PAUL M. WILLIAMS HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE – PART 11 [05/12/14] THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE– PART 2

Introduction

Last teaching we spent time looking at some of the very early versions of the Bible which were translated into Syriac, Coptic and Latin; some of these dated as early as the 2nd century A.D. We then turned our attention to the English Bible and traced its history from the 14th - 17th centuries, beginning with John Wycliffe and ending with the Authorised Bible of 1611 aka the (KJV). We saw how instrumental was to this whole process in the 15th century, with some 90% of his wording making its way into the 1611 KJV. This period of Bible translation is known as the early modern English translation period. Believe it or not, England was one of the last countries in Europe to have Bible printed in the vernacular of its people. Following the publication of the KJV, this masterpiece of a translation went unchallenged for nearly 300 years and was thoroughly loved by the English speaking world. The KJV underwent a number of revisions since its first publication (four in total) with the last being in 1769, which is the version that exists today. In the late 19th century however, there was felt amongst Church of England Bishops, a need to update the KJV to bring it line with current modern English, i.e. replacing thee and thou etc. In 1870 the Church of England commissioned a revision of the with the stated aims being to adapt the KJV to bring it up to date with the modern English language without changing the vocabulary and idiom (e.g. your pulling my leg) and to bring it up-to-date with modern Biblical scholarship. In 1881, the New Testament was officially published and four years later in 1885, the Old Testament (complete Bible) was published. This revision of the KJV was the only official and authorised revision of the KJV of 1611 and was called the Revised Version (RV).

The Revised Version

The Revised Version of the 1880’s marked a significant and major shift in the history of the English Bible. Up until this time, the had been the foundational Greek text underpinning the translations of the New Testament from the time of Tyndale, including the AV of 1611. However, in the translation of the Revised Version, the more than 50 scholars used another Greek text to underpin the translation of the New Testament. Two notable Greek scholars by the names of Dr Brooke Foss Westcott and Dr Fenton John Anthony Hort were on the translation committee for the RV as was another notable scholar by the name of Dr Fredrick Henry Ambrose Scrivener. Scrivener insisted that the text underlying the translation of the KJV was the most accurate, but Westcott and Hort were not convinced. In 1881, Westcott and Hort compiled a critical text titled ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek’. Departing from the Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort instead compiled a Greek text of their own in which they used what they believed to be superior Greek manuscripts, namely Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and (B). Westcott and Hort were very influential on the RV translation committee and as a result their Greek critical text became the major influencer of the RV New Testament in 1881. As a result, far from being just a revision of the KJV, the RV made over 30 000 changes to the New Testament, 5000 of which were made on the basis of having available so-called better Greek texts, namely Westcott and Hort’s Greek text. Westcott and Hort set a new precedence in Bible translation in that since the publication of the RV, pretty much every English Bible published up until that time has used primarily, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the Greek texts underlying the translation of the New Testament. The RV was considered by many scholars to be more accurate than the KJV but lacked the poetical beauty of the KJV. Let us investigate this further…

Byzantine Manuscripts vs. Alexandrian Manuscripts

Textus Receptus

As mentioned; from the time of William Tyndale, the Textus Receptus had been the major Greek text underpinning every English Bible up until the RV in the late 19th century. The Textus Receptus aka the received text was compiled and published in 1516 by Dutch humanist and Roman Catholic priest, Desiderius of Rotterdam. Erasmus was a reformer within the Roman who openly criticised the many corruptions and superstitious nonsenses that he saw within the church. Erasmus was considered the top Greek scholar of his day and is credited with compiling and printing the first ever Greek New Testament called the Novum Instrumentum omne aka the Textus Receptus (TR). The TR underwent four revisions during Erasmus’ lifetime and it was the third edition in 1522 which formed the basis of Tyndale’s first English New Testament, translated from the Greek in 1525 along with all subsequent New Testaments up to the KJV of 1611, including Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, The Great Bible and The Bishop’s Bible. The second edition of the TR in 1519 formed the basis of ’s German New Testament which in turn served as the inspiration for William Tyndale wanting to give the English a Bible. In fact Luther was brought to Christ reading the Book of Romans from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament!! The TR was compiled primarily from seven Greek miniscule manuscripts, the majority of which date to the 12th century A.D and represent the Byzantine text-type.

