Which Bible Version?

I recently heard a man preach “What you have is a translation of a translation…” – not precisely true (we have a translation of a copy of a copy…) and hardly inspiring faith in the Bible. Do we have the Words of God or not? (In his defense, I believe he was trying to emphasize knowing God, as opposed to merely knowing about God.)

If you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture (see here) and English is your native language, what Bible Version should you use? There are two. Whoa, you say, there are a lot more than two! No, there are two. The first is the Authorized Version, KJV1611-1769, and the second is all the other modern translations. Why? Because the single most important thing about any Bible translation is the original language text on which it is based. The KJV is the only major translation that remains based on the Traditional Text. Nearly all modern translations are based on Greek texts that are, in turn, based on the Westcott & Hort Greek text of 1881 (for the New Testament) and the Biblia Hebracia Stuttgartensia, 1967 (for the Old Testament). It’s a long story, but I will summarize briefly. (its a blog not a treatise)

If you read a book that touches on Bible translations you will invariably read a statement like this from Grasping God’s Word, by J. Scott Duval and J. Daniel Hays,p. 29,“…the translators of the KJV worked from an inferior Greek text constructed from only a few, late New Testament manuscripts. Since the KJV first appeared, many older manuscripts have been discovered, and scholars contend that these older manuscripts are much more likely to reflect the original text. In contrast to the Greek text on which the KJV is based, scholars today are able to translate from a Greek text that draws on more than five thousand New Testament manuscripts, some dating back to the second century.” (p. 29) Really?  No.  This is a deceptive statement, because of the over 5,000 N.T manuscripts that translators are able to draw on today, over 99 percent support the Traditional Text of the KJV, including some of the oldest.  Less than one percent support the changes introduced in the modern translations. How did this happen? Well, like other philosophical changes rooted in the late 1800’s, it’s based on a theory…

The statement is based on a theory by Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D. published in The New Testament in the Original Greek, The Text Revised, By Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. And Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D., 1881. Hort recognized that the texts which he favored – the Alexandrian Texts – the less-than-one-percent – could not be legitimate due merely to random copying errors, not even by intentional editing of the text by individual copyists. It was statistically impossible that 99% could be wrong and 1% right. If the Alexandrian texts were the legitimate texts (the presupposition) then the 99% must have come from a conspiracy of the church.  Hort fancies this the Antiochene Resention. Hort theorized that the church must have met and edited or revised the legitimate copies of the New Testament by adding words and combining different previous texts to the legitimate text from other manuscripts. They then distributed these editions. This edited Antiochian text was preserved in the eastern Greek church, while the legitimate Alexandrian text was almost universally destroyed in early persecutions. That Hort’s theory is pure conjecture is revealed by his language in the introduction of the 1881 text – “doubtless, would have been in like manner”; “must in fact be”;”could not be otherwise”; “The facts would, we believe, be explained by the supposition, natural enough in itself, that…”.  There is no supporting evidence whatsoever that this occurred.

In contrast to Hort’s theory, the evidence shows that God has preserved His Word, as promised, in the Traditional Text used in the translation of the KJV.  He did so using two completely different independent methods for preserving His word in the Old and New Testaments:
Old Testament – professional scribes, using meticulous methods to ensure accuracy.
New Testament – multiplication of copies, anyone copied the text, introducing random mistakes which can be ruled out when comparing the copies to each other.

I like to use the example of copying a page of the phone book. If I copy it by hand, I may make a few mistakes. If you copy the same page you may also make mistakes but different ones. Compare three or more copies and you can absolutely tell what the original said. If 10 people copy my copy and 10 people copy each of those copies, and 10 people copy each of those copies you have 1110 copies. Each of the copies will have mistakes, both inherited and unique. If you compare all the copies, you can absolutely determine what the original said. Of course, the New Testament text is much more difficult because many of the copies are missing, but the same principle applies.

Corruptions of the text are a separate issue from accidental copying errors. Most intentional editing occurred very early.  Heretical groups, like those denounced in John’s epistles, edited the text to conform to their doctrine prior to the end of the 2nd century. Such altered texts were rejected by believing church leaders and scholars throughout history.  These are the texts which form the basis of the Critical Text used to translate modern versions of the Bible.

The more important principle, though, is that God has promised to preserve his Words. (1 Samuel 3:19; Psalm 12:6-7; 105:8; 119:89, 160; 138:2; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 4:4; 5:17-18; 24:35; John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:15-16; 1 Peter 1:23-25) If we are Bible-believing Christians, we must start from that position. As Dr. Thomas Holland conveys in his book Crowned With Glory, “…the greatest textual critic of all (is) the Holy Spirit.”  Just as the cannon of Scripture – the true books of the Bible – were recognized (rather than decided) by Christians under the supervision of the Holy Spirit, the true text of the New Testament was perceived through the ages.

There is abundant textual evidence that the 99 percent, which is the New Testament used by the church throughout the ages, which is the Traditional Text, the basis of the KJV, is the text that God has preserved.

That said, I have two observations:

1) The translators of the KJV stated in their preface titled The Translators to the Reader “…we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession … containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.”  So, even the deficient modern translations are God’s Word, but, having a choice, we should not settle for a defective translation based on a few corrupted texts.  Most of all, we should not believe a fantasy which undermines the truth that God has preserved His Words. 

2) It is better to have a poor translation of a single verse of the Bible and DO IT than to have the most complete, accurate translation and use it for merely academic purposes. James 1:22, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”    So, let’s be confident that we have the Word of God and do it.

-Allen

 

Recommended Reading:

Crowned With Glory, The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, Dr. Thomas Holland

The Revision Revised, John William Burgon, B.D., Dean of Chichester (technical work by contemporary of Hort)

Defending the King James Bible, A Fourfold Superiority: Texts, Translators, Technique, Theology, Pastor D.A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.