An Analysis of:

The King James Version Debate

A Plea for Realism

By D. A. Carson

By Kevin James, author of The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship

This book is directed at those who want to know more about the controversy between advocates of the King James Version and advocates of the modern versions such as the New International Version and New Revised Standard Versions. Mr. Carson covers two main areas in his book: the problems of the textual basis underlying each advocacy (that is, the manuscripts that are translated) and that of the non-textual questions, such as translating issues.

This review will focus on the textual questions concerning the manuscripts used for the New Testament translation of the King James Version (and the similar earlier and later translations coming from the same textual base) and those used for the modern versions.

Mr. Carson begins by giving a general history of the copying of the text. On pages 26-27 he mentions "text-types," such as the "Byzantine," "Western," "Caesarean," and "Alexandrian." He says: "Nevertheless, the Alexandrian text has excellent credentials, far better that its harshest critics have been able to concede." (pg. 27)

On page 29 he gives some rules to follow concerning manuscripts. "But the date of the text-type is more important than the date of a particular witness."

"Geographical distribution is also important, for if a particular reading [by "reading", he means a variation in the manuscripts] is found in several widely separated areas, it is correspondingly less likely to be the idiosyncratic error of a geographically contained region." (pgs 29-30)

"The relationship of the witnesses to the text-type is extremely important, because if all the witnesses that support a particular reading are from one text-type, then they may all be copies of copies of copies that spring form one manuscript."(pg 30) Keep these statements in mind.

On page 30 Mr. Carson mentions some "internal" rules of deciding on which reading is to be preferred. These are the "shorter" wording is most likely to be the best, the "harder" wording is most likely original, and that considerations of the writer's "style" must be kept in mind.

Chapter Five of "The King James Version Debate" gives the origin of the "Textus Receptus," the "Received Text," the printed Greek text that underlies the KJV and other New Testaments translated from it. Carson is correct in pointing out some of the defects in Erasmus' work on the first published printed Greek New Testament.

Erasmus' main idea was to publish some "Annotations" on corrections to the Latin Vulgate from the Greek. The publisher convinced Erasmus to include a Greek text, as well as a revised Latin text on side-by-side pages along with his "Annotations."

Erasmus used a handful of available manuscripts for his work as well as resorted to the Latin Vulgate in a few of places. His first edition contained many printing errors, most of which were corrected in later editions. The first English translation from his Greek text was done by Tyndale, who used the 1522 edition.

Carson states: "Erasmus's Greek Testament stands in line behind the King James Version; yet it rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts, none of which is earlier than the tenth century."(pg 36).

Well, yes and no. Erasmus "used" for his work a few manuscripts but his basic "text" is supported by the combined text of thousands of existing manuscripts. This can't be said for the modern Greek text, which relies on a hand-full of "old" chaotic manuscripts in hundreds of places.

This writer made a study of the Greek in the Gospel of John and compared it to the witness of over 50 Greek manuscripts as compared with the text of Erasmus (his 1522 edition) and the modern Greek text. Those used by Erasmus (mss. 1, 2, and 3) as well as the favorites of modern scholars were included.

In the Greek text underlying the KJV in John, there were 32 places with the support of four or less of the 50+ manuscripts; of these, eleven were disagreements on whether or not an article (the) was to be placed before a word.

The Greek text underlying the modern versions has 286 places where four or less of the 50+ manuscripts give support. Almost all supporting members are from the "Alexandrian" text-type.

So, if Erasmus and his TR are to be marked-down for resting upon "a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts," now supported over 95% by thousands of existing manuscripts from all areas of the Christian church, what are we to think about the modern Greek text, which rests in hundreds of places on a few "old" manuscripts from an isolated backwater part of Egypt?

On to Chapter 7. Here, Carson presents fourteen "Theses" on why the text underlying the KJV should be set aside in favor of the modern Greek Text. Only those "theses" that concern the history and transmission of the Greek New Testament will be discussed since that is the purpose of this analysis.

