How texts evolve as evidence expands

The way texts evolve over time is one of those quiet epics of history—less flashy than revolutions or battles, but far more persistent. A text is never just ink on page; it’s a living chain of memory stretching across centuries, and each generation leaves fingerprints on it, intentionally or not.

Imagine a tree growing in slow motion. The trunk is the earliest form of the text—already complex, already shaped by the community that produced it. As centuries pass, branches emerge: scribes copying by hand, translators moving the text into new languages, editors smoothing rough edges, entire cultures reading it differently. None of these steps are neutral. Eyes misread, hands slip, theology nudges, politics whispers, piety corrects what looks wrong, and sometimes the evidence simply goes missing.

When Erasmus came along, he inherited a tradition shaped by more than a millennium of manuscript transmission. The Byzantine tradition he used wasn’t “bad”—it was just one branch of the tree. But it was the branch available to him, and he had no way of seeing the entire forest. Earlier manuscripts were locked away in monasteries, unknown to Western Europe, or simply undiscovered. Later scholars found them, and suddenly the tree looked different. That new evidence forced a re-evaluation.

This is the basic rhythm of textual evolution: each generation thinks it sees the whole picture, and then more evidence emerges, and the picture expands. Erasmus had late Greek manuscripts; 19th-century scholars gained access to ancient codices; 20th-century scholars discovered papyri even closer to the earliest period. The ground kept shifting, not because the text itself was unstable, but because our view of its history kept widening.

There’s something oddly beautiful in this process. A text that has traveled through so many hands carries humanity in it—our accuracy, our mistakes, our devotion, our assumptions. It’s a reminder that the past isn’t a fixed museum exhibit. It breathes. It changes shape as light hits it from new angles.

Looking at textual transmission this way doesn’t diminish Scripture; it illuminates the long, intricate journey through which communities preserved what they revered. It also nudges us to handle the whole topic with intellectual humility. Anyone claiming a “perfect” text risks missing the deeper story of how human beings preserve meaning across centuries.

This kind of thinking naturally leads into conversations about how we weigh earlier versus later manuscripts, how traditions diverge, and how theological commitments interact with textual evidence—threads that take us into the heart of how sacred texts live in history.

Who was Eramus?

Erasmus lived in that fascinating hinge-moment before Western Christianity split cleanly into its familiar camps. Trying to file him neatly under “Roman Catholic” or “Protestant” ends up flattening the shape of his mind. But if we must answer plainly: yes, Erasmus was a Catholic priest and remained within the Roman Church all his life. He never left it, never joined the Reformers, and never accepted their confessional positions.

Erasmus was trained in the Augustinian monastic environment, though he never enjoyed monastic life. His intellectual formation was shaped by Renaissance humanism, which put a premium on returning to the sources—ad fontes—both classical and biblical. That spirit is what pushed him toward editing the Greek New Testament in the first place.

He was no doctrinal radical. His theology is often called “Christian humanism”, which has nothing to do with modern secular humanism. Erasmus believed that Christianity needed moral cleansing, spiritual renewal, and the correction of corruptions—especially in clergy and institutions. But he wanted renewal from within the Church, not a break from it.

His thought centers around a few key points:

First, the ethical life of Christ. Erasmus believed Christianity was fundamentally about imitating Christ’s humility, peace, and compassion. He was endlessly frustrated with theological hair-splitting and church politics when Christians weren’t living like Christ.

Second, scriptural and patristic recovery. He admired the early Church Fathers and believed the Middle Ages had drifted from the clarity of the early Church. He wasn’t trying to dismantle tradition; he was trying to prune it.

Third, free will. He famously clashed with Martin Luther on this point. Erasmus defended human free will and moral responsibility, convinced that Luther’s determinism made God a tyrant and destroyed human agency. Luther responded with volcanic force in On the Bondage of the Will. Erasmus never wanted that fight, but once drawn into it, he defended a deep conviction: moral exhortation only makes sense if the human person has some capacity to respond.

Fourth, moderation. This was both his strength and his curse. Erasmus hated extremes. His temperament recoiled from the revolutionary energy of the Reformation and from the reactionary harshness of Catholic authorities. Both sides accused him of cowardice or slipperiness; in truth, he was trying to keep scholarship and piety intact while the world around him caught fire.

He was a Roman Catholic priest, scholar, reform-minded insider. But his mind moved in ways that don’t fit our modern categories cleanly. He represents a moment before the lines hardened, a bridge-figure whose loyalty was to truth, clarity, and moral renewal more than to partisan identity.

Erasmus - the compiler of the Textus Receptus

Erasmus is one of those figures who gets mythologized until he’s practically glowing in the dark, but when you actually peer into the historical workshop where he did his Greek New Testament, you find a very human scholar rushing against deadlines, working with limited manuscripts, and doing the best he could with what he had. His achievement is impressive, but “perfect text” is not the right category for it.

Here’s the straight story.

Erasmus did not create the Greek New Testament. He didn’t even fully compile it in the modern scholarly sense of weighing thousands of readings. What he really did was produce the first printed Greek New Testament (1516), which later printers polished, standardized, and promoted as the Textus Receptus (“the received text”). The label itself wasn’t applied until 1633—more than a century after Erasmus.

