Westcott & Hort Versus the Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? (Part 3)
Image
Reprinted with permission from As I See It, which is available free by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com. Read Part 1 and Part 2.
Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original. Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original. Additionally, in a number of places, the textus receptus reading is found in a limited number of late manuscripts, with little or no support from ancient translations.
One of these readings is the famous I John 5:7. Such readings as these are also presumptively not original. And if one holds to the “majority rules” theory of textual criticism, i.e., whatever the reading found in a numerical majority of surviving Greek manuscripts is to be accepted as original, then the textus receptus falls short in the 1,838 readings where it does not follow the majority text.
Besides these shortcomings, others also apparently occur in a number of places where a perceived difficulty in the original reading was altered by scribes in the manuscript copying process. Probable examples of this include Mark 1:2 (changing “Isaiah the prophet” to “the prophets,” a change motivated by the fact that the quote which follows in 1:3 is from both Malachi and Isaiah), I Corinthians 6:20 (where the phrase “and in your Spirit which are God’s” seems to have been added after the original “in your body,” which is the subject under consideration in the preceding verses), Luke 2:33 (changing “his father and his mother” into “Joseph and his mother” to ‘safeguard’ the doctrine of the virgin birth), Romans 8:1, end (borrowing from verse 4, in two stages, the phrase “who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit”), Romans 13:9 (the insertion of one of the Ten Commandments to complete the listing), Colossians 1:14 (the borrowing of the phrase “through his blood” from Ephesians 1:7), etc.1
On the other hand, the defects of the Westcott-Hort text are also generally recognized, particularly its excessive reliance on manuscript B (Vaticanus), and to a lesser extent, Aleph (Sinaiticus). Hort declared the combined testimony of these two manuscripts to be all but a guarantee that a reading was original.2 All scholars today recognize this as being an extreme and unwarranted point of view. Manuscript B shows the same kinds of scribal errors found in all manuscripts, a fact to be recognized and such singular readings to be rejected, as in fact they sometimes were rejected by Westcott and Hort (e.g., at Matthew 6:33).
What shall we say then? Which text shall we choose as superior? We shall choose neither the Westcott-Hort text (or its modern kinsmen) nor the textus receptus (or the majority text) as our standard text, our text of last appeal. All these printed texts are compiled or edited texts, formed on the basis of the informed (or not-so-well-informed) opinions of fallible editors. Neither Erasmus nor Westcott and Hort (nor, need we say, any other text editor or group of editors) is omniscient or perfect in reasoning and judgment. Therefore, we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else.
Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading-by-reading basis, that is, in those places where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought considered, and only then a judgment made. (Years of doing this very thing have led me to conclude that the critical texts are very much closer to the precise original wording of the Greek New Testament than either the textus receptus, or the “majority text,” though with exceptions in readings here and there).
We do, or should do, this very thing in reading commentaries and theology books. We hear the evidence, consider the arguments, weigh the options, and then arrive at what we believe to be the honest truth. Can one be faulted for doing the same regarding the variants in the Greek New Testament? Our aim is to know precisely what the Apostles originally did write—this and nothing more, this and nothing else. And, frankly, just as there are times when we must honestly say, “I simply do not know for certain what this Bible verse or passage means,” there will be (and are) places in the Greek New Testament where the evidence is not clear cut,3 and the arguments of the various schools of thought do not distinctly favor one reading over another.
This means there will at times be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament. Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament,
Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable…. The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray.4
To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the beginning of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God’s providential preservation of His word, he writes,
We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man’s salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus5
Even advocates and defenders of the supremacy of the textus receptus over the Alexandrian text agree in this assessment. One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney. He wrote,
This received text contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers; for if it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS. or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact would be thereby expunged…. If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ’s proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance.6
These sober and sensible judgments stand in marked contrast to the almost manic hysteria found in the writings of some detractors of critical texts who write as though those texts were a Pandora’s Box of heresy. In truth, all text families are doctrinally orthodox. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be preferred to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion.
Note on additional resources
I have written and published research studies addressing specific questions regarding the effect of variations between printed Greek New Testaments and the issue of the doctrinal content of the New Testament. I affirm in each of these that in no respect is the doctrinal content of the New Testament altered, whether one follows the textus receptus, Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland or Hodges-Farstad. These include:
- “Do ‘Critical’ New Testament Greek Texts Subvert the Doctrine of Blood Atonement?” As I See It, 5:8, August 2002
- “Variant Readings and the Virgin Birth,” As I See It, 7:3, March 2004
- “Variant Readings and the Virgin Birth Once Again,” As I See It, 7:9, September 2004
- “I John 5:7: An Outline Study of the Evidence,” As I See It, 13:1, January 2010
Notes
1 Analysis of these and many other variant readings are thoroughly treated in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971).
