Bible Versions Part 1: The Manuscripts
Have you ever noticed the differences in Bible Versions? Perhaps you
are following along with the sermon in your own Bible, and what the
pastor is reading isn't what you see in your own Bible. Or perhaps
you
are in a Bible Study, and someone else reads a portion of Scripture
that seems markedly different than what you see in your version. If
you
are reading a modern version, such as the New International Version,
you may even find that your Bible seems to be missing some verses
that
others are referring to! What is going on here?
The
first issue we have to deal with concerning Bible Versions is that
of
the
manuscripts. The English
Bibles we use have been (for the most part) translated from Greek
and
Hebrew manuscripts. These manuscripts are copies of the
originals, and in most cases, represent copies of copies of copies,
etc. As far as we know, there are no original texts in existence
today.
There
have been many copies of the Scriptures made throughout the years.
The
"papers" that the Word was written upon wore out from constant use
and
diligent study, plus there was a need for multiple copies so that
each
church could read from their own. This need grew as the number of
churches grew.
Of
course, as the number of copies grew, so also did the opportunity to
falsify those copies. God warned us of this corruption of His
Word:
2
Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of
God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak
we
in Christ.
2Pe 2:1 But there were false
prophets also among the
people, even as there shall be
false
teachers among you, who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Many
manuscript copies were developed and several Bibles translations
emerged during the
first thousand and a half years since the sacrifice of Christ on the
Cross. By the time of Erasmus, a need to make a solid rendition of
the
Greek Scriptures was needed, as there were by this time many
corruptions in existence. Using the best texts he had available,
Erasmus produced a version that eventually developed into what is
called today the "Textus Receptus", or "Received Text".
Two
things we should note at this point. There was no one, single
manuscript by this time that was universally accepted as "the exact
copy of the original". In fact, there were variations between the
texts
that Erasmus used in developing his version. However, these
variations,
for the most part, were minor.
The second thing of note is
that as evidenced in the New Testament, even copies of the original
can be regarded as
Scripture. For example, in John 5:39, Jesus says "Search the
scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are
they which testify of me." In Acts 17:2 we read, "And Paul, as his
manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with
them out of the scriptures..." Now, the Scriptures they were reading
from were certainly not the originals, as they had long ago been
worn
out.
Rather, they were careful copies that had been preserved through the
centuries. Yet, both Jesus and Paul have no problem referring to
these
copies as the Scriptures.
God speaks about the purity and preservation of His Word:
Psalm
12:6-7: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver
tried
in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O
LORD, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever.
Pr 30:5 Every word of God
is pure: he is a
shield unto
them that put their trust in him.
Mt
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every
word of God.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth
for
ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached
unto you.
Yet, the evidence we have today shows that there are variants
between
the many manuscripts we have, even between various representatives
of
the Textus Receptus. I can't fully understand how
God preserves His Word through multitudes of imperfect texts.
However,
I can think of two reasons He may have taken this
approach: 1) God wants us to diligently study the Scriptures. The
"students" through the years have had to take seriously the
importance
of maintaining accurate copies and of determining His Word. God's
Church has a responsibility to advance His Gospel throughout the
world.
2) a single
"official" copy would likely have been worshiped as an object
itself.
Those
who hold to the Textus Receptus (TR) view feel that this "strain" of
manuscripts existed since the time of the Apostles, and that God
preserved that text (through groups like the Waldesians and others)
from corruptions of His Church, with the result that in the late
1500's
to early 1600's the accurate text was still to be found. It is this
text strain that the Geneva Bible, that was so important to the
Puritans, and the King James Bible that we still use today, were
based
upon. Those with the TR view typically feel that the King James
Bible
is the best English Translation.
There are some today with a
view known as King James Only, who believe that God so inspired the
translation of the King James Bible that it even corrects the faults
in
the various manuscripts that were available at the time of
translation.
They feel, that by the time of the 1769 edition of the King James
Bible
(there were admitted errors and language changes made since the 1611
original), that the true preserved Word of God was reflected.
However,
since the time of the Textus Receptus, many additional manuscripts
have
been discovered. Today we have over 5,350, consisting of
(approximately) 115 Papyrus,
257 Uncials, 2795 Miniscules, and 2,200 Greek Lexionaries.
[from
Philip Comfort's Essential Guide
to
Bible Versions]. For the most part, the majority
of these texts agree with the TR, though there are some differences.
