Complete New Testament Textual Data
My first brush with what is called “textual criticism”—the art and science of determining the exact original wording of an ancient text—was in high school. It was New Testament textual criticism, for me the most important kind. Of course Anacostia High in Washington, D.C. didn’t have a course in textual criticism, even though it was a very good school, complete with fine teachers, ivy covered pillars, and exchange students from several foreign countries.
It was in the happy days of old (the fabulous 50s!) when we were still allowed to read the Bible and pray in public schools. Every morning over the loudspeaker system a chapter or long paragraph was read from the Bible. Then Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish kids would join together in reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Frankly, I think it helped the attitude of a lot of students. I know it helped me.
One day two or three very amiable students transferred from D.C. parochial schools to our school. They, too, had been saying the Lord’s Prayer for years in their school. But it was in the Douai Version, not the KJV. And they weren’t about to “switch brands,” though the prayers are nearly identical—except for one significant detail.
As we came near the end of the prayer, these two or three guys would say very loudly, “…but deliver us from evil, AMEN!” The rest of the class went on with the familiar ending of the Protestant Bible:
“For thine is the kingdom,
and the power,
and the glory, for ever,
amen.”
As this behavior went on from day to day I got the message: The Douai Version of the Bible had a shorter text of the Lord’s Prayer than the KJV. My father (educated in a Norwegian Lutheran school) had taught me, quite accurately, that the Reformation had deleted and trimmed down many things from the Middle Ages that the Reformers felt were inconsistent with the New Testament faith. But here was a case of Rome having a less elaborate “liturgy” than Canterbury, Wittenburg, or Geneva!
Most modern Protestant Bibles—such as the RSV, NEB, and NIV—now conform to the Latin Vulgate in this detail and to those manuscripts upon which it is based. It is not a doctrinal difference. All Christians believe that Matthew 6:13b is true, but some don’t believe it is part of the original text. It is a textual matter.
The King James Bible was translated from printed Greek texts based on manuscripts that contained Matthew 6:13. The Latin Vulgate, the official version of the Church of Rome, was made from manuscripts that lacked it. Until fairly modern times most Roman Catholic Bibles were made from the Latin, like Knox’s very literary translation, in the light of the original languages. Modern Catholic Bibles1 are from the original Greek and Hebrew.
The omission or retention of the ending on the Lord’s Prayer is a clear and dramatic illustration of what we mean by completeness in the text of the NKJV. Most textual matters are far less well known, less noticeable, and less important. But if we believe that the Bible is God’s Word, no reading, however short, should be allowed to “fall through the cracks,” as they say, unless we are very sure that it is not a part of the inspired text.
Even more basic than translation is the text from which any translation is made. For example, the inclusion or omission of a word, phrase, clause, sentence, or in just two cases in the New Testament a whole paragraph,2 is not a matter of how loose or how literal a translation is to be, but of the text from which one is translating.
Fortunately, the text of the New Testament is very well established. This must be stressed before examining the different theories on the variants that do occur in the manuscripts and how important they may be.
The Area of Fact
First of all, everyone who has been introduced to the subject of New Testament textual criticism (the science of recovering the precise wording of the original where it may vary in some manuscripts) is aware that the manuscript materials are very plentiful.
The Greek Manuscripts
There are over five thousand manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, although only one manuscript contains a whole Testament. This number is far greater than the number of manuscripts supporting the Greek and Latin classics, some of which have a mere handful of ancient manuscripts.
The Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were written very soon after the writing of the original texts. The manuscripts are from various parts of the ancient world—Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, and the West.
Because so much has been said about textual variants, many people have received the impression that the New Testament is on shaky ground. Not so! Fully eighty-five percent of the text is the same in all types of manuscripts. As for the other fifteen percent, we should point out that much of the material concerns details that do not even show up in an English translation. Such things as word order, spelling, and slightly variant forms of some verbs seldom are reproduced in translation.
Most of the variations are caused by accidental copyists’ errors. However, with all the heretical groups seeking to corrupt orthodox Christian doctrine (such as the Gnostics against whom Paul wrote in Colossians and John in his First Epistle), we would be naive to think that no changes were made intentionally in the interest of some heterodox cult or sect.
Of the approximately five thousand manuscripts there are four categories of writing and material used.