2 he New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1881), vol. I, p. 557.
3 Even following rigidly the textual theory that “the majority rules” leaves a fair measure of doubt in a number of passages (especially in Revelation) where there is no numerical majority reading, the manuscripts exhibiting three or more variants, with none represented by 50% plus one (or more) of surviving witnesses. See the apparatus of Hodges & Farstad. And fleeing to the position, “I’ll just stick to the textus receptus,” doesn’t settle the matter, since the various t.r. editions differ widely among themselves—the Complutensian text—the first printed Greek New Testament—differing from the first Elzevir edition in 2,777 places, by Scrivener’s count (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, first edition, p. 293), and in more than 2,300 from Stephanus’ 1550 edition (p. 300); Stephanus’ 1550 edition in turn differs from the Elzevir 1633 edition (these two have long been considered the standard textus receptus editions) in 286 places (p.304).
4 J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, Va.: Gano, 1982 reprint of 1857 edition), pp. 24, 25.
5 Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: MacMillan and Co., 1901), p.271.
6 Robert L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” in Discussions by Robert L. Dabney: Theological and Evangelical, vol. I, edited by G. R. Vaughn (Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint of 1890 edition), pp. 351, 389. I quote Dabney, not because he is a recognized authority on this subject—indeed, this article, and the other in the same volume, “The Revised Version of the New Testament,” (pp. 391-9) are marred by astonishingly (even for that day) incomplete knowledge of the subject matter, as well as very defective logic and argumentation—but because he is sometimes quoted in the literature as a defender of the traditional text, as indeed he was.
Douglas K. Kutilek Bio
Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes KJVOism. He has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications.
- 268 views
[Bert Perry]…..a discussion of probably the central historically testable premiss of the KJVO movement;that other manuscripts were deliberately corrupted. That is, did anyone back in the apostolic/early church era ever write “so-and-so has been heavily editing the Gospel of John to remove the deity of Christ” and so on?
I’ve read a few KJVO books (Sorenson, Chick), and have yet to see such an argument. Ironically, the arguments presented (beyond being ad hominem) are mostly a kindergarten level version of the very textual criticism they claim to disparage.
Which is a long way of saying, I guess, that sometimes those who understand the manuscript evidence are handling KJVO advocates with kid gloves, much to the harm of people who are led astray by their nonsense arguments. It’s time to ask people flat out Are there any documents dating from the fifth century or before indicating that Origen or any of his followers deliberately altered New Testament manuscripts, or for that matter that they did any copy work at all?
If the answer is no, their argument can only be described as the “textual criticism” they disparage so heartily.
You’re basing your views of the KJVO position on Chick publications?
“I guess, that sometimes those who understand the manuscript evidence are handling KJVO advocates with kid gloves”
This is like Team “A” debating Team “B”. If you talk to Team “A” they will declare they are winning the debate and handling Team “B” with kid gloves. If you talk to Team “B” they will declare they are winning the debate and handling Team “A” with kid gloves.
[Craig] KJVOism would you lead you the opposite direction from Catholicism. The Catholic church teaches that the church member can’t even understand scripture. They need “the church” to interpret if for them Most didn’t even have a Bible. The KJVOist says each person can have a Bible in their hands and read and study if for themselves. I think today like the Catholic church too many believers depend on theologians to interpret scripture for them since they “know the Greek and Hebrew”.Actually, the two positions are more similar than you might think in the grand scheme of things because they both abandon the teachings of scripture in favor of the pronouncements of religious leaders.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Let’s get down to the crux of it. I’ll re-post a portion of my earlier post, and I beg somebody sympathetic to the KJVO side to interact with it. I know you’re there, and I know you have answers:
–––––––––––—
I preached from Eph 5:8-12 this past Sunday. Eph 5:9 reads thus; “(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;).” Depending on what Greek text you look at, there is a difference:
Scrivener’s 1881 TR: = ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ Πνεύματος …
SBL Greek NT = ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς …
Did Paul say “the fruit of the Spirit is …” or “the fruit of the light is … ?” The Pastor who preaches this text must decide. Even Calvin doubted the reading which kept “Spirit,” because he didn’t believe it fit the context of Eph 5:8.
My point isn’t to delve into the minutiae of Eph 5:9, but to point out that every Pastor who looks at the Greek faces these issues. Do I really just throw the SBL Greek NT away and keep Scrivener? Kutilek’s remark, above, seems pretty reasonable to me.