This has led to another view known as
the Majority Text (MT) view. This view takes the stance that by
expanding
the sampling size, we can ensure a more accurate translation. That
is,
instead of relying on (for example) 100 manuscripts to determine the
correct reading of a passage, if we use 1000 manuscripts our odds
are
much
improved. If one person could take the over 5,000 copies of the
manuscripts
all in one place, and perhaps with the help of a computer, a new
"Majority Text" reading could be developed that would take full
advantage of the many
additional manuscripts found since the 1600's. Typically those with
the
Majority Text view feel that the KJV is a very good Bible, though
not
without its flaws. It must be noted that since no one person owns
all
5,000+ manuscripts and they are very valuable and there are
conflicting
doctrinal views between the various holders of these manuscripts,
that
getting them all in one place is not very likely.
Out
of the
many manuscripts that have been discovered, there has been a strain
known as the "Alexandrian" texts that demonstrate a more varied
change
from the others. In the 1800's two texts were discovered known as
the
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. One was found in the Vatican
(it
had
been there since the 1400's), and the other was found in a Monastery
(it was not being used). These manuscripts contain almost the whole
of
the New Testament, and are felt to be much older than the majority
of
the other manuscripts. Some felt that since these texts were older
and
closer to the time of the originals, that perhaps they better
reflected
the original New Testament writings. Primarily for this reason,
Tischendorf and then
Westcott and Hort in the mid-1800's began to develop new theories of
the
text of Scripture. Because many of the passages in these two
versions
were shorter or even missing, they began to conjecture that through
the
years, scribes added filler to their copies to "fill in" those
places
that were lacking, or to clarify theology that was murky in the
originals. Also, these texts are not alone in their shorter
readings.
They are supported by approximately 300 other manuscripts, many
of
them
also representing some of the oldest manuscripts found. [Source: Rev
David Silversides sermon; The
NIV:
Is it Reliable? www.sermonaudio.com]
The NIV and almost every other modern
Bible version take an "eclectic" view to the Bible text. They use
not
just the Alexandrian texts or not just the Textus Receptus, but
try
to "consider them all". They have developed a variety of rules to
help
them determine which passage readings are likely the original. For
example, one of the rules as mentioned above is that in most
cases "shorter is better". Since the Alexandrian
texts most often use shorter readings, these texts are given a
higher
weighting than the others. This is also why, in the NIV, you find so
many
footnotes referring to "the best and oldest manuscripts". I should
also
note that later versions of the NIV have "softened" this footnote
language over
earlier revisions.
In a nutshell, then, four views of the Scriptural text are:
1.
Textus Receptus: The TR is an accurate rendition of the Scriptures
and
can be regarded as such. God preserved His Word and ensured the men
of
this time period had in their possession the best examples of
manuscripts available. Even though other manuscripts have since been
discovered, they are not to be considered any more accurate.
2.
Majority Text: Since most of the additional manuscripts that have
been
discovered agree with the strain of the TR, they should be added
into
the equation to develop a more accurate text. Spurious texts, like
the
Alexandrian, that differ greatly from this strain should be
rejected.
They point out that even the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus texts
disagree with each other in over 3,000 places.
3. King James
Only: God's hand was upon the translators of the King James Bible in
such a way that it corrects the mistakes in the variant readings of
the
TR. The King James Bible is certainly the "Authorized Version" and
is
God's preserved Word in English.
4. Eclectic View: The
discoveries by Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort provide tremendous
new
insight into the original Scriptures, revealing that many additions
and
editorial license has been taken since the time of the originals.
The
use of Textual Criticism can help us get closer to the originals
than
ever before.
During my studies of this subject, the following observations keep
popping back up:
1.
The Alexandrian texts, although older, are a definite minority of
the
available witnesses, yet a high weighting is given to these texts by
modern critics.
2.
Almost every "modern Bible" version places a high value on these
minority texts. The ESV, NASB, and even the NKJV have considerable
influence from these texts. The NIV, as noted, places considerable
weight on the Alexandrian texts.
3.
