Skip to main content

Which Manuscript Should we Translate? Textual Criticism and Bible Translation Today


When translating the New Testament from Greek into the various languages around the world that still need it, translators have to make a decision. Which manuscript are they going to work from? Often, the policy by Bible translation organisations such as SIL, UBS and IBT is to translate from the critical text (the latest UBS or Nestle-Aland version). Modern-day scholarship would support such a decision. The assumption is that the shorter and simpler texts are likely to be the earliest. These are mostly from Alexandria in Egypt. The longer and more complex texts are thought to be later. These are mainly from Asia Minor (modern-day Türkiye). 

The problem is that the regional translations used in many parts of the world such as Russia and Central Asia are often based on the Textus Receptus. This is the first Greek text to have been widely published, and was put together by Erasmus and published in 1516, along with a new translation into Latin (it was a diglot Greek-Latin New Testament). The Greek text was based on whatever manuscripts he could get hold of, which were mostly from Asia Minor, that is, they were 'later' manuscripts, according to modern-day scholarship.*

The Textus Receptus often includes whole verses that are 'missing' from the Alexandrian texts, such as Matthew 17:21. Here it is in the NIV:

20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” [21] [a]
22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. 23 They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” And the disciples were filled with grief.


a Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.


The King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus, includes Matthew 17:21.

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

When people in Russia, Central Asia, and other places where the regionally accepted Bible is based on the Textus Receptus read a translation based on the critical text, they are understandably upset to see that there are verses missing from the Bible.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be much better to base our translations on the Textus Receptus in those parts of the world. It would avoid a lot of discussions with local pastors about which translation is more reliable (the accepted regional translation, such as the Russian Synodal, or translations into local languages based on the critical text). This would increase the perceived reliability and acceptability of translations into local languages carried out by SIL, UBS and IBT.

*There were some verses missing from the Greek manuscripts he used, notably in Revelation chapter 22. He solved this problem by translating them from Latin (the Vulgate) into Greek, thereby creating one translation error in Rev 22:19.

Picture © 2025 David Gray, Codex Sinaiticus (in the British Library)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

One Person's Contextualisation is Another Person's Syncretism

I was in an interesting discussion full of anthropologists the other day. They were discussing syncretism. Most of them were of the view that outsiders cannot decide which practices are syncretistic and which are not. It has to be a decision made by local believers. This is because only local people can create indigenous theologies, that is, interpret Scripture according to the local worldview(s).  Not only that, some practices need to be tolerated in the short term, as we trust that new believers will gradually mature, and realise that those practices need to be weaned out of their lives. This can take time, perhaps years. Outsiders can, however, help local believers through the process of deciding for themselves which practices need to be rejected, which can be accepted, and which need to be modified according to (local formed) principles from Scripture. For example, ancestor practices, which my PhD thesis was on, are often continued by people after they have come to faith. They...
Post a Comment
Read more

Scripture Engagement for Translation Advisors

What do translation advisors need to know about Scripture engagement (SE), and why? Let's look at the 'why' first: Translation advisors (TAs) are often involved in day-to-day exegesis. They help mother-tongue translators (MTTs) prepare drafts. The MTTs they work with might not know Hebrew or Greek. The TAs then take part in the team check of that draft, which involves other MTTs in the project as well as the TA. Sometimes they are also involved in the coordination of the translation programme. They are very busy people. So why do they need to know about SE? Because: The translation is ultimately for an audience that has felt needs that are not being addressed by the translation programme. Analysing and meeting (or helping to meet) the felt needs of the audience should be the first priority of any mission worker, including TAs. Only about 30% of completed translations are well used. The initial set up of the programme needs to take SE into consideration (it's no good wai...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...
3 comments
Read more