Thesis 1: There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century. (pg44)

Carson hedges a little bit here, because after such a bold statement, he says a few lines down: "In each case the evidence is uniform: the mature Byzantine text-type appears nowhere before the fourth century." (my italics). He doesn't define "mature" but we can assume he means in totality, such as a text that has no wordings found in the other "text-types" such as "Alexandrian," or "Western."

Well, we can say the same thing of the mature "Alexandrian" text: There is no unambiguous evidence that the Alexandrian text-type ever existed in totality, anywhere. Except for a few small fragments, all the early father quotations, the early versions and the early manuscripts have a "mixed" text, showing varying degrees of support for the KJV Greek, the modern Greek, the "Western" text-type, as well as a large portion of "un-rated" wordings.

For example, from the 26th edition of the modern Greek New Testament, the following early fathers show their support for either the KJV Greek, the modern Greek, or neither:

Early Christian Writer Evidence

Origen would be the closest "Alexandrian" text-type early father but 20% of the time he supports the KJV, 37% the modern Greek, and 43% of the time, neither. Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the heart of the "Alexandrian" text-type area in the second century supports the KJV 27% , the modern Greek 39%, and neither 34%.

Ireneaus, a second century writer who is classified as a "Western" text witness, goes with the KJV 34%, the modern Greek 31%, and neither 34%.

The evidence of the manuscripts is similar. From the Nestle-Aland text references of every early manuscript through the fourth century (except for their favorites, Aleph and B), we find that 12.6% of the time, the KJV is supported, the modern Greek finds support in 34.7% of the references,, and a whopping 52.8% of the time these manuscripts go out on their own. Note that not all the manuscript variants are shown in Nestle-Aland.

Let's try the early translations. From the book of Matthew we get these figures:

Early Translation Evidence

Again, realize that not all variants from these early versions are shown. But the Old Latin, existing in the second century, gives strong support for the KJV at 22% versus 11% for the modern Greek. The Syriac version, also old but whose exact age is disputed, supports the KJV at 49% versus 22%. Even the Middle-Egyptian version, existing in a manuscript from the 4th/5th century goes with the KJV 26% versus 31% for the modern Greek.

(The previous evidence for the fathers, manuscripts, and versions comes from my book, The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship, Chapter 3.) [See link at top of page.]

This is pretty "unambiguous" evidence that the Byzantine text-type existed as far back as we can go, for where did all these sources get the "Byzantine" wordings, if the actual manuscripts didn't exist yet? And, if it is argued that all these Byzantine wordings are just bits and pieces, the same thing can be said about the Alexandrian wordings.

But modern textual scholarship has an out here. Carson says: "The theory advanced by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort to account for these facts is that the Byzantine text was formed as a conflation between A. D. 250 and 350. The theory is a reasonable way of accounting for the appearance in history of this text-type about A.D. 350; but it is also reasonable, as we shall see, because of the internal character of the Byzantine textual tradition (see thesis 3, below)". (pgs 44-45).

No mention is made that this theory rests on hot air, not any facts of any kind. Westcott and Hort came up with eight supposed examples in the Gospels where the phantom Byzantine scholars responsible for the Byzantine text-type combined a "Western" and "Alexandrian" wording into a new "Byzantine" wording.

A typical example from my book (pgs 39-40) at Mark 6:33 gives the "Western" wording as:

"and ran afoot thither out of all cities and came together there"
The "Alexandrian" wording is:
"and ran afoot thither out of all cities and outwent them.

The supposed Byzantine conflation goes:

"and ran afoot thither out of all cities and outwent them, and came together unto him

However the Greek goes like this:

[kai proelthon autous][kai sunelthon pros auton] (6:34) Kai....

[and outwent them][and came together unto him] (6:34) And......

The "Western" wording was caused when a copyist's eye jumped from the first "kai" (and) to the second, leaving out "and outwent them." The "Alexandrian" wording came about when a jump was made from the second "kai" to the third, omitting "and came together unto him." This kind of error is technically called homioteleution, or, like-ending, and is one of the most common errors found in actual Greek manuscripts.

