By Ronald Nugent

I. HOW ENGLISH HAS CHANGED

Recently a student attending All Nations Presbyterian Church asked me this question: “There are some Christians who claim that the King James Version is the most accurate translation of the Bible and as Christians it is our responsibility to use the most accurate translation to study God’s Word. Therefore, using any other Bible aside from the King James Version is wrong because we are not actively seeking God’s perfect word. It’s not true, is it?”

There is no denying the greatness of the King James Version. It is arguably the greatest work ever published in the English language. It has not only shaped English faith and worship but also the English language. It has inspired poets and playwrights and even politicians. As Alister McGrath has noted: “Without the King James Bible there would have been no Paradise Lost , no Pilgrim’s Progress , no Handel’s Messiah , no Negro spirituals and no Gettysburg Address.”

While the King James Version began as the Bible of the Establishment it soon became the Bible of the people. Many of its phrases have become commonplace. “To lick the dust”, “to fall flat on his face”, “to pour out one’s hear”, “to stand in awe”, “a man after his own heart”, “the land of the living”, and “the skin of my teeth” are some of the many Hebrew idioms that have crept into English through the King James Version. Albert Cook, Professor of English at Yale University in the 1920s, wrote: “No other book has so penetrated the hearts and speech of the English race as has the Bible. What Homer was to the Greeks, and the Koran to the Arabs . . . the Bible has become to the English.” The Bible to which he referred was the King James Version.

The King James Version (KJV) was first published in 1611 and for the next three hundred and fifty years was the Bible of the English speaking world. Other translations were produced but, until the publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in the 1950s, if someone read a Bible in English, it was almost certainly the King James Version that he or she read. And until the latter part of the twentieth century it was always the KJV that people would hear being read when they attended a church service. Indeed, in England it is commonly called the Authorized Version (AV) because it was the only version authorized to be read in the Church of England.

It is called the King James Version after King James I of England , who in 1604 convened a conference at Hampton Court to discuss the differing views of rival parties in the Church of England. The Hampton Court Conference recommended to the King “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.” The motion pleased the King, so a panel of fifty-four leading classical and oriental scholars was appointed to produce the new translation, which in time became known as the KJV.

The first Bible I ever owned was a KJV with a black leather cover given to me on my fourteenth birthday by my grandfather. I soon fell in love with it, fascinated by its stories and enchanted by its language. To this day it remains my favourite Bible. Many older people have a similar sentimental attachment to the KJV. It was the Bible we grew up with. We love its elegant yet simple wording and beautiful cadences. There are some today who prefer to use the KJV because it is the version that they have always used and it is the Bible with which they are most familiar. With such people I have much sympathy.

However, there are other users of the KJV with whom I have little sympathy. They are those who claim that it is the best translation ever made of the Bible into English and that all later translations are inferior and not to be trusted. Is the KJV really the most accurate translation available today and still the best Bible for use in personal study and corporate worship? I believe that the answer to this question is “NO”. I believe that it is a good version, but I do not believe that it is the best or the most reliable. I have two reasons for saying this.

First, the English language has changed over the last four hundred years so that the KJV has become unintelligible to many of today’s generation. Indeed, some changes in the meaning of words have made it not only unintelligible but even inaccurate. Secondly , many more ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of biblical books have been discovered over the last four hundred years, so that the KJV is no longer based upon the earliest or the best available manuscripts. In this article will look at the first reason, and in subsequent articles we will look at the second.

The first reason that the KJV is no longer the best English version of the Bible is that our language has gone through much change since it was first published . Some words that were in common use in 1611 are seldom or never used today. This means that some words and passages in the KJV are quite unintelligible to modern readers. Which of these words do you know the meaning of: almug, chode, chapt, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, neesed, ouches, pilled, pruit, ring-sacked, stacte, strake, tatches, trode, trow, wimples, and wot? All are words used in the KJV. If I am in a mischievous mood, I like to ask advocates of the KJV if they can tell me the meaning of we do you to wit . You will find this expression at 2 Corinthians 8:1 and it means “we want you to know.”

While some words have fallen out of use, other words have taken different meanings from what they had in the seventeenth century. For example, here are some passages as translated in the KJV of 1611 and the English Standard Version (ESV) of 2001.

• And Jacob sod pottage (Genesis 25:29, KJV).
• Jacob was cooking stew (Genesis 25:29, ESV).

In modern English the word sod is a noun and refers to a piece of turf; in the seventeenth century sod was the past tense of the verb seethe meaning to boil or cook.

