Critical vs Received Text & Recommended Bible Translations
Published August 7, 2024 at 1:43 PM
–
There are hundreds of Bible translations in the English language. Concerning the Old Testament, the two main sources are the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). If the Spirit leads me to do so, I will cover the differences between LXX and MT in a future article. However, almost every English Bible uses MT, so there is no need to focus on the Old Testament in this article. The contention concerning Bible translations comes from translating the New Testament.
New Testament translations come from two families: The Received Text (Textus Receptus) and The Critical Text. The Received Text comes from the Byzantine line and makes up about 95% of the New Testament manuscripts. Notable Bibles that use the Received Text are the KJV and NKJV, alongside all the Reformation-era Bibles. In comparison, The Critical Text comes from the Alexandrian (Egyptian) line and is the minority of manuscripts. However, every modern English Bible, besides the KJV and NKJV, uses the Critical Text; why is this so?
It should seem obvious that The Received Text would be considered authoritative, as it is the overwhelming majority. However, the minority of Critical Text manuscripts that we have are older than the majority of Received Text manuscripts. This has caused people, namely Westcott and Hort, to argue that the Critical Text must be closer to the original New Testament. Their arguments prevailed, which is why the Critical Text is used in most Bibles.
We disagree with Westcott and Hort, which is why this article will cover the issues with the Critical Text, and then end by ranking Bible translations in tiers that range from “recommended” to “avoid at all costs”.
–
Why Does This Matter?
After that history lesson, I know many of you are wondering why any of this matters. The reason is that the Critical Text removes verses from your Bible. There are about 45 verses that are in the KJV and NKJV that are not found in Critical Text Bibles like the NIV and NLT.
Below is a chart from Truthunedited, a great ministry that I recommend, that covers 25 of these 45 removed verses.
The common argument on the side of the Critical Text is that these verses were not removed, but rather that they were not in the original text. They believe that it would be easier for scribes to add 45 verses to the Bible without being caught, than for them to omit verses, whether on accident or intentionally (I believe some scribes omitted verses to fit their theology, namely Arianism and anti-Trinitarianism, but that’s a different topic).
These are the same people who argue that the 95% of manuscripts that come from the center of early Christian living (Byzantine) are wrong, but the 5% that come from Alexandria, where Christianity was mixed with mysticism and Buddhism (research the Desert Fathers) are correct. They assert that the majority is wrong and the offshoot is right, but I digress.
For the sake of time, I will focus on two of these removed verses and show why they were undoubtedly in the original text.
–
Case 1 – Acts 8:37
The slamdunk case that proves the Received Text got it right is Acts 8:37, which talks about Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch. In the NKJV, Acts 8:36-38 reads (Acts 8:37 emboldened):
“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’ Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38, NKJV)
Acts 8:37, which includes the confession of faith from the Eunuch, is removed from Critical Text Bibles. Acts 8:36-38 in the NIV says the following:
“As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?’ And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38, NIV)
Acts 8:37 is clearly missing, and if you check all your Critical Text Bibles, you will find the same thing. However, we know that this verse was originally in the Bible, based on the writings of Irenaeus.
Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in 180 AD, which predates the Critical Text, and had this to say about Acts 8:37:
“[Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, ‘I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.'” (Against Heresies 3.12.8)
This quote points us in the direction that the 95% got it right and the 5% got it wrong, which shouldn’t be too far-fetched to suggest. Acts 8:37 should undoubtedly be in our Bibles.
–
Case 2 – 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma)
1 John 5:7-8 is undoubtedly the most controversial of all the removed verses. This is how it appears in the NKJV (controversial part emboldened):
“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” (1 John 5:7, NKJV)
Compare this to 1 John 5:7-8 in the NIV, which says:
“For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. ” (1 John 5:7-8 NIV)
The part about the Father, Son (Word), and Spirit is completely removed in the Critical Text. People argue that this verse was a forgery added to the Bible in the Middle Ages, as it doesn’t appear in the earliest manuscripts. They assert that the Church added it in as a way to combat anti-Trinitarian doctrine. However, the quotes of the early Christians prove that this was in the original New Testament.
In 200 AD, Tertullian defends the Trinity doctrine and quotes 1 John 5:7
“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One,” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 25)
Some may assert that this quote is vague, and not a direct reference of 1 John 5:7 so I will provide more.