The Papyri. The oldest manuscripts, usually quite fragmentary, were written on papyrus in capital letters. There are over eighty papyrus manuscripts, most of which are in codex (book) form, but four are fragments from scrolls. The papyri are designated by the letter “p” with a superscripted number. The earliest uncontested known New Testament fragment (Rylands papyrus 52) is dated only about three decades after the death of the Apostle John. It contains several verses from John 18.
The Uncials. The word uncial, from the Latin word for “inch,” is used to describe these manuscripts because of the large capital3 letters that are used. There are about 260 uncial manuscripts, only one of which contains the entire New Testament. Nevertheless, every New Testament book has ample uncial witnesses. The uncials are designated by English and Greek capital letters. One uncial manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus, is designated by the Hebrew letter Aleph.
The Minuscules. There are about 2,700 minuscules. The minuscules are written in smaller letters in a slanted and flowing (“cursive”) script. Most of these are from later centuries and contain the Byzantine text. It was from a half-dozen late minuscules that Erasmus produced his first published edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516.
Lectionaries. Greek lectionaries are similar to the Scriptures seen in the Book of Common Prayer, with special readings for Sunday and church feast days. They are, of course, in the original language, and still used by the Greek Orthodox Church.
In summary, the Greek New Testament is supported by thousands of manuscripts from many different parts of the ancient Roman Empire. They generally agree on most points, from the earliest papyrus manuscripts down to the late Byzantine ones.
The Church Fathers
In addition, there are thousands of quotations from the Greek New Testament in the church fathers. These fathers lived from the second century until early medieval times, but the manuscripts containing their works trace back only from about the fourth century on. If the actual manuscripts of the New Testament were lost, virtually the entire book could be recovered from these quotations.
The Versions
In addition to Greek materials there are manuscripts in several languages other than Greek, such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. At the very least they tell us whether a certain phrase existed in the Greek manuscripts from which they were translated. Usually they tell us much more.
The Traditional Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
The manuscripts of the Greek New Testament available to the earlier European scholars were primarily late medieval copies that spread across Europe after Constantinople fell to the Muslims in 1453. These were Bible manuscripts used by the Greek-speaking church, arriving just in time for the newly awakened Renaissance and Reformation interest in studying Greek, and also for the newly invented art of printing.
Before the Reformation the Western (European) church had shown very little interest in the Greek Bible, since Latin was Rome’s liturgical language, and the Latin Vulgate was her authoritative Bible. Consequently, there were few Greek Bibles in the West before 1453, except for a few very old ones in the archives of some libraries.
When the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536) published the first Greek New Testament in 1516,4 he had just a few late manuscripts with which to work. Later editions of the Greek Testament were also based on similar manuscripts. So, apart from minor variations, all the early printed editions are essentially the same.
The Greek New Testaments used by the King James translators other than Erasmus’ texts included the Complutensian Polyglot printed in 1514 (but not published till 1520), Stephanus’ texts, and Beza’s texts. “The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stevens were the chief sources used for the English Authorized Version of 1611.”5
The Elzivir brothers of the Netherlands published several editions of the Greek New Testament with essentially the same text as that of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus. In the Latin introduction to the 1633 edition, Elzivir stated that this text was the “textum ab omnibus receptum“ (“text received by all”). This was shortened to “Textus Receptus,” and was later applied to Stephanus’ text of 1550. This name was also applied in a general way to all texts of the Byzantine type. The traditional Greek text has been called the Textus Receptus ever since that time.
The Area of Theory
Until the nineteenth century the Greek texts used by Bible translators were fairly uniform, being based on ancient manuscripts that were in substantial agreement. As a result, there were few questions raised concerning the conformity of the then current Greek texts to the original autographs written by the hands of the evangelists and apostles.
But in the nineteenth century many earlier manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were discovered that caused some Bible scholars to change their approach toward evaluating the Greek text. This was important for Bible translating because the text of the older manuscripts was somewhat different from the Textus Receptus in a number of places. Simply because of their antiquity many scholars regarded them as better copies of the original autographs and thus more authoritative than the later manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus was based.
The nineteenth-century discovery of these manuscripts, differing somewhat from the traditional text, caused scholars to consider how to determine which differing readings were original and which were later changes. The methods applied to classical Latin and Greek texts were not satisfactory. Finally, many accepted a theory developed by Fenton John, Anthony Hort and Brooke Foss Westcott. These authors propounded their theory in their two-volume work published in 1881, The New Testament in the Original Greek.
