New Testament Textual Criticism

NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Solving the Bible Versions Debate

John Aziza

What exactly is textual criticism? Textual criticism, or TC for short, is the method used to determine the actual words contained in the original manuscripts of the Bible. As you may have guessed, the Bible's original manuscripts are either lost, hidden, or no longer in existence. What we have instead are tens of thousands of copies of the originals dating from between 1-15 A.D. for the New Testament and 4 B.C.-15 A.D. for the Old Testament. These copies contain many minor differences, and in some cases, a few significant ones also. That's why the study of TC is so essential. By carefully analyzing the available copies it is possible to accurately pinpoint the original reading.

The purpose of this article is to focus on the New Testament side of TC. But first, let's begin with the basics.

WHAT MAKES THE NEW TESTAMENT SO SPECIAL?

The New Testament is by far the most widely circulated and best preserved book of antiquity—bar none (see here). It is also the ONLY ancient text for which copies exist so close to the dates of the original autographs (see here). And even if all of the Greek manuscripts were completely lost or destroyed we could still reconstruct the entire NT with the quotations preserved in the writings of the early Church Fathers. This fact is significant because the fewer manuscripts available, the less certain we can be of the accurate reproduction of the original reading. Simply stated, no book is as unique or so well attested as the New Testament.

NEW TESTAMENT TEXT TYPES

The New Testament is predominately based on the manuscript evidence contained in the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types. An insignificant portion of it is also included in the Western MSS (manuscripts) and the Papyri. Between these four there are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts (some fragmentary and some complete) containing the entire New Testament.

Byzantine

The Byzantine or Majority text has been favored by almost all Bible scholars before the modern era. What sets it apart is the fact that it collates the majority of manuscripts available today, compares the differences, and chooses the most likely correct reading based on the reading that occurs the most. For example, if 700 manuscripts read "he did" and 1400 manuscripts read "they did", the Majority text will go with "they did" as the most likely original reading. This text type was used to create the Textus Receptus, which was compiled by Erasmus in the 1500s (A.D.) and formed the textual basis for many Reformation-era Bibles, such as the Geneva and King James Version.

Alexandrian
The Alexandrian or Minority text is immensely popular with modern Bible scholars. Most notably, it includes the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. When employed in textual criticism, it is sometimes referred to as the eclectic method or reasoned eclecticism. The eclectic method usually involves considering the oldest dated manuscripts currently available while searching for still older manuscript readings of the New Testament. This method assumes that the Bible could be better improved over time as more archeological findings provide older readings that presumably better reflect the original. The NIV, ESV, and NAS are just a few of the modern Bible translations that rely on the Alexandrian text type. Reasoned eclecticism is the dominant method of TC.

WHICH IS MORE ACCURATE?

Obviously, the question of accuracy is paramount to this study. And it shouldn't be taken lightly since its outcome determines whether we end up with a faulty and unreliable Bible version or one that is trustworthy instead. So let's examine some pertinent facts.

The Variants

There are approximately 400 thousand differences or variants spread out between the Greek manuscripts extent to us. However, only 0.5% of them are significant enough to warrant concern. The rest represent irregular spellings, differences in the order of words, punctuation, grammar, and scribal errors (see here). The few variants that may actually impact the meaning of the text merit careful examination and represent the difference between a good translation and a really poor one. Thankfully, the roughly 1,500-2,000 variants that fall within the 0.5% of significant variants are easy enough to avoid since they exist predominantly in the Alexandrian text stream.

Alexandrian Vs. Byzantine

Between 95%-98% of all NT manuscripts belong to the Byzantine/Majority text family and less than 2% represent the Alexandrian family, which is very significant in terms of broad testimony. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which make up the Alexandrian text type are about 85% identical to the Byzantine. The 15% variance between the two accounts for a total of 6,500 differences. While the majority of these differences are small and insignificant, a few of them are significant enough to call into question the integrity of the NT text and threaten Christian theology. This is the main reason why skeptics like Bart Ehrman exist to challenge the claims of the NT. Take for instance the following three examples where depending on which variants are chosen, errors of fact and theology exist and Jesus is made to look like a liar:

Note: There are literally hundreds of these, some much worse than others (see here for a full list).

Mark 1:2

"As it is written in the prophets..." (Byzantine)

"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." (Alexandrian)

The problem in the Alexandrian example is that the very next line in verse 2 comes directly out of Malachi 3:1, while verse 3 quotes Isaiah 40:3. Fortunately, the Byzantine reading does not contain this problem. But if the Alexandrian is chosen we wind up with a pretty big discrepancy.

