James 1 Joshua James Dr. Ralph Gilmore BIB 434 3 May 2006 Translations of the Bible are not a Matter of Fellowship The debate at hand is one that has filled many pages with ink and has been fiercely contested from both sides of the issue. Did God inspire the KJV? If so, then it should be the only translation of the Bible that we should trust. If not, why is there such a heated debate concerning translations of the Bible. The basic argument that is to be discussed is as follows: If the KJV translation of the Bible is not inspired, then it is not the sole authority among translations, and translations of the Bible are not a matter of fellowship. This will be addressed first with the testimony of the KJV translators. Then we will view the KJV-only debate in light of the debates that surrounded previous translations of Scripture. We then will discuss the three major methods of textual criticism, two of which (the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text) are advocated by KJV-only proponents, and the other (the Eclectic Text), which is followed by most modern translations. The Testimony of the KJV Translators We can see that the KJV was not inspired by simply reading the preface to the KJV as written by the translators themselves: So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse. ( King James Version: Original Preface [1611] ) What do we see from their testimony? The translators never claim to be inspired in their work. They never claim to have a perfect translation. They never claim that the KJV should be
James 2 the sole authority among translations. It was merely a translation with a purpose to bring the people out of ignorance and darkness. It is also interesting that the translators Preface to the Readers is not always included with the preface to the KJV. This is interesting because the Preface to the Readers shows that they were not inspired. The following quotes are taken from The Preface to the Readers online at http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjvpreface.htm. In reference to a version of the Bible in English that was not trustworthy to many people, they said in the eleventh paragraph: They could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion booke, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poore and emptie shift; yet even hereupon did his Majestie beginne to bethinke himselfe of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee. The next paragraph then opens: Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? In effect, the translators themselves are saying that any translation of the Bible that is done is still the Bible, no matter how mean it is, or whether it translated so fitly for phrase as another. Modern KJV-only proponents would have trouble stomaching this information. There is even a specific admission of some degree of error in the KJV, at least in its first editions, by what is said in the thirteenth paragraph:
James 3 Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? If these translators were inspired by God, so that they would create an inerrant translation of the Bible, why would they have need of correcting it? There is yet another question: which correction of the KJV is the inerrant one? There have been several editions of the KJV, from the 1611 edition to recent revisions in 1932 and 1962 (Lewis, The English Bible. 40). Could God not have had it translated correctly the first time? The KJV-only proponent may say, What about when Jesus said that his words will never pass away? (Mark 13:31). God s message is still the same, whether it is said in 1611 English or 2006 English. The KJV and modern versions alike still say that one must believe and be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). One must become a child of God before inheriting the promise of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-4:7). The message is the same. His words have not passed away. It is also important to remember that Jesus did not speak 1611 English; he appears to have spoken Aramaic (see Matthew 27:46), even though the New Testament was completely recorded in Greek. Does the fact that his Aramaic teachings are not recorded in the New Testament mean that his words have passed away? They have been preserved in Greek, and through Greek in English and the other languages of the world. The literal words may not be the same, but what he said is the same. Some KJV proponents are leery of the marginal notes contained in several of the modern translations (and in the NKJV for that matter), because it creates uncertainty as to the inerrancy of the Bible, and because it betrays a weakness on the part of the translators as to the correct reading that is to be in the text (CITATION). This concern is not a new one, however, as paragraph fifteen of the translators preface shows:
James 4 Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point. Again, we see from the pen of the translators themselves that 1) The KJV translators did not see their work as an inspired writing, 2) they denied that any one translation done by men could be perfect, 3) and they asserted that the meanest translation is still the word of God. How the KJV-Only Debate is a Repetition of History Ever since the beginning of biblical translation, it has been met with hostility. The first major translation that affects us today is the Septuagint, translated about 250, B.C. (Comfort, Essential Guide 32). It was not widely accepted by Jews because it deviated from the accepted Hebrew text that was in use at the time, and the Christians were using it, which did not help their trust in it (Toy and Gottheil). The next translation that caused a stir among Christians was the one completed by Jerome in about 404, A.D., known as the Vulgate (Lewis, The English Bible 16). Jerome was reprimanded for going back to the older Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament rather than using the Septuagint, which by that time had become the standard for Christian Old Testament study. In fact many Greek church leaders held the Septuagint to be inspired (Comfort, Essential Guide 132). Here we see the same argument as before: it differed from the accepted (and socalled inspired ) text and was deemed a liberal translation. Then history makes its way to 1611, when the KJV translators are doing their work. We mentioned earlier that they were maligned by Popish persons as poore Instruments of translation of God s word. In 1546, with the Council of Trent, the Vulgate became the accepted standard for the Catholic Church (Comfort, Essential Guide 133), just as the Septuagint had been a millennium earlier, when Jerome produced the Vulgate. Accordingly, the KJV translators were
James 5 reprimanded for deviating from the norm, which was the Geneva Bible for Puritans, and the Vulgate for Catholics (Lewis, The English Bible 29). There is even an interesting story in which the captain of the Mayflower refused to allow the KJV on board his ship, because he distrusted it in favor of the Geneva Bible. Just as it happened then, we see the same attitudes today. Translators of modern versions (and the people who use them) are reprimanded because these versions are not the KJV, the authorized Bible, since they deviate from the accepted norm (CITATION). The idea is the same as it always has been since the Bible was first translated. The problem faced is that the accuracy of biblical translations is not going to rely solely on the time period in which was translated. One must examine the reliability of the manuscripts of the original languages, which we will proceed to do next. The Hebrew Text The Hebrew text as been well preserved because of the superstitious care given to it by the Hebrew scribes, and because of this, it has remained virtually the same as it was two or three millennia ago. The standard text used today is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia published by the German Bible Societies (Comfort, Essential Guide 16). It closely follows Codex Leningradensis a (from ca. 1000 A.D.), but places the deviations of other Hebrew texts and critical notes in the margins and in footnotes. Leningradensis was one of the Hebrew texts followed by the KJV translators, and the modern Stuttgartensia is followed by most modern translations (16). In 1947, a cave was found containing thousands of ancient manuscripts of books of the Old Testament and other (mostly Jewish) books. Since Stuttgartensia contains critical notes on, and occasionally corrects, Leningradensis, it has taken into account this a Leningradensis is one of the Codices that composes the Masoretic Text, mostly the work of the ben Asher family (Comfort, Essential Guide 14).
James 6 discovery of thousands of ancient manuscripts, some of which date from the first or second centuries B.C. (CITATION). However, the Hebrew text of the Old Testament has not changed much, as Gleason Archer has pointed out that the almost complete scroll of Isaiah, called 1QIsa a, or the Great Isaiah Scroll, even though it probably dates from the second century before Christ, is 95% identical to the text of Leningradensis. As we previously discussed, Leningradensis is from about 1000 A.D. In over 1100 years between the two manuscripts, it only changed 5%, most of which are obvious slips of the pen (Archer 19). Therefore, this does not affect the translation issue as much as the text-critical editions of the Greek New Testament do. The Textus Receptus When Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450 s, the first work printed on it was a copy of Jerome s Latin Vulgate (Metzger, Text of the NT 95). With this invention, it was possible to print very accurate copies of ancient documents like never before, because until that time everything had to be copied by hand. Therefore, the race began to see who would first publish a Greek version of the New Testament. In 1514, Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros became the first to print an edition of the Greek New Testament (Carson and Moo 26), which was part of a polyglot also containing Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin texts (Metzger, Text of the NT 96). This edition was not immediately published, however. It was not until 1516 that the first published text appeared, edited by Desiderius Erasmus (White 54). This text was prepared hastily, and was completed in about six months (Metzger, Text of the NT 99). Because of this, it was replete with hundreds of obvious typographical errors (Carson and Moo 27). It was so faulty, in fact, that Erasmus published a second edition only three years later, in 1519 (Metzger, Text of the NT 100). Three more editions would follow, including one polyglot edition, which included his Greek text, the Vulgate, and his own Latin translation (Carson and Moo 27).