• They fetched a compass of seven days’ journey (2 Kings 3:9, KJV).
• They made a circuitous march of seven days (2 Kings 3:9, ESV).

In our day the word compass is usually a noun and refers to an instrument for determining direction; in King James’s day compass was usually a verb meaning to go around or make a circuit.

• Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Psalm 5:6, KJV).
• You destroy those who speak lies (Psalm 5:6, ESV).

Today to lease is to provide a property for rental; at the time the KJV was translated to lease meant to be loose with the truth, that is, to tell lies.

• The snares of death prevented me (Psalm 18:5, KJV).
• The snares of death confronted me (Psalm 18:5, ESV).

• In the morning shall my prayer prevent thee (Psalm 88:13, KJV).
• In the morning my prayer comes before you (Psalm 88:13, ESV).

In modern English to prevent means to hinder or stop a person doing something; four hundred years ago to prevent meant to precede or go before, with no thought of hindrance.

• Ye have heard of my conversation in time past (Galatians 1:13 , KJV).
• You have heard of my former life (Galatians 1:13 , ESV).

• Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles (1 Peter 2:12 , KJV).
• Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable (1 Peter 2:12 , ESV).

In today’s English the word conversation refers to an informal exchange of thought by spoken words; in the seventeenth century conversation referred to a person’s behaviour or manner of life. These are but a few of many similar examples that I could give; their number is legion.

When the Bible was written it was written in the language of the people and when it is translated it should be translated into the language of the people. Now this is a serious matter, as was recognized by the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time it was written was the language most generally known to the nations), being directly inspired by God and by his unique care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authoritative, so that in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal to them. But, because these original languages are not understood by all the people of God, who have a right to, and a vital interest in, the Scriptures and are commanded to read and search them in the fear of God, therefore the Scriptures are to be translated into the common language of every nation to which they come ; so that, the Word of God dwelling abundantly in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner and by perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures may have hope. ( The Westminster Confession of Faith: Modern English Study Version , 1.8, my italics).

It is a simple fact that the English of the KJV is not the “common language” of English speakers today. Those who insist that we use only the KJV are denying us the word of God in our native tongue. The KJV was translated into the English of 1611, not into the English of 2005. In the seventeenth century it was easily understood by most people, but it is not so readily understood today. The question to ask is not “Is the language beautiful?” but “Is the language understandable to the reader?” and “Is the language faithful to the original?” Four hundred years ago the answer to these questions was “Yes” but today the answer is “No, not always.”

The English of the KJV is beautiful but it is also obsolete. Because its English is no longer used by ordinary people, it no longer gives the meaning of the ancient writers and it no longer speaks to modern readers. It is neither accurate nor intelligible. As much as we might love the KJV as a monument of the English language, as much as we might delight in its cadences and its beauty, and as much as we might find comfort and strength in its familiar turns of phrase, we must also recognize that it is not an adequate translation for the twenty-first century.
TO BE CONTINUED
Copyright © Ronald G. Nugent 2005

Share on Facebook

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

Share on Facebook

By Ronald Nugent

III. THE KING JAMES VERSION AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

One of the advantages of being a speaker of English is that we have a multitude of translations of the Bible in our own tongue. While this is a great blessing, it also presents a problem. Which translation should I use in my personal Bible study? Which translation should our church use in its worship services? Is the translation that I am using now one that I can trust? One translation in wide use today is the King James Version (KJV) , sometimes called the Authorized Version (AV), first published in 1611. The purpose of this series of articles is to examine the arguments of those who claim that the KJV remains the best translation of the Bible ever made into English, and is the one that Christians should be using even in the twenty-first century.

It is indeed extraordinary that a translation of the Bible made in the seventeenth century remains so popular four hundred years later. Most of those who choose to use the KJV today do so because it is the version that they grew up with and they have come to love it. For them it is an old friend. They are not opposed to the use of other translations but have a personal preference for the KJV. Others, however, argue that all modern translations are inferior and unreliable and that the only version that can be trusted is the KJV. A few even go so far as to assert that the KJV is a divinely inspired and preserved translation and therefore without error and perfect. Some say that it is the only translation that God honours.

Why do the advocates of the KJV claim that it is superior to all other English translations of the Bible? The KJV, they argue, is to be preferred to other translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, because it is based on the most reliable ancient texts: the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament (NT) and the Ben-Chayyim text of the Hebrew Old Testament (OT). Because of limitations of space we will look only at their claims for the Textus Receptus of the Greek NT, their claims and arguments for the Ben-Chayyim text of the Hebrew OT being similar.

