Two Greek New Testaments

Many theologians, seeking to calm the fears of church members, assert that there is only three percent of difference between the Greek manuscripts upon which the modern versions are based and those upon which the King James Version depends. Even if this estimate is correct, it means that the equivalent of 240 verses in the New Testament come under question. Very significant doctrinal changes could be accomplished by the perversion of such a large number of verses. Furthermore, should God’s children countenance any departure from the inspired writings? While many theologians, as we have noted, emphasize that only three percent of Scripture is in question, nevertheless, they are most tenacious in their defence of the modern versions. Indeed, their defence of these versions appears to extend beyond the matter of ease of understanding. After all, theologians in many instances have studied Greek and/or Hebrew. They themselves should have no trouble with a few archaic English words. Yet it is evident that the majority discard the King James Version, preferring one of the modern versions based upon the Greek manuscripts which contain numerous omissions and other errors. We could be forgiven for suspecting a hidden agenda.

There have been, from the earliest period of the Christian era, two competing Greek manuscripts. Before a sincere Bible student selects a Bible translation for daily use, it is imperative that he first examine which one of these two incompatible Greek manuscripts he finds to be the one which represents the original writings of the New Testament apostles, and then discover which translations are based upon this accurate Greek manuscript. Clearly, a translation from a faulty Greek manuscript can in no wise bring pure truth to God’s people.

The Greek manuscripts from which the King James Version of Scripture was translated, largely emanated from the Eastern Christian Church. When Constantinople, the headquarters of the Eastern Church, was overrun by the Ottoman Empire in 1453, many Greek scholars fled to the West, bringing with them priceless Greek manuscripts of Scripture. The Eastern Christian Church, particularly that located in Syria, had faithfully copied the manuscripts utilizing a technique similar to that used by the Jews in copying the Old Testament. In this technique, words and letters were counted and manuscripts checked to minimize the possibility of copyist errors.

So dedicated were the translators of the King James Version that they desired only the very best manuscripts, and eschewed those which have been tampered with in the West. The sound manuscripts represent over ninety-five percent of all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

The second category of the Greek manuscripts, from which the vast majority of modern translations have been made, consists of those from the Western Christian Church which had its centers of learning in Alexandria and Rome. The two most famous of these manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Two significant Bibles have been translated from these Western manuscripts. The first was the Latin Vulgate translated in the fourth century, and the second was the Jesuit translation of Scripture in 1582 known as the Douay Version.

It is significant that churches which remain close to the truth of God always preferred Bibles based upon the Eastern manuscripts; while those who did not regard biblical authority as final, preferred the Western manuscripts. Thus the church in Pella in Palestine, where Christians fled after the fall of Jerusalem, the Syrian church of Antioch, the Italic church of Northern Italy, the Gallic of Southern France, the Celtic church of Great Britain, and the Waldensians all had the Eastern manuscripts as the basis for their Bibles. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has always upheld the Western group of manuscripts. Such a situation should alert every loyal Christian to the need for a thorough examination of the Bible from which he is studying. Dr. Fuller has demonstrated the presence of the two contrasting categories of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Speaking of the production of the Douay translation, he states:

That the Western Christian church corrupted Scriptures cannot be doubted. Speaking of the pure Italic faith, Allix testified:

Origen also "corrected" Scripture. He stated:

It was Origen who taught Jerome, the editor of the Latin Vulgate translation of Scripture.

Because the Gnostics did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, we can see evidences of this doctrine in their corrupted New Testament manuscripts. Let us examine just one. One of the great affirmations of the divinity of Jesus Christ was stated in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy:

Virtually every modern translation, following the Western manuscripts corrupted by the Gnostics, delete the word God and substitute the word He in its place, thus concealing this powerful witness to Christ’s divinity. Let us examine three modern translations of this text as evidence.

That the English translators of the King James Version were not alone in adhering to the legitimate Eastern manuscripts may be seen from an examination of the translation of this text in a number of European languages:

William Tyndale had translated this passage in 1534 as

Clearly, the decision as to the stream of Greek manuscript in which to place one’s faith is a vital one.