Source Texts Used by Bible Translators

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

Many people, including myself for years, assumed and trusted Christian Theologians in regard to Bible translation.  I assumed that different translations were from the same “original” texts.  It turns out, there are 2 primary source Greek texts used to translate Bibles.  

1. Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) – The Textus Receptus (TR) – The Received Text
   • 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. Very little difference exists between TR editions.
   • 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).
2. Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies (NA/UBS) – The Critical Text
   • There is another Greek text that comes out of the Alexandria.  This text is used by NA/UBS researchers.  Alexandria was a hot bed of unorthodoxy and changed scripture to support heresies including Arianism, which denies the deity of Christ.  Use of these texts influence NA/UBS researchers. In fact, these researchers might take text from multiple different fragments and piece together something unique.  Is there any wonder why the Critical Text is always changing?  Not only do they use the heretical Alexandrian source material, but NA/UBS will bring in any archeological find to then change their Greek source.  
   • 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.

The Alexandrian Codex Sinaiticus contains over 23,000 errors and corrections and yet critical‑text advocates rely on its 4th century origin for its credibility.

The Critical Text contains approximately 6,000 differences (many of which are quite substantial) with the Textus Receptus.

On the other hand, a comparison between TR editions yield only approximately 93 differences between the Stephanus 1550 and the Beza 1598. There are 7,957 verses in the King James New Testament and 7,709 NT  verses (1.3% difference) agree with the major Textus Receptus. The Received Text is reliable and consistent.

What is at stake

Critical Text researchers of the NA/UBS gleefully and eagerly are willing to change God’s word.  This runs against the Bible’s own claims that God’s Word does not change.  This runs against God preserving his word for his people.  Ultimately, Critical Text analysis will lead to atheism.  For, if you cannot trust God’s word, can your faith be sure?  This path to atheism is seen on the Biblical Unitarian website where we find use of Critical Text as evidence that the trinity does not exist, and worse.

Learn More:

Textus Receptus Bible Translations

Timeline of English Bible Translations (Copyright Gold-rush)

KJV Bibles

Trinitarian Bible Society

Why King James?