IV. THE "TEXTUS RECEPTUS"
Erasmus knew almost all of the important variant readings known to scholars today -more than 470 years ago.1 This may be proven from a perusal of his notes. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 A.D.) was a Greek and Latin scholar who, as an eminent historian, researched Egyptian chronology and spent twenty eight years tracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin. After surveying Erasmus' notes, Nolan recorded:
In producing his first edition, Erasmus was under an incredible work load. Due to publication problems and deadline pressure, his first edition had many typographical errors, misprints, and misspellings. This led to much undue criticism. His work was greatly disfigured only in the sense mentioned, but the Text was providentially protected. God has not preserved the Text miraculously for then there would have been no such glosses, and all the various uncials and cursives would read the same, word for word. In the case of providential guidance, we can see that there is a human as well as a divine side to the preservation of the Text.3 For the most part, these errors were eliminated by Erasmus in his later editions. Such things as these are, however, not factors which need to be taken into account insofar as evaluating the "Textus Receptus"-a designation by which his work later came to be known.
The year after Erasmus published, Luther used the Textus Receptus (TR) for the basis of a German translation of the New Testament. Shortly thereafter, God-using Luther and his translation, brought about the Reformation.
Luther and Erasmus knew each other. They did not always agree. One of the chief areas of disagreement between them was Luther's conviction that the Roman church was incapable of being reformed and he thought that Erasmus should join him in leaving. However Erasmus believed that he could better bring about reform by working from within the system. He was quite wrong.
Following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those who were supposed to be the ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out nearly all of the deeds of martyrdom and the cruelties which accompanied them. For the past 150 years the attack has become more "civilized". Now members of the clergy and ecclesiastic scholars merely carry out these cruelties and atrocities against their translations, while safely sitting in air conditioned offices û often supported by tithe money.
In 1598, Beza published his fifth edition, again using Erasmus' Greek text as his foundation. Beza's fifth is the actual edition upon which the King James was principally based. It reads almost the same as the last update of Erasmus.4 Finally in 1624, the Elzevir brothers of Holland produced an edition. It was at that time the text was given the designation of "Textus Receptus" which means the "Received Text" (i.e., received from God). They said they had not altered the manuscripts in any way and that they considered the text in their hands to have been received directly from God. The second Elzevir edition (1633) was generally adopted as the TR on the European Continent. All of these men believed they were working with the infallible Words of God as He had given them.
How much do the editions differ over the span from 1550 to 1624? Elzevir differed from Stephens, for example, in Mark only 19 times. Compare that with Codex Vaticanus B (a 4th century uncial MSS which is currently accepted as the most reliable, almost to the exclusion of all others, of the Greek manuscripts by most modern text critics). B differs with Sinaiticus Aleph (Hebrew designation = A) 652 times in the Gospel of Mark and with another uncial manuscript (D) in 1,944 places. In fact, there is only a total of 287 variants from Stephens' 1550 work to the Elzevir brothers' work of 1624. These few differences are almost negligible for they are all spelling. The issue becomes one of whether one spells "colour" or "color"? Thus, the text has been protected by God. Again, God's preservation of the New Testament text was not by a miracle but providentially. It is not God breathed and God inspired in the same exact sense that the "originals" were but it was, beyond all reasonable doubt, God guided and God preserved.
There were hundreds of manuscripts which Erasmus could have examined and he did, but he only used a few. That did not matter because the vast bulk of all the Greek manuscripts is practically the Textus Receptus. If the ones which Erasmus used were typical then he had what the vast majority said. As a matter of fact, the manuscripts which Erasmus used differed only in insignificant detail from the total bulk. Basically it is Erasmus' work which is the foundation of the King James Bible. We are not saying that the "thous, thines and thees" are infallibly God breathed words. The scribes and printers who produced the copies were not "inspired" as was Moses, Isaiah,
Paul, John etc., but they were God-guided. So by faith in God's promises to preserve His Word, we know that the Textus Receptus is the God-guided revision of the majority text. What we are saying is that the Greek Text upon which the King James was founded, is the Word of God. Moreover, that God providentially watched over that Text, and that the King James is the only English translation in the world today which is faithful to that Greek Text.
The undertaking began when approximately a thousand ministers sent a petition, which later came to be known as the "Millenary Petition", to King James.1 Dr. Renyolds was made spokesman for the thousand ministers who represented about one-tenth of the clergy of the Church of England. They requested several "reforms" and eventually, at a meeting at Hampton Court, Renyolds proposed the undertaking of a new translation of the Bible on the grounds that the "Great Bible" of 1539 was a very corrupt translation. Although raised up using the Geneva Bible, King James was troubled over the many "notes" or comments contained in that translation. It was finally agreed that a new translation, absolutely true to the original Greek text, be made which would not have any footnotes or comments.2 Thus, James I acceded to their request, but he did not initiate the procedure. It was not launched by the "throne" but at the request of a thousand ministers. Further, clergy and laymen from both the Anglicans and Puritans were included in its translation.
