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.