But not every textual variant can be worked out that simply. Another example will show you why King James only people became upset with the Modern Critical Text. 1 Timothy 3:16 speaks about Christ being manifested in the flesh. Some later Greek manuscripts read “God was manifested in the flesh,” while earlier readings say “He who was manifested in the flesh.”
So, because the King James was built on the “Textus Receptus” which was compiled from 5 to 7 later texts, but most modern translations are built on Nestle, or the UBS Greek New Testament which was compiled giving preference to older manuscripts, this is what you get.
1 Timothy 3:16 King James Version
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16 New American Standard Bible
Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up into glory.
And that’s how you get the author I referenced earlier saying that every English version other than the King James is corrupted. They will say, look, the New American Standard Bible changed the word “God” to “He.” They will accuse modern translations of trying to water down the doctrine that Jesus is God.
But that’s not what happened. The King James translation is built on 5-7 younger Greek texts that say “God.” The New American Standard translation chose to go with variant readings from older manuscripts that say “He.”
Now, the doctrinal difference between translating First Epistle to Timothy 3:16 as “God was manifested in the flesh” versus “He who was manifested in the flesh” is actually quite small in terms of Christian doctrine, though the wording affects how explicitly the verse states Christ’s deity. If translated “God was manifested in the flesh,” the verse directly declares that God Himself appeared in human form, making it an explicit statement of the incarnation and clearly identifying Jesus as God incarnate. If translated “He who was manifested in the flesh,” the verse refers to Christ indirectly rather than naming God explicitly. In that case, the identity of the person is understood from the surrounding context, which is describing the mystery of Christ’s incarnation. The verse still refers to Jesus, but the affirmation of His deity is implicit rather than stated directly in the wording of the verse itself.
But, as I stated, this is one of those verses where the King James version is different than more modern English translations. The King James version says, “God was manifested in the flesh,” while many modern translations say “He who was manifested in the flesh.”
So, this goes to the heart of the differences between the King James translated in 1611, and more modern English translations.
What is the difference between the King James version and other translations in regard to what manuscripts were used?
Let me first give you a breakdown of the different English translations.
As I stated earlier, there are two main textual traditions behind English Bible translations. The first is the “Textus Receptus” or Majority Text tradition, which was used for early translations such as the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the King James Version, and the more modern New King James Version.
The second main textual tradition is the “modern critical text” tradition, used by most modern translations such as the Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and Christian Standard Bible. These translations rely more heavily on earlier Greek manuscripts which were discovered and studied beginning in the nineteenth century. And these translators reason that the oldest available copies would be closer to the original rather than simply the largest number of manuscripts. Remember that this compiled text is based on the study of not only the 5 to 7 manuscripts used to create the Textus Receptus, but also 5000 plus manuscripts that were discovered in places around the world in the 19th century.
So that gives you an idea what texts are used for our English translations.
So, let me pause for a moment. When I was reading the booklet “God’s Word on Trial,” the author presents the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus the names of two manuscripts discovered in the 19th century as though they are suspicious. These manuscripts which seem to have materialized out of the basements of monasteries and churches in the 19th century just have to be suspect, don’t they? They were found stashed away for hundreds of years. Well, that reminds me of a story out of Scripture. This comes from 2 Kings 22.
8 Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the scribe came to the king ....and informed the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it in the presence of the king. 11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes.
What happened here was the kings of Judah had forsaken the worship of God, and keeping His law for 70 to 75 years. The king who was given this book was Josiah, who was leading the people back to the worship of Yahweh. Part of the work for that was in cleaning up the temple. That’s when they found this book of God’s law that had been neglected for those many years.
This is a similar circumstance to these manuscripts that were not available when Erasmus compiled the Textus Receptus. These other manuscripts were in places that Erasmus had no access. Or, they were undervalued because the Latin Text had become the main focus for translation work.
That brings us to a question.
Are these Earlier Greek manuscripts reliable?
The best answer to that is “yes.” Again, let’s go back to the consistency of the texts.
When the manuscripts themselves are examined, it becomes clear that the level of agreement between them is extremely high. About 99 percent of the New Testament text is essentially identical across the thousands of manuscripts, and most variations involve minor matters such as spelling differences, word order, or the presence or absence of small connecting words. These kinds of differences do not change the meaning of the text or affect doctrine.
In addition, the major doctrines of Christianity are still affirmed in these earlier manuscripts. For example, the doctrines of salvation by grace through faith, the Trinity etc. are all in the older manuscripts, just as they are in the newer ones.
Another important line of evidence comes from the writings of early church leaders, such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian, who quoted the New Testament extensively in the second and third centuries. Their quotations often reflect readings found in the earlier manuscripts, showing how the text was understood by Christians close to the apostolic era.