James 7 Though he corrected many of the typographical errors that occurred in his first edition, even Erasmus later editions were weak because of the manuscripts he used to prepare it. The best one he had was a tenth-century minuscule, but he gave it little credibility because he felt it departed from the readings of his other manuscripts in too many places (27). Following Erasmus editions, Robert Estienne (also called by his Latin name, Stephanus ) published four editions based on the work of Erasmus, the latest of which (published in 1551) was the first to include numbered verses (Metzger, Text of the NT 104). Théodore de Bèze followed Stephanus in publishing a printed Greek text in 1588-89 and 1598, which was used heavily by the translators of the King James Version (Carson and Moo 27). Bonadventure and Abraham Elzevir, brothers from Holland, published a compact edition based on Bèze s text in 1624 and 1633, with the latter containing in the preface, You have therefore the text now received by all (Black 29). In Latin, the words for text and received are the words from which the name Textus Receptus derives. Today, Textus Receptus may refer to any or all of these early published editions. The problem with the Textus Receptus criticism philosophy is that it was based only on a few manuscripts (Carson and Moo 27), some of which date to only a few hundred years before Erasmus himself (Metzger, Text of the NT 99). What most Textus Receptus proponents do to hurt their position is to denounce the text-critical methods of Eclectic Text proponents. However, Erasmus, who prepared the Greek text which led to the Textus Receptus, used the same philosophies in his criticism of these documents as modern Eclectic critics do (White 58). Another editor, Bengel, was one of the first to apply modern text-critical methods, such as preferring the shorter reading (Carson and Moo 29). Since these men used the same methods as modern critical scholars, the credibility of the Textus Receptus is weakened, because they were
James 8 not equipped with many of the tools and manuscripts that are available today. Because of its age, the Textus Receptus does not take into account the vast majority of manuscripts found in the recent centuries or the wealth of information gained by the research done on these documents, and as a result, the Textus Receptus is far behind the Eclectic Text in all of these breakthroughs (Black 30). The Majority Text The Majority Text is often spoken of interchangeably with the Textus Receptus. Although there is usually a fair agreement between the two texts, they are quite different and often disagree (White 64). The Textus Receptus is a published Greek text from the 1500 s, which was based on the few available manuscripts at that place and time, while the Majority Text is based on the majority rule of readings in the manuscripts available to us today, usually reflecting the Byzantine text family (251). This makes the Majority Text slightly more credible than the Textus Receptus, but there are still major weaknesses in its philosophy. The problem is that the majority is not always correct in the readings of the New Testament. For instance, if ten copies are made of one manuscript, some copying errors will exist. Since this is only the first round of copying, the majority rule would be accurate, because by comparison the errors will become obvious. However, a problem arises when the copies are sent to different parts of the world to be copied and used. If one erroneous manuscript is copied ten times, the number of copies is irrelevant, because they all came from the same manuscript (Black 39). Within just a few hundred years, Alexandria and Caesarea stopped producing Greek copies, giving way to Syriac and Egyptian (Coptic) translations, as Greek decreased as the lingua franca of those places (Comfort, Quest 25). In Rome, Greek gave way to Latin (Aland and Aland, Text of the NT 52). The Byzantine manuscripts continued to be copied in Greek, however, and therefore
James 9 they are the most numerous. The problem that the Majority Text proponents face is that although the Byzantine documents far outnumber the others, they all likely were copied from the same few manuscripts, which could themselves have been flawed (Black 39). It is not safe to base criticism solely on the majority of witnesses. The Eclectic (Critical) Text The Eclectic Text philosophy takes into account the antiquity of the manuscripts and the scribal errors that tend to creep into copies of a document (Comfort, Essential Guide 84). It also recognizes scribal error tendencies, which helps to narrow down the possibilities to only one reading that best explains the other readings. It is human nature to make mistakes copying a manuscript, and certain errors will creep into the text more often than others. Most of these are given names. Haplography occurs when two letters, words, or phrases look similar, and the copyist overlooks one of them, skipping one of the letters, words, or phrases (Colwell 103). This happened to the author of P66 when he copied John 3:17, resulting in a reading, For God sent not the Son into the world, but in order that the world, by leaving out, to condemn the world. Dittography is the opposite, in which the copyist mistakenly begins writing from a spot in the text prior to his current place, so that the phrase appears twice (103). P75 at John 11:2-3 illustrates this by saying, was sick. The sisters then sent to him saying, Lord, behold he whom you love is sick. The sisters then sent to him. This is obvious reduplication. Some other examples would include spelling errors or words interchanged that look or sound similar, as in Romans 5:1, where some manuscripts read echomen, with an omicron, and others, echomen, with an omega. In the pronunciation of the omicron and omega, there is not much difference, and so they could easily be confused (Black 17). It would also be easy to confuse some letters, like theta (Q) and omicron (O). Since the Eclectic Text philosophy is careful to
