The English used in the King James Bible  is not exactly like the common English spoken in daily conversations in 1611. While the KJV was written in Early Modern English, which was the standard form of English at the time, it has some distinctive features that set it apart from the everyday English of the period.

The translators of the KJV, who were a group of scholars and theologians, intentionally used a more formal, elevated, and poetic style of English to convey the sacred and authoritative nature of the biblical text. This style, often referred to as “Biblical English,” was influenced by various factors, including:

– Latin and Greek: The translators were familiar with the original languages of the Bible  and often incorporated Latin and Greek words and phrases into their English translations.

– Poetic and literary traditions: The KJV translators drew on the poetic and literary traditions of the English Renaissance, which emphasized grandeur, elegance, and complex syntax.

– Archaisms and poetic flourishes: The translators intentionally used archaic words, phrases, and grammatical constructions to create a sense of timelessness and authority.

As a result, the English used in the KJV is often more formal, complex, and ornate than the everyday English of 1611. It features characteristics such as:

* Thou and thee  as the second-person singular pronouns

* Verily and behold as adverbs

* Thus and wherefore as conjunctions

* Poetic metaphors and similes

* Complex sentence structures and inversions

While the KJV’s language may seem unique and even antiquated to modern readers, it was not entirely unfamiliar to the English-speaking population of 1611. The language of the KJV was still comprehensible to educated readers and listeners, and it was intended to be read aloud in churches and homes.

However, it’s worth noting that the everyday English of 1611 was likely more colloquial, straightforward, and simple than the language used in the KJV. The KJV’s language was, in a sense, a stylized and elevated form of English, designed to convey the gravity, majesty, and spiritual significance of the biblical text.

So rather than dumbing down the English, let’s keep it elevated, yet accessible, for the modern reader. One resource I recommend is the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, available on numerous apps and in print.

Introduction: The Battle for the Bible’s Text

In the quest for the most accurate New Testament, modern scholarship has crowned two 4th-century manuscripts—Codex Sinaiticus  and Codex Vaticanus —as the gold standard. These Alexandrian texts underpin critical editions like Nestle-Aland 28th edition  and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament , which form the basis for translations like the NIV, ESV, and NASB. Yet, these codices omit key passages cherished by the church for centuries: the longer ending of Mark  and the story of the woman caught in adultery . 

This blog argues that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not representative of the earliest or best manuscripts. Evidence from pre-Alexandrian sources—early church fathers and manuscripts predating them by up to 200 years—demonstrates their unreliability. Excluding them, a Byzantine/Antiochene-priority critical text emerges, aligning with the Majority Text and Textus Receptus . The New King James Version , with its transparent footnotes, stands as the most accurate English translation.

The Problem with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Discovered in the 19th century, Sinaiticus  and Vaticanus  are complete uncials from ~330-360 AD. Scholars prioritize them due to age and “neutral” Alexandrian text-type. But omissions raise red flags:

– Mark 16:9-20: Ends abruptly at v. 8 in א/B. Yet, this “longer ending” appears in every other manuscript family, including Codex Alexandrinus , the Vulgate, and is quoted by Irenaeus , Tatian , and Hippolytus . Jerome  knew Greek mss. with it during his Vulgate translation .

– John 7:53-8:11 : Absent in א/B. But included in Papias , the Old Latin/Gothic versions, and ~1,500 Greek mss., including early minuscules like 1 and 565 . Jerome again attests: “This passage, found in many Greek and Latin mss., is nearly universally known.”

These aren’t isolated. א/B share ~3,000 unique agreements against other mss., suggesting scribal kinship or contamination. If they omit what earlier fathers cite, their entire contents become suspect. As Zane Hodges notes, “Two mss. cannot represent 100% of the textual tradition.”

Pre-Alexandrian Evidence Favors Byzantine Readings

Byzantine manuscripts  form 94% of the Greek tradition. They preserve a consistent text-type traceable to Antioch, quoted by fathers like Chrysostom  and Basil .

– Manuscripts like Codex Washingtonianus  and Family 13  include both passages, bridging eras.

– Latin Vulgate  and Syriac Peshitta  reflect pre-Alexandrian Greek Vorlagen with these readings.

Church fathers predate א/B:

– Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19.

– Justin Martyr  alludes to the adulteress.

– Didymus the Blind  cites John 8:12 from it.

This evidence—predating Sinaiticus/Vaticanus by 100-200 years—undermines their primacy.

What a Pure Byzantine Critical Text Looks Like

Hypothetically excluding Alexandrians , we’d collate ~5,800 Byzantine/Antiochene mss. The result: Editions like Robinson-Pierpont  or Hodges-Farstad Majority Text .

Key restorations:

– Acts 8:37: Eunuch’s confession: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In all Byz.; absent in א/B.