Erasmus’s goal was not to give the world a flawless, once-for-all Greek text; his aim was a printed edition for humanists and theologians that combined Greek and a revised Latin version. He thought the Latin of his day had drifted and needed correction using the Greek. Think of him as a restorer working partly in the dark rather than a perfect architect.

The manuscripts he used were few and late. Most were from the twelfth century, the Byzantine tradition, which is sort of like having several copies of the same old songbook rather than a wide sampling from different regions and eras. He lacked older manuscripts that we now know carry earlier forms of the text.

For Revelation he had only one manuscript, and it was missing the last verses. That’s where things get spicy. He back-translated parts of Revelation 22 from Latin into Greek. It is a bit like translating an English poem into Spanish and then translating it back to English—inevitably you introduce quirks that weren’t originally there. Some of those quirks later became part of the Textus Receptus.

He truly didn’t have access to what we now consider important: earlier Alexandrian manuscripts (like Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus), papyri, or broad geographical textual diversity. None of this was his fault. Those manuscripts were either unknown, inaccessible, or locked in libraries that wouldn’t hand them out like candy.

Did he produce a perfect text? No. He produced a pioneering printed edition, important historically, but imperfect by modern text-critical standards. Not because Erasmus was sloppy, but because his data was limited, his timeline was absurdly rushed, and the available scholarship simply wasn’t where it is today.

His work isn’t “bad”—it’s just a snapshot of early 16th-century resources. The imperfections show up when compared with a much larger and older manuscript pool. That doesn’t diminish his brilliance; it just reminds us that every scholar works within the limits of their tools.

KJV misleads modern readers

Early-modern English is a familiar cousin wearing unfamiliar shoes. The King James Version (1611) stands in that uncanny valley where the words look mostly modern but behave differently. Here’s a generous parade of ways it misleads modern readers.

1. “You” vs. “thee/thou/ye”
Today we hear thee and thou as fancy or reverent. In 1611 they were the informal singular forms.
• thou/thee = you (singular, informal)
• ye/you = you (plural or formal)
This matters for interpretation—some commands were plural, not individual.

2. “Charity”
Modern readers think philanthropy. In KJV it’s usually agapē—self-giving love. A modern reader might picture a nonprofit instead of a moral virtue.

3. “Conversation”
KJV often uses it to mean “conduct” or “way of life,” not talk.
A verse about “holy conversation” is not about polite speech; it’s about behavior.

4. “Prevent”
Now it means “to stop something.” In 1611 it meant “to go before” or “precede.”
“Preventing the dawn” did not mean blocking sunrise; it meant arriving earlier than it.

5. “Let”
Modern readers think allow. In 1611 it usually meant hinder or restrain.
That flips the meaning of entire sentences.

6. “Meat”
Not beef. Not pork. It meant food in general. A “meat offering” was a grain offering.
A vegan could read it without spiritual distress.

7. “Ghost”
“Holy Ghost” isn’t spooky. Ghost originally meant breath or spirit. English just shifted toward using “spirit” in religious contexts.

8. “Quick”
Not speedy. It meant “alive.”
“Judge the quick and the dead” = judge the living and the dead.

9. “Anon”
It meant “soon” or “immediately,” not “in a little while when I get around to it.”

10. “Suffer”
Not emotional pain. “Suffer the little children to come unto me” = allow, permit.

11. “Fornication”
People today hear strictly sexual meaning. In the KJV’s world it frequently overlaps with idolatry or unfaithfulness to God.

12. “Corn”
In British English of the time, “corn” meant grain generally—wheat or barley. Not maize.

13. “Study”
Sometimes means “strive,” not “read quietly in the library.”

14. “By and by”
In 1611 it meant “immediately,” the opposite of today’s leisurely “eventually.”

15. “Carriage”
Not a wagon. Often meant luggage or personal baggage.

16. “Cousin”
Could refer to a wide range of relatives, not strictly the offspring of your aunt or uncle.

17. “Declare”
Often meant “explain or make clear,” not a formal announcement.

18. “Presently”
Typically meant “soon,” not “right now.”

19. “Whoremonger”
To modern ears it sounds like a tabloid insult. In the KJV it’s a technical religious term for someone deeply entangled in sexual immorality or idolatry.

20. “The Holy One of Israel is in the midst of thee”
“Might sound like ‘in the middle of you personally,’ but it means ‘among your people.’ Singular to us; communal to them.

21. Syntax traps
KJV often uses word order that mimics Hebrew or Greek. Sentences can sound poetic to us but were simply conventional to them.

22. “An ensample”
This looks like a typo of “example,” but it means roughly the same—just an older form.

23. “Wot”
Means “know.” As in “I wot not.” Sounds like a cartoon frog instead of knowledge.

24. “Take no thought”
In 1611 it meant “don’t be anxious.” A modern reader thinks “don’t consider it,” which is softer than the intended meaning.