In 250 AD, Cyprian quotes Matthew 12:30, John 10:30, and 1 John 5:7
“The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’ He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. 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.’ (Epistle to Jubaianus)
This quote is more clear, and it is surrounded by other scripture. Cyprian quotes the Bible multiple times in this short span, and 1 John 5:7 is amongst these quotes.
Lastly, Athanasius directly references 1 John 5:7, and attributes it to John, in the 4th Century
“But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? In addition to all these, John affirms, ‘and these three are one.'” (Disputatio Contra Arium)
I pray that you see that the early church had access to 1 John 5:7 and quoted it frequently. This was not a forgery added to our Bibles in the Middle Ages; it was always here.
If you are interested in a more extensive dive into 1 John 5:7, SCROLL Independent Ministries does a great job in their video.
While I can continue exposing removed verses, we must move on. I am leaving the task to you to compare the Critical Text Bibles to what the NKJV, KJV, and most Reformation-era Bibles say.
–
Recommended Translations
While the Critical Text does remove verses, I recognize there are still people who prefer it over reading the KJV. They like Bibles that are in modern English, as reading the KJV can be confusing at times. This is why I wish that more modern Bibles used the Received Text, as it would preserve the original message of the Bible, while keeping it in readable English.
On top of removed verses, another problem with Critical Text Bibles is that many of these translations water down the Bible. Modern translations like the NIV and NLT are often very liberal and do not convey the original message of the scriptures (this becomes very apparent when reading the Old Testament in the KJV, compared to reading it in the NIV). There is too much of an emphasis on gender-neutral language, and making the Bible easier to understand, which causes some of the original meaning to be lost.
However, not every Critical Text Bible is watered down, which is the point of this tier list. While I am in favor of Received Text Bibles, it is still important to differentiate between good and bad Critical Text Bible translations.
–
Tier 1 – Recommended Translations: KJV and NKJV
After reading this article, there shouldn’t be any surprise that these translations are in Tier 1. They are the only modern English translations that use the Received Text, meaning they aren’t missing verses. The KJV is closer to a literal translation of the Received Text, whereas the NKJV makes modifications for the sake of readability. Both are good translations to read, and I recommend switching between both to get a better understanding of the Word.
–
Tier 2 – Good Critical Text Translations: ESV, NASB, AMP, RSV, ASV
These translations are similar to the NKJV, except they use the Critical Text instead of the Received Text. They are stronger translations that attempt to preserve the original wording and meaning of the Bible. My main quibble with these translations is that they are missing verses, and that there are places where they differ in wording/theology from the KJV/NKJV in subtle, but noticeable, ways. For example, Titus 1:2 is changed from conveying that God cannot lie to conveying that God does not lie (which is theologically weaker). Still, it doesn’t hurt to have a rotation of reading the KJV, NKJV, and ESV to better understand the meaning of a Bible passage.
–
Tier 3 – Mediocre Critical Text Translations: NIV, NLT, NABRE, NIRV, ERV
These are the more liberal Bible translations that water down the meaning of the Word. They focus on making the word easier to read, or gender-neutral, instead of preserving the original meaning. These Bibles are fine for Christians who need to start somewhere (NIV is especially used for children, and NABRE for new Catholics) but I don’t recommend using them for long. These translations do not have the redeeming qualities of the translations in tier 2, hence why they are ranked lower.
–
Tier 4 – Avoid At All Costs: The Message, The Passion Translation
As respectfully (or disrespectfully) as possible, these translations are pure garbage. The Message is barely even a Bible translation, and I wouldn’t disagree with anyone who flat-out said that it wasn’t. Eugene Peterson himself even admitted that he “became playful” when creating this translation. Concerning The Passion Translation, it adds so many words to the Bible and imposes its own meaning on the Word (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19). I also encourage you to research the story of how Brian Simmons was “called” to commission The Passion, then read Galatians 1:8.
–
Conclusion: Not Reading Your Bibles Is Unacceptable!
I must end this article by reminding you that not reading your Bible is unacceptable. We should be chasing after God, and seeking to get to know Him through His word. And for those who struggle to read their Bibles, pray that the LORD gives you a desire to read His word. For those who find translations like the KJV hard to read, pray that the LORD gives you a better understanding of His word. Though these Bibles are harder to read and understand, they convey the original meaning better than the lower-tier Bibles. Plus, you can read a verse in three or four different translations, for clarity, if one translation confuses you. In short, there are plenty of resources at your disposal, so you have no excuse not to be reading your Bible.
Thank you for reading, and always remember to stay vigilant!