– 1 John 5:7-8 : “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Late Byz./Vulgate; echoes Cyprian .

| Passage | Byzantine Reading | Alexandrian Omission | Patristic Support |

|———|——————-|———————-|——————-|

| Mk 16:9-20 | Full resurrection appearances | Ends at v. 8 | Irenaeus, Tatian |

| Jn 7:53-8:11 | Adulteress forgiven | Absent | Papias, Jerome |

| Acts 8:37 | Baptismal creed | Absent | Irenaeus  |

| 1 Jn 5:7 | Trinity explicit | Spirit/water/blood only | Cyprian, Augustine |

Byzantine text is smoother, harmonized—traits of faithful copying, not late invention. Maurice Robinson’s weighted collation confirms stability.

Scholarly Debate: Objectivity Over Bias

Alexandrian advocates  claim Byz. is “vulgar” expansion. But:

– No evidence of widespread expansion; Byz. predates many “early” papyri in tradition.

– Patristic citations favor Byz. 80-90%.

– Quantitative analysis: Byz. has fewer singular readings.

Critically, establishment prioritizes two mss. over thousands—echoing Lachmann’s 19th-c. error. Byzantine priority restores balance.

The NKJV: Pinnacle of Accuracy

Enter the New King James Version . Footnotes make it ideal:

– TR Base: Includes all Byzantine readings.

– Transparency: Brackets variants ; notes “NU  omits.”

– Sample : “Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, **** ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'”  

  * NU omits v. 37.*

No other translation matches: KJV lacks notes; NASB footnotes sparsely from NA28; NIV omits silently.

| Translation | Variants Handled | Byzantine Base | Scholarly Footnotes |

|————-|——————|—————-|———————|

| NKJV | Footnotes + brackets | Yes  | Excellent  |

| KJV | None | Yes | None |

| NASB | Footnotes | No | Limited |

| NIV | Minimal | No | Rare |

NKJV empowers readers: Judge Sinaiticus/Vaticanus yourself.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Apostolic Text

Rejecting Alexandrians isn’t obscurantism—it’s fidelity to evidence. Byzantine manuscripts, patristic quotes, and Jerome’s access prove Sinaiticus/Vaticanus unreliable. A Byzantine critical text restores the full Gospel. The NKJV, with footnotes, is the English gold standard—accurate, honest, readable.

Download the NKJV, check the footnotes, and see the difference. The church deserves no less.

— bibliography

: Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament , 305-306.

: Ibid., 306-308.

: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.5; Tatian, Diatessaron .

: Jerome, Letters 120.3; cf. Ad Hedibiam on Mark 16.

: Zane C. Hodges & Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text , 324.

: Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17.

: H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies , 420+ agreements.

: Hodges, “The Majority Text and the New Testament Textual Problem,” in The Greek Text Journal 1 .

: Robinson & Pierpont, The New Testament in the Byzantine Stream , stats p. xii.

: Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised , 217-218.

: Syriac Curetonian  includes Jn 8.

: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.10.5.

: Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 88, 100-106.

: Didymus, Commentary on John.

: Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Byzantine Stream .

: All Byz. mss.; cf. Ethiopic version.

: Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae 6 .

: John William Burgon, The Traditional Text .

: Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority” .

: Metzger, Textual Commentary .

: Colwell, “The Majority Text vs. the Original Text,” BibSac .

: Fredrick H.A. Scrivener, Adversaria Critica Sacra .

: Hodges-Farstad, intro.

: K. Lachmann, Novum Testamentum Graece .

: NKJV Preface ; compare apparatuses.

The Reliability of New Testament Manuscripts: A Reexamination of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

When it comes to determining the reliability of New Testament manuscripts, many scholars and theologians rely heavily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are often considered the most authoritative and reliable due to their age, with the Sinaiticus dating back to the 4th century and the Vaticanus to the 4th or 5th century. However, a closer examination of the manuscript evidence reveals that these two codices may not be as reliable as previously thought.

One often overlooked aspect of New Testament manuscript history is the Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the 4th century. The Vulgate was translated from Greek manuscripts that were contemporary with, or even older than, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. While the Vulgate should not be used to determine specific word choices, its significance lies in the fact that it contains the full ending of the Gospel of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John. These passages are significant because they are not found in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, leading some to question the reliability of these two manuscripts.

The presence of these passages in the Vulgate, combined with the testimony of the apostolic fathers and over 1400 manuscripts that contain these passages, raises serious doubts about the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If these two manuscripts are truly the most reliable and oldest, why do they not contain these passages? The fact that the Vulgate, which was translated from earlier Greek manuscripts, contains these passages suggests that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may have been altered or edited at some point in their history.