Geographic distribution also strengthens the case for these manuscripts, since early copies and translations appear in regions such as Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, and Rome. When the same reading appears in multiple regions independently, it suggests that the wording existed very early in the history of the text.
Scholars also study common scribal habits and have observed that copyists often expanded titles, harmonized parallel passages, added explanatory phrases, or clarified difficult wording. This helps explain why later manuscripts sometimes contain slightly longer readings.
Finally, the historical development of the printed Greek New Testament must be considered. The Textus Receptus was compiled from a small number of relatively late manuscripts available in the sixteenth century, whereas modern scholars have access to thousands of manuscripts from many centuries and locations. This broader manuscript evidence allows scholars to compare readings and reconstruct the text with greater confidence.
In the end, the overall evidence shows that the New Testament text has been preserved with remarkable consistency. The earlier manuscripts do not introduce new doctrines, the differences between manuscript traditions are generally small, and the availability of older and more numerous witnesses strengthens confidence in the reliability of the biblical text.
So, yes, these older manuscripts are reliable.
What are the guidelines used in translating multiple copies of the same text?
So, let me now address the general guidelines translators from the Modern Critical text tend to use when they come across two different readings of the same text. To make this less complicated let me use an example text. If a translator comes across two different words from two different manuscripts, how does he decide which is closer to the original? Here are the principles.
In Matthew 19:24, there is a textual variant between the words κάμηλον (“camel”) and κάμιλον (“rope”). The evidence shows that “camel” is supported by earlier and more widely distributed manuscripts, while “rope” appears in later and less widespread copies. Therefore, based on the manuscript evidence, “camel” is the preferred reading.
2. The Harder Reading Is Often Preferred
Scribes tend to simplify the text rather than make it more difficult. In Mark 1:2, some manuscripts read “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” even though the quotation includes material from both Malachi and Isaiah, which creates an apparent difficulty. Other manuscripts read “in the prophets,” which is smoother and removes the tension. Therefore, the harder reading, “Isaiah the prophet,” is likely original, and scribes likely adjusted it later to make it easier.
3. The Shorter Reading Is Often Preferred
Scribes tend to add material rather than remove it. In Matthew 6:13, some manuscripts include the ending, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,” while others do not. The shorter version is likely original, and the longer ending was likely added later for worship or liturgical use.
4. The Reading That Best Explains the Others
The original reading is usually the one that could have given rise to the others. In John 1:18, some manuscripts read “only begotten God,” while others read “only begotten Son.” Since “Son” is more familiar and expected, and “God” is more unusual and difficult, “God” is likely the original reading, and “Son” is likely a later smoothing change.
5. Geographic Spread Matters
A reading found in multiple regions is generally stronger. If a reading appears in places such as Egypt, Rome, and Syria, it likely goes back earlier than readings confined to a single region, indicating a broader and more ancient transmission.
6. Scribal Tendencies Are Considered
Scribes often harmonized passages, smoothed grammar, added clarifying phrases, or removed difficult wording. In Luke 23:34, the phrase “Father, forgive them…” is omitted in some manuscripts. This omission may be because some scribes struggled with its meaning and removed it, or because it was added later as a devotional expansion. This example is debated, but it shows how scribal tendencies are carefully considered.
7. No Single Rule Decides Everything
These principles are not used in isolation but are weighed together. Textual critics consider all the evidence collectively rather than relying on a single rule to determine the original reading.
So, those are the guidelines generally used by translators. But hold on a minute, I have doubts about some of these guidelines. I mean, is it necessarily always true that the older harder text is probably closest to the original? Here are some examples that go against the rules.
1. When the Harder Reading Is Not Original
Although the harder reading is often preferred, it is not always original, as seen in Luke 14:5 where “son” may be the result of a copying error due to the similarity between Greek words for “son” and “donkey,” making the more difficult reading potentially accidental rather than authentic.
2. When the Shorter Reading Is Not Original
While shorter readings are often preferred, they are not always original, as shown in Luke 22:43–44 where some manuscripts omit the passage about Jesus sweating blood, possibly because scribes removed it due to theological discomfort, suggesting the longer reading may actually be original.
3. When the Easier Reading May Be Original
Although harder readings are often favored, there are cases like Romans 5:1 where the easier reading, “we have peace,” may be original because the harder alternative could have arisen from a simple one-letter copying error rather than intentional change.
4. When Older Manuscripts May Not Preserve the Original
Even though older manuscripts are generally preferred, they may still contain early copying errors, meaning a very old manuscript can faithfully preserve a mistake that entered the text shortly after the original was written.
