Most Christians who read a modern English Bible such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB or any of the others published in the last fifty years are unaware that the Greek text those translations are based on draws primarily from two manuscripts. Two. Out of more than 5,700 that have been collected.

Those two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, are fourth-century documents from a single geographic region, Egypt. When Westcott and Hort published their revised Greek New Testament in 1881 they placed these two manuscripts above the combined testimony of thousands of others. That decision has shaped virtually every Bible translation published since.

The other 95% of surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts reflect a different tradition, the Byzantine text. This is the text the church read, preached from, and translated for over a thousand years across Syria, Italy, France, Britain and Eastern Europe. It underlies the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus. And it has been largely set aside.

This site exists to examine that imbalance honestly. The paper presented here is not a defense of any particular translation or a call for a return to the King James Bible. It is a careful, evidence-based examination of a genuine methodological problem — one that draws on concessions from scholars who themselves defend the Critical Text to make its case.

The questions addressed here are ones every Bible reader deserves to have answered. Why do 95% of Greek manuscripts support readings that modern Bibles omit or change? What is the actual condition of the two manuscripts modern translations rely on most? What do early papyri and second-century church fathers tell us about which text is older? And what would a genuinely balanced approach to reconstructing the original New Testament actually look like?

The paper is offered freely for the benefit of the church. It is also available on ResearchGate. Comments and questions are welcome.