Using this example and seven more as easily dismissed, Westcott and Hort made the illogical proclamation that this proved that all the manuscripts that weren't from the "Alexandrian" or "Western" families, came from this mythical fourth century revision.

But what about these "conflation" examples:

Mark 1:28: The King James and Codex D (a "Western" manuscript) have "And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region about Galilee." The manuscript W (which is in the "Alexandrian" realm) has "And his fame spread abroad everywhere. Codex B, (which is modern scholarship's favorite witness) however, conflates the two and has "And immediately his fame spread abroad everywhere.

COLOSSIANS 1:12: Here the King James along with P46 (written A.D. 200) and a host of others has "giving thanks unto the father, which hath made us meet to be partakers...." The "Western" family has "giving thanks unto the father, which hath called us to be partakers...." Codex B has: "giving thanks unto the father, which hath made us meet and called us to be partakers...."

Here we see conflation that has nothing to do with "combining" two texts just plain editorial decisions. In fact, most manuscripts have a wording or two that could be called "conflation" from the combination of words found in one manuscript in that verse with words found in a second manuscript. Westcott and Hort's "conflation" proof that all non-Alexandrian and non-Western manuscripts came from some phantom revision does not hold up to scrutiny.

Thesis 2: The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition by appealing to the fact that most extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament attest to this Byzantine text-type, is logically fallacious and historically naive.

Mr. Carson goes on to say, "It is quite possible to conceive that the best manuscripts of the New Testament were removed to some relatively quiet corner of the Mediterranean world while inferior manuscripts dominated in publishing centers." (pg 48). "I can think of no truism, no axiomatic reason, that will dictate that the text-type closest to the original must pre-dominate in number." (pg 49).

Well, it is certainly possible to conceive of any possible scenario regarding the transmission of the New Testament, but one should ask for some kind of research that indicates that possibility before believing that scenario. Why would someone remove the "best" manuscripts from the Christian church and hide them somewhere?

And it's only logical to believe that the "text-type" that was there in the beginning would predominate in numbers over later text-types; unless one postulates a scholarly revision that had sufficient force to cause all earlier manuscripts to be burned. Which is the exact modern view:

"Major revisions of Greek manuscripts must certainly have occurred toward the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century (probably during the forty years of peace between the end of the Decius-Valerian persecution and [A.D.] 303). It was then, for example, that the Koine text first took form in Antioch....(ppg 50-51 The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland.)

In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian....The exegetical school of Antioch, where students of Origen's theology and Arians maintained a well organized center, provided bishops for many dioceses throughout the East....Each of these bishops took with him to his diocese the text of Lucian (i.e., the Koine text), and in this way it rapidly became very widely disseminated even in the fourth century." (ppg 64-64, Aland)

To start with, there is not one grain of evidence, historical or otherwise, that any revision of the New Testament took place in this time period whether in Antioch or anywhere else. Lucian's known work was on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, not the New Testament. This whole assertion that there was a major revision that somehow was forced on the churches to the detriment of earlier "text-types" such as the Alexandrian and Western can be easily disproved.

1.The modern view rests on the idea that there were different "text-types" that were combined into a scholarly revision. But the "Western" and "Alexandrian" text-types are linked so closely that the idea they were ever separate branches of the originals is contrary to the evidence.

Papyrus 38, copied around A.D. 300 was discovered in Egypt and contains about 1 1/2 chapters of Acts. Of its 13 citations in the modern Greek text, it agrees exactly with the so-called "Western" text represented by Codex D in eight places. Few, if any, other manuscripts follow.

Papyrus 66 (A.D. 200) found also in Egypt has close links with the "Western" text in the Gospel of John. Omitting the places where Papyrus 66 and Codex D agree with the modern Greek against the King James, in the first 11 chapters of John, the two copies agree no less than 45 times. Few, if any, other manuscripts follow.

There's also an interesting link between the Middle-Egyptian and Sahidic versions and Codex D in Acts. At 5:4, 5:31 and 5:35, these three witnesses agree exactly for variations that have little other support.

