The Corrupt Manuscripts of the Modern Bible Versions
“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” (Mark 13:31, KJV)
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18, KJV)
“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.” (Psalm 12: 6–7, KJV)
One of the largest divisions in Christianity today is the issue of Bible versions. Specifically, this issue is between the KJV-only position, and the Modern Versions. The issue is not just a matter of preference for which version sounds better, but rather it is an issue that focuses on the text that the bible versions are translated from.
Modern bible versions do not just change older English words into their modern English equivalents, but rather, the modern bible versions base their translations off of different underlying texts than the King James Version.
Modern bible version New Testaments are primarily translated from two texts: Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, both of which are 4th century manuscripts (part of the Alexandrian text type). Modern bible version Old Testaments are translated from the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament), Dead Sea Scrolls (very controversial, we might write an article about this in the future; all we will say in the meantime is that recently some of the “fragments” of the scroll have been found to be fraudulent), and the Masoretic Text. This is different from the KJV, where the KJV uses the Masoretic Text (the preserved Hebrew) for the Old Testament translation, and the Textus Receptus (the received Greek text) for the New Testament translation.
Since the underlying texts of the modern bible versions are different than the underlying text of the King James Version, there are major differences between these bible translations that cause confusion, and can even cause doctrinal differences. This issue is made worse when the modern bible versions keep updating, rendering previous versions outdated. In fact, when the newest Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is finished (Nestle-Aland 29), many of the modern bible versions such as the ESV will have to update their bibles once again, meaning that Christians who use bibles like the ESV will have to buy a new bible. These differences have also led to doubts about the preservation of the word of God, and have done more harm than good.
Because of this, in this article, we’ll be taking a look at the Codex Sinaitics and Codex Vaticanus.
According to the GotQuestions website about these manuscripts,
“Codex Sinaiticus, also known as ‘Aleph’ (the Hebrew letter א), was found by Count Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai. Portions of the manuscript were found in the monastery dump, and a larger portion was presented to Tischendorf by one of the monks. It is a large codex, with 400 pages (or leaves) comprising about half of the Old Testament in the Septuagint version and the full New Testament. It has been dated to the second half of the 4th century and has been highly valued by Bible scholars in their efforts to reconstruct the original biblical text. Sinaiticus has heavily influenced the translation work of modern Bible versions. Though it is considered by some scholars to represent an original form of the text, it is also recognized as the most heavily corrected early New Testament manuscript.
Codex Vaticanus, also known as ‘B,’ was found in the Vatican library. It is comprised of 759 leaves and has almost all of the Old and New Testaments. It is not known when it arrived at the Vatican, but it was included in a catalog listing in 1475, and it is dated to the middle of the 4th century. Vaticanus was first used as a source document by Erasmus in his work on the ‘Textus Receptus.’ Because he viewed the text of Vaticanus to be erratic, he seldom followed it when it differed from other Greek texts.”
From this, we can see that these two documents are steeped in controversy. Parts of the Codex Sinaiticus were literally found in the trash, and yet, we’re supposed to trust this manuscript? These parts of the document were probably thrown in the dump for a reason (we’ll get to that later). Meanwhile, the Codex Vaticanus was considered by Erasmus (one of the smartest men in history) as an “erratic” text. This means that this text was not taken seriously until the 1800's.
It is more likely than not that Christians had known about these documents and rejected them as corrupt documents full of errors and mistranslations (especially since there are few documents that agree with these 2 manuscripts besides a few early manuscripts).
According to GotQuestions, “If they were valued by the early church, you would expect to find many copies made from them, covering a wide period of history. What we actually find is a few early manuscripts which agree with them, but then a disappearance of that text type as we progress through history.” If Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were considered to be close to the original by the early churches, these manuscripts would’ve been copied and copied throughout history. Instead, they were buried and rejected throughout history until the 1800's.
Given these circumstances, why then are modern bible translations baed off of these manuscripts? The reason is because of the age of these manuscripts. These two manuscripts are two of the oldest manuscripts in existence. Although age is a factor when determining the reliability of manuscripts, it should not be the most important factor.
“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 2:17, KJV)
“And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” (2 Peter 2:3, KJV)
From this, we can see that even while the New Testament was being written, there were already forgeries being written, as well as false teachers/prophets that were corrupting the word of God and teaching heresy. Because of this, using age as the sole determining factor in determining the reliability of an ancient manuscript is not a good idea. This is also why Christians should not believe every new “gospel” or “epistle” or “manuscript” that miraculously gets discovered after being buried for thousands of years (ex: The “Gospel” of Judas). There have been forgeries, false teachers, and fraud since the time of the apostles, and we as Christians should discern wisely and avoid believing end times delusions.
In addition, the Codex Sinaiaticus and the Codex Vaticanus are part of what is known by scholars as the “critical text” or the minority text. The reason they are called this is because they are the minority of ancient manuscripts that have been discovered. The majority of ancient manuscripts actually support the readings of the Textus Receptus, which is what the KJV is translated from. So why do scholars prefer to use this minority text over the majority of texts, even if the minority texts differ in many areas? The reason is the age of the documents, which still is not that good of a reason, considering the fact that there were people trying to corrupt the New Testament even while it was still being written. If an ancient document that’s older than all other documents is discovered, that does not mean it is accurate or reliable. It could be a document that people at the time considered to be junk and then discarded, or it could be a corrupted document that faithful believers in Christ rejected due to their inaccuracies (there’s a reason why a lot of these manuscripts have stayed buried/undiscovered for thousands of years). God’s word would not stay buried in some dump for thousands of years, especially because God promised that he would preserve his word from generation to generation. The idea that the Biblical text that Christians have had for thousands of years is somehow incorrect, and that the “real” text was buried in a dump somewhere is an idea that is not biblical. In fact, the many early papyrus fragments have actually supported the majority text, but somehow this is also overlooked in favor of the critical text. If the critical text was indeed considered the closest to the original by the early churches, the texts would’ve been copied and copied and copied throughout all ages, but instead, they remained buried for thousands of years.