Thus, with King James' blessings, Bishop Bancroft (soon to become Archbishop of Canterbury) met with the Dean of Westminster and the Professors of Hebrew at Oxford and Cambridge for the purpose of suggesting the names of the men who should work on the translation. Fifty-four of the best scholars in England were selected, but some died before the work began whereas others could not participate in the undertaking because of previous work commitments. Thus, only forty-seven3 actually engaged in the task (plus nine others whose participation seems to have been somewhat limited). None of the translators was paid for his work.
When the work began the forty-seven were divided into six groups: two at Westminster, one for the Old Testament and one for the New; two at Oxford, one for each Testament; and two at Cambridge, one for the Old Testament and one for the Apocrypha. For three years, from 1604 to 1606, each man in the group first worked out his own translation on the chapters assigned to him, guided by fifteen specific rules. Some of the most important of these rules were:
1. The Bishops' Bible (1568) was to be followed as a guide with as little alteration as the truth of the original texts would permit.
2. No marginal notes were to be attached except for the explanation of Greek or Hebrew words or for providing cross-references.
3. Tyndale's translation (c.1526), Matthew's (1537), Coverdale's (1535), The Great Bible (1539), and the Geneva (1560) were to be used when they agreed better with the text than the Bishops' Bible.
The same portion of Scripture was translated by each of the other men of that company. Afterward, all the members of the group came together and thrashed out the differences. When a book was completed in this manner, it was sent to the other five groups for review and suggestions. Two men from each group formed a special screening committee to examine the final product. The meetings of the three companies took another three years (1607-1609). Each of these men believed that the text at his disposal was the infallible Word of God. There has never been a committee working on a translation of the Bible with such scholarship and dedication. Regarding this, McClure states:
"As to the capability of those men, ... by the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental tongues, and of rabbinical lore, had then been carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since. This particular field of learning has never been so highly cultivated among English divines.5
Most were professors and/or preachers. The 12th rule required every Bishop to have small portions of the project circulated and displayed in public places throughout his diocese as it came from the translators' pens and to encourage recommendations.6 This placed the entire work open to the populace so that the whole nation of England could take part in its production. Hundreds of laymen, priests, and preachers who knew Greek and/or Hebrew offered suggestions.
Whereas the King's translators were instructed that the Bishops' Bible was to be their main guide and it to be altered only "as the truth of the original will permit", only about four percent of the King James Bible is, in fact, drawn from that version. The new translation agreed much more with the Geneva than with any other.7 Over ninety percent of the language of the New Testament is from Tyndale's translation. The rhythmical diction and style imparting literary grace, majesty, and character found throughout the KJB came from this martyr's pen.
For the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, they used the four Hebrew Bibles then available. For the New Testament Greek text, they used the work of Theodore Beza, the associate of John Calvin, who had revised the Greek texts of Erasmus and Stephens (Stephanus). Besides these, many other ancient translations were referred to and considered. Words which were not in the original language but which the translators found necessary to add in order to complete the sense, were especially flagged and appear in our modern King James Bibles in italics.
When all the books had been translated, two men from each company at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford came together and carefully considered the completed work of each of the three companies. Finally, two men reviewed that product; thus each Scripture was examined at least 14 times. Consequently, we have seen that the revision of 1611 was neither a private endeavor nor was it an enterprise of King James VI (I) as Sir Frederick Kenyon aptly reminds us:
Thus, when the final product was brought before the church in published form, there were no surprises. All was done in the open and above board. There were no smoke filled back room decisions made with regard to the ultimate translation. Indeed, profit was of no consideration. Over the years, several editions have been issued to correct typesetting errors, spelling, the addition of marginal references, italics in place of the original Roman typeface, and so forth. As these editions have been largely misreported, we must now address this matter.
The printing press was invented in 1450 by the German Johann Gutenburg. Although this was 161 years before the 1611 KJB edition, the printing apparatus had changed very little. The type was set by hand, one character at a time. The process was quite slow, difficult and tedious, hence frequent errors resulted in all publications. The first edition of the King James also contained such printing errors, but these were not the kind of textual alterations which freely occur in modern versions. These were obvious and simple printing oversights. The second printing published later in 1611 corrected about 100 such textual differences. Of course, such errors do not render a Bible or any other book worthless û they merely need to be removed in subsequent editions.
