Gutenberg after developing a printing press with moveable type produced the first printed Bible in 1456. This meant a consistent standard text could now be distributed. Before this the scripture manuscripts were copied by hand. This process meant accidental and deliberate changes could be made to the text. In fact such changes did occur regularly in both the Hebrew documents of the Old Testament and in the Greek documents of the New Testament.
By comparing the contents of multiple ancient Bible manuscripts, any corruptions in the text can be detected. This process is referred to as Textual Criticism. Another problem now arises because Textual Criticism can be carried out with integrity or deceitfully. Satan is a master of such deceptions, starting with Eve right up to today.
Satan obviously wants to pervert the truth in the scriptures as much as he can. There was once the single original manuscript but now we have several families of copies for both the Old and New Testaments. This clearly indicates some corruption of the original has taken place. Satan has been sowing confusion so that now it is not a simple matter to work out what is the least corrupted version of the original.
The light of the gospel is so powerful it requires major corruptions to obscure it. For a while a newbie can get a lot out of reading almost any version of the Bible. Even in a corrupted copy not all truth will be obscured. But to discern the original truth and discard any added corruptions requires great wisdom. This is a difficult hurdle to get over for serious students let alone the vulnerable newbie.
There are so many false gospels and doctrines being proclaimed. It makes our pursuit of God far easier when we study the purest text possible.
The scribes who used to copy the Old Testament scriptures where located in Jerusalem but this came to an end after the Romans decimated the Jewish nation. Tens of thousands of Jews were slain when the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 AD, many were exiled as slaves. Then after the Simon Bar Kosiba uprising in 135 the Romans deported even more Jews as slaves so that the land was virtually barren of Jews.
Judaism up to this time was run by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. It was disbanded by the Romans. Some Pharisees regrouped in Yavneh. Out of this Rabbinic Judaism arose. It is not a very big assumption that they would have become a centre of Scripture production. As the prophesies in the scriptures were being used to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah several of these prophesies were edited. By the 5th century Rabbinic Judaism had established a standardised text and on through to the 10th century a group called the Masoretes were organised to maintain the Hebrew Scriptures.
Until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest known Hebrew Old Testament manuscript was the Aleppo Codex (Codex = Book) that had been produced around 920 AD. Another important manuscript is the Leningrad Codex produced in 1008 AD. These texts are the basis of the 10th century Ben Asher Masoretic Text that many claim to be utterly authoritative. Most English translations of the Old Testament are based on this text.
The first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses and are known as the Pentateuch. A document called the Letter of Aristeas describes how the Pentateuch was translated into Greek. It claims 72 Jews in Alexandria were commissioned to do this by Ptolemy II (285-246 BC) who was ruler of Egypt and Israel at the time. This translation is referred to as the Septuagint (Latin for: of the Seventy - LXX = 50+10+10).
Well, that is the story as generally told today but the letter of Aristeas seriously lacks historical credibility. It looks far more like hyped propaganda written much later, aimed at promoting the Roman Emperors paganised church. There is no evidence the LXX existed until after the time of Christ or that Christ and his followers used it. The oldest copy is late 3rd century. It has been suggested that Christ and his followers used it because the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament agree with the LXX more than the Masoretic. Another explanation for this is given below. However, many have accepted the Aristeas origin story and have presumed that Jesus and His disciples used this text.
There are around 2000 differences between the Masoretic Text and LXX many of them were aimed at making references to the Messiah look less like Jesus.
It is somewhat bizarre to believe the incredibly patriotic Jews would study a relatively crude Greek translation of their refined Hebrew scriptures. This is explained in this video:
| Septuagint |
Was There a BC Septuagint? YT(19m)
Over time other translators added the remainder of the Old Testament Books to the Septuagint making a complete Greek Old Testament. Books in the Masoretic Text are shorter than in the Septuagint which includes 7 additional books along with additions to Daniel and Esther. These additions are often referred to as the Apocrypha.
Some Jews who lived outside of Israel no longer spoke Hebrew and Greek was the international language of the day. The LXX was used by them along with the rapidly increasing, non-Hebrew speaking church. It had a large distribution and influence. It was not regulated by an institution that could corrupt it although Origen tried. It is currently used by the Eastern Orthodox Church of today.
Much earlier in 722 BC when Israel’s northern Kingdom had been taken captive to Assyria, people from other nations were moved into Samaria to replace them and these migrants started to follow the God of the land. They acquired copies of the Hebrew scriptures from King Josiah of the southern kingdom of Judah around 609 BC. They then independently produced their own copies. These manuscripts are referred to as the Samaritan Pentateuch. They were written in Paleo-Hebrew meaning they were direct copies of the same Hebrew text used by King Josiah, referred to here as the Paleo-Hebrew Text (PHT). The oldest known SP copy was produced in 1065 AD.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered (1946 onwards) they where broadly similar to the Masoretic Text. Yet, there were many significant differences that were more in line with the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The textual family produced by the broad alignment of the DSS + LXX + SP will be called here the Aligned Textual Family (ATF). The broad consensus of these three witnesses to the PHT is considered by some to imply that the Masoretic Text has been corrupted and does not accurately reflect the PHT as many forcefully proclaim. Most Bibles use the MT Old Testament.
