Bible Versions, Part 2
Why We Can Trust the Bible, Part 8
Berean Bible Church, November 25, 2001pm
Question Three: Is the King James the ONLY Version; Is It Even the Best?
Various Views
A. “I like the King James the best.” This is fine, if it is how one feels.
B. “The Greek manuscripts behind the KJV are the best available.” This is questionable at best.
C. “The King James Version alone equals the Word of God alone.” It is suggested that God has “preserved” his Word in the English speaking language in the King James Bible. This is wrong.
King James Only advocates adopt as the standard of comparison the King James Version, of course. Any difference from this is considered to be a deviation. While this makes things simple, the appropriate standard of comparison should be what was in the original manuscripts. The process of textual criticism is designed to discover this. Again, our original language manuscripts agree to an extent of about 98%.
1 John 5:7-8, as it is in the King James Version is found in only four Greek manuscripts, all from later centuries. The appropriate standard of comparison is the manuscript evidence, not its presence in the King James Version.
Other "Bibles" are considered to be “apostate” versions. Scholarship and high quality study is not highly regarded by many King James Only advocates.
The King James Version: Facts to Consider
A. The King James uses outdated English. This happens after a few hundred years! Language changes. The meaning of “conversation” in Phil 1:27 is now expressed better by “conduct, lifestyle.” The meaning of “suffer the little children” in Matt 19:14 is better expressed by “permit, allow.”
B. The King James is not based on the best Greek manuscripts.
Carson writes, “the textual basis for the Textus Receptus is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late . . . manuscripts. In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness" (p. 36, The King James Only Debate).
C. God has not “preserved” one translation as the “only Word of God” for English-speaking people. There is simply no evidence to support this view. The KJV was not the first or the last English version (others include the Tyndale Bible, Great Bible, and Geneva Bible). The King James was “Authorized” only in the sense that it was authorized for use as the standard in Church of England. Language changes over time (the NIV will one day go by the wayside). What “translation” is “preserved” in Latin, or Russian or Chinese? This is simply not how language works.
Answering “King James Version Only” Assertions
“The KJV is the Standard by Which to Judge All Others”
A. This assumes, not defends, that the King James Version is the standard.
B. This makes for good rhetoric, but not for a good argument.
C. The KJV translators recognized the provisional nature of their version.
“God Has Preserved His Word in English as the KJV”
A. We affirm that God has preserved his Word.
B. But there is no evidence that it was preserved in English in one version.
C. Language changes, and versions must be updated. The KJV was the common language when it was translated. It no longer is.
D. New translations must go back to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, not to the King James translation.
“Any Change From the KJV Has Been Made by Heretics”
A. It is asserted that modern versions are intentional perversions.
B. It is asserted that heretical scholars are behind the Greek manuscripts used by modern English versions.
C. It is a grand conspiracy theory, with no evidence.
“The Greek is Preserved in the Majority of Greek Manuscripts”
A. People who believe this are not necessarily King James Only.
B. This is linked to the Doctrine of Preservation.
C. This is a more plausible argument, but it is still wrong.
D. It argues that the original reading is found in the majority of manuscripts, even if they are of a late date.
E. The majority is not always right. It is possible to make more copies of an error.
A Brief Look at Textual Criticism
Principles of Textual Criticism: External Considerations
A. Wide geographic distribution is better (it is better when manuscripts from different regions of the world agree with each other).
B. Earlier (older) manuscripts are usually better (and rarer, of course).
C. Manuscripts are weighed (by importance) rather than counted (for example, one early manuscript might be better than five later manuscripts).
Principles of Textual Criticism: Internal Considerations
A. The shorter reading is preferred. Scribes would have a tendency to add words.
B. The more difficult reading is preferred. Scribes would tend to smooth out a difficult reading in copying.
C. The reading that fits author's style, vocabulary, and theology is preferred. This requires an understanding of the context.
D. The reading that best explains how the other readings came about is preferred.
Three Examples
Colossians 1:14
KJV: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”
NIV: “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
Most and the best Greek witnesses omit “through his blood.” See Ephesians 1:7, “redemption through his blood . . .” It is likely that a copyist added “through his blood” to Colossians 1:14 because he recalled it from Ephesians 1:7.
Mark 16:9-20
KJV: Mark 16 ends at verse 20.
NIV: After verse 8, “[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]”
Ending at verse 8 has good manuscript evidence, as does continuing with verses 9-20. The understood subject changes abruptly from verse 8 to verse 9. The mention of Mary Magdalene in verse 9 is also very strange. It is likely that verses 9-20 are a later addition, to help provide a “better” ending to the book of Mark (it’s ending indeed is a little strange, but it makes the point, “what are you going to do with this message?”).
Romans 5:1
Many English versions say, “We have peace with God.”
Most Greek manuscripts read, “Let us have peace with God.”
“We have” is “echomen” (short o sound) in Greek. “Let us have” is “echOmen” (long o sound). These would sound very similar in usage. Paul’s style favors “we have peace with God,” as a current reality open which exhortations are based. Paul’s secretary Tertius may have written down “let us have” when Paul meant “we have.” That is one possibility that would explain how this error came about so early.
copyright, 2002, Stanley Baker
www.stanbaker.org