James 10 observe these scribal tendencies, it is more likely to be closer to the original than a text philosophy that only considers the majority rule of manuscript readings. Another reason the Eclectic Text is a better text is that the newest editions, like the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament and Nestle-Aland s 27 th edition, have a critical apparatus to footnote each page. This apparatus lists many of the variant readings (with Nestle-Aland listing many more than the UBS4) of manuscripts, so that one may look for himself at the textual evidence. This allows the student of the Critical Text to weigh the same evidence the editors of the Critical Text had, even allowing him to come to a different conclusion. One of the editors of these Eclectic Texts, Bruce Metzger, published a very helpful companion to the UBS4 critical apparatus called A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, which contains his personal arguments for each of the decisions made by the editorial staff of the UBS4. With this resource, the student of the Eclectic Text is not in doubt concerning the editors reasoning and conclusions. Since these critical editions give the student the editorial opinions of other scholars, and yet allow the student to be less dependent on the work of other scholars, it is a highly dependable resource for studies of the Greek New Testament. Examples of the Strengths of the Eclectic Text It will help to reinforce the points discussed in the preceding paragraphs if we examine some examples from the Greek New Testament. For instance, in the case of Romans 10:17, we have a prime example of the difference between the Textus Receptus and Majority Texts, and the Critical Text. The following manuscript information is from the critical apparatus of the 27 th edition of Nestle-Aland s Novum Testamentum Graece, page 428. The vast majority of manuscripts say that faith comes by hearing, and hearing dia rhematos theou The oldest corrections of a and D contain this reading, along with A and the majority of Byzantine
James 11 witnesses. However, the oldest manuscripts, including the original readings of a and D, as well as B and C say that hearing is dia rhematos Christou (Metzger, Textual Commentary 463). The second objective in examining these readings is to determine which reading would most logically explain the other readings (Metzger, Text of the NT 207). Why would someone change word of Christ to word of God, or vice versa? There really is no definitive reason to change the reading to word of Christ, but the phrase word of God occurs throughout the Bible, in both covenants (Metzger, Textual Commentary 464). It would be more likely that a copyist would see word of Christ and, either by accident or by volition, change it to the more familiar word of God. Therefore, the original reading is more likely to be word of Christ. Another example from the Greek New Testament is the appearance of Acts 8:37 in the Bible (Aland, et al. Novum Testamentum 345). The Textus Receptus contains this verse, which is the Ethiopian Eunuch s confession of faith before his baptism. The earliest witness containing the verse (and the only uncial witness) is E, which dates to the sixth century, more than two hundred years after the earliest uncials. The other witnesses are minuscules from after the tenth century. It occurs in the margins of many ancient translations, but translations invariably inform the reader about omissions of text (Comfort, Early Manuscripts 128). Moreover, the witnesses that do contain the passage are predominantly Western, including E, the Vulgate, and another Italian translation (Metzger, Textual Commentary 315). How, then, did it make its way into the King James Version? It only appeared in one of Erasmus manuscripts, and even in that one only in the margin. He accepted it as original because he deemed its omission to be due to the carelessness of scribes (316). Even the Majority Text omits this verse. There is simply not enough manuscript evidence to accept it as original. Many KJV-only proponents assert to trust both the Textus Receptus and the Majority text, often using the terms interchangeably, but here
James 12 the two texts disagree. Which one is accurate? Is it the one with little manuscript support, or the one that has come about through the finding of more manuscripts after the translation of the KJV? Either answer weakens the strength of the arguments of KJV-only proponents. As regards the second objective, explaining one reading by using the other, we can come to a quick conclusion. There is no reason why a scribe would have omitted the verse, not to mention the vast number of scribes who would have had to omit it for the majority of the manuscripts not to contain it (315). Therefore, we have no compelling reason to accept this verse as being part of the original. Again, the Majority Text and Textus Receptus do not consider scribal tendencies. Why should we trust those who simply choose the most frequent reading? Some Objections to the Inerrancy of the KJV: Even Restoration Movement leader Alexander Campbell desired that the Bible be translated into a modern-speech version. He said, It is a paramount duty of