This article defends the use of the Authorised (King James) Version as a faithful and reliable translation of Scripture grounded in the preserved Traditional Text. It contrasts this with the Alexandrian manuscript tradition, arguing that modern translations introduce uncertainty through textual variation and critical methods. Ultimately, it affirms confidence in the Authorised Version as maintaining the purity and integrity of God’s Word for the Church.

A RELIABLE BIBLE

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2^nd Timothy 3:16-18)

Is it Just About Tradition?

Throughout my life I have consistently used the Authorised Version of Scripture.  This was due initially to the prevailing practice within the Free Presbyterian Church, which is, and always has been my spiritual home.  It is true that those of us who read the King James Version love the eloquence and majesty of its language, which has contributed to it becoming the most influential single book in the history of our language.  There are those, however, who despise our sole use of the Authorised Version in our devotions and public ministry.  We are thought of as a people who cling to old and archaic traditions with no desire to move forward into the future.  This criticism is simply unfounded and untrue.  Within the Free Presbyterian Church, and throughout the English-speaking world, many Christians use the King James Version out of conviction that this is the most accurate version of God’s Word in existence today.  I do not read the Authorised Version simply because my denomination uses this translation exclusively, nor do I use it because I love the style of language.  My use of the King James Version is based upon a settled conviction that this translation protects the purity of God’s Word, where other translations, quite simply, do not.  Faithfulness to the original manuscripts must be the prime consideration in our choice of translation. The Psalmist wrote “the commandment of the LORD is pure” (Psalm 19:8), teaching us that in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, God’s Word is without error, infallible. If this is so, then it is vital that a translation of Scripture remains as close as possible to the original text, therefore preserving, as far as possible, the purity of the word.

I understand that many sincere Christians take a different view. Nevertheless, the arguments in favour of the King James Version are so compelling I not only remain convinced, but believe that others will be likewise if they take time to consider the weight of the evidence.

The Manuscript Question

We believe that the Authorised Version is superior in this regard because of the family of Greek manuscripts that the New Testament is based upon. There are no manuscripts which contain the entire New Testament. Rather, there are fragments of whole books or part books. These manuscripts, however, when collated together have been classified by scholars as falling into one of two families, the Traditional Text and the Alexandrian Text.

The Traditional Text is superior because it is the family of manuscripts which were used by the early church. We know this because these manuscripts are relatively new in comparison to the Alexandrian Text. Some claim that the Traditional Text is weak because the manuscripts on which this is based are centuries away from the original documents (the autographs). In reality, their time in history is a strength because it proves that the older documents became unreadable through usage, necessitating the need for more copies. The sheer number of manuscripts which belong to the Traditional Text bears this out. Of the 5,338 Greek manuscripts in existence some 80% – 90% of them are from this family. For 1500 years, until the invention of printing, these works were passed down through the generations by handwritten copies. If the Traditional Text is indeed the text used by the church then it is the text which God has miraculously preserved. God who inspires his word for the good of the church will also preserve that word for the church to use. The church can never at any time be without the Word of God.[1]

The Alexandrian Problem

The manuscripts which underlie the Alexandrian Text are very old but their age and amazingly good condition reveal an obvious truth – they do not appear to have been widely used within the life of the Church.

Aleph and Codex B

The two major manuscripts in this family were not discovered and critically examined until the 19th Century. Codex B (Vaticanus) was discovered in the library of the Vatican while Aleph (Sinaticus) was found in a monastery on Mount Sinai.

What Tregelles and Tischendorf Discovered

When Tregelles went to Rome to study Vaticanus he was not allowed ink and paper and he was watched over by two prelates who would take the volume away if he spent too long with a certain passage. Another scholar called Tischendorf went later to the Vatican and received similar treatment at the hands of Rome.

Does Antiquity Argue for Reliability?

Yet those who support the Alexandrian Text would claim these manuscripts are older and by implication are more reliable than the Traditional Text. Would God allow His word to be hidden for centuries in the library of Rome, the great corrupter of the truth? Do we accept the manuscripts used by the church or do we accept those that were hidden from the church? Which family of manuscripts answers to the doctrine of divine preservation?

Flow Chart Contrasting the Two Major Families of Manuscripts

The contrast between these two textual traditions can be simply illustrated:

This contrast highlights why we believe the Traditional Text represents the preserved Word of God for the Church.

The Consistency of the Traditional Text

The Traditional Text is highly credible because when its manuscripts are studied, they are found to be consistent with one another in the vast majority of readings. The two major manuscripts that constitute the Alexandrian Text, however, (B and Aleph) contradict each other, not hundreds but, thousands of times. For example, in the Gospels alone, they read differently on 3,000 occasions.

Inconsistent Readings Lead to Rationalistic Translations

This presented a problem for scholars who attempted to compile a Greek text from these manuscripts. The two 19th Century scholars who attempted this very thing were Wescott and Hort. Dr Alfred Martin, an American scholar, in 1951 described the work of these two English scholars: “The Wescott-Hort method is essentially rationalistic, for it exalts the judgment of the individual critic. They were influenced either consciously or unconsciously by the liberal tendencies of their time. Both…seem to have been theistic evolutionists.” In other words these men decided what should be the Word of God and what shouldn’t.

Burgon’s Rebuttal

John Burgon who extensively rebutted the Wescott-Hort method in the 19th Century wrote, “The Holy Scriptures are not an arena for the exercise or display of the ingenuity of critics.”[2] If the Bible is God’s inspired word then He will have preserved manuscripts which agree with each other and which enable scholars to produce reliable translations. The Traditional Text and the Authorised Version certainly correspond to these guidelines.

Footnotes Undermine Authority

As a consequence, the modern versions use footnotes which explain the variant readings in older manuscripts. Two whole passages are inserted into the NIV New Testament with the heading “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20 / John 7:53-8:11”. This instantly produces doubt and uncertainty as to what is the Word of God and what is not. G.W. And D.E. Anderson have catalogued 650 variant readings where the original Greek has been changed, a passage has been bracketed or verses and words have been left out completely.[3] The words of Revelation 22:18-19 must be taken seriously in studying this subject. For those who are attracted to the New King James Version, attention must also be drawn to its use of footnotes which authenticates Codex B and Codex Aleph. This raises questions about whether it provides a consistently reliable alternative.

A Trustworthy Bible

We can therefore assert with confidence that in the Authorised Version we possess a translation grounded in reliable manuscripts and preserving the pure stream of God’s inspired truth.[4]

Further Articles in this Series

https://hopeinthevalley.co.uk/category/fpc-75/

 

---

[1] Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, The Christian Research Press, 1997.

[2] The Revision Revised , John Burgon, The Dean Burgon Society, Reprint of the 1983 Edition.

[3] A Textual Key to the New Testament, Anderson G.W. & D.E., Trinitarian Bible Society, 1987.

[4] This chapter can also be located in The Book of Books, Peter McIntyre, Clogher Valley FPC, 2019.