The Byzantine and Alexandrian Manuscripts

There are essentially two main categories of Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Byzantine text type and the Alexandrian text type. Of the 5800 Greek manuscripts the vast majority represent the Byzantine text type which are primarily minuscule manuscripts dating from the 9th through to the 16th century with a few manuscripts dating as early as the 5th century. The reason why they are called the Byzantine text-type is that these manuscripts were distributed widely throughout the Byzantine Empire from the 4th century onwards. It is believed that this text originated in Antioch (Syria), which was an early centre for Christianity which was then transported to Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church traces its roots to the Byzantine Empire and today still places great emphasis on the Byzantine text-type.

The Alexandrian text-type (also called the neutral text) was prevalent in the area of Alexandria, Egypt. The Many of the earliest papyri and uncial manuscripts are represented by the Alexandrian text-type with some miniscule manuscripts. The oldest manuscripts, some 70 are represented by the Alexandrian text-type, the two most notable being Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Generally the Byzantine type text is larger than the Alexandrian type text and there are differences between the two. These differences are called variants and exist between all Greek manuscripts with no two being identical. It is estimated that amongst the 5800+ New Testament Greek manuscripts, there are approximately between 200 and 400 thousand variants!! As has been pointed out in part 8 of this teaching (The Reliability of the Bible – Part 1), these variants by and large are non-meaningful and include minor errors like misspelt words and other insignificant issues relating to the Greek language, many of which cannot even be translated into English. Of the meaningful variants, textual critic, James White points out:

“There are about fifteen hundred to two thousand viable and meaningful textual variants that must be examined carefully comprising maybe at most one percent of the text of the New Testament; of these historically, scholars have believed the vast majority of these are scribal errors of sight or hearing”. - James White opening statement in a debate with Bart Ehrman (2009), “Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?”

When one compares the Byzantine manuscripts with that of the Alexandrian text, apart from the Alexandrian text being smaller in volume, there also exist variants between them which has led scholars translating the modern Bibles to omit certain verses from the New Testament (more on that shortly). The vast majority of modern scholars support and favour the Alexandrian type text over the Byzantine text. The argument made by modern scholars is simple; there may well be far fewer Alexandrian manuscripts available to study than Byzantine manuscripts but the quality of the Alexandrian manuscripts are far superior and better because of their age which dates far closer to the original. Proponents of the Byzantine type text point out that even between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, there are many variant readings. They also point out that though the Alexandrian text might be physically older the Byzantine text represents a line of transmission which is much more reliable because after the fall of Jerusalem, the centre of Christianity moved not to Alexandria but to Antioch out of which arose the Byzantine text. Furthermore, they point out that the fact there are so many Byzantine manuscripts is evidence of their wide-spread use by Christians through the centuries. When asked to explain why they date generally much later than Alexandrian manuscripts the answer they give is that due to their much usage, they naturally wore away. They would point out that the reason for example why Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have generally been so well preserved is because they were generally not well circulated. When discovered, Sinaiticus was discovered in a monastery and Vaticanus in the library of the Vatican!! In addressing the extra material found in the fuller text of the Byzantine manuscript tradition, those favouring the Alexandrian text which is the majority of scholars, would argue that scribes added extra words and phrases to the Biblical text which were not in the original. Those on the other side of the argument would say absolutely not, but rather those with ulterior and suspect motives deleted words and phrases from the Biblical text!

Printed Greek Texts

Another name that is often associated with the Byzantine text is the Majority Text (MT). The Majority Text is a printed Greek text that scholars have constructed only recently (1982-Thomas Nelson Publishers) by comparing all the known Greek manuscripts and taking the readings that are common to the majority of these Greek manuscripts. Since the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts available to scholars today represent the Byzantine text type, naturally the Majority Text is most representative of the Byzantine tradition as a pose to the Alexandrian text type which is represented by the Minority Text aka the Critical Text. The two major printed Critical Greek Texts which take the readings that are common to the Alexandrian tradition of manuscripts is the Nestle-Aland text (28th edition) and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. When everything is said and done, though there are differences (variants) between the Critical Text and the Majority Text none of these differences affect any doctrine of the Christian Faith. Textual scholar, Daniel Wallace points this out:

“In reality, to argue for the purity of the Byzantine stream, as opposed to the pollution introduced by the Alexandrian manuscripts, is to blow out of proportion what the differences between these two texts really are—both in quantity and quality. For over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant affects any doctrine. …The remarkable thing is that this applies both to the standard critical texts of the Greek New Testament and to Hodges’s and Farstad’s Majority Text; doctrine is not affected by the variants between them.” - Daniel B. Wallace, The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? – taken from www.bible.org

One can quite easily prove the above to be the case by comparing the reading of the New Testament in the King James Bible which is based on the Byzantine text and the reading of the New Testament in any modern Bible (other than the New King James Bible) which are based on the Alexandrian text/Critical Text. Wallace also goes on in the same article to point out:

“There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time.

Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity.” - Daniel B. Wallace, The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? – taken from www.bible.org

That said…there are a number of passages in the New Testament that scholars have called into question today because such passages whilst being present in the Byzantine manuscripts (longer text) they are missing in the Alexandrian manuscripts (shorter text). These include the account in John 7:53-8:11 of the woman caught in the act of adultery which is missing from Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Another includes the whole ending of the of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) which again scholars favouring the Alexandrian text call into serious question. The last 12 verses of Mark’s Gospel are again missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which ends with verse 8:

8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. (Mar 16:8)

Whilst many modern scholars today reject the longer ending of Mark, I believe that these additional twelve verses are included in the original Biblical text which is attested to by a dozen or so uncial manuscripts, and by all the undamaged miniscule manuscripts (the most being of the Byzantine text type).

King James Only Controversy

I want at this point to end this teaching by looking at a controversy which has infected the Church causing major division and injury to the unity of the body of Christ. I would even go as far to say in its extreme form is more than a controversy but indeed a heresy!! What is this controversy that I refer to? The King James Only controversy!! There is a growing movement within Biblical and orthodox Christianity that seeks to put forth and assert the proposition that the King James Bible is the absolute preserved Word of God in the English language. One of the extreme proponents of this position include Peter Ruckman who goes as far to assert that the 1611 KJV is more reliable than even the Greek and Hebrews texts which underpinned the KJV. Peter Ruckman has gone on record, writing:

“To blazes with “THE GREEK TEXT.” It is so inferior to the English text they are not worthy of standing on the same shelf. I put Nestle, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Alford, Souter, Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, and the rest on a shelf below my original edition of the Authorized Version from 1613.” - Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, p. 338 – taken from www.ruckmanism.org

“Now, “Ruckman” believes that the KJV, the Book he holds in his hand, is the Final Authority in all matters of “faith and practice.” That means when Erasmus disagrees with Beza, the AV decides which reading is correct. When Stephanus differs with Elzevir, the KJV tells you which one to follow. And if you have to choose between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the AV text, if you stick with the AV text, you will be right every time.” - Peter Ruckman, Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Feb 2008, p1 – taken from www.ruckmanism.org

Others who hold to the KJV being the absolute preserved Word of God in English include Gail Riplinger, who wrote a popular book titled New Age Bible Versions and D. A. Waite who heads up the Dean Burgon Society which exists to promote KJV Onlyism. Others proponents of the KJV Onlyism include Texe Marrs, and .

In an online article titled ‘Is The King James Version Perfect’, Michael J. Penfold articulates the issue at hand nicely. He writes:

“Many have been forced to take up a ‘KJV only’ position by hearing the following persuasive, but fatally flawed line of questioning: ‘‘Do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God? ’’ If you answer ‘‘Yes’’, the follow up question is: ‘‘Which Bible? ’’ Unless you can then specify a Bible that you believe to be 100% perfect, infallible and inerrant, your questioner has just caught you ‘lying’ and proved that you are a Christian without a final and absolute authority. Pressing further he may demand, ‘‘How can you stand in the pulpit when you have nothing to preach?’’ So, pinned up against the wall with these questions, many have felt compelled to confer infallibility on one particular Bible translation — the King James Version. Some folk hold to this theory with all the tenacity of a pit bull terrier, feeling that if they surrender the infallibility of the KJV, they have denied the faith, called God a liar and become an apostate. This issue, which often becomes their hobby horse, is to them the very touchstone of orthodoxy.” - Michael J. Penfold, Is The King James Version Perfect – taken from http://www.webtruth.org