The Westcott-Hort Theory
Westcott and Hort advocated that genealogical relationships among manuscripts were of primary importance, and that the evidence from kinds of texts (“texttypes”) thus identified should be evaluated on the basis of how often a particular texttype is found to be correct. Thus a texttype that has the reputation for being correct most often should be given more weight as a witness than one that is frequently wrong. On the basis of their investigation they identified four principle texttypes which they called the Syrian, the Western, the Alexandrian, and the Neutral.
The text they regarded as the latest and least reliable they called “Syrian,” but it is generally called “Byzantine” today. It is the type from which the text of Erasmus was made and that lies behind the King James and all early translations. The very smoothness and completeness of the text led these scholars to believe it was late, edited, and hence corrupt. Hort taught that the text is in such a vast majority of extant manuscripts because the Byzantine Church made it her official text. There is no historical evidence for this, however.
Westcott and Hort’s favored text they called “Neutral,” a name now rejected as too biased. This is the text heavily dependent on Codex Vaticanus, their very favorite early manuscript, and Codex Sinaiticus, their second most favored text.
Some scholars, however, were disturbed that a mere handful of recently discovered manuscripts (often from three to five percent), no matter how much older, should be made to counterbalance the hundreds of years of reliance on the traditional text and the overwhelming multitude of manuscripts supporting it.
The most outspoken of these was John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester. He favored the Byzantine text (Westcott and Hort’s “Syrian”) because it is supported by the vast majority of manuscripts. He regarded Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus as corrupt and unreliable as witnesses to the original text. Instead he favored the witness of the early church fathers and versions, asserting that these witnesses supported the Byzantine text, which is essentially the Textus Receptus.6
The Critical Text Theory
In more recent times textual scholars have classified the manuscripts into different texttypes from those of Westcott and Hort. They have also departed from such extreme dependence on Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B), giving more weight to other early witnesses, such as the papyri. Many scholars are willing to include the Byzantine text in their formula rather than totally ignore this large segment of evidence. In addition to this, modern scholars choose the reading they think best fits the context, and according to what they believe a copyist would be most likely to write. Thus they produce what is essentially an “eclectic text,” that is, one based on choosing individual readings rather than following a certain textual theory. The resultant text, often called the “critical text,” is used in most modern translations of the New Testament. It is not markedly different from the Westcott-Hort text, but has a wider base.
The Majority Text Theory
There has been a recent resurgence of the conviction that the Divine preservation of the text of the New Testament can best be discovered in the type of text used in Greek-speaking churches as far back as we can trace, and also into modern times. This is the text found in fully eighty to ninety-five percent of the manuscripts. It is similar to the text John Burgon advocated, and, except in Revelation, to the Textus Receptus (from which the King James was made).7 In Revelation the majority text is twice as likely to agree with the critical text as with the TR when there are textual variants.8
A variant that first appeared in a fourth-century manuscript, when hundreds of manuscripts reflecting the true reading of the original were already in circulation, would have had a poor chance of becoming the dominant reading. For example, Codex Vaticanus, a fourth-century manuscript, has very few descendants. Majority-text supporters use this as one argument for choosing the text based on the vast bulk of manuscripts.
I used to illustrate the majority-text position to my Greek class in the following way: I would ask for a show of hands of those students who had British last names—English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh. A very large percentage of hands would go up. Then I would ask for a show of hands of those who had Slavic names—Polish, Russian, Czech, and so forth. Usually only two or three hands would go up.
“While people don’t reproduce exactly like manuscripts,” I would say, “the principle is the same. The British reached North America early and had very large families, whose children also had large families, and so on. In the nineteenth century came the Russians, Poles, and so forth. There is no way that Slavic Americans could ever overtake the British Americans in numbers.”
Similarly, the readings found in the largest number of manuscripts are most likely to trace back to the earliest copies—the autographs actually penned by the evangelists and apostles themselves. These would have time to multiply the most.
It is also worth noting that most of the autographs were originally sent to and carefully preserved by churches in what later became the Byzantine Empire—in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica, and other places. As far as we know, not a single original autograph of a Gospel or Epistle was ever sent to Egypt, the country of origin of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
The main argument against the majority text is that none of our earliest (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) manuscripts are of this type. The majority-text response is that the papyri found in Egypt during the nineteenth century are corrupt copies of much earlier manuscripts, whose originals had been sent to Asia Minor and Europe. The major manuscripts we have from Egypt (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) survived because of disuse and dry climate.