Many times when you look up a New Testament quotation of an Old Testament scripture in the Old Testament it does not match. Here is why. 20% of these quotations are actually the same in both the LXX and the MT but 80% are different. Where the quotations are different 90% follow the LXX and only 10% follow the MT. This means that when you read a quotation in the New Testament of the Old Testament it is usually following the LXX and not the MT.
| Septuagint |
Septuagint introduction that compares the LXX and the MT (9m)
Despite established tradition, it may well have been that when the New Testament was being written the LXX did not actually exist yet and the Hebrew scriptures of that time had not yet been corrupted. This would explain why the New Testament mainly quotes the LXX and implies the corruption that took place in the MT took place between the 70 AD destruction of the temple and the inauguration of the Masoretes in the 5th century. So, however honourable and fastidious the copying of the Masoretes was, their processes could not de-corrupt a corrupted text. This is very controversial for some but it is the only way I can find of making all the facts fit together. Many of the theories being promoted conflict with the facts.
After the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was disbanded by the Romans in 70 AD a group of Pharisees relocated to Yavneh. By 90 AD they had started to become very influential and their work led to the formation of Rabbinic Judaism based on the Mishnah and the Talmud. Remember these were the same men who had vehement hated for Jesus and who had sought his execution. Jesus had made some extremely harsh comments about them [Mat 23:13-38] because of their gross apostasy. The conclusion is reached here that they were extremely frustrated by the explosion of Christianity and that they were responsible for the changes that are found in the Masoretic Text, that make Messianic references look less like they referred to Jesus.
When the Hebrew in the MT is confused and irregular the LXX is now often being used to correct it.
Even early church fathers such as Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Justin Martyr (100-165) and even Origen (185-254), wrote about the greater accuracy of the LXX over the corrupted Hebrew Texts being promoted by Rabbinic Judaism.
... the interpretation (LXX) made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy (Greek king) of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they (the Jewish teachers) attempt to frame another.
...the Jewish teachers have altogether taken away many of the scriptures from the translation of the seventy. Justin Martyr 160 AD
I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings. Otherwise, in my controversies with the Jews, I might quote them what is not found in their copies. Also I want to make use of what is found there, even though it is not in our scriptures. Origen 240 AD
The Lord Himself saved us, giving us the sign of the virgin. But it is not as some allege, who are now presuming to expound the scripture [Isa 7:14] as "Behold, a young woman will conceive ..." as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. Irenaeus 180 AD
At the time of the Reformation Luther sadly rejected the LXX in favour of the MT and other reformers followed his lead. A tradition that has come down to us today.
Some will go ballistic at the following comment but the MT actually has many problems while the only major problem with the LXX is that it has Methuselah dying 14 years after the flood when he would have died before. Thankfully the SP does not have this problem. For some unknown reason people were editing the ages and birthdays of those from Adam to Abraham. In the SP and the LXX the time since creation is significantly longer than in the MT which then allows the Bible to be synchronised far more easily with secular archaeology.
Septuagint English Translation - Sir Lancelot Brenton 1851 (pdf)
| Septuagint |
New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS)
Free digital downloads of individual books available here.
| NETS |
The Samaritan Pentateuch in English (SPE) - Sigalov
can be viewed within the STEPBible
| STEPbible |
It can also be purchased and viewed within e-sword.
E-sword is an excellent free Bible Study Tool.
| e-Sword |
Although Matthew’s Gospel is known to have originally been written in Hebrew the oldest New Testament copies are all recorded in Koine (Common - not Classical) Greek and were originally written between 15 to 45 years of the death of Christ. Although written at a time when the Roman Empire had replaced the Greek Empire as the dominant ruling power, Greek was still the international language of the day. Latin the language of the ancient Romans only became prominent later.
The original hand-written New Testament manuscripts would have been used often and will have quickly become worn. They were written on papyrus which is much less hard wearing than modern paper. This is why many of the New Testament manuscripts are made out of fragments that have been reassembled together. Many copies of these manuscripts would have been produced and as those copies wore out they were copied. Things continued like this until printing was invented much later.
None of the larger manuscripts are identical everywhere because understandably most copyists made some mistakes that went unnoticed and uncorrected. Sadly some copyists made changes to improve, in their eyes, the style. But more serious are the God forbidden deliberate changes that were made. By studying manuscript differences both inadvertent errors and deliberate changes can be identified. This process is called Textual Criticism. An activity that can be done with high integrity or deviously to achieve dishonourable objectives. There is a spiritual war going on and deceit and disinformation abounds.
