WHY DON’T WE USE THE KJV? - A series of articles on English translations of the Bible
By Ronald Nugent
II. A JOURNEY THROUGH TIME
For years a debate has been raging among evangelical Christians over the faithfulness of modern translations of the Bible. On the one hand there are those who insist that all modern versions are unfaithful and that the only accurate translation is the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV). On the other hand there are those who say that no translation is perfect and that modern translations vary in their reliability. They say that while some modern translations are not to be recommended others are very reliable and some are more reliable than the KJV. The debate often creates confusion in the hearts of God’s people. They believe that the Bible is the word of God and our only infallible rule for faith and life, so they are troubled when Christian friends tell them that the version they are using is not to be trusted and that they should use only the KJV.
In the first article in this series I began looking at the KJV and I asked whether it really is the most accurate translation of the Bible into English. I said that I believe that the answer is “NO”. I believe that it is a good translation, but I do not believe that it is the best . There are two reasons for my answer. First, the English language has changed over the four hundred years since the KJV was first published and much of it is unintelligible to many of today’s readers. We believe that the Bible should be translated into the language of the people and it is a simple fact that the language of the KJV is no longer the language of the people. For this reason alone I do not recommend its use in corporate worship or for serious Bible study today.
There is a another reason why I do not believe that the KJV is the best translation for use today. My second reason is that the KJV is based upon inferior manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament (OT) and Greek New Testament (NT). To keep the argument as simple as possible, I will for the moment look only at the Greek NT. Now it is an incontrovertible fact that since the KJV was translated thousands more Greek manuscripts of the NT books have been discovered. It is also an established fact that many of these manuscripts are more reliable than the manuscripts that form the basis of the KJV.
To understand this argument it is helpful to understand how the NT has come to us. Come with me as we travel down the centuries and see how the NT books have developed from hand-written scrolls in Greek into printed books in English. The journey is a long one, so you will need to be patient, but it is an interesting one, so stay awake as we travel. In its journey from first century authors to twenty-first century readers the NT has gone through four stages: first, writing the autographs; second, copying the manuscripts; third, collating the copies; and fourth, translating into other languages.
The original manuscripts of the NT are called the autographs. They were either written by the authors themselves or dictated by them to scribes (called amanuenses). For example, it would seem from Romans 16:22 that Paul dictated Romans to a scribe called Tertius. The autographs were written in Greek (the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean in the first century) and would have been written on papyrus (a material similar to paper made from a reed that grows along the Nile River ). Sheets of papyrus were often pasted together to form a scroll. Papyrus was the most common writing material of the time because it was easy to write on, easy to handle and relatively cheap to buy. However, papyrus had one major disadvantage: it became brittle with age and crumbled to a powder. For this reason papyrus documents have survived only in very dry climates such as Egypt and the Dead Sea area.
Because the NT autographs were written on papyrus and because they would have been in constant use, not one of them has survived. For example, we do not have the original Letter of Paul to the Romans or the original Gospel of John. (This may be just as well, as superstitious people would doubtless attribute magical power to them). The manuscripts that have survived are not the autographs but later copies. In most cases there are several generations of copies between the autographs and the extant copies. The autographs were written in the first century; some extant copies date from the second century but most date from later centuries.
Now, copies of these original manuscripts were soon being made for distribution. We have evidence that copies were already circulating during the life-times of the apostles. For example, in 2 Peter we read: “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters” (2 Peter 3:15-16a). It is clear that Peter was familiar with the letters of Paul and expected his readers also to know them. This would suggest that copies of them were already circulating in the first century when Peter wrote. As the church spread and as the demand for the writings of the apostles and evangelists increased, so more and more copies were made.
Until the invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg in the fifteenth century, all copying of the NT had to be done by hand. Inevitably, as copies were made errors appeared and as more copies were made the number of errors multiplied. (It is important to note that when we say that the Bible is without error, we are speaking of the autographs not the later copies). Most of these errors were unintentional and unimportant. These unintentional errors include misspelling of words, changing the order of words, substituting similar sounding words, repeating words or lines, and omitting words or lines. Most of the variants are of this nature and they are usually easy to recognize and of no great consequence.