25. “Horn of my salvation”
English speakers today miss that biblical horns were symbols of strength and kingship, not trumpet solos.

The KJV is gorgeous, but it’s also a linguistic time capsule. Its strangeness often invites richer thought—just as any good old text does—but it needs decoding before interpretation. When digging into scripture, tracing how meanings shifted over four centuries adds a whole new layer of insight.

What is the KJV Only movement?

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

https://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

Major Shift in the Top Ten Best-Selling Bible Translations the Past Year

by Thom S. Rainer

There has been an amazing shift in the sales of Bible translations in less than a year. After years of relative stability, the King James Version (KJV) lost its number two ranking. In fact, the KJV dropped two spots to number four. The modern language translation of the KJV, the New King James Version (NKJV), fell one spot.

While the New International Version (NIV) is still ranked as number one, the New Living Translation (NLT) has moved to the number two spot, followed by the English Standard Version at number three. We realize that The Message is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Let’s look at the rankings, followed by a few of my observations.

Rankings as of March 2022 (numbers in parentheses are June 2021 rankings). 

1. New International Version (NIV) (1)
2. New Living Translation (4)
3. English Standard Version (ESV) (3)
4. King James Version (KJV) (2)
5. Christian Standard Bible (CSB) (5)
6. New King James Version (NKJV) (6)
7. Reina Valera (RV) (7)
8. New International Reader’s Version (NIrV) (8)
9. The Message (Message) (9)
10. New American Standard (NASB) (not ranked)

 Observations and Notes:

• If the King James Version remains at this level, it will signal a major shake-up in Bible translation preferences. It has held the number two spot for many years. Is it a reflection of the decline or closings of smaller KJV-only churches? Or perhaps, it reflects cultural shifts. If a family wanted a Bible for the coffee table, they typically would pick a KJV. Families may not want a Bible at all in their homes.

• Is the New Living Translation (NLT) headed toward replacing the NIV as the number one preferred translation? While we don’t have market share data, we hear anecdotally that many pastors have moved to the NLT. Their congregations are likely following.

• The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is back in the top ten after a year’s absence.

• The New King James Version (NKJV) was number three ten years ago. It has gradually lost its ranking over the years to number 6 today.

• Here is the link to the rankings: https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=0322

 

Meaning over mechanical replication

1. The Apostolic Precedent: Functional Equivalence

The most significant influence the disciples have on modern translation is the validation of Functional (or Dynamic) Equivalence. This is the theory that a translation should convey the thought and impact of the original text, even if it requires changing grammatical structures or specific words.

• Contextual Adaptation: Just as Matthew 12 smoothed out Isaiah’s "Servant Song" to make it cleaner and more idiomatic for Greek readers, modern translators are justified in smoothing out Hebrew or Greek syntax to make it readable for English (or Spanish, Chinese, etc.) speakers.

• Clarification of Meaning: Mark 5:41 provides a literal sound ("Talitha koum") but immediately follows it with a meaningful translation. This influences modern Bibles to use footnotes or inline explanations to ensure the reader understands cultural context, rather than leaving them confused by a literalism.

2. Theology Over Rigid Syntax

Paul in (Ephesians 4:8) changed a verb from "received" (in Psalm 68) to "gave" to make a theological point about Christ.¹

• Influence on Modern Translation: This teaches modern translators that the theological intent of a passage is paramount. A "word-for-word" translation that obscures the theology is actually a worse translation than a paraphrase that clarifies the theology. The Apostles demonstrated that Scripture is a living revelation, not a static artifact.

3. The Rejection of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" as Rigidity

Strict adherence to exact wording (as demanded by some strict "King James Only" or VPP proponents) is historically inconsistent with how the Bible was written.

• Influence on Modern Translation: This liberates modern translators from the pressure of maintaining the sentence structure of the King James Version (the "17th-century English committee" mentioned). It suggests that "faithfulness" to the text means being faithful to the message the Holy Spirit intended, just as Matthew applied Hosea’s "Out of Egypt" text to Jesus rather than historical Israel.

Conclusion 

The New Testament writers were the first "Dynamic Equivalent" translators.

The Apostles and Evangelists did not view Scripture as a fragile list of words that would break if rearranged. Instead, they viewed it as a robust source of truth that could be reshaped, remixed, and paraphrased to reveal Christ.

• When Matthew compressed Hosea to apply it to Jesus, he prioritized typology over chronology.

• When Paul fused two Isaiah passages in Romans, he prioritized theological impact over textual preservation.

• When Mark translated Aramaic, he prioritized audience comprehension over linguistic purity.

Therefore, modern translation methodologies which prioritize "meaning-driven" renderings are not liberal deviations; they are, in fact, apostolic.

If the very authors of the New Testament—under divine inspiration—felt free to modify the wording of the Old Testament to ensure the sense was clear and the Christology was accurate, then modern translators are standing on firm biblical ground when they do the same. To demand a strict, word-for-word freezing of the text is to hold the Bible to a standard that the Apostles themselves never practiced. The disciples proved that the power of Scripture lies not in the "exact syllables of a previous manuscript," but in the living, communicative message of God.