Erasmus printed the first Greek New Testament in 1516. He based his book on five Greek New Testament manuscripts. Later more New Testament Greek texts were published based on more Greek manuscripts. This family of texts are referred to as the Textus Receptus (Received Text). Despite not having more than about 30 manuscripts to apply Textual Criticism to, they produced a text that is accepted by many as still being in good agreement with the majority of manuscripts that are available today.
The exact underlying Greek text behind the King James Version is unknown and was reconstructed by Frederick Scrivener and published in 1881. The resultant text is referred to using his name.
As even more manuscripts became available to scholars the Majority Text was developed. Its name is misleading because not all the known manuscripts are available for study and confusingly it occasionally follows Alexandrian readings and not Byzantine.
Broadly speaking Greek manuscripts tend to fall into two main categories. One category contains what are called Byzantine manuscripts and underlie the Received Text. They are named after the Byzantine period 312-1453 AD when the Orthodox Church was led from Byzantium, now known as Constantinople. In 2017 there where 5856 known whole or partial Greek New Testament Manuscripts and 18,130 Non Greek Manuscripts, totalling 23,986.
The other category of around 30 Greek New Testament manuscripts are called Alexandrian, of which 4 have most of the New Testament books in them. This means less than 1% of the New Testament manuscripts are Alexandrian. It has been suggested that these texts had been revised to suit the teachings of Arias (250-336) a priest in Alexandria who denied the divinity of Christ.
In the 1860's the 4th century Alexandrian manuscripts called Vaticanus and Sinaiticus became available to scholars. These two manuscripts were given prominence by some due to being heralded as being a century older than the earliest existing Byzantine Texts. The Vaticanus abounds with spelling, grammar and omission errors and is of mediocre scribal quality. The Sinaiticus abounds with corrections from at least 10 different hands. There are many omissions and its scribal quality is of extremely poor quality. There are thousands of significant textual differences between these two manuscripts, approximately 4 out of every 5 verses. This clear evidence of textual revision strongly contradicts the claims of their faithfulness to the original. The Alexandrian texts are about 5% shorter than Byzantine due to all their omissions.
The historian Eusebius is generally thought of as a reliable source of information but it seems he bowed to the Emperors doctrinal decisions. In the early writings of Eusebius he quotes 21 times the end of Matthew’s gospel as:
Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you. [Matt 28:19]
After the Council of Nicea in 325 AD he used today’s traditional reading three times as found in most modern translations including the King James Authorized Version.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [Matt 28:19]
That we ought to be baptised just in the name of Jesus is demonstrated in the Book of Acts where there are three records of baptisms [Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5] each carried out simply in the name of Jesus.
The revised wording is actually theological nonsense too. The Father actually has a name. Let us say it is Yehovah. the Son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is simply a title like father, which is not a name. This modification to the text led to three immersions taking place at baptism and later the three sprinklings on a babies forehead at the completely unscriptural christening ritual.
The Bishop of Rome excommunicated the entire Celtic church with its apostolic roots in the 7th century for adhering to baptising just in the name of Jesus. This is further evidence that the New Testament as well as the Old has been manipulated by unscrupulous scholars and accepted by unwise leaders.
Even worse was to come. Scholars, Westcott and Hort bizarrely claimed that because the 4th century Alexandrian manuscripts are older than the earliest 5th century Byzantine they are more accurate too, despite that they were so divergent between themselves. They invented a theory that the Byzantine Texts were all based on a 4th century revision made by the Syrian Church. There is no evidence to support this theory at all. There is evidence however that suggests the Alexandrian Texts were the result of a 2nd to 3rd century revision that was part of the Roman Emperors paganisation of the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort published their Greek New Testament based on the Alexandrian Texts in 1881 and incredibly the so called Evangelical Christian world accepted it. Their text has been further revised and is now usually referred to as the Critical Text.
One theory is that the main differences between manuscript types can be seen to have arisen due to the Arian doctrinal error that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. So the age of a manuscript is not necessarily the main factor in determining its accuracy anyway.
Another theory as to where the Alexandrian Texts came from, is that in 331 AD Constantine commissioned Eusebius of Caesarea (shown above to be capable of significant compromise) to produce 50 versions of the New Testament. Eusebius was a follower of Origen who was a mystic acting as a church father who edited the scriptures to match his esoteric beliefs. The Alexandrian Texts could have been the results of the commission given to Eusebius by Constantine.
There are ONLY 4 main Alexandrian manuscripts and they vary CONSIDERABLY between themselves. They are highly edited and are of poor scribal quality. Meanwhile there are over 20,000 Byzantine manuscripts that vary far less than the Alexandrian. This indicates that not just accidental scribal error took place in the Alexandrian Texts but also deliberate editorial alterations.