1 Timothy 3:16

"great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh..." (Byzantine)

"great is the mystery of godliness: who was manifested in the flesh..." (Alexandrian)

Here, the Alexandrian reading contains a significant grammatical error and a nonsensical statement. After all, is there anything mysterious about a person being manifested in the flesh? Clearly, the Alexandrian reading makes no sense.

John 7:8

"I am not yet going up to this feast..." (Byzantine)

"I am not going up to this feast..." (Alexandrian)

In the Byzantine tradition, Jesus is portrayed as perfectly truthful because later in verse 10, He does indeed go up to the feast. However, the Alexandrian text omits the word "yet," creating the troubling impression that Jesus lied—a stark contrast to His sinless nature. So, "yet", makes a world of difference. It's important to note that "yet" is actually present in P-66, P-75, and in the Vaticanus, YET for some mysterious reason the critical text editors left it out.

So why is it that most modern Bible scholars lean so heavily on the Alexandrian text instead of the Byzantine? And why do nearly 95% of modern NT Bible translations follow the Alexandrian almost exclusively? We will address these questions in more detail later, but for now, it’s worth noting that this approach is a relatively new development and the result of reasoned eclecticism.

Reasoned Eclecticism & the Alexandrian Text Types

The three main pillars of reasoned eclecticism are as follows:

1. Older and more ancient MSS are better

2. Variants are chosen based on Griesbach's Canons

3. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus best reflect the original Greek text

Almost all modern scholars favor this school of textual criticism, which is why the majority of New Testament translations today are based on the Alexandrian text types. However, what many don’t realize is that reasoned eclecticism only began to dominate within the last 60 years. When this method was first introduced to universities across Europe and America, it faced strong opposition from the majority of Protestant scholars, who quickly recognized its flawed assumptions. Their main objection centered on its heavy reliance on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts—both of which were known to be inferior for the following reasons:

1. Both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus fall into the extreme minority, representing only about 2% of all New Testament manuscripts. Unlike modern scholarship, which tends to prioritize older manuscripts, earlier scholars favored the text stream with the greatest number of similar manuscripts that closely agreed with one another. Their reasoning was rooted in the biblical principle found in Deuteronomy 17:6, which states that a valid testimony must be supported by at least two or more witnesses. Based on this principle, they believed it was far safer to trust a multitude of manuscripts bearing the same consistent testimony than to rely on just a few outliers.

2. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ greatly with 98% of all NT manuscripts. John William Burgon found 7,578 deviations from the Majority/Byzantine, with 2,370 of them being serious. In the gospels of Sinaiticus, he found 8,972 deviations, with 3,392 serious ones. He also checked these manuscripts for particular readings, or readings that are ONLY found in that manuscript. In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus has 197 particular readings, while Sinaiticus has 443. A particular reading signifies one that is most definitely false. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings lose credibility. Thus, manuscripts boasting significant numbers of particular readings cannot be relied upon.

3. According to Herman Charles Hoskier, who collated the Alexandrian text types, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with each other 3,036 times in the Gospels ALONE, which means you will find a discordant passage every five verses.

4. The origins of the Sinaiticus are dubious at best. It was discovered among a pile of waste paper intended for kindling at St. Catherine's Monastery, which housed a library full of ancient biblical texts. Clearly, the monks at St. Catherine’s weren’t impressed with the Sinaiticus and committed it to the burn pile. Adding to the controversy, shortly after its discovery, Constantine Simonides publicly claimed to be the manuscript’s original author. He even supported his claim with substantial evidence, sparking a heated debate that further questioned the credibility of this text (see here).

5. Dean Burgon described the poor workmanship of Vaticanus as follows:

"Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. ...On many occasions, 10, 20, 30 words are dropped through very carelessly.”

Burgon's colleague, Frederick H. Scrivener, goes into further detail:

"Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled: while that gross blunder technically known as homoeoteleuton…whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament… Tregelles has freely pronounced that 'the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.'”

The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS in which there occurs such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”

Sinaiticus has also been corrected by “…at least ten revisers between the IVth and XIIth centuries…” and the Codex Sinaiticus Project readily admits:

"No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences."

6. The Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet it leaves a significant blank space where these verses would normally appear. Similarly, the Sinaiticus excludes these verses but also leaves a blank space for them. Remarkably, these are the only two Greek manuscripts that omit these passages, further highlighting their peculiarities.