When Christians hear their KJV-Only friends talk about the Textus Receptus they commonly don’t know how to answer. Often they have never even heard of the Textus Receptus. To understand the debate about the Textus Receptus, we first need to understand how the New Testament came to us. We have seen that 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. In the last article we looked at the first two stages; in this we look at the third.

During this third stage, biblical scholars examine the thousands of ancient copies to find the most reliable and then collate these most reliable copies to reconstruct the Greek NT. You will recall that we do not have the original manuscripts (called the autographs) for any NT books because all have long since been lost. However, the autographs were copied by hand and we do have many copies, including some very early copies. Indeed, we have today over 5,500 copies, dating from the second century to the fifteenth. Some of these copies are of the entire NT; others are of only a part; some are of just a small fragment.

Now we come to a problem. Because all copies made before the invention of the printing press had to be made by hand, errors soon crept in. As a result, no two of the extant copies are exactly alike. Indeed, the most similar manuscripts disagree six to ten times per chapter. This need not worry us as most of these differences are very minor. For example, some manuscripts of Matthew 4:18 read “He saw two brothers” while others say “Jesus saw two brothers.” Similarly, some manuscripts of 1 Thessalonians 3:11 speak of “Jesus our Lord” while other talk of “our Lord Jesus Christ.” There is no significant difference of meaning between the two.

When the manuscripts differ, how do we decide which are the most accurate copies of the original and which contain the most mistakes? The important task of examining the different manuscripts and deciding which are closest to the autographs is the task of specially trained biblical scholars. In looking at how this is done we will be studying some matters which some readers might find rather technical. I will do my best to be brief and simple, but if we are to answer the false claims of the KJV-Only advocates, we cannot avoid going into a few technical details.

To understand how scholars select the most reliable manuscripts, it is helpful to understand that the ancient hand-written copies of the NT are divided into families. These families of manuscripts are called “text-types”. The concept of text-types is simple: manuscripts that are copied from one another are all very similar. Thus the manuscripts belonging to each text-type all contain similar errors and variants. The reason for this is obvious: if a copyist made a mistake, later copyists using his manuscript usually repeated his mistake. Because manuscripts generally circulated in the area where they were copied, manuscripts of the same text-type tend to be found in the same geographic region.

There are four main text-types, each named from the region where it developed. 1. The Byzantine text-type is named after Byzantium (also called Constantinople), an ancient Greek city at the entrance to the Black Sea, where Istanbul now stands. 2. The Alexandrian text-type takes its name from Alexandria, a seaport on the Nile delta in northern Egypt. 3. The Western text-type is found mainly in manuscripts from the western Mediterranean. 4. The Caesarean text-type probably began in Egypt and migrated to Caesarea, a seaport on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in northwestern Israel. Of these four text-types our interest is primarily in the Byzantine and the Alexandrian.

The Byzantine text-type is of special interest because the KJV is based on manuscripts from this family. It is sometimes called the “Majority text-type” because about eighty percent of the manuscripts of the Greek NT belong to it. However, the majority is not necessarily correct. It is a simple fact that all the manuscripts from this text-type are rather late. None is earlier than the fourth century and most date from the second millennium. For this reason, the Byzantine text-type is generally regarded as less reliable than the Alexandrian.

Most modern translations of the Bible rely more on manuscripts belonging to the Alexandrian text-type. The earliest extant manuscripts generally belong to this family, including most of the papyri. Some papyri of this text type have been dated as early as the second century. (We talked about the papyri in the last article). Manuscripts belonging to the Alexandrian text-type are usually judged to be more accurate than those belonging the Byzantine. ¹ This is not to say that all Alexandrian texts are superior to all Byzantine texts at all points; it is only to say that the Alexandrian texts are generally more reliable.

If you go into a Christian bookstore to buy a Greek NT, you may find a number of published texts from which to choose. Which text should you purchase? Since the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century, hundreds of different texts of the Greek NT have been published. Three of them are important for our understanding of the current debates over Bible translations: the Eclectic Text, the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.

The Eclectic Text is based on manuscripts from all the text-types. (Our English word “eclectic” derives from the Greek eklektikos, meaning selective. The Eclectic Text is selected from manuscripts of all text-types). The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies contains the Eclectic Text. All the variants are examined and compared, and the scholars attempt to select the most reliable, that is the one they consider to be closest to the original. The Eclectic Text tends to favour the earlier manuscripts that are found in the Alexandrian text-type but manuscripts that belong to the other text-types are always considered and are sometimes selected. Most modern translations of the Bible into English, including the New International Version (NIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV) are based on the Eclectic Text.