––––––––––-
What do the KJV guys say? I honestly want to know. Should I toss away my SBL Greek NT? In the 16th century, theologians recognized there was a discrepancy between the manuscripts on what Eph 5:9 said. It’s a fact. One printed and compiled text (TR) reads “Spirit.” The other (Critical) reads “light.” What do you do? Let’s get down to brass tacks and talk about something concrete here. I contend that Kutilek’s thesis makes sense - you try your best to determine what the correct reading is based on context, manuscript evidence, etc., and go with it. This is a case in point. I think the critical text is right - “light” fits better.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Craig, nope, not just Chick, though it ought to be noted that Chick does follow an interesting form of KJVO that insists that the Old Latin was the proper rendition of the NT instead of the TR. If I remember right, the origins of that theory were among the 7th Day Adventists, which raises interesting questions.
The operative point is that all of the KJVO materials I’ve seen seem to indicate that opposition to the Alexandrian text family binds the movement together, whether they hold to TR Rev. 1, TR 1881, Old Latin, and whatever. That opposition is, in turn, generally built on the differences between the texts respresented as if the Alexandrian text family had been deliberately corrupted, and as a rule the character of those involved (or not involved, as in the case of Arius) is impugned. (Arius, not Origen—my mistake)
Now I concede, and have experienced, the case of the “quiet” or “closet” KJVO pastor, and quite frankly I believe this is the most dangerous situation. When someone is open and waves a copy of Sorenson’s book in my face, I know what I’m in for and just walk right out the door. The closet KJVO guy reveals what he’s about over time, and in that time can do a tremendous amount of damage. The logical mistakes necessary to impugn the Alexandrian texts cannot help but affect other parts of his teaching and ministry.
For example, the guy who showed me Chick’s booklet also provided me Sorenson’s, not apparently cluing in that the two authors had a completely different Bibiology of the source texts—one favoring TR and another favoring Old Latin. He also replaced perfectly good NIVs in the church with not just KJVs, but KJVs without translator’s notes—in other words, deliberately obscuring what Tyler is pointing out, that there is no “perfect” translation.
And again, I’m not against those who love the KJV and prefer it in certain situations, as I am in that group. What I am against is the exclusion of other translations under the idea that their source texts are deliberately corrupted.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Craig]All I’m saying is 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us all scripture is given by inspiration of God and that this inspired scripture is profitable to me right now. How can the inspired scripture be profitable if it is not availabe to me right now. In the previous verse Timothy is said to have known the holy scriptures. Was he or a scribe or priest reading the original writings?
Okay you’ve added another layer to this discussion. Typically you hear that only the originals are inspired, but you classify both the autographs and original copies as inspired?
Nope. I meant the autographs.
I guess, that sometimes those who understand the manuscript evidence are handling KJVO advocates with kid gloves”
This is like Team “A” debating Team “B”. If you talk to Team “A” they will declare they are winning the debate and handling Team “B” with kid gloves. If you talk to Team “B” they will declare they are winning the debate and handling Team “A” with kid gloves.
Wrong again. What I’m getting at here is that the proper approach to the question of whether the Alexandrian manuscripts are corrupted hinges really on a simple, basic question; what evidence is there for this position? To expand the question, what contemporary documents indicate that Arius, Origen, whoever, not only had access to those writing copies of the Scriptures, but also persuaded them to deliberately corrupt them? If indeed Arius had desired to eliminate evidence of the deity of Christ from the Scriptures, why on earth do passages like John 1:1 appear in the Alexandrian texts?
To be blunt, I have yet to see any KJVO writings address these questions, let alone answer them. And yet it is the hinge on which the whole KJVO enterprise turns.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I am disappointed that nobody has anything to offer in response to my pitiful question. I know there are pro-KJV guys out there, or at least TR and Majority Text guys. I know you’re reading this. This could be a profitable discussion, where you explain your point of view so I could perhaps understand where you’re coming from. Let me help you:
- You’ve probably been Pastoring longer than me
- You probably have as much, or more, formal theological education than I do
- You’ve probably been a Christian longer than I have
- I’ve only done one year of Greek
Help me out:
- I want to know if I should delete the SBL Greek NT from my Logos library.
- I want to know if I should also delete the apparatus, which tells me that the Byzantine platform has the reading for “Spirit,” while the Westcott-Hort, Tregelles and NA28 editions support the reading for “light” in Eph 5:9.
- I want to know what you do with this evidence.
- Are these earlier manuscripts all corrupted somehow?
- If God led His church to preserve the majority readings throughout the years, then why are these older manuscripts being discovered in the past 150+ years? Are they tools of Satan? Has God slipped up somehow by letting His church accept these corrupted readings?
- Should we pretend they don’t exist? Do we discount them? Why or why not?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I am not a KJVO advocate in any sense that you mean, but let me say a few things in response to your questions.
- As for the SBL Greek NT in Logos, I use it as my primary Greek NT in LOGOS, NOT BECAUSE I think it is some superior Greek text, but because I think it has the best interface, look, and utility in Logos.
- I don’t think you should delete the apparatus.
- What to do with the evidence….well, evaluate it.