The first two alleged "major revisions" of the King James Bible took place within 27 years of its first edition. The 1629 edition was but a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Only nine years later, a second so-called major revision was distributed. Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois,27 two of the original translators, participated in both of these undertakings. However F.H.A. Scrivener (see footnote below) describes this as merely being a reinstatement of words, phrases and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers - thereby amending these errors. Thus, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJB were completed by 1638. Hence, we find that instead of two major revisions, there were two stages of a single process - namely, the purging of early printing errors. Similarly, the last two "major revisions" were but two stages in standardizing the spelling. Very few textual corrections were necessary for these two publications (1762 and 1769). Thus, the term "four major revisions" is a misnomer, and as such, is grossly misleading.
Much is made by the detractors of the KJB claiming as many as 75,000 changes in the King James Bible since 1611. At first glance, this does seem to be a problem. However, before citing examples, the reader is enjoined to keep in mind that the real issue at hand is that of final authority. Further, the reader needs to be appraised that the original King James Bible is very different in appearance than those published today. Were one to go to a museum to view an original, he would find that he could hardly read it. Indeed, many of the words that were legible would be strangely spelled. The changes fall into three categories (1) printing changes, (2) spelling changes and (3) textual changes.
The printing type used for the original edition was Gothic. The type style or font that the reader has before him and that with which he is familiar is Roman. Although the Roman type style originated fairly early, Gothic had been the predominate form for many years in most European countries. The printers of the original King James chose the Gothic because of its beauty and eloquence. Several of the letters are noticeably different in appearance.
The Gothic "s" looks like the Roman "s" when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word, but when it occurs as a lower case "s" at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks similar to our "f". Over 30,000 changes were of this kind, as in Mofes to Moses. The Gothic "v" looks like a Roman "u" and vice versa. Now we can see why our "w" is called a "double-u" rather than "double-v". The "v" was changed to "u" 45,281 times (i.e., Dauid to David, wiues to wives, vnto to unto). The Gothic "j" looks like our "i", hence Iudah becomes Judah, iudged to judged etc. Remember, these are not spelling changes - they are simply type style changes. These changes reflect a large percentage of the "thousands" of alterations in the KJB, but obviously such modifications do not corrupt or in any way harm the actual text.
As to the changes in orthography (spelling), we remind our reader that most histories date the beginning of Modern English around 1500. Hence, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present day English had already been firmly established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was largely phonetic as standards had not yet been established. Even among the well educated, an author would spell the same word several different ways, often in the same book and even on the same page. It was not until the eighteenth century that spelling began to be uniform. Therefore, in the last half of that century, the spelling of the 1611 KJB was standardized.
Over 30,000 additional changes involved dropping the final "e" off of the old English spellings such as - sunne to sun, fowle to fowl, goe to go, shee to she, nowe to now etc. Double vowels and double consonants were more common such as mee to me and ranne to ran. Other changes included ftarres to stars, ynough to enough, moneth to month, yeeres to years grinne to grin; flying to fleeing; neezed to sneezed etc.
These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called "thousands" of alterations since 1611. Obviously none of them can be truly said to in any way alter the text. Thus they cannot honestly be compared with the thousands of actual textual changes which blatantly appear in the modern versions. The significance of this simply cannot be overstated.
As to the actual textual differences between the 1611 edition and our present editions, there are some variations û but they are not of the magnitude of a revision. Rather, they are merely the correction of early obvious printing errors. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. This may be readily ascertained by (a) the character of the changes; (b) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible; and (c) the time the changes were made.
In the first printing, words were occasionally inverted. A plural may have been in singular form or vice versa, and at times a word was mis-written for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was inadvertently omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not portray the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations.
Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener compiled a list of the variations between the 1611 edition and later printings. A random sampling giving the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages is depicted in the following chart.
| 1611 | Present Reading | Corrected |
|---|---|---|
| 1 this thing | this thing also | 1638 |
| 2shalt have remained | ye shall have remained | 1762 |
| 3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik | of Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik | 1762 |
| 4 requite good | requite me good | 1629 |
| 5 this book of the Covenant | the book of the Covenant | 1629 |
| 6 chief rulers | chief ruler | 1629 |
| 7 And Parbar | at Parbar | 1638 |
| 8 For this cause | And for this cause | 1638 |
| 9 For the king had appointed | for so the king had appointed | 1629 |
| 10 Seek good | seek God | 1617 |
| 11 the cormorant | But the cormorant | 1629 |
| 12 returned | turned | 1769 |
| 13 a fiery furnace | a burning fiery furnace | 1638 |
| 14 the crowned | Thy crowned | 1629 |
| 15 thy right doeth | thy right hand doeth | 1613 |
| 16 the wayes side | the way side | 1743 |
| 17 which was a Jew | which was a Jewess | 1629 |
| 18 the city | the city of the Damascenes | 1629 |
| 19 now and ever | both now and ever | 1638 |
| 20 which was of our fathers | which was our fathers | 1616 |
Both the character and the frequency of the changes disclose them to be but printing oversights. Yet scholars, even fundamental conservatives, refer to the thousands of modifications made to the 1611 over the years as if they were on a par with the changes in recent versions. They are not. Again, the overwhelming majority is either type style or spelling changes. The few that remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made due to the tedious nature involved in the early printing process. These few printing errors serve to demonstrate that God chose to preserve the text of His Word, not by continuous miracle, but providentially.