Although it used to be said that no Byzantine readings were ancient, early papyri have been found more recently which do contain such formerly condemned, so-called “late” readings.
The NKJV Position
Most current New Testaments use some modification of the Westcott-Hort text, such as an eclectic one not too far removed from that text. Seminary and college professors especially are surprised that the NKJV used such a conservative text as the Textus Receptus.9
We decided to stick to this venerable Reformation era Greek text for two reasons:
First, the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it was made. As noted earlier, the translators of the English Revised Version of the New Testament (1881) were soundly criticized for slipping in the Westcott-Hort Greek text when it was not part of their mandate from the church.
Secondly, in recent years the extreme reliance on a handful of our oldest manuscripts—all necessarily from Egypt—has decreased. There is a greater openness to giving the so-called Byzantine manuscripts a fair hearing. For example, Dr. Harry Sturz, our late colleague on the New Testament Executive Review Committee, wrote a scholarly book showing how these manuscripts are worthy of study, not total neglect.10
Actually, the NKJV textual policy in the New Testament is more objective than that in any modern version of which we are aware. Translators of most contemporary versions assume that the currently popular view is correct, and they often label those readings supporting that theory as “the best manuscripts.” Also, manuscripts supporting the KJV-type reading are largely ignored. Since these latter readings almost always reflect the readings of eighty percent of the extant manuscripts, and very frequently close to ninety-five percent of the manuscripts, this labeling policy seems a bit unbalanced.
The NKJV Textual Notes
On every page of the NKJV New Testament the studious reader will find three different textual views represented.
1. The text of the New King James New Testament itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it. Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or “TR.”
Very few scholars would today support this text exactly as it stands, but it certainly is not the corrupt and “villainous” thing that F. J. A. Hort vowed to destroy when he was twenty-three years old.11
2. “NU” in the NKJV notes stands for the critical text, based on Westcott-Hort, but with other selected readings as well. NU stands for Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies, whose Greek texts are virtually identical. However, their “apparatuses” (sets of footnotes detailing variant readings) are different. This is the preference of a majority of present-day scholars, but not of the majority of the manuscripts.
3. “M” in the notes stands for the majority text. It is close to the TR, except in Revelation. However, those TR readings that have weak support, such as 1 John 5:7, 8, are corrected. This text is available in print as The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (see Bibliography).
Thus, there is a greater selection of textual material in the NKJV footnotes than in most other English versions. A good example of all three options occurring in one verse is Acts 5:41:
“So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name“ (Acts 5:41).
The NKJV footnote reads: “NU-Text reads the name; M-Text reads the name of Jesus.” Thus interesting textual variants are cited carefully with their general source for comparison and study. F. F. Bruce praises the NKJV on this very point:
…the textual notes are specially helpful, indicating not only where the wording differs from that of the generally accepted critical text but also where it differs from the majority text. These notes make no value judgments but enable the reader to see at a glance what the textual situation is and to assess it in the light of the context.12
No matter what one’s viewpoint is on this difficult subject, there is enough material in the NKJV footnotes on the New Testament manuscript variations for the vast majority of Bible students. If more detailed studies are desired, the apparatuses to the Greek New Testaments must be consulted.
Two Crucial Paragraphs
As we have noted, the Greek text of the New Testament is well preserved, widely supported by Greek manuscripts and ancient versions, and differs chiefly in little details, many of which are too small to show up in translation. These include word order, spelling, slight variations in verb tenses or in the definite article.
There are, however, two complete paragraphs whose authenticity is widely called into question. Many modern Bibles set these paragraphs off by brackets, a white space, and/or a line to show that the translators or editors reject or at least question them. Since both are of real theological significance, and both are printed in the NKJV as part of the sacred text, an explanation is in order.
The Resurrection—Mark 16:9–20
The New American Standard Bible (1971) puts this paragraph in brackets and has a note reading “Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 through 20.” The version adds an alternative proposed reading for the end of the book, stating that this reading is found in “a few later manuscripts and versions.”