5. When Geographic Spread Can Mislead
Although a reading found across multiple regions is usually stronger, it can sometimes be misleading if that reading spread widely from an early but non-original source, showing that wide distribution alone does not guarantee originality.
So, with that being said, I come to appreciate how much work goes into the work of translation. But all this also helps me understand all those footnotes and text notes I find in my study Bible.
Typically, a study Bible page notes will look like this.
All these notes tell me if some of the words in a passage came from a textual variant. I like having that in my Bible. That tells me that these translators are not trying to hide anything. That gives me the reassurance that there are no major doctrines of Scripture that depend on a textual variant. That reassures me that the text of Scripture is still being studied today in its original languages, so I don’t have to wonder if some “church head” is locking away secrets about the Bible from the general public. That encourages me because it tells me that even though I have several great English translations of the Bible available, that the work of translation, from the oldest texts, into new languages continues.
I like a Bible like that because those Bibles have applied the “sunshine law.”
There is one final question.
When I consider the answer to the question, “which Bible version is best” I think about which translations apply the “sunshine law.”
What do I mean by that? “Sunshine laws” are usually referred to in a different context than Bible translation.
Sunshine laws are laws that require government meetings, decisions, and records to be open and accessible to the public.
I want a Bible version that applies the sunshine law. Some Bible versions only give you their translation, with no notes indicating that there are variant readings. They often look like this;
Now, I’m not saying that if you have a Bible like this that you can’t trust it. But in order to do deeper study, you will have to go to other books.
Well, before we leave this discussion of the “textus receptus” versus the “modern critical text” I want to point out where there are some big differences between the two. We understand that there are occasionally passages with minor word differences. But there are also whole sections of Scripture that are not in the older texts but are in the “textus receptus.”
Several well-known passages appear in the majority of later Greek manuscripts (textus receptus) but are absent from many of the earliest surviving manuscripts (modern critical text). The passages themselves are ancient and widely known in church history.
One example is the longer ending of Gospel of Mark 16:9–20. The earliest complete Greek manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, end Mark’s Gospel at 16:8.
Let me repeat that. Mark chapter 16 in the modern critical text, compiled from older manuscripts ends at verse 8.
8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
It doesn’t have verses 9-20. That’s not a minor difference.
Many later manuscripts (textus receptus) contain verses 9–20, which summarize resurrection appearances described in the other Gospels. Many scholars believe early scribes or church leaders may have added this ending using other source material because the Gospel otherwise concludes abruptly at verse 8.
Another example is the story of the woman caught in adultery in Gospel of John 7:53–8:11. This passage appears in many later manuscripts but is missing from the earliest Greek copies and from some early translations. In some manuscripts, the story appears in different locations. What that suggests is that it is an authentic event, but the record of it circulated separately from the gospel of John.
A third example is the so-called “Johannine Comma” in First Epistle of John 5:7, which reads in the King James Version: “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This phrase appears in very few Greek manuscripts and is absent from the earliest copies of 1 John. Most scholars believe it originated as a marginal explanatory note in Latin manuscripts that later entered the Greek text during the medieval period.
Another passage sometimes discussed is Acts 8:37, which records the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession of faith before baptism. This verse appears in many later manuscripts but is absent from several early Greek witnesses.
Now this one helps me explain what these variants end up looking like in various versions. In the King James the is Acts 8:37.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
This is what the New American Standard looks like.
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[r] 38 And he ordered that the [s]chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
There is a footnote in the New American Standard that says this;
Late mss add as v 37: And 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.”
The King James is based on the Textus Receptus, and includes verse 37. The New American Standard is built on the Modern Critical Text, and earlier manuscripts that didn’t have that verse. So, the New American Standard put it in a footnote.
But regardless of which version you use, you should be assured that the passage in question here, whether authentic or not, does not introduce new doctrines; the teaching it contains is affirmed elsewhere in the New Testament. The differences mainly show how scribes occasionally expanded the text for clarity, devotion, or liturgical use during the copying process.
And here’s a big takeaway. There are only 10 to 15 of these places in the text where there are significant variations between the textus receptus and the modern critical text.
Now, as you just read, the belief by some is that these passages may have been based on the authenticate events or words that happened at the time of Christ, but that they circulated separately than the manuscript they appear in the textus receptus. What that means to me is that they may be legitimately the Word of God.
To go back to the earlier passage. Is it possible that what happened in verse 37 was actually a part of the story, but didn’t make it into the first manuscripts? I think it is possible. Therefore, I would be hesitant as a translator to remove that verse from an English translation of Scripture. So, what can you do?