The sample list given heretofore demonstrates how meticulously Scrivener was in compiling all the variations. Yet, even with such great care only approximately 400 variations between the 1611 edition and the modern copies could be identified and listed by him. Remember, there were c.100 variations found and corrected between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. The average variation (after c.375 years) is but one correction every three chapters. And as we have seen, these are "chief rulers" to "chief ruler", "And Parbar" to "At Parbar" etc. The early date at which they were corrected also bears witness that they were merely corrected printing errors.
Moreover, the great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. For example, from our sampling of the twenty corrections (see p. 11), one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. Hence, 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. Such is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions that the scholars would have us believe. Another study detailing every other page of Scrivener's appendix revealed that 72% of the textual corrections had been made by 1638. Thus, there is no "revision" issue. As previously stated, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. The main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.
To illustrate the import of all this, the 1638 edition of the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present edition. All that has changed in Ecclesiastes during the past 350 years is that the spelling has been standardized! By the time of the 1638 edition, all the printing errors in that book had been corrected and the Roman type applied.
To summarize, the character of the textual changes is that of obvious printing errors, not changes made to alter the reading. The frequency of the textual changes is meager, averaging only one every three chapters. The time frame of the textual changes is early, about three-fourths occurring within twenty seven years of the first printing. These particulars establish that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors.
Other such textual changes have been: saveth to "and he saveth"; to be joyful to "and to be joyful"; flix to "flux"; upon the house to "housetop"; unperfect to "imperfect"; have care to "have a care"; sometimes to "sometime"; forsomuch to "forasmuch"; such wrong to "such wrongs"; will fat to "fatten"; northwards to "northward"; cheweth cud to "the cud"; noondays to "noon day"; nor scales to "and scales"; disallow to "disallowed"; in power to "of power"; I start to "I started" etc.
Also, some later printing errors occasionally did creep in, e.g., "Printers" instead of Princes – Psa.119:161, 1701 edition; "place makers" instead of peace makers – Mat.5:9, 1807 edition; from "good" works instead of from dead works – Heb.9:14, 1807 edition, etc.
Over 5,000 of the remaining changes were in substituting periods for commas, colons for commas, semi-colons for colons and capital letters for lower case.
In stark contrast, the 36,191 changes we are supposed to accept in the new Greek texts of Nestle, Aland, and Metzger include attacks on the Deity of Christ (I Tim 3:16), the Virgin Birth (Luk.2:33), the Ascension (Luk.24:51-52), the Bible (Luk.4:4), and the Resurrection (Acts 1:3; see Ch. II). Significantly, the spelling (orthography) of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus does not agree with that of first century Greek, yet even the tenth century Textus Receptus manuscripts do so concur. Furthermore, the King James is by far the translation easiest from which to memorize because it is written in prose. It is most difficult to memorize Scripture from any of the other translations. As to the KJB proper, there are problems. As to the problems and how significant they are depend upon whom one asks. The solutions run a gamut of incredible differences of opinion with no consensus in sight. The learned New Testament text critic Herman C. Hoskier claimed to know of only one serious problem.10 Hoskier said that the Greek word "poimna" (poimnh) should be translated "flock", not "fold", in John 10:16:
The point we have labored to clarify is that the King James Bible has not been revised, only purified. We have no valid reason to doubt that the one we hold in our hands is the very Word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies neither in the original 1611 printing nor in the character of King James VI (I), the scholarship of the 1611 translators, the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, nor even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallibility of the English Bible lies in the promise of God to preserve His Word. WHY THEN ARE NEW TRANSLATIONS THOUGHT NECESSARY? The question should be asked, "Why in 1881 (and even today) did we need a new Bible?" There are at least five reasons for this rational:
2. The existence of the many variant (different) readings in the extant Greek manuscripts;
3. The finding of a significant number of ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries older than those used by Erasmus and believed, by many scholars, to be closer to the text of the apostles' autographs;
4. Itching ears – winds of doctrine; and
5. Greed for Money.
(1) ARCHAIC WORDS There are only several hundred obsolete or archaic words remaining within the 1611 King James Bible – words such as "incontinent" (lack of self control, I Cor. 7:5) and "concupisence" (unholy desires, Rom. 7:8). These few could and should be brought up to date. The "eth" endings could also easily be changed ("doeth" to "do") although care must be taken as to its rendering else many times the actual meaning may be lost. This is due to Greek verb tenses which do not exist in English. For example, often the Greek word rendered "doeth" reflects continuous action. In such cases, a simple changing to "do" would not represent a faithful translation from the Greek. The "eth" ending which allows for such meanings thus has served a vital function in the King James Bible.