Manuscript 0171, also found in Egypt, has some interesting variations that find their only support in the "Western" text of Codex D. 0171 was written around 300 A.D.

This type of evidence suggests that the "Western" text is no more than a derivative ot the "Alexandrian" text-type and had its origin in the same place. That's why there are so few "Western" manuscripts. It was never a thriving entity of its own but just a chip off the Alexandrian block.

Other main evidence for the "Western" text comes from the manuscripts of the Old Latin version, which have been traced to deep in the second century. These surviving manuscripts often disagree with each other and have a number of additions found in no surviving Greek witness. In fact, two additions blamed on Marcion (a second century heretic) are found in some Old Latin and Latin Vulgate manuscripts at Luke 23:2 and 23:5.

Marcion also influenced the text of Aleph (a Greek manuscript) at Luke 12:8 and 9, where he omitted "the angels."

At Luke 11:2, Marcion omitted "our...who art in heaven," followed by the "Alexandrian" text-type and our modern Bibles. He then substituted "thy holy spirit come upon us and cleanse us," for "thy kingdom come, they will be done, as in heaven, so in earth," which finds support from two existing manuscripts. The modern Greek just omits the words from "thy...earth" following their "Alexandrian" text-type.

Another note about Marcion and the text-type issue comes from Gunther Zuntz in his "The Text of the Epistles." After examining Marcion's variations, Zuntz said: "The most striking observation is that more often than not the delimitations of the so-called 'texts,' whether 'Western' or 'neutral' or 'Byzantine,' are disregarded. The Western evidence is split in seventeen out of our thirty-seven instances...in particular D F G [the 'Western' witnesses in the Epistles] are opposed by the other Western witnesses agreeing with Marcion in nine instances....Individual manuscripts of no particular note desert the Byzantine standard to side with Marcion..., and the 'Alexandrians' are none too often united in supporting....or opposing....him." (ppg 239-240). In other words, Marcion's text took in all types of "texts," even the Byzantine which wasn't even in existence at his time, according to modern scholarship. (Guntz was not a supporter of the Byzantine text. He believed the "Ecclesiastical" text was formed much later and that it was secondary to the "Western" and "Alexandrian" texts.)

2. Another clear indication that a "new" text made up of "older" text-types did not run rough-shod over what was originally there comes from the manuscripts themselves. At John 1:28 there are two variations for the name of the place where John the Baptist was baptizing. Origen, who died A.D. 254 mentioned them and said that he thought Bethabara was correct, although Bethany was also in the manuscripts. Down to present times, a large group of existing manuscripts upholds each wording. If a revision really took place, how can this difference be explained? Didn't the Arian bishops decide on a "correct" wording and wouldn't their "new" manuscript that they carried thoughout all of Christiandom have only one wording?

Another problem comes from John 7:53-8:11. Over fifty of the "Byzantine" text-type manuscripts omit this section of scripture. (The "Alexandrian" text does too). Of the rest, there are seven different strands of testimony for these verses. The Arian bishop's new text either: 1. didn't have the text, which means that a host of copyists ignored this "new" text and added these verses in from their "earlier" texts; 2. included the verses, which means that a significant number of copyists removed them from their copies of the "official" Imperial text; or, 3. included the verses in their "official" text, and a host of copyists changed them into seven different versions.

The problem with choice 3, is that many of the wording variations have support from the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, and Egyptian versions, which means that the differences go back much earlier than the fourth century, when the "Arian" text was supposedly imposed on the church. If we go with choices 1 or 2, then we have to recognize that this new "conflated" text derived by Arian bishops didn't have much authority since many changes were made. If copyists and their bishops could ignore this much of the "official" Imperial court newly imposed text, then they could just have easily ignored a lot of the other changes. Which means that much more of the "true" text from the Alexandrian manuscripts now in vogue would have also survived. But it didn't.