The Majority Text is based on manuscripts only from the Byzantine text-type. The Greek New Testament edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad uses the Majority Text. Hodges and Farstad say that their text is based on the principle that “any reading overwhelmingly attested by the manuscript tradition is more likely to be original than its rivals.” However, this principle is clearly a logical fallacy. For example, a particular reading could be found in three thousand manuscripts, but these may all be late and may all have one ancestor. Another reading may be found in only fifty manuscripts, but these manuscripts may be earlier, may belong to different locations and text types, and may have different ancestors. In this instance, the minority is more likely to be correct than the majority. To my knowledge, there is no translation of the Bible into English based on the Majority Text.

Now we come to the famous Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus (TR) is the name given to later editions of the Greek NT first edited and published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. (The name “Textus Receptus” is Latin and means Received Text. This does not mean that it was received directly from God but that it was accepted as the standard text in the seventeenth century). Now the Greek NT of Erasmus was based upon only seven manuscripts, none of which contained the complete NT and none of which was earlier than the tenth century. Although improvements were made in later editions, they were still based upon later manuscripts. Some twelve passages of the TR contain readings not found in any Greek manuscripts. The KJV and New King James Version (NKJV) are largely based upon a 1551 edition of the TR. ²

The argument over the KJV is really an argument over the TR. The question is a simple one. Which Greek text is closer to the autographs, the TR or the Eclectic Text? If the TR is the most reliable text, we should use the KJV (or perhaps the NKJV) in our Bible study and worship services. However, if the Eclectic Text is the most reliable, we are better to use a modern version such as the NIV or ESV. In the next article in this series we will consider the arguments that are used for and against the TR. As we do this, we will look at some examples of the differences between the KJV and the modern versions and the reasons for those differences.

TO BE CONTINUED

Footnotes
¹ The principles used in deciding the most accurate copies are beyond the scope of this article. I will mention only three. First, earlier texts are generally more reliable than later ones. Later texts, having been through more stages of copying, are more likely to be corrupted by errors. The Alexandrian texts are generally earlier than the Byzantine. Secondly, shorter texts are usually more accurate than longer ones. It has been demonstrated that later scribes tended to add to the text rather than shorten it. The Alexandrian texts are generally shorter than the Byzantine. Thirdly, the more difficult texts tend to be more accurate than less difficult ones. It has been shown that copyists sometimes simplified difficult texts to make them easier for their readers to understand. The Alexandrian texts are generally more difficult than the Byzantine.

² Although the TR and the Majority Text are similar, they are not identical. The TR differs from the Majority Text in over 1,800 places.

Copyright © Ronald G. Nugent 2006

Share on Facebook

By Ronald Nugent

IV. WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS?

This series of articles arose from a question asked by one of the young people in our church. He has some Christian friends who told him that the modern translations of the Bible are not to be trusted and that he should be using the King James Version (KJV) of 1611. He wanted to know if they were right, and why we don’t use the KJV at All Nations Presbyterian Church. (Note: Before reading this article, you will find it helpful to read the earlier articles in the Messenger , Issues 129, 130 and 131, or online at the ANPC website.

Advocates of the KJV may be divided into three groups. (1) The first group are those who prefer the KJV because they have used it all their lives and so they are more familiar with it and have come to love its language (the “Just-Like-the-KJV” group). (2) The second group are those who believe that it is a better translation and is based on better texts than the modern versions (the “KJV-Is-Best” group). (3) The third group are those who believe that it is the only reliable version in the English language, having been preserved by God from all errors of copyists down through the ages (the “KJV-Only” group). With the first group, I have no argument. Their choice of the KJV is a simple matter of personal preference and they don’t attempt to force their choice on the rest of us. With the second and third groups, however, I take issue. Their choice of the KJV is based on fallacious, even silly, arguments and their insistence that the rest of us are using inferior and unreliable Bibles can undermine the faith of God’s people in His word and cause division in His church. Hence this series of articles.