There is no doubt about it, the King James Only position has and continues to divide the Body of Christ to the great grief of our heavenly Father and to the hurt and confusion of His children! Before getting into this, I want to point out that there are many good Christians (myself included) who read and love the King James Bible. When many think of how God has used this precious book in its now more than 400 year old history, it is hardly surprising why they do not want to throw it out in exchange for the many that seem today to appear and disappear as the wind. The poetry of the language, its elegance and beauty!! Then, there are others who hold that the manuscripts from which the KJV was translated are more reliable than those being used in the modern versions and therefore choose to stick with the KJV. However what distinguishes the King James Only movement is that it goes further than the above in insisting that it is the inspired preserved Word of God in the English language; that it is without error and cannot be improved upon!! This is a step way too far as even those translating would whole heartedly admit. In the introduction of the original 1611 King James Bible, the translating committee included a series of introductory notes titled ‘The Translators to the Reader’. In these notes they state the following:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor." - Preface to the original 1611 King James Bible

We see from the pen of the KJV translators themselves, they did not consider that they were creating a brand new translation but rather that they were taking of the already good, i.e. Tyndale’s Bible, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, The Great Bible, The and The Bishops Bible and were revising them in light of the best Greek and Hebrew texts that were available to them at the time. Hence the title page of the original 1611 KJV which reads:

“The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament & the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues; & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesties special Commandment.” - Title page of the 1611 KJV

The Textus Receptus and the King James Bible

As has already been mentioned, it was Erasmus’ Greek text, the Textus Receptus (TR) that underpinned the New Testament of the 1611 King James Bible. Whilst there are some, such as Peter Ruckman who believe that the KJV offers advanced revelation beyond that of the underlying Textus Receptus, there are other KJV Onlyists who teach that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English because the Textus Receptus is the preserved word of God in Greek. The problem for those holding to this view is that the TR whilst belonging to the Byzantine tradition differs in more than 2000 places from the Majority Text, which is the best representative text of the collective Byzantine manuscripts. Furthermore, Desiderius Erasmus created the Textus Receptus using primarily only seven Greek Byzantine miniscule manuscripts. For every book,

Erasmus had three to four manuscripts to compare variants. However, when translating the he only had one incomplete Greek manuscript. This manuscript lacked the final leaf which would have contained the last six verses. Due to the hurry to get the Greek Text to the printers, Erasmus decided to translate these last six verses from the Latin which resulted in the variant “book of life” instead of “tree of life” making its way into the TR and into the KJV (Rev 22:19). Erasmus’ rendering of this verse appears in no other Greek manuscript or printed Greek text, including the Majority Text!!

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19)

Perhaps the most famous variant found in the KJV (and NKJV) is 1 John 5:7 aka Comma Johanneum.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1Jn 5:7)

This verse was omitted from Erasmus’ first and second edition of the TR and included in the third edition in 1522. The story goes that Erasmus promised to include it in his revision of the TR if it could be found in just one Greek manuscript. When a single Greek manuscript dating from the sixteenth century was presented to him, he included it in his third edition but expressed reservations as to its authenticity. All modern Bibles apart from the NKJV omit this verse due to its absence in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts and printed Greek texts including the Majority Text.

Finally, when TR Onlyists insist on the TR being the preserved Word of God, which edition of the TR do they refer to? It is a fact that there were in total four revisions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament since its first publication in 1516. Following the first edition, four further editions were published in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. In the second edition alone some 400 changes were made (majority of these were typos) with a further 118 changes in the third and fewer changes overall being made in the fourth and fifth editions. It was the second edition (1519) that formed the major basis for Luther’s German New Testament which was published in 1522. It was the third edition (1522) of the TR that William Tyndale utilised in publishing his Greek New Testament in 1525 which in turn became the basis for the 1611 King James Bible. The very fact that there was a need for a revision at all tells one clearly that Erasmus himself certainly did not consider his Greek Text to be inspired. Why did God need five attempts to get it right and then after that for more revisions to be made by others including Robertus Stephanus (a French printer who was the first to divide the Bible into verses) who edited the Greek text a further four times (1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551) and Theodore Beza (the disciple of Calvin) who revised Stephanus’ third edition a further nine times!! What is also interesting is that Erasmus’ primary aim was not to compile a Greek critical text but rather a critical Latin text. Erasmus was convinced that the Latin Vulgate had been corrupted over time and wanted to produce a critical Latin text with the Greek also included alongside the Latin as a means of holding the Latin to account by the original Greek.