With regard to "ye" (plural), "thee" (singular) and "thou" (singular) which we find dispersed throughout the 1611 Bible, it is shocking to discover the great value that these 2nd person pronouns serve. O.T. Allis informs us that these were not contemporary words even in 1611!
| singular | Plural | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Person | I | We |
| 2nd Person | Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine | Ye, You, Your |
| 3rd Person | He, She, It | They |
Initially, all of the various Protestant Confessional statements (such as the Westminster, the Philadelphia etc.) containing statements concerning the preservation of Scripture were written in response to text critical problems and challenges.13 These creeds descriptively appealed to the consensus of history for determining the boundaries of the texts of Scripture. Two examples are the Helveticus Consensus and the Philadelphia Confession, as follows:
THE HELVETICUS CONSENSUS (1675 A.D.)
Yet one may inquire, "just what is the nature of this providence, and how did it actually operate in manuscript transmission?" Some of the more important and vital canons included in the "doctrine of preservation" are:14
(b) As God used the priesthood to preserve His Word in the Old Testament, He has done likewise in New Testament times through the priesthood of born again believers.
(c) By multiplying copies to such a large number it would be impossible for anyone to corrupt them all, willfully or by negligence.
(d) The familiarity with Scripture by people from all walks of life assured that any alterations in wording would have been detected.
(e) Students (especially of Hebrew) were conscious of every letter of the texts.
(f) Unanimity exists of Old Testament readings in the Mishna, Gemara and the Talmud with the Masoretic text.
(g) Jesus accused the Jews of His day of many sins, but not once did He charge them with corrupting their copies – rather, He attested to their purity (Mat.5:17-19).
(h) The checks and balances that the Jews and Christians afforded each other would prevent corruptions.
(3) ANCIENT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS It is true that several thousand mss have been discovered since 1611. This is the major factor that has been used to justify to the church at large the need for a major revision of the King James. It seems logical that if a vast amount of data not available to the King James translators has been brought to life – these new materials must be considered. This especially seems reasonable as some of these mss were dated between 350-380 A.D. whereas Erasmus' five mss were from the 10th to 15th centuries. Admittedly this rhetoric seems very compelling. However, of the several thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the great majority (90-95%) agree with the Greek text of those five mss which Erasmus used. Nevertheless, the new translations are rife with footnotes informing the reader that "the oldest, the best manuscripts read such and such" as opposed to the King James. But is it not devastating to realize that what has been kept from the church at large is the fact that the vast majority (c.90-95%) of these more recent finds read the same as the Traditional Text which underlies the Reformers Bibles and the King James translation?
The Alexandrian manuscript ("A") arrived in London in 1627. Consequently, we often hear how unfortunate that was for the King James translators as it arrived sixteen years too late for their use.15 Being untrue, this serves as an example of the unreliable manner in which most of the history concerning the Authorized Version is reported. In the first place, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph16 were well known not only to translators of the King James but to Erasmus. The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus was printed in 1587 so the King James translators in 1604 knew all about Vaticanus insofar as the Old Testament was concerned.
Thus the men working on the 1611 publication of the King James Bible knew the variant readings in Vaticanus B and since they knew about B, they already knew about Sinaiticus and its variant readings even though the first portion of it was not discovered until 1844 (the remainder in 1859) as the two of them read so similarly. In fact, the translators of 1611 had available all the variant readings of those vaunted manuscripts – and they rejected them! They also knew the readings of the codices of Alexandrinus A, B, C and D (the "old uncials"), where they differed from the Received Text and they denounced them all. How can this be so? The readings of those much boasted manuscripts recently made available are essentially the same as Jerome's Latin Vulgate17 which finds its foundation in the works of Origen. The Reformers knew all about the variant readings of the Vulgate and they rejected them which is the same thing as rejecting Origen. In rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex Vaticanus as it was copied from his work. Thus, the Reformers had all the material necessary for the task at their disposal.18
As to the oft heard claim that since much of the newly discovered material was older than that used by Erasmus and subsequently the Reformers, they were more reliable, the reader is reminded that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day. Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best. This point will be more thoroughly dealt with later in our exposé (pp. Error! Bookmark not defined. ff.). Furthermore, Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired.1 In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus.2 He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR. However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct. Thus Erasmus knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!
(4) Winds of Doctrine
A fourth reason Christendom is drawn to the new translations is that of its having "itching ears". Sadly, man does not want to believe the Bible – he wants a "bible" that he can believe – and he will keep searching until he finds one. The Spirit of God has warned:
The King James translators make this very clear in their dedicatory to King James, where they intended for "God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people," whom the Roman Catholic Church desired "still to keep in ignorance and darkness." These men4 desired the Bible be accessible in German for the Germans, in French for the French, in Dutch for the Dutch etc. – not just restricted to Latin, as it was no longer "the language of the people." Those with vested interest in promoting "plainer and more relevant" (and more fleeting) translations always present this out of context to justify the latest, easier-to-read (and to forget) translation.
