestle-Aland (NA) is the basis for modern Bible translations such as the ESV, LSB, NIV, etc.  The Critical Text work was pioneered by Westcott and Hort around 1881, who speculated that the “pure” text of the New Testament had been lost.  Therefore, their work was based on a thesis of doubting the scripture we have in our hands. 
    • Proponents of the Critical Text – James White, Dan Wallace
  2. The Majority Text (MT) position is one where the priority for soucing the Greek comes form the majority of texts in possession.  This is gaining popularity in academic circles.  The TR and MT are close in alignment, though not the same.
    • Proponent of MT – Peter Guttey, Beyond the Basics
  3. The Textus Receptus (TR) is the basis for the King James Version, which maintains a very consistent Greek manuscript for translators since 1516.  Most in academia now look at the TR as old fashioned and out of date.  (But it is my position)
    • Proponent of the TR – Maurice Robbins – Byzantine TR

The good news. I recommend not getting bogged down in this academic food fight.  So far, the 3 versions of source text will lead you to the same Jesus.  Theologians throw lots of sand around over these translations.  If the ESV, LSB, or other orthodox translation is of your liking, use it and don’t look back.  If you are in a good church, your pastor will keep you between the ditches.  And these days, do the research yourself and make a decision you can stand on.

For me, since “Consensus Science” and “Academic Pursuits” of the last 200 years have given me the lie of monkeys to man and now androgyny; where the most learned among us say men can breastfeed, give me a good ole King James.  The KJV is not that hard to read and I don’t have to worry about Critical Text theologians changing God’s Word based on a 2,000 year old copy error that was found in a medieval trashcan.  The Received Text is God’s preserved word. To think otherwise is to cast doubt on whether we will ever have God’s Word in our hands.

Is it coincidence this scriptural doubt comes on the heels of the 1859 publication, “Origin of Species” by Darwin?  If we are going to doubt Genesis, why not doubt the whole of scripture.  Critical Text version NA29 is about to release. They consider texts and manuscripts found in recent history and integrate them as scripture based on estimates of the documents age.  Older texts have priority.  As you can see this is fraught with potential error as the age of a written document does not denote higher truth. Doctrine is settled, Christ is King.

If you want more, see Deep Dive below where Old Testament discussion is included.  But, be warned this rabbit hole is deep.

Lost in Translation

Once a scholar has the version of the 3 original texts to base their translation, or a combination thereof, the work of translation into the modern language begins.  Here again, we find food fights among theologians.  I want to use the Greek word Doulos as an example.  Doulos is translated from the Greek as Servant, Slave, or Bondervant according to Strong’s Lexicon 1401.  However, John McArthur, who we respect greatly, has taken exception to the use of servant or bondservant in translating Doulos and prefers the literal translation of slave in every occurrence.  He has written a book on the subject and was a leading contributor to the LSB Bible, which is one of the few Bibles that translates Doulos as slave in every instance. A criticism he leveled at the use of servant and bondservant by translators was because they feared how this would be received.  Humm, men, several of whom were burned at the stake, were afraid of public opinion over Doulos?  Hardly.

For sure, when the word slave is used, its context between modern slavery is not the same as OT slavery.  Did the KJV get it right 100% of the time?  Yes, for the time they were writing, the translation was right.  Today we might replace instances of servant with bond-servant.  These translators knew the term Doulos was literally slave and in context chose servant or bondservant, regardless of public opinion, in order to relay the English meaning.

My preference is something like bond-servant. When we think of slave today we think of man-stealing (punishable by death in the Law), forcing someone against their will into chattel slavery. Slavery in the Bible was never this way and was more like what we would call bond-slavery or indentured servitude.

This is a great example of why we should be in church.  As we read through scripture, preachers and teachers can help us understand the fullness of meaning in context.

Resources

Answers in Genesis – Bible History  

Answers in Genesis – 7 Compelling Evidences the Bible is True

Answers in Genesis – Bible Videos

Textus Receptus Bible Translations

Timeline of English Bible Translations (My personal timeline of Bible history, a work in progress)

KJV Bibles

Trinitarian Bible Society

Why King James?

Great article from CARM on the TR and MT

Scripture Texts Deep Dive – “Good Luck”

Old Testament

Masoretic Texts –  During the early Middle Ages, Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes worked on preserving the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). By the 15th century, many copies of the OT existed, but many were fragments. In 1524-5 Jacob Chayim, using money provided by Daniel Bomberg, collected as many manuscripts of the Old Testament as possible from around the world and collated them to produce the most complete Rabbinic Bible available. This work is known as the Rabbinic Bible of Jacob Chayim or Bomberg text and has become known as the “Textus Receptus of the OT“.