Further Problems

King James Only advocates affirm that God has promised to preserve His Word. They often quote verses such as Psalm 12:6-7 to prove that God has promised to preserve His Word and that preservation must be identifiable in a single translation, namely the King James Bible and not in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psa 12:6-7)

If one asserts that the KJV is the preserved and inerrant Word of God then I simply ask, which version was it before 1611? If one asserts that the KJV is the preserved and inerrant Word of God then I simply ask, which version was it, the 1611 or the 1769 revision which we have today which according to Daniele Wallace has incorporated more than 100 000 changes . Admittedly, the majority of these changes are spelling and grammatical updates but still a change is a change however small which is why many KJV advocates insist that one reads the 1611 KJV. Then there is the old Oxford/Cambridge rivalry. Many are not aware that if one picks up a KJV published by Oxford printing press rather than Cambridge, then there are very minor word differences in four places and different Caps in 20 places including other variations in the use of the apostrophe. For example, in Jeremiah 34:16, the Oxford says “he” whilst the Cambridge says “ye”; in Joshua 9:2, the Oxford says “and” whilst the Cambridge says “or”, in Matthew 9:27 the Oxford says “son” whilst the Cambridge says “Son”. Admittedly, these are minor variations, but they are variations none the less. Which one is the Word of God?

Moving on to more conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the KJV translators did not consider the KJV to be the exact replica of the original; when one looks at a KJV Bible as I do every day, one will notice that there are many words that are in italics. The reason for this is that when one translates from one language to another, oftentimes there isn’t an exact like for like from the language you are translating from to the language you are translating to (transliteration). The King James translators therefore as all translators need to do, include extra words that were not in the original languages to help the reader better understand the passage. Many KJV Onlyists insist that the italics in the KJV are also inspired even though they do not appear in the original languages and manuscripts! Then there is the issue with the marginal notes inserted into the margin of the KJV by the translators to show alternative ways that a word or phrase could have been translated. In the original preface of the 1611 KJV, the translators note:

“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.… diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.… They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in difference of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.” - Translators to the Reader, preface to the 1611 KJV

In fact the translators saw fit to include over 7000 such marginal notes including giving the literal meaning in Greek or Hebrew where they had to resort to a non-literal rendering and alternative translations of a Greek word. For example, in Job 2:3 they use “destroy him” and in the margin give the literal Hebrew “to swallow him up”, in 1 Cor. 14:20 they use “men” and in the margin give the literal Greek “perfect or of a ripe age”. In John 1:12 the KJV reads:

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Joh 1:12)

Yet in the margin they give alternative renderings of the word power, “the right or privilege”. This is the way many modern bible render the word power which the correct Greek rendering. In some cases the translators point out variants in the Greek text (the very thing the KJVO accuse modern Bibles of doing). For example, in Lk. 10:22, the margin says “Many ancient copies add these words, And turning to his disciples, he said” and in Lk. 17:36 the marginal note reads “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek

copies”. Thus we see quite clearly, the KJV translators did not consider their work to be inspired and inerrant!

Finally, as in any translation, there are imperfections contained within it. Just to point out a few in the KJV. In Acts 12:4 they translate Passover as Easter, whereas in all 28 other times they use the word Passover. Easter comes from the Pagan goddess Eastre and has its roots in paganism! In John 1:32 and other places (Rom 8:16, 26 and 1 Peter 1:11), the Holy Spirit is referred to as an it! Why do I point these things out, is it to bash the King James Bible? Absolutely not!! I read and study the KJV and my bible of choice every day of the year!! I simply point it out in the effort to show the fallacy of seeking to put forward the KJV (or any translation for that matter) as the only preserved and inerrant Word of God. I do believe that God has preserved His word and that Word is contained in the multitude of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which when accurately translated is represented in a translation. This includes amongst many others, the King James Bible. That said, it would always do us good to confer with a number of translations and other study aids. Next teaching shall conclude by looking at the differences between English translations and the methods of translation used.