Relevant to the duties, techniques, and responsibilities of the translator, the following excerpts extracted from an article by Dr. F.R. Steele, himself trained by "one of America's outstanding scholars in the field of Assyriology" and an experienced translator of Babylonian and Sumerian documents, are instructive sober truths worthy of reflection:
2 Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: MacMillian, 1899), p. 53; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol I, p. 109.
3 Letis, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, op. cit., pp. 76-77.
4 McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., pp. 63-64. Writing in 1858 regarding the capability of the 1611 translators, McClure notes that the work was undertaken at a most auspicious period of history. Not only had the English language ripened to its full glory, the study of Greek, Oriental tongues, and of rabbinical lore had crested to a greater extent in England than ever before or since. By the good Providence of God, the study in these disciplines has never been so highly cultivated among English speaking scholars as it was in that day. These studies had captured the imagination of that generation's young schoolmen much as that of the computer among today's youth. As a result, their level of acumen was such that, despite the proud boasting in this day, all the colleges of Great Britain and America combined could not bring together "the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety" for such an undertaking.
"... when translating the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text into English, we are not faced with serious problems of cultural extremes. The physical and social background of the ancient Near East is much closer to our general European society and economy than to either a tropical culture of Central Africa or the arctic culture of the Esquimaux (i.e., Eskimo, author). ... By and large, the pastoral of urban society of Bible times can be transferred directly and in its own terms into intelligible English. Moreover, the past four centuries of acquaintance with the Bible have introduced into our common speech many words and ideas originating in the society of Bible lands (such as 'crucifixion,' animal sacrifices, and so on) which though initially strange to the European scene, are now quite familiar. This makes the task of translating the Bible into English simpler than into the language of a people with an opposite or primitive culture. It is therefore easier to achieve a nearly word for word transfer which the nature of the inspired text deserves."19 (author's italics)
To these last two observations by Dr. Steele, this author adds a resounding "amen". The final citation is given to provide – from one who is eminently qualified to so warn – a grave caution to us all.
"Moreover, it is doubtful if all the new translations provide the correctives they profess. Not infrequently they simply substitute their own confusion for that which they claim to have dispelled. This is especially true in their claim to the title 'Translation'. Few recent works have any right whatever to that title."23 (author's emphasis) How often we hear from the pulpit or from the Sunday School teacher, "I like the way the xxxxxxx translation says it". But who cares what man prefers. We do not gather together to hear the personal opinions and whims of men. The only question is – What saith the Lord? What saith the Holy Scriptures? The new Bible translations appeal, not because they are faithful to the original text, but because they have placed the ability to communicate over and above fidelity to the actual Words of God. The obvious reason for this being foisted upon the public is ...
(5) GREED FOR MONEY The majority of modern Bible publishers (not to be confused with Bible Societies) are neither religious organizations nor missionary societies deserving our unqualified trust.24 Operating in the cold hard world of business, they care not whether their product is a faithful rendering of the true text. Their interest lies along the lines of profit. They are not after the souls of men unto salvation or edification; rather it is their purchasing power which attracts these companies. Tragically, the same is true concerning most owners of "Christian" book stores who sell not only any translation but paperbacks and commentaries espousing nearly every wind of doctrine. The reason this continues year after year at a more maddening pace takes us back to reason number four – itching ears for winds of doctrine. The circle is ever widening and vicious.
1 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 198.
2 Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 413-415.
3 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., 202.
4 A.T. Robertson, An Introduction To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925), pp. 18-20; Robertson says all 9 of Beza's editions are practically reprints of Stephanus û which was almost that of Erasmus' [George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament With the Authorized Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1977), p. ii.] 5 Mclure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., pp. 63-64.
6 Ibid., pp. 66 & 69.
7 Ibid., p.67.
8 Sir Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 5th ed. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958), p. 306.
9 Much of that which follows has been adapted from The King James Version of 1611, The Myth of Early Revisions, David F. Reagan, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Temple, Knoxville, TN. Also see McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., p. 194 (Bois read the entire Hebrew O.T. at age 5 and wrote Hebrew at 6, p. 200). Dr. Reagan utilized data from F.H.A. Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 1884. Dr. Scrivener was a conservative and godly member of the 1881 Revision Committee (see page Error! Bookmark not defined.).