A similar problem arises in the book of Revelation. Erasmus used a copy with the commentary of Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, for his first Greek text which underlies the King James. A fourth century corrector of Sinaticus, one of the main Alexandrian manuscripts, made many corrections in the margin from a manuscript with a text similar to that used by Erasmus. So the text of the Andreas type manuscripts go back deep into the third century. Yet in Revelation, there are five main groups of manuscripts that present a varying text. Again, how is this explained by the "Arian" bishop's new text or the sudden occurance of a "conflated" text that overcame all opposition?

Since there is no evidence of a scholarly revision that overtook all earlier texts, whether conflated or Arian, it is only logical to say that the text-form that was there in the beginning would have the most surviving witnesses. Thesis 2, then, is illogical.

Thesis 3: The Byzantine text-type is demonstrably a secondary text.

"For example, harmonization is, indisputably, a secondary process." (pg 52).

Harmonization occurs when one incident in a Bible passage is changed to agree with the same incident in another book. For example, the citation of scripture from Isaiah of the "voice crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord," is quoted as coming from Isaiah at Matthew 3:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:23. This was quickly harmonized in Mark where someone changed "As it is written in the prophets...." to "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," not realizing that the scripture immediately following came from Malachi, not Isaiah. This harmonization is found in the Alexandrian text.

The Alexandrian text also harmonizes at Matthew 15:8. There, it omits draweth nigh unto me, with their mouth and, in order to harmonize with the parallel place in Mark 7:6.

In a study made of the parallel places of Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-40, we find that the Byzantine text can be accused of 14 harmonizations but the Alexandrian text wins the match with 19. Six of the Byzantine harmonizations are places where it includes a word (or words) found in a parallel passage that are omitted by the Alexandrian text. (From The Corruption of the Word, ppg 95-98)

Another sign of a secondary text, not mentioned by Carson, concerns the error of homioteleution, where a word or phrase is lost when a copyist's eye jumps from a similar word-ending or spelling to one farther down the line or page. For example, if someone was copying the following:

ITWASSOMETHINGTHATTHEMANCOMINGFROMTHE
DOORWASSINGINGSONGSASHEWASTHECONDEMNED

it is easy to see how a mistake could be made. As early manuscripts had little or no punctuation and no word spacing, the copyist would have to be careful. Say, you wrote down the phrase "ITWASSOMETHING" and then looked back up to your source document for the next phrase. Remembering the "ING" sound, your eye catches the "ING" of "THEMANCOMING" instead of "ITWASSOMETHING." So, you continue on with "FROMTHEDOORWASSINGING" instead of the proper "THATTHEMANCOMING." This gives:

IT WAS SOMETHING FROM THE DOOR WAS SINGING SONGS AS HE WAS THE CONDEMNED

Now, if you didn't re-check your work this error would slip by unnoticed. The next copyist, though, would have to make sense of this mistake. He could check another copy and insert the missing words, or if he had no other copy, might invent a phrase that seemed to fit.

This error of homioteleution is found in many manuscripts. The Greek text underlying the modern versions has no less than 62 such errors of omission in its text from Matthew to 2 Peter. A good example is found at Mark 15:27-29. Verse 28 is omitted in this Greek text because an ancestor to the Alexandrian text-form left it out when a copyist's eye jumped from the Greek "KAI" that starts the verse to the "KAI" that starts verse 29:

EUONUMONAUTOU(28)KAIEPLEROTHEEGRAPHEELE
GOUSAKAIMETAANOMONELOGISTHE(29)KAIOIPARAPOREU......

ON HIS LEFT(28)AND THE SCRIPTURE WAS FULFILLED: WHICH SAYETH, AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS(29)AND THEY THAT PASSED BY.....

Since the Alexandrian text-form has so many homioteletion errors, it is clearly secondary.

Thesis 4: The Alexandrian text-type has better credentials than any other text-type now available.

"The famous papyrus P75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text -type." )pg 53).

The papyrus manuscript P75 is part of the Bodmer Papyri, along with papyrus manuscript P66, and was discovered "in a pot on the east bank of the Nile south of Cairo." (Hills, 1977, 39). Later, a scrap of P66 was discovered among another discovery called the Chester Beatty Papyri which contained P45, P46, and P47. This puts all these supporters of the Alexandrian text-type in the same location in Egypt.