- Are earlier Greek manuscripts corrupted. That, to me, is a a great question. Scholars assume that older is better; Simpler is better; Less is better; etc. This bothers me. Despite reading several books and studying the issue, I still am not convinced that Aleph and B (and others like it) don’t represent a “corrupted” theology from the 4th century and perhaps earlier. Remember, when Athanasius (and others) stood up to defend the doctrine of trinity (well, establish it clearly), they were opposed by almost everyone…through most of the 300’s Arianism held sway. These manuscripts come from that time, and when you look at them a lot of Christological verses have words missing or changed… this bothers me. I’ll cut the thought off there for time’s sake.
- I appreciate this question Tyler, but a better one to me is, if Aleph and B (and its derivatives and extensions) are the better reading, why did God allow them to die out some time around 600 AD? For 1250 years they disappeared!
- See immediately above.
[Mark_Smith]
- Are earlier Greek manuscripts corrupted. That, to me, is a a great question. Scholars assume that older is better; Simpler is better; Less is better; etc.
FWIW, I think you are oversimplifying here. Older is better is not so much an assumption as a conclusion. It’s not just that scholars picked a presupposition out of a hat and decided to go with it. They made a conclusion based on the evidence. Obviously there is a certain amount of subjectivity in coming to any conclusion, but I would say that this one rests on a number of objective factors. However, I personally don’t think it is wrong to disagree with the conclusions or raise questions about it. Just think that to state the case the way you do here doesn’t really represent the position very well.
[Mark_Smith]
- I appreciate this question Tyler, but a better one to me is, if Aleph and B (and its derivatives and extensions) are the better reading, why did God allow them to die out some time around 600 AD? For 1250 years they disappeared!
God allowed the people of Israel to go some time without any copy of his revelation until it was discovered during Josiah’s renovation of the Temple. No reason he couldn’t do that again. However, it isn’t correct to say the mss disappeared, there is nothing in them that didn’t continue through the time period you mention. If the eclectic text view is correct (and I think it mostly is), the text grew increasingly corrupted over time. It’s not that anything was lost, its that extras were added in.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
That is why I didn’t just say “older is better”, I also said “simpler is better; shorter is better”. Textual critics will prefer Jesus over Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ over Lord Jesus Christ, etc. That is a very simple example.
Also, Don. Israel lost those OT books due to failure to follow the OT law and “spirit”. Are you suggesting that from 1517-1850 the church drifted into error?
To be clear, I am just trying to get some conversation going since it is obvious no KJVO supporter wanted to respond. I thought I would present some simple comments.
I used to be KJV/TRO but recognized its flawed foundation.
This comment brought back memories of my first encounter with the critical text view when I was in seminary.
Scholars assume that older is better; Simpler is better; Less is better; etc. This bothers me. Despite reading several books and studying the issue, I still am not convinced that Aleph and B (and others like it) don’t represent a “corrupted” theology from the 4th century and perhaps earlier.
While the reasoning is logical, it is not so absolute as to be a determiner of the “best” reading.
I always thought that the absence of the last verses of Mark from Sinaiticus looked like an erasure.
Meanwhile, I’m content that we each have the freedom to determine how we want to find what might be the original reading and that all of us get a little testy when someone tells us “that shouldn’t be in the Bible”.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Regarding that the claim that “older is better” is based on evidence, that’s simply not true. When you take a look at textual analysis, you don’t have the autographs, so what you are doing is analyzing the logical arguments. A younger text is judged to be better simply because it is likely that it will have fewer copy-writers between it and the autographs, and hence less opportunity for degradation. Same thing with a simpler text—take a look at most “living documents” as they get edited, added to…..they get really, really gross, which is why (e.g. the new version of ISO 9001) they eventually just decide to start from scratch.
Now it’s not a bad argument, but rather just that it’s a logical argument, not one that you can really back up with evidence. One counter-argument to the idea that older is better is that I’m told that the variations in the Alexandrian manuscripts may average out as “greater than” those of the Majority Text or those of the TR.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Mark_Smith]I am not a KJVO advocate in any sense that you mean, but let me say a few things in response to your questions.
[snip]
- Despite reading several books and studying the issue, I still am not convinced that Aleph and B (and others like it) don’t represent a “corrupted” theology from the 4th century and perhaps earlier. Remember, when Athanasius (and others) stood up to defend the doctrine of trinity (well, establish it clearly), they were opposed by almost everyone…through most of the 300’s Arianism held sway. These manuscripts come from that time, and when you look at them a lot of Christological verses have words missing or changed… this bothers me. I’ll cut the thought off there for time’s sake.
Mark, I get your point here, but let’s not forget that Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria. Alexandria, of course, is supposedly where the corrupt texts come from. I don’t think we can tie Arianism to the older Greek texts.
Discussion