7. The unique readings in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the main reason skeptics can cast doubt on the resurrection account and other key Gospel events. Without these two manuscripts, skeptics would lose nearly all their ammunition against Christianity.

Reasoned Eclecticism and Griesbach's Canons

Johann Jakob Griesbach is credited with developing the foundational principles of reasoned eclecticism. Unfortunately, Griesbach was a rationalist who rejected many of the Bible's miraculous accounts. His skeptical perspective heavily influenced his approach to textual criticism, which he pursued at the academic level. This ultimately led to the creation of a set of rules designed to guide the selection of New Testament manuscripts for translation from Greek. These rules, known as Griesbach's Canons, are as follows:

1. The shorter readings are to be preferred because scribes were much more prone to add than to omit.

2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred eg, "that reading is rightly considered suspect that manifestly gives the dogmas of the orthodox better than the others" because scribes were much more prone to correct errors.

3. The reading that differs from quoted or parallel material is to be preferred because scribes were prone to harmonize discordant passages

4. The reading that best explains the origin of the others (per these canons) is to be preferred

A close examination of Griesbach's Canons reveals that his entire system for selecting manuscript variants is built entirely on assumption and conjecture. Remarkably, throughout his career, Griesbach was unable to provide any evidence to support his theories regarding scribal habits and the transmission of the New Testament text. In stark contrast, his critics presented compelling evidence—drawn from historical records and the testimony of the Patristic Fathers—proving that scribal habits actually contradicted Griesbach's assumptions. For instance, Dr. Michael J. Kruger’s book Early Christian Attitudes toward the Reproduction of Texts thoroughly examines the practices and attitudes of first-century scribes regarding New Testament manuscripts. Kruger’s findings completely dismantle Griesbach’s unfounded assumptions, which were never evidence-based and should have carried no weight in scholarly circles. Yet, due to dishonest bias, Griesbach’s methods prevailed. Notably, the careful analyses of scribal habits by the following scholars conspicuously agree with Kruger’s conclusions as demonstrated in their works:

C.C. Tarelli Omissions, Additions and Conflations in the Chester Beatty Papyrus —JTS 1938.

Earnest Cadman Colwell, Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text —1965

Peter M. Head, The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John —Vol. 85 2004

James Ronald Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri—2010

Isn’t it fascinating that, for the better part of a century, we simply accepted the claim that scribes freely meddled with the texts—without ever stopping to verify if that was actually true?

The Papyri

While modern scholars claim that the Papyri closely resemble the Alexandrian text type, a closer examination of the Papyri tells a different story. Dutch scholar Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn conducted a detailed comparison of the Papyri with other prominent text types, and here’s what he discovered:

P-66 agrees with Codex Sinaiticus 14x, Codex Vaticanus 29x, and the Byzantine 33x

P-75 agrees with Codex Sinaiticus 9x, Codex Vaticanus 33x, and the Byzantine 29x

When David Stutts wrote his thesis on the textual characteristics of the five earliest Papyri of Matthew comparing them against the Alexandrian and the Byzantine, here is what he found:

P-1 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 93% of the text and with the Byzantine 92%

P-45 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 84.8% of the text and with the Byzantine 89.3%

P-64 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 85.7% of the text and with the Byzantine 88.9%

P-70 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 87.5% of the text and with the Byzantine 94.6%

P-77 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 87.6% of the text and with the Byzantine 91.2%

As we can see by combining the two charts above, in 5 out of 7 cases, the Papyri more closely resemble the Byzantine text type, not the Alexandrian. Furthermore, when examining other Papyri, we find over 150 distinctly Byzantine readings, including longer and conflated readings, which have puzzled modern scholars. This all points to a crucial conclusion: the earliest New Testament manuscripts, which predate the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by a significant margin, actually support the Byzantine text more than the Alexandrian. This essentially drives the final nail in the coffin of reasoned eclecticism, as two of its three main pillars assert the following:

1. Older and more ancient manuscripts are superior.

2. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus best reflect the original Greek text.

