We will explore the New Testament Word, The Original Text, and how it spread. This is an abridged version but it will serve well to give us an uncomplicated overview
This Chart shows 3 Groups of writings we have available for us today.
Church Fathers - A Witness only and easy to date: Letters written by these Church Fathers contain many Scripture quotes, just like we do today. However they are not always quoting precisely, therefore they are not used as prooftext for Scripture. Nevertheless, they are powerful witnesses. Mark 16:9-20 is questioned by Modern Text Critics since Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus don't have them. But these verses were cited by Church Fathers - Irenaeus, Tatian and Martyr, who lived 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written. What a powerful Witness indeed!
Versions - A Witness only and fairly easy to date: These are translations made from the Greek Manuscripts into other Languages like Latin or Syriac. Translations are not used as prooftext for Scripture. Nevertheless, they are also powerful witnesses. Again, for Mark 16:9-20 there are about 1000 Syriac versions attesting to these verses - and written long before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Another powerful Witness!
NT Manuscripts - Prooftext for the Bible and very difficult to date: Papyri - Text written on Papyrus, similar to thick paper; Codices - Text written in a book; Minuscule - Text written in a small cursive Greek script; Majuscule or Unical - Text written in capital letters; Lectionaries - Text used in worship services; The Alexandrian Line is copied very sloppily! - they greatly disagree with each other and the Traditional Text. On the other hand, the Church copied their manuscripts very carefully! That is why the Traditional Text and its 5000 manuscripts agree with each other over 99%. Surely, this is much closer to the Original Autographs and outweighs the argument of "Age" only.
Now this is where it gets a bit more complicated. The Church as well as the Word of God (the Manuscripts) came under immediate attack. From the time of the Apostles until the Year 311, Christians were persecuted everywhere. Times were more severe under Diocletian than perhaps at other times. Not only were Christians killed but their sacred Scriptures (Letters, Manuscripts) were also destroyed.
In addition, the Gnostics rewrote and corrupted Manuscripts according to their diluted ideas almost immediately after the Gospel and the Letters were written. They did not believe in Jesus being the Son of God. The Hotbed of Gnosticism along with Greek Philosophy was situated in Alexandria and other parts of Egypt. There was no unified doctrinal statement among Gnostic groups. There was no consensus on a Gnostic canon of scriptures. Gnostic groups had no scruples about rewriting and adapting other religions' sacred writings to fit their fancy. Many of their own works were circulated in different versions. Various sects had their own preferred rendition. Click here to learn more about them.
The Result of all this Gnostic falsification of manuscripts is that we have basically 2 separate "streams" of Manuscripts as you can see on both Charts below.
A Gnostic corrupted Stream from Alexandria, Egypt (also called Minority Text, Critical Text, Modern Text, Nestle/Aland or UBS). This can NOT be considered a "Text Line". There are very few physical Manuscripts. The two main Codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus DISAGREE with each other over 3,000 places in the Gospel and about 7,000 places total for the New Testament. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus make up 98% of the Modern Critical Text (Nestle/Aland 27). And the Modern Critical Text differs from the Traditional Text in 8,032 places!
The Preserved Traditional Text which has existed within the Church is also called Byzantine Text, Majority Text or Textus Receptus. This is truly called a "Line"or "Family" since the over 5,000 Manuscripts agree with each other over 99%. This is what one would expect from born again believers - to faithfully and accurately produce Copies for all the Churches to use. Early Church Fathers as well as early translations are also powerful witnesses to this Line!
Now it really gets interesting. After the Persecution stopped in 311 what did the Church do? They did what they did from the beginning, checking the Manuscripts available and compared them with other Churches to make sure that everyone had the correct Text. So, after the 4th Century the now "famous" Alexandrian Text type disappeared completely from Church usage! From the 5th Century until 1881, the Traditional Text was unquestionably the Text of the Church until unbelieving Modern Text Critics resurrected these old corrupt Egyptian Manuscripts.
Look closely at the overwhelming amount of support for the TR - Textus Receptus - Traditional Text of the Church.
Let's not forget to add the witnesses of the early Church Fathers as well as the early Translations and it becomes clear without a reasonable doubt that the Traditional Text is the Preserved Word of God.
As a Summary - let's remember this.
Modern Text Critics always say "Oldest and Best" with regard to the Critical Text. When you hear this, counter with these arguments:
Where did the Critical Text manuscripts come from? Answer: Egypt - home of Greek Philosophy and Gnostic corruption.
Do the early Papyri attest to them? Answer: Only 15% - That means 85% are in support of the Traditional Text.
Do the early Church Fathers attest to them? Answer: Not really - overwhelmingly they support the Traditional Text.
Do the early Translations (Versions) attest to them? Answer: Not really - overwhelmingly they support the Traditional Text.
Were they used in a widespread geographical Area: Answer: Not really - only local area.
Were they available to the Saints for reading? Answer: Not really - only local area.
Are they the "best"? Answer: Sinaiticus has over 27000 corrections in it. Vaticanus has been overwritten almost completely by a 15th Century Scribe. They disagree with each other and of course with the Traditional Text. Sum total: these 2 Manuscripts are the worst in existence. Nothing comes even close. That's why the Church since the 5th Century has completely rejected them!
Were they copied Carefully? Answer: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 30%. Think about this for a moment. This is a strikingly great blow to the argument that they are best. It shows very sloppy copying and of course freewheeling Gnostic corruption.
Is there any early history/genealogy about Vaticanus or Sinaiticus?: Answer: No. Even the Reformation Fathers rejected the Vaticanus.
Why are Modern Text Critics looking so vehemently OUTSIDE of the Church to recreate / reconstruct a Bible the Church always and at all times had in its possession?
Some more interesting Charts
Persecution finally stopped early in the 4th Century. The Church was now able to freely travel around and eliminate all those corrupted manuscripts. This was a fairly easy undertaking since, without a doubt, there were many accurate manuscripts still around everywhere. Faithful Copies of Letters were made and distributed to Churches who did not have all 27 New Testament Letters available. This process was based on ample evidence at hand at a time where the struggle of the purity of the text was a very high priority. By the end of the 4th Century, the corrupt Alexandrian Text was eliminated by the Church!
Church Councils were held to condemn false teachings and Creeds were developed to defend the Churches doctrine. Even the corrupt Gnostic writer, Origen Adamantius, was declared a heretic in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
All this has been dealt with and settled by the early Church in the 4th Century when relevant Information was at hand.
Why should we now trust this quest of modern Text Critics to reconstruct/rewrite the New Testament 1500 Years after it had been already finalized? Based on only 2 highly corrupted Codices with NO history of usage? Done by Critics with NO regard for Inspiration and Preservation of the Word?
