Alexandrian Texts
By Keith Loggins

But there is a problem. There are several books in existence that I have read from those who defend the "Alexandrian Text" One is by James White and the other by D.A. Carson. I would ask that you read these two books that hold a different point of view than I do. I am not afraid of the truth, as I think these two gentlemen are. Why do I say that?

There is a stranglehold in Christian circles that pre-supposes that if you believe that the majority text is superior to the minority (Alexandrian) text, you are an idiot at best and an unbeliever at worst. I have heard James White on the John Ankerburg show and the Bible Answer Man radio program with Hank Hanegraaff and his condescension is quite obnoxious. As much as I admire Hank H. and the work he is doing, he can't bring himself to acknowledge that it is possible he is wrong on this issue. Even his pastor agrees with me on this issue (Chuck Smith) but Hank wants to be in the intellectual circles that hold his view. Why is Hank afraid to have Zane Hodges on his show?

There are millions of Christians who hold to the majority text but they really don't know why. This web site is dedicated to reaching the lost with the gospel of Christ and to educate Christians on the importance of the gospel writings. Let us begin!

There are 5,309 Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament and they fall into five categories.

Uncials: This term refers to manuscripts that were written in capital letters. This style of writing was often reserved for literary works and the letters had to be more deliberately executed that letters in script or cursive. (260)

Cursive scripts: These were documents that we would consider as everyday documents. Letters, grocery lists, receipts etc. Most manuscripts of the New Testament are this form and most of these are minuscules.

Minuscules: The consensus is that around the ninth century A.D. handwriting took a change. The result was that a cursive script using smaller letters for the production of books was adopted. This became very popular and it spread quickly. It is generally believed that these were produced later than uncials and because they were easier to produce, they outnumber uncials more than ten to one. (2700)

Papyri: Obviously, this means that manuscripts were made of papyrus instead of vellum (animal skin). Since paper of this type did not hold up as well as vellum, there are not to many of these around. (80)

Lectionaries: These are books read in church that contained portions of the scripture that were to be read on certain days. (2100)

Now it is to be noted, the vast majority of these manuscripts are fragmentary. Only 50 of these 5000 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament; only one is an uncial (codex Sinaiticus), however, most contain the four gospels.

Now this may sound confusing and to be honest, it is. We are talking about the Word of God and I would bust a gut to insure the gospel of God made it through the attacks of the enemy.

I think everyone would agree that you cannot just take the oldest manuscript you have, and trust it, because it may just be a very poor copy. I think the originals were copied many times as they spread throughout the Byzantine Empire and that they were used so much, that the originals wore out. I also think that the true Christians copied these letters diligently and faithfully and that is why the majority text is more reliable. That is not my only reason by far, but it is a good one.

I want to talk very briefly about texts. There are four major ones. Byzantine, Western, Caesarean, and Alexandrian. The middle two are discounted by most scholars and I am in agreement with them on this issue. I want to deal with the two major ones, Byzantine and Alexandrian.

I want to show you the line of reasoning that D.A. Carson uses in his book, "The King James Version Debate". I am not afraid to quote these scholars in context and I will put in italics the portions I find strange.

"1. The Byzantine Text. This is the textual tradition which, in large measure, stands behind the KJV. It was largely preserved in the Byzantine Empire, which continued to use Greek, unlike the Western Roman Empire and its offshoots, for which Latin was the common language. There are far more manuscripts extant in this tradition than in the other three combined; but on the other hand, most of these manuscript witnesses are relatively late." [i.e. majority text]

"4. The Alexandrian Text. This text-type was probably prepared by trained scribes, most likely in Alexandria and its regions. F.J.A. Hort called them prime exemplars the 'Neutral' text and ascribed to them a preeminence that has been somewhat mitigated by subsequent research. Nevertheless, the Alexandrian text has excellent credentials, far more than its harshest critics have been willing to concede. On this I shall have more to say." [i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus]

I love this quote because to me, Carson shoots himself in the foot. Let me ask you; who would you rather trust to make a copy? A Christian who used Greek as his primary language or an Egyptian who was trained to make copies; and we are not even sure about that? Christianity was flourishing in Europe and these copies were being passed out as soon as they were made. Egypt was just the opposite with pagan religions in control of that region. Let me put it this way. The demand for the writings of the scripture were not near as great in Egypt as they were in Europe. If all these superior copies were being made down there and not being passed out, where are they? Carson admits that there is only one (Sinaiticus). There are 257 uncials that agree with the majority text but according to Westcott, Hort, White, Carson, Hanegraaff, they just aren't as good as the Alexandrian. If you read my dissertation on Westcott and Hort, I believe that you will agree with me that their opinion holds no weight whatsoever as to the preeminence of the so called "Neutral" text.

What Carson et.al. want us to believe is that all 5,306 manuscripts that disagree with the "minority text" are corrupt and that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are as pure as the wind driven snow. There is a problem with that however. These two Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.

Lets look at the Vaticanus. It was written on vellum and so is in excellent condition and it was found in the Vatican Library in 1481. What Carson will not tell you is that this superior manuscript omits Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2-3; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14 through 13:35 and the whole book of Revelation.

The Vaticanus didn't contain these verses but it did contain the Apocrypha.

Now to the Sinaiticus. This manuscript from which your NIV, NASB, PHILLIPS, and every other modern version you can think of besides the King James and New King James Bible, was found in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai in 1844 by Tischendorf.

Do you know what this most valuable Word of God was being used for? It was in a trash pile and was being used to light the fireplace. In my opinion, it was right where it belonged. It contained nearly all the New Testament with a few other delightful editions. The "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas". To me, this would be a huge red flag not to trust the words written therein but White and Carson disagree.

However, an intellectually superior man to Carson, White, and myself, John Burgon spent years examining this "manuscript" and had this to say;

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

If you were able to view this document, you would see that there are corrections and revisions on every page, done by ten different people. Most of the corrections were done when it was first copied but through research, it appears that most of the corrections were done in the 6th or 7th century.

Another brilliant individual, Phillip Mauro, who wrote a book in the early 1900's called "Which Version", writes of the Sinaiticus

" From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best aquatinted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."

Carson believes that the Sinaiticus was written in Alexandria Egypt and let us for the sake of argument, say that it is true.

The man who ran the school down there was named Origen and he lived from A.D. 184-254. It was most likely that Origen had the most influence on the copying of the manuscripts. What did this man believe?

Origen did not believe that these manuscripts were the infallible Word of God. His writings are still around today and you can verify them for yourself.

One of the most notable of Origen's ideas was his Logos Doctrine. This idea had been expressed in John 1:1-5 and in other Christian writings but Origen gave it the fullest treatment. In Greek Philosophy, Logos was the name of the divine principle of creation and rational world order. Origen applied this principle to Christ's person and work. Subordinating the Son to the Father, he treated Christ as the Logos (created by God) who brings reason to the world. In this treatment he neglected the figure of Jesus Christ as a man who lived and taught on earth. This was the foundation of the Arian Doctrine. Origen believed that Jesus was a created being. Origen believed that Christ did not walk the earth.

If Jesus did not walk the earth, then, He was not crucified and He was not resurrected. We are dead in our sins!

Investigate this for yourself. Put the NIV and the NKJV side by side and start your own investigation. The truth will win!