There are many ancient lectionaries (lists of scriptures used on various occasions) that confirm the Byzantine Text. There are also many letters between the 1st century church leaders that quote the scriptures. Some of these letters are older than the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts and confirm the Byzantine Text. Well over 95% of the manuscript evidence agrees very closely with the Byzantine Text. Ancient translations in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, etc, that originated before the oldest Greek copies we have today generally agree with the Byzantine and not the Alexandrian Text.
Some people like to play down the differences but it has been estimated there are about 6,000. It has been suggested that the meaning of up to 20% of the New Testament is influenced by these differences. Many of them are of no consequence but some have significant doctrinal importance. The main differences are that words and phrases in the Byzantine are not found in the Alexandrian and hundreds of the changes weaken support for the deity of Christ. It has even been suggested the Critical Text has been aimed at supporting the New Age more than true Christianity.
Many of the changes in the Critical Text have no manuscript support at all which is not surprising because it is incredibly well documented that both Westcott and Hort hated the King James Version as they were spiritualists and into all manner of occult practices. (New Age Bible Versions – G A Riplinger 1993)
Despite this most of the New Testament translations today are based on a Byzantine structure with thousands of arbitrary revisions grafted in from various inconsistent Alexandrian Texts. No actual ancient manuscript follows the Critical Text. Many of the nations Bible Societies have accepted this corruption too and all new language translations are being based on the Critical Text.
There are warnings both in the Old and New Testaments against making such changes.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yehovah your God which I command you. [Deut 4:2]
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and the things which are written in this book. [Rev 22:18-19]
It is reasonable to accept that we probably do not have a 100% accurate version of the original texts as written by the original authors. However, a strong case can be made that the most accurate we have is most likely to be one of the Textus Receptus family.
Many like to place confidence in the King James translators and believe the most accurate text is the Skrivener's Text. It is an unjustifiable and an extreme view that the Skrivener's Text is 100% accurate. However, it is probably one of the most accurate texts that we have and it will be entirely reasonable to use as an authority on which to base our faith in the King of the Kings - the Lord Jesus Christ.
Early in the fourth century AD Jerome of Bethlehem translated the New Testament into Latin. This version was called the Vulgate because it was in the common or vulgar tongue of the day. It was from the Vulgate that Wycliffe, from 1382, had translations made of the New Testament into early English. All the copies were hand-written. They clearly revealed how far from the teachings of Christ the Roman Catholic Church had moved. The Catholic Church branded him a heretic. Despite the very fierce persecution 170 copies have survived.
In 1450 printing was devised in Germany and in 1516 Erasmus of Rotterdam published a copy of the New Testament in Greek. From this William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English. It was published in 1526. His New Testaments were small and smuggled into England in thousands. He translated the Pentateuch from the Hebrew and published it in 1530. For all this he was eventually burned at the stake in Belgium in AD 1536.
The hold of the Roman Catholic Church over Britain was severely weakened by King Henry VIII who in 1538 gave instructions for an English Bible to be put in every church. This fuelled the Reformation in England.
In 1604 James I authorised a new Bible translation that was undertaken by 54 men. It built on all the previous translations. It was first published in 1611. The last revision was in 1769, which is the AV (Authorized Version) still available today. Sadly to understand it fully you have to get into the old English style and meaning of some of the words.
Along with Liberal theologians, many evangelical scholars embraced the Critical Text. Most modern translations are based on the Critical Text. Sometimes they give the Byzantine Text as an alternative but with a comment about it being based on later manuscripts therefore implying it is inaccurate.
In other writings of many of the modern translators a fundamental belief in Christ and the inspiration of scripture is often denied. It appears that watering down the supposed original Greek assists greatly in the more insidious endeavour of watering down the translation to fit compromised lukewarm liberal views.
Many modern versions differ significantly between themselves undermining scripture itself as something solid and trustworthy. Koine Greek is a simple language fairly easy to understand. It has been suggested that in some places uncertainty can arise because, although the New Testament is recorded in Greek, several of its books seem to be written using Hebrew idioms and culture. In other words it seems as though it is written in Hebrew but using Greek words. This is very understandable, as all the New Testament writers were Jewish.
Today well over 100 English New Testaments versions are available. The only version in modern English based on a Byzantine Text to my knowledge is the New King James Bible. While it is generally based on the Received Text it has followed Alexandrian Texts in many places. It is NOT just a modernised King James Version. However this is probably the best available translation for a newbie. However a newbie has so much to learn they do not want to be caught up with checking what the original text actually said. We are left with the embarrassing truth that the last high integrity translation of the New Testament is the King James. It is far from perfect with several known errors and it does take time to get used to its style.
Oh Lord forgive us for allowing your word to be corrupted and forgive us for not making available high integrity translations of your Word.