In the first article, we noted how the English language has changed since the KJV was first published in 1611. These changes have meant that the KJV is no longer in the language of the people and it is difficult for many people today to understand. In the second article, we began looking at how the New Testament (NT) has come down to us, that is, its journey from original text to today’s translations. We saw that we do not have the original text for any book of the NT but that we do have thousands of later copies. In the third article, we looked at the next stage in the journey of the Bible from text to translations: the selection of the best manuscripts from the thousands of extant copies. We saw that most modern translations are based on a selection of manuscripts called the Eclectic Text (ET), while the KJV is based on a much older selection called the Textus Receptus (TR). ( Textus Receptus is Latin for “Received Text”).

If you compare the KJV with a modern translation of the Bible, such as the NIV and the ESV, you will find many differences. Some of these differences are because the English language has changed over the years and some are because the translators use different methods of translation, but many are because the KJV is a translation of the TR while modern translations are based on the ET. Advocates of the KJV claim that the TR is more reliable than the ET and some even claim that the TR contains the original text of the NT, which has been wonderfully preserved by God down the centuries. What are we to say in answer to these claims of the KJV-Is-Best and the KJV-Only advocates?

In this article and the next I will examine some of the arguments which the champions of the TR use to support their claims. Their arguments are legion and it is not possible to examine them all in a brief series of articles such as this or to reply at length. Those who wish to study the subject further will find a list of recommended reading at the end of this article. For now, we will look at two of the principal arguments advanced by the KJV-Is-Best and KJV-Only advocates and in the next article we will look at four or five more of their arguments. What, then, are the main arguments used by the KJV advocates to support the TR and how do we answer them?

Argument 1. The TR is based on the Byzantine text-type, to which the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts belong.

Answer. This is the principal argument used by advocates of the TR and the KJV. Now, I readily acknowledge that both of the statements above are quite true. The TR is based on the Byzantine text-type, and the majority of Greek manuscripts do belong to the Byzantine text-type. But for this argument to carry any weight, two other things must also be true. First, it must be true that the majority text is the always closest to the original, and, secondly, it must be true that the TR always uses the majority text. Sadly, for our KJV-Is-Best and KJV-Only friends, neither of these things is true.

First, the majority text is not always the closest to the original. It is true that about ninety-five percent of the extant Greek manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text-type. However, ninety-five percent of the extant Greek manuscripts were copied after AD 700, more than six centuries after the NT was written. Furthermore, we have over seventy manuscripts from before AD 400, but not one belongs to the Byzantine text-type. Although there are thousands of manuscripts belonging to the Byzantine text-type, all of them date from after AD 400 and most of them date from after AD 700. The earliest extant manuscripts belong, not to the Byzantine, but to the Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean text-types. Now, as a general rule, the older the manuscript, the more reliable it is likely to be. While it is important for Bible scholars to study all available manuscripts, it must be remembered that the majority is often wrong. In the case of the extant manuscripts of the Greek NT, the majority has been through several generations of copying and, obviously, the more times a manuscript is copied, the more likely it is that errors will creep in.

The reason for the later Byzantine manuscripts outnumbering the earlier Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean manuscripts is easy to explain. First, the earlier the manuscripts are less likely to survive the ravages of time. Over the years, manuscripts were thrown out and burnt or buried, or simply rotted and disintegrated. Secondly, the rise of Islam in north Africa and the Middle East in the sixth and seventh centuries meant the decline of Christianity in those regions and even its demise in places. Not only was there less demand for the Christian Scriptures but the Scriptures that already existed were often destroyed by the victorious Muslims. At the same time in Western Europe , Latin rather than Greek became the lingua franca, and Latin manuscripts replaced Greek ones. After AD 700, it was only in the Byzantine Empire that the Greek language was widely used and only in the Byzantine Empire that the Scriptures were widely read and copied in Greek. It is for this reason that the Byzantine text-type contains the majority of Greek manuscripts from the eighth century onwards.

Furthermore, while the TR uses manuscripts from the Byzantine text-type, it does not always follow the majority text. The majority text is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR is based on less than one percent of those witnesses. For example, the words in 1 John 5:7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”, which are found in the TR and the KJV, occur in only four (out of over 5,000) Greek manuscripts. (We will look more closely at his verse when we answer the second argument). Again, the words in Revelation 22:19, “the Book of Life”, which are also found in the TR and the KJV, do not occur in any extant Greek manuscript. In summary, the principle that the majority text is the most reliable is a false principle, and, even if it were true, the TR and the KJV do not use the majority text.

Argument 2. The TR contains several passages, including some doctrinally important ones, which are omitted by modern versions.