Skeptics like Bart Ehrman like to claim that "not one Christian scholar is brave enough to translate the Papyri (P-46, P-66, P-47, etc.) because they know it will bury Christianity’s theological claims". But this claim is simply untrue. In fact, we can find the full English translation of P-46 online at the Chester Beaty Library (see here). David Hutchinson Edgar prepared the translation back in 1998 and even compared it with NA27 (Nestle Aland Greek New Testament 27th edition). The only reason why there is no mainstream scholarly translation for P-66 is because it is indisputably the most error ridden NT manuscript in existence and too highly fragmented. It contains 482 singular readings, 400 itacisms, 54 forward leaps, and 22 backward leaps, with a mistake every 16 words. Additionally, its text is so close to the NA27 that it doesn’t warrant a separate translation, as the differences are mostly limited to punctuation. Because of this, it’s already represented in translations like the NASB, NIV, and ESV (though, unfortunately, it doesn't do justice to the text). That said, there are numerous non-accredited scholars who have fully translated P-66 into English, complete with parallel Greek-English texts and a critical apparatus. The best version I’ve found is here.

The same explanation applies to P-45 and P-75, both of which show an extraordinary degree of corruption. These manuscripts contain a variety of errors, as detailed by Ernest C. Colwell in his work Scribal Habits in Early Papyri (The Bible in Modern Scholarship, J.P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1963, p. 370-389).:

P-45
Careless Readings 20
Singular Readings 275
Nonsense Readings 28
Leaps Forward 16
Leaps Backward 2

P-75

Careless Readings 57
Singular Readings 257
Nonsense Readings 64
Leaps Forward 27
Leaps Backward 10

Missing or Deleted Verses in the Alexandrian Text Types

Modern scholars argue that the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), the last 12 verses of Mark 16, and the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) are missing from the "earliest" and "best" manuscripts and should therefore be omitted from modern translations. But is this claim accurate, or is it just another example of flawed modern scholarship used to sow doubt and mistrust in the New Testament text? Let’s take a look at the hard facts:

1. Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8)

Early Bible Versions that contain it:

(a) Old Latin in North Africa and Italy (200 AD)

(b) Italic 4th and 5th century

(d) Italic Monacensis 7th century

(e) Italic Speculum 9th century

Early church writers that mention it:

Cyprian 200-258 AD, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one’.” If Cyprian quotes 1 John 5:7 from his Bible in 200-258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse. Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of 1 John. Cyprian would have had access to the original manuscript to check.

Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes 1 John 5:7,8. Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it. And so do all these other Patristic era scholars: Varimadum 380 AD, Cassiodorus 485 AD, Cassian 435 AD, Victor Vita 489 AD, Jerome 450 AD, Fulgentius 533 AD, Ps. Vigilius 484 AD, Ansbert 660 AD.

Early writings that contain it: Liber Apologeticus 350 AD. and Council of Carthage 415 AD.

Greek grammar rules demand its presence. NIV has mismatched genders in vs. 7-8.

2. The last 12 verses of Mark 16

Early Bible Versions that contain it:

(a) Old Latin, Peshito Syriac (100-199 AD)

(b) Coptic Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, Curetonian Syriac (200-299 AD)

(d) Egyptian, Armenian, Philoxenian Syriac (400-499 AD)

(e) Georgian, Ethiopic (500-699 AD)

18 Early Church Writers who quote Mark 16:9-20 as genuine are:

Papias (100 AD); Tertullian (145-220 AD); the Epistula Apostolorum (150 AD) contains a narrative based apparently on Mark 16:9-14; Justin Martyr (151 AD) quotes v.20; Tatian (150 AD) in his Diatessaron; Irenaeus (180 AD) comments on v.19 in 180 AD; Hippolytus (190-227 AD) quotes v.17,18; Vincentius (256 AD) quotes v.17,18 at the Seventh Council of Carthage in the presence of 87 African bishops; Augustine quotes it on 7 occasions (v.9, v.12,14, v.15,16,19, v.15-18) in 400 AD; the Gospel of Nicodemus (circa 250 AD) contains v.15,16,17,18; the Apostolic Constitutions (circa 300 AD) quote v.16; 54; Eusebius (325 AD) acknowledged v.9-20; Aphraates (337 AD) quotes v.16,17,18; Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan (374-397 AD) quotes v.15,16,17,18,20; Chrysostom (400 AD) quotes v.19,20 and adds: "This is the end of the Gospel"; Jerome's (331-420 AD) Vulgate retains v.9-20. Nestorius the heretic quotes v.20; Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD) accepts it and comments on it; Victor of Antioch (425 AD) strongly endorses its genuineness, quoting and refuting Eusebius' doubts; verses 9-20 were in Victor's Palestinian copy of Mark. The above 18 authorities belong to every area of the Ancient Church (Burgon, p.423).