These notes are misleading. The “Some of the oldest manuscripts” are really just two Greek manuscripts (there is also one much later manuscript). It should be said that the “sacred and imperishable proclamation” (shorter ending of Mark) also has very little to commend its authenticity.
The note in the New International Version is more accurate as to number of manuscripts, but highly interpretive: “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9–20.” Actually, the reliability of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is strictly a theory, though widely taught.
Also, one of these two manuscripts contain space for the missing paragraph, a very unusual thing when using expensive vellum (fine animal skins). Apparently the scribe was aware of the passage but lacked it in his exemplar. The other manuscript shows evidence of having been tampered with to fill up the space.
It is common to say that the style of Mark 16:9–20 is unlike Mark’s, but this is subjective.13 Actually, there are stylistic parallels between Mark 16 and Mark 1.
Verse 8 of chapter 16 (where the two minority manuscripts close) ends with the little word gar (“for”) in Greek, which is usually the second word in a sentence. To end a book on this word seems most unlikely.
Also, especially if one accepts the theory that Mark is the oldest Gospel, we would have the Resurrection story ending without the risen Christ actually appearing—a disappointing Easter indeed!
Some try to solve the problem by saying that the original ending is lost and verses 9–20 are a makeshift substitute. This seems a very weak theory in light of our Lord’s promise that His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35).
Frankly, one fears that some would like to be rid of the passage because of verses 16–18 on the doctrines of baptism and miracles.
The point that the footnotes in most Bibles fail to report is that 1,400 manuscripts do contain this passage. Further, St. Jerome, when he translated the New Testament into Latin, included Mark 16:9–20. It is significant that he did so in the fourth century, when the dissenting Egyptian manuscripts were also written! Apparently these two copies which lacked this passage were not representative in their own time.
In short, the long ending of Mark is on a firm foundation and widely supported. The NKJV footnotes alert the reader to the problem without telling him what is best.
The Adulterous Woman Forgiven—John 7:53—8:11
Even people who feel this wasn’t written by John generally admit it is an authentic story. It rings true. One excellent professor once told us in Greek class that he believed it was true and authentic, but probably not part of John, so he wouldn’t preach from it. Recently hearing a tape of one of his sermons on the radio I was happy to hear him preaching from it.
The manuscript evidence for this story is not nearly as strong as for Mark 16, but as far back as 1913 there were 900 Greek copies of John that did contain it, and many more are known to exist today.
The NIV note says, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53—8:11.” Let it be emphasized again that the earliest Greek copies of John—those from Egypt—do indeed lack this text, but their superior reliability is only a theory.
St. Augustine wrote that the paragraph was excised for fear it would promote immorality. The gracious forgiveness of our Lord in the passage certainly does contrast sharply with the harsh legalistic rituals that Christendom evolved for an adulterer to get back into communion.
The argument that the style is not like John’s is subjective and has been well answered by Zane C. Hodges in articles in Bibliotheca Sacra.14 The Introduction to The New Testament According to the Majority Text gives a detailed technical defense of the passage (pp. xxiii–xxxii).
Perhaps the best way for the Bible reader to test the passage is to read John 7:52, skip over 7:53 through 8:11 to verse 12, and see if it hangs together well. It does not! The NIV obscures this non sequitur by supplying the word “people” to the text of 8:12. Every Greek text says “them,” and if 7:53 were the verse right before it, the “them” would refer to the meeting of Nicodemus and the Sanhedrin. But our Lord was not at that meeting.
A person can use the NKJV, just as millions have used the KJV, without agreeing with the inclusion or exclusion of every disputed word or even these two paragraphs. None of the three traditions on every page of the New Testament—Textus Receptus, critical, or majority text, is labeled “best” or “most reliable.” The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading.
Since I have made a special study of these textual issues,15 I trust the strong defense of our textual policy will not offend those who differ, and as I well know, do so in good faith.
Textual Criticism and Inerrancy
If the New Testament is essentially so well documented and reliable, why all the controversy? The reason is that these twenty-seven books are not merely an historic monument of “early Christian literature,” but God’s Word written to His people—our daily guide. As such we care even about the “jots and tittles,” even where they may not affect any doctrine. Actually, most Christian doctrines are unchallenged by these variant readings, but it is true that some doctrines are more weakly (and others more strongly) supported in certain texts.