We can see an example of a simple copyist’s error by comparing Revelation 1:5 in the KJV and the English Standard Version (ESV). In the KJV we read: “Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins by his blood” (my italics). But in the ESV we read: “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” (my italics). Where the KJV has “washed” the ESV has “freed”. Why are they different? The reason for the difference is that they are translating from different Greek manuscripts. Some manuscripts have lousanti (”washed”) and others have lusanti (”freed”). In Greek the pronunciation of both words is the same and there is a difference of only one letter in their spelling. The question to ask is: which word was used by John when he wrote the autograph? The KJV has opted for “washed” and the ESV has decided on “freed”. Which version is correct? We will not attempt an answer to that question just yet.
While most errors were unintentional, some were intentional. Sometimes a copyist would deliberately change the text because he wanted to make it easier to understand or he wanted to make it support his theology. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8. In the KJV these verses read: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one ” (my italics). In the ESV the verses read: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” The words in italics, which have been included in the KJV but not in the ESV, are found only in four Greek manuscripts, the earliest being from the fourteenth century. It would seem that a copyist added these words in the late middle ages to support the doctrine of the Trinity.
Before I am falsely accused of heresy, let me say that I firmly believe the doctrine of the Trinity. However, I do not base my belief in the Trinity on a couple of spurious verses in the KJV. The doctrine of the Trinity is so clearly attested in the Scriptures that I do not need a medieval scribe to add to them before I will accept it. The copyist’s intention may have been good, but his insertion was not. I will have more to say about these verses in a later article. I mention them here only as an example of an intentional addition to the text made by a later copyist for theological reasons.
How many of these ancient copies have survived into the twenty-first century? Thousands! Indeed, there are more than 5,500 known extant manuscripts of the whole or part of the Greek NT. The earliest of these manuscripts come from second century and the latest from the fifteenth. Of these 5,500 manuscripts, fifty-nine have the complete NT; the rest have portions from just a few verses to several books. Most of them contain at least the four gospels. This is a much larger number of extant copies than for any other ancient writing. For example, Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars , written about 50 BC, has only ten manuscripts of good quality, the oldest being about nine hundred years after Caesar’s time. Tacitus’s Annals , written about AD 100, has ten full and two partial extant manuscripts, the earliest dating from the ninth century.
The NT manuscripts are usually divided into four categories. First, there about one hundred papyri (plural of papyrus). The earliest papyri date from the second century. Most have been discovered in Egypt , where the dry climate and sand have helped to preserve them. Secondly, there are about three hundred uncials. These are manuscripts written in capital letters on animal skins (called vellum or parchment). They date from the third to the tenth centuries and, because skins are more durable than papyrus, more of these have survived. Thirdly, there are about 3,000 minuscules. The minuscule script was a small cursive style of writing that developed about the beginning of the ninth century. Like uncials, minuscules are written on parchment or vellum but they are much later in date. Fourthly, there are over 2,400 lectionaries. The earliest lectionaries date from the sixth century. They contain portions of the NT arranged for reading during the year in the worship services of the churches.
Now we come to a problem. No two of the extant manuscripts are exactly alike. Indeed, the most similar manuscripts disagree six to ten times per chapter. When the manuscripts differ, how do we decide which is correct and which is in error? To this problem we will turn in our next article, when we look at the third stage on our journey from autograph to translation. At this point, however, it is important to note that most of the differences between the manuscripts are simply differences in spelling and make no difference to the meaning of the text. It is also important to note that none of the differences affect any significant matter of doctrine. If you are using a widely accepted version of the Bible such as the KJV or the ESV or the NIV or the NKJV or the NASB, you can be sure that it is based on a text that is very close to the original and you can be confident that you have in your hands the word of God.
TO BE CONTINUED
Copyright © Ronald G. Nugent 2005