Fenton Hort against The Majority Text

Fenton Hort

This was fine until the 19th Century when Fenton Hort introduced the Alexandrian Texts into translation work. Hort was an Englishman and had sympathies for the Arian position denying Christ’s divinity. He was asked to review the KJV due to his expertise in language. However, instead of reviewing it he embarked on a project to adopt the Alexandrian Text.

The Bishops of England told Hort not to use the Alexandrian Texts to this extent, but he ignored them. He claimed that because the two Alexandrian texts were older than the 5,500 manuscripts which support the Textus Receptus they must be more original or better. Evolutionists and liberal scholars in British universities supported this idea.

Many modern English translations then began to use the Alexandrian Texts. Some English translations use them in part while using the Byzantine Texts in part also. To the degree they rely on the Alexandrian Texts, several verses are left out. Some of these modern English translations will leave out many verses and even sections of scripture, which are included in the KJV.

The Majority Text

In recent years scholarly opinion is moving back in favour of the Byzantine Texts and away from the Alexandrian Texts. A new Majority Text has been made from the older Byzantine texts, which is almost the same as the Textus Receptus editions. The Majority Text also does not include the two Alexandrian Texts. There are three strong reasons to discount the Alexandrian Texts and accept the Byzantine Texts as the correct Bible:

1. There is agreement with all scholars that the church has accepted the Byzantine Texts at least since the early 4th Century. Until Hort, this was 1,500 years of undisputed acceptance.

2. The writings of the church fathers, as far back as the early 2nd Century, include the disputed verses the Alexandrian Texts have deleted. Ignatius (35-116AD), Justin Martyr (100-165AD), Irenaeus (130-202AD), Hippolytus (170-236AD), Tertullian (160-221AD), Cyprian (200-258AD) and Dionysius (3rd Cent.), for example, all quote verses that are found in the Byzantine Texts but not in the Alexandrian texts.

3. Translations into other languages known to be before the 4th Century are shown to correspond with the Byzantine Texts. These include strong support from Armenian, Ethiopian, Gothic, Old Latin, Anglo-Saxon and Syriac translations. The Papyrus Bodmer II (also called P66) dating from between 125-200AD verifies many of the disputed passages in the Byzantine Text.

There are counter claims that deny the above points. It is a complicated field of research, but it would appear that the church has not been so stupid all these years as to reject the Alexandrian and other heretical copies without good reason. We also believe that God would not leave the church for 1,500 years with the wrong text.

Matters that Impact Translation

1. The translation work of Wycliffe and Tyndale (later compiled into the KJV) was made with great care, dedication and knowledge.

2. These were also men who loved Jesus and gave their lives for the gospel. Despite claims, today translators do not have more knowledge and may not always have the same level of dedication.

3. The theology that the translator holds impacts upon their translation work. In our view the theological knowledge of the Puritans who compiled the KJV was superior to that held by some in our current day.

4. A strong market or profit motive can affect the work of modern publications. For example, the NKJV had to meet a copyright law demanding a certain number of words be changed.

This is not said to support a KJV only debate. The KJV does have faults. It is good to read many translations to help with perspective. This discussion claims that the manuscripts we use and the theology we maintain impact upon the translation work we do. It is good to compare many translations, while being aware of the textual issues. It is good to avoid watered down translations as texts in church.

Due to a lack of knowledge of old English, we can misunderstand the KJV. We do believe that for the reasons outlined here it is one of the best English translations and educating others in English is better than dumbing down translations. For example, the old English uses different words for the plural and singular of you, reflecting usage in Greek texts, which we miss in modern works.

Translation works are not inspired (without error), although God’s providence has guided the work. We support continued efforts to research original Greek texts and matters that relate to a proper understanding of them in our own languages. Hebrew and Greek are not difficult to be acquainted with and there are many sources that can help us study the original languages and it helps to be aware that these also are affected by the theological persuasions of the authors.

For more information on this topic see: G. W. and D. E. Anderson, in A Textual Key to the New Testament, A list of Omissions and Changes (Trinitarian Bible Society, 2002); and in What Today’s Christian Needs to Know About the NIV (TBS, 1998); both of which raise several important issues that people may not always be unaware of. The issue in Bible reading is not to take the easiest way, but to become educated.