the Christian Church of the nineteenth century to give the present age, in our vernacular, a perspicuous, exact, and faithful version of the living oracles of God (Lewis, Questions 256). Earlier we mentioned the words of the translators, as they saw it fit to translate the Bible into the vernacular of the English people. The KJV is no longer in the vernacular of English-speakers. As it was a revision then, the modern translations are revisions for our modern language. Apart from the difficulty of reading the KJV, it does have some doctrinal and translational errors. For instance, in Genesis 18, did Abraham entertain angels or men? The Hebrew text says men, but the KJV translates angels. To whom does Lucifer refer in Isaiah 14:12: Satan, or the King of Babylon? Heylel does not translate as Lucifer, but a shining one, likely Venus, the Morning Star (). Why translate pascha as Easter in Acts
James 13 12:4, rather than Passover, as in every other occurrence of the word is translated? These are unnecessary inferences made by the translators. Even more credibility is removed when we consider an example in which Erasmus was pressed by Vulgate proponents to include the Comma Johannium, I John 5:7b-8, into his text (Comfort, Essential Guide 268). There is very little textual support for this, because it is only found in eight manuscripts, the earliest of which is a tenth-century manuscript in which the Comma Johannium was clearly a marginal reading, an addition after the drafting of the copy (Metzger, Textual Commentary 647). There are three more manuscripts in which this is given as a variant reading, each of which from the sixteenth century, and then four more, from the sixteenth century onward (648). Concluding Remarks There are several other weaknesses to be found in the KJV, but the conclusion we may reach from observing all of them is that the KJV was not an inspired translation. We have seen from the discussion of this paper that there is no strength to the argument that it was inspired. First, it was not believed to be inspired by the translators. Second, it was rejected at first by Christians because it deviated from the accepted norm of its time, the Vulgate. Even though the Vulgate was rejected at its inception for not being based on the Septuagint. The cycle has just repeated again. Third, the method of textual criticism behind the KJV, namely the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, is weaker in comparison to the Eclectic or Critical Text. Since the KJV translation of the Bible is not inspired, it is not the sole authority among translations, and therefore, translations of the Bible are not a matter of fellowship.
James 14 APPENDIX: DEBATE HANDOUT Bible Translation Debate Thesis: Translations of the Bible Are Not a Matter of Fellowship. Basic Argument: 1) If a translation of the Bible is not inspired, then it is not the sole authority among translations. 2) The KJV is not inspired, therefore it is not the sole authority among translations. 3) If the KJV is not the sole authority among translations, translations of the Bible are not a matter of fellowship. 4) Therefore, translations of the Bible are not a matter of fellowship. Presuppositions: 1) God exists. 2) The autographs (original manuscripts) of the Old and New Testaments were inspired. Defining the Terms: 1) Translation work that was in a certain language, but was interpreted and copied into another language, so that the speakers of that language may read it. 2) Bible the 66-book canon that is the inspired word of God. 3) Inspired that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible (from www.dictionary.com). 4) Perfect inerrant. 5) Autograph the original work that was copied and eventually canonized into the Bible we have today. 6) Matter of Fellowship an issue that determines whether or not two people or churches may work together; including, but not limited to, referring to one another as brother or sister. 7) Sole Authority the only translation that is to be accepted and obeyed.
James 15 The Editions of the Greek Bible Used in this Paper: Aland, B., K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27 th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Pierpont, W. G., and M. A. Robinson. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform. Roswell: The Original Word Publishers, 1995. Stephanus. Stephen s 1550 Textus Receptus. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1995.
James 16 Works Cited Aland, B., K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27 th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Archer, Gleason. Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994. Black, David Alan. New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994 Carson, D. A., and D. J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Colwell, Ernest C. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Comfort, Philip Wesley. Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990. - - -. Essential Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton: Tyndale Publishers, 2000. - - -. Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992. King James Version: Original Preface [1611]. Dailybible.com: King James Version. 2 May 2006. <http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjvpreface.htm>. Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible From KJV to NIV. Henderson: Hester,. - - -. Questions You ve Asked About Bible Translations.
James 17 Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. - - -. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1994. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.