There are also major issues with the contents of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) is gone. The story of the woman caught in adultery is gone. In Mark 1:1, the phrase “Son of God” is missing. And there are so many differences between these two documents and the Textus Receptus. And yet, instead of considering the possibility that these documents could be corrupt, or that there could’ve been transcription issues with these documents, modern scholars have exalted these documents and proclaimed the contents of these documents to be more accurate than the majority text and Textus Receptus. Why is this? This is because in the modern field of textual criticism, if there are differences between documents, the more difficult reading is chosen. I’m not kidding. Even if there are a majority of documents that have a reading that makes sense, the minority of documents with a more difficult or confusing reading will be selected, even if it makes no sense. This is how you have verses like this where the new versions do not make sense at all:
“And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.” (Mark 1:41, KJV)
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” (Mark 1:41, NIV)
In the context of this verse, a man is literally begging Jesus to heal him and to make him clean. It makes no sense at all that Jesus would be indignant rather than be moved with compassion.
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12, ESV)
“As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12, NIV)
“I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12, NRSV)
“I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” (Galatians 5:12, KJV)
The modern versions have a very bizarre translation of this verse to say the least.
Mark 1:2–3, ESV:
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”
“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (Mark 1:2–3, KJV)
In the KJV, it acknowledges that these prophecies were from multiple prophets (Malachi and Isaiah), but in the ESV, it attributes Malachi’s prophecy to Isaiah, which is incorrect.
Acts 8:35–38 ESV:
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[e] 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Acts 8:35–38 KJV:
“35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
In the ESV, Acts 8:37 is removed. This is a very key difference, because this verse explains how to get saved and how the eunuch was saved.
The logic behind decisions like this are due to the belief that the more difficult readings are closer to the original, and the readings that make sense must be the result of scribal corrections to make the text make sense (this is the logic modern textual critics use). According to Wikipedia, “Where different manuscripts conflict on a particular reading, the principle suggests that the more unusual one is more likely the original.”
This logic is very flawed, because it is obviously more likely that with any translation or copying of an original document, the majority of copies will be the most correct, while there will be a few minority documents that contain errors (due to human error and other factors). In Greek, even accidently adding or leaving out a letter can change the meaning of words and phrases, and so if there are a few documents that are different than the majority, it makes sense that those differences are most likely the result of mistakes or intentional changes. It would also make more sense that the majority of copies are generally correct. The notion that the majority of scribes would intentionally change the majority of copies to fit their agenda is bizarre, especially when the Bible tells Christians not to add to or remove from the text in any way. In addition, God is not a god of confusion. It makes sense that the true word of God would make sense and truly be life and wisdom to the readers. The notion that some obscure and weird differences in a minority of manuscripts should take priority over a majority of copies that make sense is a bizarre idea.
In addition, in regards to the issue of the missing verses at the end of the Gospel of Mark, there is evidence suggesting that the ending could’ve either been intentionally removed or lost in the copying process. According to Wikipedia, “The end of Mark in Vaticanus contains an empty column after Verse 16:8, possibly suggesting that the scribe was aware of the missing ending. It is the only empty New Testament column in the Codex.” Another Wikipedia article states, “There are three other blank columns in Vaticanus, in the Old Testament, but they are each due to incidental factors in the production of the codex: a change to the column-format, a change of scribes, and the conclusion of the Old Testament portion of the text. The blank column between Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke, however, is deliberately placed.” This is another example of the unreliability of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus documents.
These issues are also the tip of the iceberg. In many of the bible versions based off the critical text, there are missing words, phrases, contradictions, and many other issues. This is not even including the many errors with the new bible version Old Testament translations (this will most likely be covered in a later article). The word of God is perfect and God has preserved his word from generation to generation. It makes no sense that God would give us an incomplete book with missing text and contradictions that has to be constantly changed and updated. Even the NIV and ESV keep going through revisions and edits, and whenever these versions are updated, the older versions are no longer sold or published, meaning that readers of those versions will have to get the new editions.
“Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel,” (1 Samuel 13:1, ESV)
“Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.” (1 Samuel 13:1, NIV)
“Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,” (1 Samuel 13:1, KJV)
“Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign; and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel.” (1 Samuel 13:1, NRSV)
See the issues with the different translations?
All of these things do not make sense in light of the Bible and God’s promise to preserve his word. This all just causes confusion, and does a lot to damage the faith of Christians. In addition, this confusion gives ammunition to those who wish to attack the Bible and the gospel. For example, since the longer ending of Mark is missing from the Codex Sinaiticus, many modern scholars use this as “evidence” that the resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred (since many scholars believe that the gospel of Mark is the oldest gospel). The many missing verses and words give credibility to those who wish to attack the reliability of God’s word, and undermine the faith of Christians. The constant updating and changing of what is considered to be biblical text causes confusion and doubt on the word of God. After all, if we can’t be 100% certain that what’s in our Bible is the true, preserved word of God, how can we trust anything in the Bible? What if a new manuscript gets discovered today and it has even more missing verses? We Christians should take the time to truly examine the issue of Bible translations and take time to understand which manuscripts we can trust. It just seems so obvious that the KJV, which has stood the test of time for hundreds of years now should be the standard, and not some new bible version that constantly has to be updated or revised. It should also be obvious that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus/majority text (the preserved Hebrew and Greek) should be what Bible translations use as their translation basis, and not the critical text, dead sea scrolls, or the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament).
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.” (Proverbs 3:5–7)
Sources:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