10 Herman C. Hoskier, "The Authorized Version of 1611", Bibliotheca Sacra 68; (October, 1911), pp. 693-704.
11 A typical "problem" or "unfortunate translation" offered against the KJB is found in Acts 12:4 where the Greek word "pascha" is rendered "Easter" instead of "Passover". Although "Passover" is the usual correct rendering, the context of Acts 12:1-4 is unmistakable that it should not so be translated in this instance. All other versions translate "pascha" as "Passover" at this verse and in so doing, rather than correcting a mistake, they actually insert one. As the King James is the only English translation readily available in the marketplace that has made this proper distinction, this apparent error sets it clearly apart from and above all others. To explain, our computer reveals that the word "pascha" occurs 29 times in the New Testament. The KJB translators rendered it "Passover" the other 28 places in which it appears. The reader is reminded of the meticulous procedure to which the King James Bible was subjected and the large number of different scholars throughout England that viewed its production all along the way (see p. 11 ff.). The point that is being made is that these learned men clearly knew that "pascha" normally should mean "Passover" – for they so translated it the other 28 times. Therefore, Acts 12:4 is neither a mis-translation on their part nor an oversight! It is the result of a deliberate clear calculated decision on the part of many, many dedicated Christian scholars of the first rank. What did the 1611 translators perceive that led them to this obviously intentional choice which modern scholars have failed to observe? They were guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly discern the context and not merely blindly follow vocabulary and lexical studies. The Passover was to be slain on the 14th of Nisan and the seven days following were the feast of unleavened bread (Nisan 15-21). Verse 3 informs us that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread". Thus, the Passover had already come and gone. Herod (Agrippa) could not possibly have been referring to the Passover in this citation. The next Passover was a year away and the context of these verses does not permit that Herod intended to keep Peter incarcerated for so prolonged a period and then to put him to death a year later. No – it is clear that Herod purposed to slay Peter very soon thereafter. The next key is that of Herod himself (12:1). Herod Agrippa was not a Jew. He was a pagan Idumaean (Edomite) appointed by Rome. He had no reason to keep the Jewish Passover. But there was a religious holy day that the whole world honored and does to this day – the ancient festival of Astarte, also known in other languages as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of Nisan (c.April). Originally, it was a commemoration of the earth's "regenerating" itself after the "death" of winter. It involved a celebration of reproduction and fertility, hence the symbols of the festival were the rabbit and the egg – both being well known for their reproductive abilities. The central figure of worship was the female deity and her child (see p. Error! Bookmark not defined. ff.). The Scriptures refer to her as the "queen of heaven" (Jer.7:18; 44:15-27), the mother of Tammuz (Ezk.8:14), and Diana (or Artemis, Acts 19:23-41) and they declare that the pagan world worships her (Acts 19:27). These perverted rituals took place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezk.8:13-16) whereas Passover was celebrated in the evening (Deu.16:6). Thus, the Jewish Passover was held in mid-Nisan and the pagan festival Easter was held later that same month. As we have shown, Acts 12:4 cannot refer to Passover for the verse tells us that "then were the days of unleavened bread". Thus, in context, it must be referring to another holy day (holiday) that is at hand, but after Passover. This suggests that Herod was a follower of that world wide cult and thus had not slain Peter during the days of unleavened bread because he wanted to wait until Easter. As the Jews had put Jesus to death during Passover, Herod's reason for delaying the execution certainly was not fear of their objection to such a desecration of their religious holy days. The King James translators realized that to render "pascha" as "Passover" in this instance was both impossible and erroneous. They correctly discerned that the word could include any religious holy day occurring in the month of Nisan. The choice of "Easter" was methodical, exact, and correct.
12 Oswald T. Allis, The New English Bible, The New Testament of 1961, A Comparative Study.(n.p., 1963), p.69. Dr. E.F. Hills concurs (The King James Version Defended, op cit., p.218.) In Luke 22:31-32, for example, the King James Bible reads:
It was Luther's translation of Erasmus' Greek text into German that was the main weapon which the Holy Spirit used in bringing about the Reformation.10 The impact of the written Word was devastating to the teachings and traditions of the Roman Church. The 16th century Reformers placed their faith in the precious truths contained in these Living Words and the battle cry "Sola Scriptura" (Scriptures alone) became, as it were, their creed and rallying point upon which they rested for final authority. God had breathed these Scriptures. Now each man could read them, and account to God for himself without the dogma and rituals of Rome. In matters of conduct and faith the Word of God was the final court of appeal – not the priest or Pope. Indeed, as McClure rightly reminds us:
Eventually, as the Greek manuscripts came under close scrutiny by its Catholic opponents, it became clear that they differed somewhat in text and that variant readings existed. This gave the Roman Church the impetus it needed to launch a counter offensive to recapture the minds and allegiance of its own as well as those who had departed – "there are variants in your Sola Scriptura – therefore return to Sola Pope." Placed on the defensive by this assault, the 17th century Protestant church was forced into defining itself. This resulted in the doctrine of Providential Preservation of the text based upon God's many promises to preserve His Word. That which emerged from this point-counterpoint scenario was a clarification delineating the antithesis between the two positions. The defining process forced both sides to their logical conclusions.
choose several different words (usually adding others for which there is absolutely no textual evidence) and thus lose both the force and connection which the repetition would have preserved. The result is often misleading to one who "seeks the words of the Author." Dr. Steele continues:
To these last two observations by Dr. Steele, this author adds a resounding "amen". The final citation is given to provide – from one who is eminently qualified to so warn – a grave caution to us all.