3. Pericope Adulteraie in John 7:53-8:11

Early Bible Versions that contain it:

(a) Latin Vulgate 4th century

(b) Codex Bezae 5th century

Early church writers that mention it:

Papias of Hierapolis (refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" circa 125 A.D. Didymus the Blind (refers to the passage being found in "several gospels", lived circa 313-398 A.D. Pacian (370 A.D.) cites the passage. Many other Latin Fathers including Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Augustine all speak of the passage as being canonical. Augustine claims that some may have excluded it earlier to avoid the idea that Christ had sanctioned adultery (4th and 5th centuries). Jerome says that the passage was found in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West (late 4th century. A majority of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate (perhaps mostly due to Jerome's influence). It is also cited by other early Christian writings including the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and the Apostolic Constitutions from the 3rd and 4th centuries respectively.

ROME'S EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE THE NEW TESTAMENT

Historically, the Catholic Church has been directly involved in promoting reasoned eclecticism. A notable example is Richard Simon, often called the "Father of Biblical Criticism." Simon was a French Roman Catholic priest educated by the Jesuit order, and his work laid the foundation for the development of modern textual criticism (see here and here). After presenting his work to the Vatican, Pope Innocent XII offered support for Simon’s scholarship. His influence, along with the Church’s support for his efforts, played a significant role in shaping the direction of biblical scholarship in ways that continue to impact Bible translations today. It is especially noteworthy that Simon was accused of Jesuitism on account of his close affiliation with Father Antoine Verjus, who was a prominent member of the Society of Jesus (see here).

The fact that the Vatican has played such a central role in shaping textual criticism should come as no surprise, given Catholic Rome's long history as an opponent of Protestantism and its past efforts to suppress the publication and distribution of the Bible. Their particular animosity toward the New Testament stems from the fact that it challenges many of their religious claims to authority. And when the Reformers first read the Bible in their own language, they quickly realized this—sparking the Reformation. This opposition to the spread of biblical knowledge has persisted in various forms, including influencing the development of textual criticism to promote certain theological agendas.

Since the days of the Reformation, Rome has been actively working to repair the damage inflicted by the Reformers. However, their methods have gradually changed, becoming much more discreet and sophisticated over time. Rather than attacking the Bible directly, the Jesuits, in particular, have employed a more covert approach, subtly infiltrating Protestant seminaries to further their agenda. This has allowed them to influence the development of Bible translations in more insidious ways. Even the well-known Bible Society has been tainted by their corrupt influence. If you doubt this, consider the compelling evidence presented in Chris Pinto's eye-opening documentary series, which tracks Rome's direct involvement in shaping modern Bible versions (see pt. 1, pt. 2, and pt. 3).

Facts Concerning Rome’s Relationship to the Bible & Modern Textual Criticism:

1. Bible Burnings: To prevent the circulation of the Bible among the common people, the Vatican resorted to burning Bibles throughout the medieval period. Men like John Wycliff, William Tyndale, and Martin Luther, who translated the Scriptures into the common vernacular were subject to intense persecution and martyrdom (see here).

2. The Counter-Reformation: After the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church launched the Counter-reformation in an attempt to stamp out Protestantism and its spread of the Holy Scriptures (see here).

3. The Jesuit Order: From 1534 onward, the infamous Jesuit Order, or the Society of Jesus, has been at the Vatican's disposal (see here). This militant order is intent on wiping out any opposition to the Catholic Church.

4. Infiltration of Universities: The Jesuits have managed to infiltrate universities, seminaries, and Bible schools across the Western world, launching disinformation campaigns from the highest levels of society. Atheism, communism, socialism, and many schools of secular philosophy can all be traced back to Jesuit influence (see here).

5. The Vaticanus Manuscript: The Vaticanus was conveniently "discovered" around the same time the Reformers were printing Bibles and translating them into the common vernacular. It happens to support the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic Bible) in nearly all of its readings, coincidence? [See Pinto's documentary series for proof].

6. Tischendorf’s Discovery: Constantine Tischendorf's journey to the Sinai region and his archaeological endeavors were sponsored by the Pope. Notably, in 1843, Tischendorf had a personal audience with Pope Gregory XVI and his cardinals, just before embarking on his trip. During his time in the Sinai region, Tischendorf continued to collaborate closely with a Jesuit priest. His "discovery" of the Sinaiticus parchments in 1844 was widely celebrated by the Vatican, prompting the Pope to award him accolades of honor for his find. Tischendorf himself recounts his meeting with Pope Gregory XVI in his book When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf (New York: American Tract Society, 1866).