Answer. In a short article such as this, it is not possible to examine all the passages included in the TR and the KJV but missing from the ET and the modern translations. For the present we will look at only one such passage and we will look at another in the next article. These examples will demonstrate that there are good reasons for modern versions to exclude some passages that are found in the KJV.

One such passage that is often mentioned by KJV-Only advocates is 1 John 5:7. It is called the “Johannine Comma” (or, in Latin, the Comma Johanneum ) and it reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The words are included in the New King James Version, but I am not aware of any other modern version that contains them, except as a footnote. Indeed, some modern versions, don’t even include these words as a footnote. (I believe that in this they are absolutely correct). Our KJV-Only friends tell us that these words are a clear statement of the doctrine of the Trinity and that their exclusion from most modern versions proves that these versions are not to be trusted.

Have these words been excluded from most modern versions because the scholars who translated them did not agree with the doctrine of the Trinity? Not at all. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on the teaching of the whole of the Scriptures, not on one questionable verse. The truth is that the disputed words do not occur in any Greek manuscript of any text-type or in any quotation from the Greek NT before the sixteenth century and are found in only four Greek manuscripts, all late and all unreliable.

The story of how the Johannine Comma came to be included in the TR is interesting and instructive. When Erasmus first published his Greek NT in 1516, the Johannine Comma was not included. Its exclusion was for a very good reason: it was not in any Greek manuscript that Erasmus had examined. It was, however, to be found in the Vulgate, the Latin Bible prepared by Jerome, which was the authorized version of the Roman Catholic Church. (We note in passing that the disputed words were not included by Jerome. Jerome lived in the fourth century but the words in dispute first appear in the Vulgate in the ninth century). Now Erasmus had enemies and they took the opportunity to attack him for excluding the words in question and accused him of encouraging heresy. He protested that he was simply being faithful to the Greek texts and challenged his critics to produce a Greek text that contained the missing words. He promised, rather foolishly, that he would insert the Johannine Comma in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. His opponents then found an obscure manuscript in Ireland which contained the disputed words and Erasmus reluctantly included them in the third edition of his Greek NT. The manuscript is highly suspect and is believed to be the work of the Grey Friars, who were enemies of Erasmus. With the newly included text, Erasmus added the note: “have restored the text . . . so as not to give anyone an occasion for slander.” That is, he included the disputed words, not because the textual evidence warranted their inclusion, but to protect his own reputation from the false accusations of his enemies.

The fact is that the Johannine Comma is not found in any manuscripts of the Greek NT until after the Middle Ages. Since the time of Erasmus, thousands of Greek manuscripts of 1 John have been discovered, but only three others contain the disputed text: one from the twelfth century with the disputed words written in the margin in a seventeenth century hand, one from the sixteenth century, and one from the seventeenth century. Not one Greek text of this verse has ever been discovered anywhere that is earlier than the sixteenth century. There is no evidence at all that the Johannine Comma was written by the author of 1 John.

How then did this text get into the Latin Vulgate? The most likely explanation is that it was first added as a gloss. (A “gloss” is a brief comment written in the margin or between the lines of a text, rather like the comments in our study Bibles today or the notes that some Christians jot in the margins of their Bibles). Next, a later scribe, who copied the manuscript, thought the gloss was a part of the original text and so inserted it into the text itself. Future scribes, not aware of what had happened, then copied the error, so that it became an integral and accepted verse in the Latin Vulgate. Initially there was no dishonesty involved, simply an error of judgment. Later, some over-zealous scribes translated the Latin into Greek and inserted the words in question into a handful of copies of the Greek NT. Thus, the Johannine Comma did not find its way into the Latin Vulgate from the Greek NT; rather, it found its way into a few late copies of the Greek NT from the Latin Vulgate. It should not be included in our English Bibles.

TO BE CONTINUED

FOR FURTHER READING

1. On the History of the Bible

Wegner, Paul D., The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999)

Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration ( Oxford : Oxford University Press).

2. On the History of the King James Version

Nicolson, Adam, Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible ( London : Harper Collins, 2003).

McGrath, Alister, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible ( London : Hodder and Stoughton , 2001)

3. On the Debate over the King James Version

Carson , Donald A., The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979).

White, James R., The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995).

4. On the Translation of the Scriptures

Martin, Robert P., Accuracy of Translation: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions with Special Reference to the New International Version (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989).

Barker, Kenneth (Editor), The Making of a Contemporary Translation: The Purpose and Method of the New International Version (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1987).

Copyright © 2006 Ronald Nugent

Share on Facebook