One major teaching that is effectively negated if one follows the critical text is the doctrine of inerrancy. This is the view that there are no actual errors in the original manuscripts, though there are copyists’ mistakes. This is the belief of the teams that produced the NKJV.
For example, in his scholarly article in the The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dr. James Borland points out that the critical text contains at least the following two historical errors.16
Nonexistent Judean Kings
In Matthew 1:7 and 10 two non-existent kings are listed in the genealogy of our Lord: Amos and Asaph. There was a prophet Amos and a musician named Asaph, but the kings in question were Amon and Asa.
Someone who believes God’s Word can contain errors could say (and some do) that Matthew was in error and he was corrected by later scribes. Even if there were no inspiration, such a meticulous writer as Matthew simply would not make such an error in the history of his own people; and for those of us who believe in inerrancy, he could not make it.
Theologically conservative translations that use the critical text, such as the NASB and the NIV, choose to depart from their favorite texts here—with good reason!
A Scientifically Impossible Eclipse
Even more serious, as Borland points out, is the scientific error in the critical text of Luke 23:45. The overwhelming majority of manuscripts read with the TR and the majority text that “the sun was darkened” (Greek eskotisthē). A handful of ancient Egyptian manuscripts read “the sun being eclipsed” (eklipontos). This is impossible. Christ’s death took place at Passover when the moon is full. There is no way that the sun can be eclipsed at that time. God caused the sun to be “darkened” by means not disclosed. The talented (and liberal) translator James Moffatt actually imputes this scientific error to St. Luke in his version.
The Kingdom and the Power and the Glory
We started this somewhat controversial chapter with a teenager’s experience with the Lord’s Prayer. What better way to end it than with the same model prayer?
Some scholars say that the early Christians added the ending in Matthew 6:13b to make the prayer liturgically more polished. After all, it is traditional to end a Jewish prayer with God, not evil—or worse, the evil one! Since the contents are similar to wording in 1 Chronicles 29:11, this text has been suggested as the source of the ending.
I think there is a better solution! Just as the Virgin Mary’s Magnificat is full of scriptural allusions, not as some sort of “redaction,” but flowing in a most natural way, so her divine Son’s model prayer expresses the overflow, humanly speaking, of a mind steeped in God’s Word. I suggest that His prayer was perfectly complete—and completely perfect—when it first fell from the lips of our Lord:
Notes
1. Such as The New American Bible or The Jerusalem Bible.
2. Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53—8:11; see discussion below.
3. Technically there were no capitals at that time. As the “lower case” or “small” letters evolved in later centuries, the original letters became “capital” letters.
4. The first printed Greek New Testament (1514) waited for papal approval until 1520 to be published.
5. The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, [n.d.]), preface.
6. John W. Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, arranged, completed, and edited by Edward Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896).
7. In 1988 the Majority Text Society was formed (P.O. Box 141289, Dallas, TX 75214-1289). Wilbur Pickering (Ph.D. in linguistics, University of Toronto) was elected first president. See Bibliography for his book on textual criticism. The present author is currently the president of the MTS.
8. Probably the reason the Textus Receptus is so unrepresentative of the manuscript tradition of Revelation is the fact that Erasmus had only one faulty manuscript of that book. It even lacked the last six verses. In his desire to be first to publish a Greek New Testament Erasmus translated these missing verses into Greek from the Latin!
9. Earlier, it was planned to use the majority text as the translation base for the NKJV New Testament. But deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text and to reflect the majority text (M) in the notes along with the critical text (NU).
10. Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984).
11. F. J. A. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 2 vols., (London: MacMillan and Co., 1881), I:211.
12. Quoted from Thomas Nelson brochure, “New King James—the Accurate One.”
13. Read the “shorter ending” of Mark in the NASB and you will see a clear and almost blatant difference in style.
14. See Hodges’ two articles on “The Woman Taken in Adultery” in the Bibliography under Periodicals.
15. In three fine schools I was strongly taught the critical theory, and only after graduating from seminary did I come to study textual criticism for myself. The culmination of all this was my conversion to the majority text position and later to being asked to co-edit a Greek New Testament (see Bibliography under Zane C. Hodges).
16. James Borland, “Re-examining Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 25, December, 1982, pp. 499–506.
17. Since most manuscripts do contain the ending, isn’t it easier for Christians to believe that some manuscripts dropped off the ending simply by careless copying?