"Moreover, it is doubtful if all the new translations provide the correctives they profess. Not infrequently they simply substitute their own confusion for that which they claim to have dispelled. This is especially true in their claim to the title 'Translation'. Few recent works have any right whatever to that title."23 (author's emphasis) How often we hear from the pulpit or from the Sunday School teacher, "I like the way the xxxxxxx translation says it". But who cares what man prefers. We do not gather together to hear the personal opinions and whims of men. The only question is – What saith the Lord? What saith the Holy Scriptures? The new Bible translations appeal, not because they are faithful to the original text, but because they have placed the ability to communicate over and above fidelity to the actual Words of God. The obvious reason for this being foisted upon the public is ...
(5) GREED FOR MONEY The majority of modern Bible publishers (not to be confused with Bible Societies) are neither religious organizations nor missionary societies deserving our unqualified trust.24 Operating in the cold hard world of business, they care not whether their product is a faithful rendering of the true text. Their interest lies along the lines of profit. They are not after the souls of men unto salvation or edification; rather it is their purchasing power which attracts these companies. Tragically, the same is true concerning most owners of "Christian" book stores who sell not only any translation but paperbacks and commentaries espousing nearly every wind of doctrine. The reason this continues year after year at a more maddening pace takes us back to reason number four – itching ears for winds of doctrine. The circle is ever widening and vicious. 13 Letis, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, op cit., p. 147 ff.
14 John Owen, "Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture", The Works of John Owen, Vol. XVI, ed. by William H. Goold, (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth, 1968; rpt. of 1850-53 ed.), pp. 356-358.
15 Benjamin C. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Washington, DC: n.p., 1930), pp. 78-83.
16 A 4th century uncial MSS closely akin to Vaticanus (see p. 68.).
17 Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, op. cit., pp. 81-83; completed around A.D. 405, Jerome's Vulgate contains a revision of the Latin New Testament.
18 Ibid., pp. 83-85; also Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 198-199.
19 Francis R. Steele, Translation or Paraphrase, (St. Louis, MO: Bible Memory Association International, 1960), pp. 2-4. Among the various positions in which Dr. Steele has functioned are those of Assistant Professor of Assyriology at the University off Pennsylvania from 1947-53 and Assistant Curator of the Babylonian Section of the University Museum. Twice he was annual professor of the Baghdad School of American Schools of Oriental Research and for many years since he has served as the Home Secretary of the North Africa Mission. This article was first carried in the September 26, 1960 issue of the magazine Christianity Today.20 Ibid., p. 6. 21 Steele, Translation or Paraphrase, op. cit., p 7.
22 Ibid., p. 7-8.
23 Ibid., p. 4.
24 Tindale's Triumph, John Rogers' Monument, The New Testament of the Matthew's Bible 1537 A.D., John Wesley Sawyer, ed., (Milford, OH: John the Baptist Printing Ministry, 1989), p. iv; from the forward written by Dr. Theodore P. Letis.
Chapter 1-PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
Chapter 2-BIBLICAL COMPARISONS DEPICTING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Chapter 3-THE 1881 REVISION
Chapter 4-THE "TEXTUS RECEPTUS"
Chapter 5-THE GREEK TEXT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
Chapter 6-HOW HORT CONTROLLED AND SEDUCED THE 1881 COMMITTEE
Chapter 7-THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED
Chapter 8-THE BELIEVING FRAME OF REFERENCE
Chapter 9-THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER
Appendix A-THE PERICOPE OF ADULTERA
Appendix B-THE JOHANNINE COMMA
Appendix C-EXAMPLES OF MODERN CRITICISM
Appendix D-HISTORY OF TEXTS TRANSMISSION
Bibliography
Index
Dr. Jones other book, Ripped From The Bible.
Dr. Thomas Holland's 12 Lessons on the King James Bible
Take The Bible Test
For a more complete Table Of Contents, click HERE
"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." -Mark 8:38
1996
Twelfth Edition
Revised and Enlarged
(First Edition 1989)
FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.
© FLOYD JONES MINISTRIES, INC.
8222 Glencliffe Lane
Houston, Texas 77070
Duis mi elit, aliquet id euismod egestas, venenatis sit amet lectus.