New Testament

Here is an 18,000 word article that explains the 3 positions of New Testament source documents.  Here are some excerpts from the article that are written from the perspective of favoring the Majority Text. (I favor the confessional position)

  1. The Reasoned Eclecticism theory created the modern Critical Text(NA28/UBS5), which is what most modern New Testaments are based on.  It uses a set of rules to create their text, but never got very far away from Westcott & Hort’s original 1881 work.  There remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in the Critical text, which is very unfortunate.  Its major weakness is outright dismissal of certain readings (without evidence), and that it’s based on essentially only two manuscripts of dubious quality.
  2. The Majority Text theory gives an extremely high weight to readings that are supported by the majority of manuscripts.  This results in a text that aligns extremely closely with the text the church has used since the 4th century, and it has changed very little in that time.  However, it completely ignores evidence from versional manuscripts (translations) and the early church fathers. 
  3. The Confessional Position maintains that God must have perfectly preserved the Bible “pure in all ages”…. the text they’ve chosen (the Textus Receptus) (is) actually a very good document, and it aligns well with the Majority Text. (Edited to remove bias statements of the Majority Text writer)

Resources for the 3 Positions

  1. Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies (NA/UBS) – The Critical Text
    • United Bible Societies – Founded in 1946 after WWII.  A worldwide network of Bible Societies operating in over 240 countries and territories to make sure that everyone who wants to can access and engage with the Bible.  UBS is interconfessional, serving and working with churches of all traditions and denominations.  On the American Bible Society website, they do sell KJV Bibles.
      • Princeton Theological Seminary textual critic Dr. Bruce Metzger, who is behind the Greek text used in translating the modern versions of the Bible distributed by UBS, writing to Dr. Kirt D. DiVietro testified that the text they founded their work on was that of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort speculated, with no evidence to support their idea, that the “pure” text of the New Testament had been lost and therefore the foundation of modern versions is based on scriptural doubt.  Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” remains a resource to the researchers editorial committee of UBS.  Worse, the UBS website points you to Sage Journals for their Bible Translator. Sage is all in on DEI, which should be a red flag to any Christian.  Look at Sage’s DEI pledge.
    • Nestle-Aland – The “Novum Testamentum Graece” is the basis for the scientific study and interpretation of the Greek New Testament worldwide. Its history dates back to 1898, when the German theologian and orientalist Eberhard Nestle summarized the then new scholarly text editions by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth.
      • On the NA webpage, it claims the TR is obsolete. An international and interconfessional editorial board is currently preparing the NA29th edition. It will bring many changes, especially in the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles. So, if you buy a Bible based on the NA29 Critical Text, the Bible you hold in your hands today may not be the word of God, according to the academic researchers.  Consensus does not lead to truth.  If it did, consensus science telling us men can breastfeed would make it so.
  2. The Majority Standard Bible.  Based on the Majority Text based predominately on the Byzantine Text.
  3. Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) – Founded in 1831.  Maintains a Textus Receptus (TR) – The Received Text position.
    • The TR is based on the Greek texts from the Byzantine Empire.  Erasmus published the TR in 1516.  This was refined by subsequent scholars leading to the Stephanus 1550 TR, as given in Beza’s 1598 TR edition, which became the main source for the translators of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible. 
    • TBS – The Trinitarian Bible Society maintains that the providentially preserved true and authentic text is to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts. In so doing, it follows the historic, orthodox Protestant position of acknowledging as Holy Scripture the Hebrew and Greek texts consistently accessible to and preserved among the people of God in all ages. These texts had remained in common use in different parts of the world for more than fifteen centuries and they faithfully represent the texts used in New Testament times. Use of the TR and Masoretic source texts makes translations consistent with the Reformation Confessions such as the Westminster (1647), the Savoy (1658), and the London Baptist (1689).

Why the TBS is not a fan of the New King James Version.  Thomas Nelson commissioned the work of the NKJV with employee Arthur Farstad as the General Editor.  Here is a summary of Farstad’s opinion of the TR:

  “Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favour the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation.” Dr. Arthur Farstad, (Chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee)

A big sticking point – The NKJV placed in the margins some readings which overthrow and undermine the authority of the Textus Receptus, represented in the body of the NKJV text.