The implications of this are significant. If the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not as reliable as previously thought, then translations that rely heavily on these manuscripts, such as the NIV and ESV, may not be entirely trustworthy. In fact, the use of these manuscripts as the primary basis for translation may have led to the omission of important passages and the alteration of the original text.

A More Nuanced Understanding of Manuscript History

The manuscript history of the New Testament is complex and multifaceted. While the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are important manuscripts, they should not be relied upon as the sole basis for determining the reliability of the New Testament text. The Latin Vulgate, apostolic fathers, and the vast array of manuscripts that contain the disputed passages all contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the manuscript history.

In conclusion, the reliability of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus has been overstated, and translations that rely heavily on these manuscripts may not be entirely trustworthy. A more careful examination of the manuscript evidence, including the Latin Vulgate and the testimony of the apostolic fathers, reveals a more complex and nuanced picture of the New Testament text. As we continue to study and translate the Bible, it is essential that we approach the manuscript evidence with a critical and nuanced perspective, recognizing the limitations and potential biases of individual manuscripts.

The Bottom Line

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, while important manuscripts, are not the only authority on the New Testament text. The Latin Vulgate, apostolic fathers, and the vast array of manuscripts that contain the disputed passages all contribute to a more complete understanding of the manuscript history. Translations that rely heavily on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, such as the NIV and ESV, may not be entirely trustworthy and should be used with caution. As we continue to study and translate the Bible, it is essential that we approach the manuscript evidence with a critical and nuanced perspective.

When it comes to the textual criticism of the New Testament, the debate between the Byzantine and Alexandrian text families remains one of the most significant in biblical scholarship. Advocates for the Byzantine text family (commonly represented by the Textus Receptus) argue for its reliability based on factors such as manuscript count, historical usage, and doctrinal consistency. This post will explore these arguments and present a case for the Byzantine text family as a more reliable source for biblical texts compared to its Alexandrian counterpart.

The Numerical Superiority of Byzantine Manuscripts

One of the most compelling arguments for the Byzantine text family is the sheer number of surviving manuscripts. The Byzantine tradition boasts approximately 5,000 manuscripts written in Greek, significantly more than the Alexandrian family, which has around 1,500. This higher manuscript count suggests that the Byzantine texts were more widely used and accepted in the early Christian world, indicating a broader ecclesiastical endorsement. The proliferation of Byzantine manuscripts in various regions demonstrates that these texts were not only popular but were also deemed reliable by early church communities.

Contradictions Between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Key manuscripts of the Alexandrian text family include Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both of which date back to the 4th century and are often championed for their age. However, a closer examination reveals significant contradictions between them, which raises questions about their reliability. For instance, discrepancies occur in the Gospels, affecting both textual integrity and doctrinal clarity. While earlier manuscripts can provide insight into the text’s origins, their limited use in early Christian practices could point to a lack of consensus around their reliability.

Historical Context of Heresies in Alexandria

The Alexandrian school is historically linked to various heretical movements, such as Arianism and Gnosticism. These doctrines gained traction among early Christians, which led to theological disputes and schisms within the church. The presence of these heresies in an area reputed for producing Alexandrian texts can lend credence to the argument that the biblical texts originating from this tradition may have been more susceptible to theological bias and alteration. In contrast, the Byzantine tradition maintained a more consistently orthodox trajectory and a unified doctrinal stance across its manuscripts.

The Influence of the Byzantine Text on English and Spanish Translations

The Byzantine text family’s influence is not just restricted to scholarly debates; it has had a profound impact on biblical translations. Many essential translations for English-speaking Christians trace their roots to Byzantine manuscripts or the Textus Receptus. This includes:

1. King James Version (KJV) – Published in 1611, one of the most widely read translations based on the Textus Receptus.

2. New King James Version (NKJV) – A modern update of the KJV that retains the Byzantine text foundation.

3. Modern English Version (MEV) – Another contemporary translation based on the Textus Receptus.

In Spanish, the Reina-Valera translation (first published in 1569) relies on the Byzantine text, preserving many of its features and readings. This text has been vital for Spanish-speaking Protestant communities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Byzantine text family’s numerical superiority, the contradictions present in Alexandrian manuscripts, and the historical context of heresies originating from Alexandria lend substantial weight to the argument for its greater reliability. The wide acceptance and enduring use of Byzantine manuscripts throughout church history further support its validity as a trustworthy source for understanding the New Testament.

References

1. Comfort, P. W., & Barrett, W. (2001). The Complete Guide to Bible Translations. Baker Books.

2. Ehrman, B. D. (2006). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins.

3. Kenyon, F. G. (1939). Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Macmillan.

4. Murdock, D. (1851). The Origin and History of the New Testament. William Smith.

5. Robinson, M. (2005). The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Textus Receptus. Conservative Bible Foundation.