The Promise of Perfect Preservation

Psalm 12:6-7 declares, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” 

Jesus echoed this in Matthew 4:4 and John 12:48: we will be judged by “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If God is perfect and His word perfect , how could He allow even slight corruption in the standard by which we are judged? The answer lies in His providence: guiding the Textus Receptus  and King James Version  as the final, flawless Bible in the world’s dominant language.

From Corrupted Ancients to Byzantine Reliability

Modern critical texts like NA28/UBS5 rest on two 4th-century codices: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Discovered late , they share 3,000+ unique errors and omit passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11—contradicting early fathers like Irenaeus and Jerome. Providence shifted to the stable Byzantine tradition: over 5,300 manuscripts , compiled in TR editions by Erasmus  and solidified by F.H.A. Scrivener’s 1894 Greek New Testament. Scrivener reverse-engineered the exact textual choices of KJV translators from TR variants, providing a forensic Greek backbone—reliable, majority-text fidelity for all time.

Rigorous Translation: 15 Reviews by Elite Scholars

King James I commissioned the KJV in 1604 to unify England’s Bibles, ending confusion among Geneva, Bishops’, and others. Fifty-four top scholars divided into six companies, following 15 strict rules. Each verse underwent triple review: company draft, cross-company oversight, final royal committee—15 total scrutinies. No stone unturned; italics mark supplied words transparently. Irony? It succeeded brilliantly: for 250+ years, KJV reigned supreme, fueling the First Great Awakening  and Second —revivals birthing modern missions, abolition.

Doctrinal Dangers in Critical Omissions

Critical texts erode essentials:

Acts 8:37 includes the eunuch’s confession: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” before baptism. Omitted modernly, weakening believer’s baptism—intact in Byzantine/Vulgate.

Matthew 5:22: “angry… without a cause” guards righteous anger . Critical drop accuses Christ of sin .

1 John 5:7: Trinitarian “Father, Word, Holy Ghost… these three are one.” Jerome blamed Arians; Cyprian quoted pre-250 AD. Omission obscures deity.

Further: 1 Timothy 3:16  vs. vague “who”; Ephesians 3:9 omits “by Jesus Christ” Creator role. No room for erosion in judgment’s standard.

Numeric Fingerprints: God’s Divine Seal

Bullinger and Panin revealed heptadic patterns exclusive to TR/KJV:

Genesis 1:1: 7 words, 28 letters ; balanced nouns/verbs. Matthew 1: 14×3 generations . Lord’s Prayer: 56 words , 49 verbs—doxology only in KJV.

Luke: 7-multiple letters total. Christ names in Gospels: 7×77. Critical disruptions  expose inferiority. Probability defies chance.

Providence in English: Global, Eternal Standard

Isaiah 28:11 foresaw “stammering lips… another tongue.” KJV’s explosion with English—trade, science, empire—fulfills it. God corrected ancients via Byzantine/TR, perfected in KJV for every nation.

Conclusion: The KJV Endures

Scrivener’s TR Greek, 15-fold scholarship, awakening fruits, doctrinal purity, numeric seals—providence perfected. No confusion; one standard. Read KJV; stand judged by it.

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.

According to the Reformation principle of “Sola Scriptura”, the Scriptures alone are the rule of faith and life. But Scripture is not just one book. Scripture is a small library of books! So how do we determine which books are in the canon of Scripture? Do we need a church or a man to tell us what should be included? It is my position, and the historical position of the church, that the Holy Spirit reveals what is God-breathed, not any man or organization. In this way, one can say the canon of Scripture is self-authenticating. Do assume otherwise is to place a man or an organization above the Scriptures in authority. 

The best way to put it is the way the Second London Baptist Confession put it in 1689 (my apologies to those who are confession averse).  Section 1, Paragraph 4. “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.” (See 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 5:9)

There are two components to the “Canon of Scripture”, which can be referred to as the “Macro-canon” and the “Micro-canon”. The Macro-canon is the list of exactly which writings were to be regarded as Scripture. Basically, your bible’s table of contents. The Micro-canon is the actual verses that are part of the writings in the Macro-canon. The early church fathers of the first few centuries quoted extensively from the canon, and in fact there are quotes from every book in the New Testament within their writings. This is pretty impressive since they didn’t set out to make sure and quote everything so we would know they approved of it!

While most would agree with the Macro-canon, there are issues with the Micro-canon. Apart from minor textual variations, there are those men and women who advocate for the “Critical Text” that regard parts of the Micro-canon that was accepted as authentic by centuries of Christians as spurious. Not only are there several individual verses, there are entire passages such as the longer ending of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. The traditional Greek text has these passages included, but they date later than the Alexandrian manuscripts and papyri that omit them. The issue with these Alexandrian texts is that they have survived solely through an accident of climate, as drying air is more conducive so document preservation. Unfortunately, this area was also a hotbed of heretical activity among people like Arius and the Gnostics. And since these portions and were found in trash piles, I find them to be untrustworthy.

But of greater importance is the attack, whether intentional or not, on the self-authentication of the canon. If we accept the critical text over the traditional text, we are de facto admitting that 1.) there are men that have veto power of the Holy Spirit when it comes to authenticating Scripture, or 2.) we really do need an ecclesiastical authority to determine the Macro and Micro canons for us. In either instance, they place either a man or an organization in judgment over Scripture. This is not acceptable.

So does that mean we go “King James Only”? Not necessarily.  What it does mean is that we should use translations of the traditional text over those of the critical text. To their credit, many critical text translations include traditional text readings, albeit in brackets or footnotes. But there are also good translations that use the traditional text that the Holy Spirit has authenticated to believers over the centuries. These would include the King James, 21^st Century King James, King James-Easy to Read, the New King James, and the Modern English Version.

Bible software has also made access to multiple versions much more convenient, so you can read different translations side by side. 

But my personal conclusion is this:  If the Scriptures are self-authenticating (and they are), then I should study from translations that use the text that the Holy Spirit has witnessed to over the last 20 centuries over a critical text that depends on human wisdom and academic argument. To do otherwise is to subjugate the determination of the Micro-canon to the academic “experts” instead of the Spirit. No Thanks!