7. The True Author of Sinaiticus: Constantine Simonides, a brilliant palaeographer from Greece, was in fact the true author of the Siniaticus and wrote numerous articles [and even a book] attempting to prove that the Siniaticus was a forgery work of his own hand. He warned the public not to accept the bogus claims of Tichendorf in respect to the Siniaticus (see Neither Oldest, Nor Best by Dr. David H. Sorenson).

8. Catholic Theological Leanings: The men responsible for promoting the Alexandrian Text and producing the majority of our modern Bible translations possessed strong Catholic theological leanings, openly expressed their contempt for the Bible as a book full of myths, and had well documented contact with Jesuits and the pope of Rome. The key figures in question include Constantine Tichendorf, Brooke Westcott, Fenton Hort, Kurt Aland (of the Nestle-Aland text), and Bruce Metzger. It is highly telling that every one of these men were openly honored by the Pope, embraced Ecumenism, and felt that the Roman Catholic paradigm was far superior to Protestantism (see Pinto's documentaries for proof).

9. Kurt Aland and Ecumenism: The fact that Kurt Aland announced in 1977 that the circulation of the 26th edition of the Nestle Greek text "will be done in cooperation with the appropriate agencies of the Roman Catholic Church" (United Bible Societies bulletin 108/109, 1977) proves that his ecumenical Bible institute has had the production of an eccumenical Greek NT as their underlying motive. Click here to view media images of Kurt Aland's meeting with John Paul II in 1984.

10. Bruce Metzger and Ecumenism: Dr. Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was perhaps the most influential textual critic of his generation. His works are cited in nearly every book defending modern Bible translations. Suffice it to say, his notoriety in the field of textual criticism is unparalleled. But he was also the personal mentor and tutor of professor Bart Ehrman, who is now a staunch critic and opponent of Christianity and has devoted his career to attacking the claims of the New Testament. But the fact that Metzger's longtime student is so rabidly anti-Christian should come as no surprise once we realize that Metzger himself did not believe in biblical inerrancy and was known for rationalizing away all of the Bible's fundamental claims. Most disturbingly, Metzger was a fervent promoter of ecumenism, and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of 1977–1990, an eccumenical Bible version, was Metzger’s creation. Without Metzger there would be no NRSV. Metzger saw no better way to promote ecumenism than to produce a Bible that would unite both Protestant and Catholic elements. In 1993, Metzger presented a Catholic edition of the NRSV to Pope John Paul II at the Vatican (see here).

11. The Influence of the NIV: What the Catholic Church could not achieve by openly burning the New Testament Scriptures, they achieved covertly by promoting the NIV (New International Version), a Bible full of pro-Catholic, ecumenical theological corruptions. The NIV has now become one of the most popular Bible versions in the world, furthering Rome’s theological agenda.

CONCLUSION

It is my sincere hope that this study has greatly enriched your understanding of textual criticism (TC) and clearly demonstrated the superiority of the Byzantine/Majority Text type. The evidence presented here underscores the critical dangers of relying on modern Bible versions, such as the NIV and others, that frequently draw from the corrupt Alexandrian Text, which is riddled with errors and compromises the integrity of the Scriptures.

The most pressing threat to the Gospel message today lies in its progressive dilution, as Rome continues to advance reasoned eclecticism. This methodology, which synthesizes various textual traditions, has led to an ever-changing New Testament. With each discovery of a so-called "ancient manuscript," a new edition of the New Testament is declared necessary. Consider the fact that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament has now reached its 28th edition—and counting. When will they finally claim to have reconstructed the definitive New Testament? After the 58th edition? Or perhaps only after Christian orthodoxy is entirely reshaped to align with the Catholic paradigm?

Finally, I would like to share my personal recommendations for Bible versions that, based on thorough research, most faithfully reflect the original autographs. These include the King James Version (KJV), ISR’s The Scriptures, and Wilbur Pickering’s New Testament translation (available here). These translations are based on the Textus Receptus, which Wescott and Hort so passionately detested (a fact that convinces me of its superior quality). In conclusion, I remain convinced that the Byzantine’s TR best preserves the original autographs and therefore reject the Alexandrian Text and associated papyri as corrupted.