It's interesting to note, also, that the Sub-Akhmimic mauscript Q (an Egyptian language translation), which gives strong support for the "Vaticanus" text type, was found on the east bank of the Nile south of Cairo. The editor of Q stated: "The handwriting bears a strong resemblance to that of Vaticanus, allowance being made for the fact that one is on papyrus [Q] and the other on vellum [Vaticanus]" (Thompson 1924, xiii). Another scholar, Frederick Kenyon, mentioned in a letter to Q's editor that:

The manuscript to which the writing is most akin is the Codex Vaticanus. There is the same simplicity, the same rounded forms, the same slight irregularites in length of lines (though that is not peculiar to Vaticanus), and a very similar general appearance...." (Thompson 1924, xiii)

While the place where Codex B was written is unknown, it is suggestive that the manuscripts that most strongly support it were all found on the east bank of the Nile south of Cairo.

As for P75, while it does agree heavily with Vaticanus, there are some 110 differences, some quite major, between the two from Luke 9:26 to 16:31. (Johnston, Peter J., "Codex Vaticanus (B) plus P75--The 'Best' Text of the New Testament?" The Bulletin of the Institute for Reformation Biblical Studies. 1:1 (1989)).

No one denies that the Vaticanus "text-type" is early. But it is curious that P66, which is even earlier than P75, has more support for the Byzantine text-type than P75.

Another credential to consider when talking about texts, is the error rate. In a comparison of 12 manuscripts in Matthew, including Codex B, Codex D, Codex W, and Sinaticus, at the 510 verses where the modern Greek text agrees with the King James Greek, we find that the most accurate manuscripts are 461, 1278, 440, and 76, with an agreement percentage of 93%, 89%, 89%, and 89% respectively. Codex B comes in next at 87%, while Codex W, Sinaticus, and Codex D have an 75%, 73%, and 44% agreement rate. That is, at the verses in Matthew where no dispute exists, the most accurate manuscripts are the so-called "conflationary" ones, dating in ages from A.D. 835 to A.D. 1498 (ms. 962 with an 86% agreement).

A similar study with the same manuscripts through the first 11 chapters of the Gospel of John where early and modern scholars agree on the text, shows that the manuscript that deviates least is 962, followed by 461, 76, 700, 1278, 440, and E. Codex B is in eighth place.

A third study was made comparing the verses in John 1-11 where P66, the modern Greek text, and the Greek underlying the King James agree. P66 is missing some verses but there are 512 where agreement is possible. Of these, P66, the modern Greek and the King James agree at 154 verses. This represents an A.D. 200 text, long before any "conflated" or "contrived" Byzantine text is fabled to have been formed.

Again, the same 12 manuscripts were compared. The most accurate manuscript was 461, copied 635 years after P66, with a 97.4% agreement at the 154 available verses. Manuscript 962, copied 1298 years after P66, agreed with 93.5% of the verses from this A.D. 200 text. Codex B, of Vaticanus text-form fame, copied less than 200 years after P66, concurs at only 136 verses (88.3%).

How is it that manuscripts from a "conflated" revision agree so much more with this A.D. 200 text than the "unconflated" copies that were supposedly there in the beginning? Any official editing would surely have stirred things up more than this.

Conclusion

The King James Version Debate does point our some problems with the Greek text underlying the King James. And the non-textual sections are useful. Anyone interested in the subject should read it.

But the whole premise of the book, that the modern versions such as the NRSV, NIV, Jerusalem Bible and others, are more accurate than the King James is wrong. The modern Greek text gives us the diluted, error-prone text of a backwater area of Egypt. The King James and other translations from the same base Greek text are supported by far more evidence and are far more accurate.

Sojourners of the Lord Home Page	Bible Studies, Articles, Links, More...
Sojourners' King James Bible Page	Large Collection of Manuscript Evidence
Sojourners' NoteTabbers' Page	Loaded with Libraries, Clips, and Images...
Sojourners' Site Index	Listing of Most Pages on All Sites