The arise of the use of the
minority texts came at the same time period that Darwin's false
theories of evolution began to become accepted. As I look at the
history of the Church, it seems that the mid to late 1800's were a
dismal time for the Truth. This start in the 1800's led to many
Bible
revisions in the 1900's. Bruce Metzger stated during his development
of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible that he was proud to
have
had a hand in the development
of the first Bible that was acceptable to both the Catholic Church
and
the Protestant Church. He stated in his book "The Bible in
Translation",
"The story of the making of the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible
with the expanded Apocrypha is an account of the triumph of
ecumenical
concern over more limited sectarian interests. Now for the first
time
since the Reformation, one edition of the Bible has received the
blessing of leaders of Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern
Orthodox
churches alike." This plea for ecumenicism is yet more proof
that modern Bible versions represent a watering down of the Word,
not a
magnifying of it. In fact, the NIV has been noted to be more like
the
Jehovah Witness' New World Translation than it is to the KJV.
4.
The Scriptures state that two or three witnesses are needed as the
basis for truth (for example, 2Co 13:1"This is the third time I
am
coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every
word
be established." The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, while representative
of
the "Alexandrian" texts, differ from each other in well over 3,000
places,
many of them very significant. Why are they accepted as reliable
witnesses?
5. What do the use of these minority texts state
about the future of the Scriptures? What happens if we find tomorrow
yet another, older manuscript? Do we know that it won't remove even
more of what we think is the Bible? What if it adds new Scriptures?
How, then, can we have any confidence that what we have is truly
indicative of God's Word?
6. I find it interesting that (as seen in the quiz elsewhere on this
website) the NIV removes the last part of "man does not live by
bread
alone, but by every Word of God,"
as
well as changing Psalm 12:6/7 to make the preservation refer to the
people rather than to His Pure
Word.
While I am not so clear yet on my
specific stance on approaches 1-3, I can in no way endorse the use
of
the Alexandrian texts. Satan wants to thwart God's Word at
every opportunity. For the most part, he has succeeded in simply
stopping man from reading the Word. How many of us really read God's
Word daily, and of those that do, how many really study it from
cover
to cover to discover its deeper truths?
However,
for those that do read the word, the enemy has found another
approach. He has attempted to completely destroy the Scriptures in
the
past, but all of these efforts have failed. Instead, he has now
succeeded in watering down the Word for those who read the modern
translations, and even for those Bibles developed in other languages
based on the corrupted texts. When a reader of a modern Bible
begins to study the footnotes, Satan has now introduced lots of
doubts
into the readers minds by statements such as "the best texts don't
include this verse" and so forth. I have heard many brothers and
sisters in Christ begin to remark that we can't really know what the
Scriptures say anymore.
There
are some who
simply bundle all of the Evangelical Bibles together and make the
blanket statement that they all agree over 90%, and thus we have a
reliable witness to the Word. However, when I look at the omissions
like the ones in the above quiz, I cannot accept that. For example,
in
Galatians 3:16, the appeal is made that the Old Testament makes
reference to "Abraham and his seed" for the promises, not "to seeds,
as
of many"; asserting that the seed referred to is Christ. Thus we see
that even one word can be very important.
So,
I make a plea to the reader. If
this paper isn't enough to convince you (and likely it isn't), then
please investigate this matter further by examining the many
resources
listed. I urge you to switch to a
Bible text that better represents Christ's true words.
Some Bibles that are based on the TR/MR include:
The King James Version. The Bibles from Bearing Precious Seeds
Ministries (available at BibleBelievers.com)
are very nice
The
New King James Version (Thomas Nelson Publishers; caution; does
include
some influence of the Alexandrian texts, especially in the
footnotes)
The Easy Reading King James Version (GEM Publishing; replaces Thee's
and Thou's, etc.)
The Literal Version (Sovereign Grace Publishers)
The Modern King James Version / KJ3 from J.P. Green, Sr. (Sovereign
Grace Publishers) KJ3 has had multiple production problems)
The Geneva Bible (recently republished)
Other issues with the NIV:
Beyond
the textual issues briefly discussed above, the NIV has other
problems
as well. One of these includes the use of Dynamic Equivalence
mode
of
translation vs. Formal Equivalance, which leads to the practice
of
interpreting
the text rather than translating. This will be covered in Part 3
