TEXTS THAT ARE USED IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
Source : Living By Faith Ministries 1998
Received Text - The Received Test, or Textus Receptus, was
compiled in 1516 by Erasmus from a few mauscripts that were
accepted at the time as the only trustworthy and reliable
manuscripts. Later manuscript discoveries, (Majority Text),
have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text.
Majority Text - Similar to the Received Text, but also is
made up of a large majority of other Greek manuscripts.
The Majority Text are the majority of the extant Greek
manuscripts used in the making of Textus Receptus, (Text
Received), that the King James Bible is translated from.
There used to be only one Majority Text; now there is
another. Later-found manuscripts have also been added to
this group. One must be careful when he reads "Majority
Text" to know which one they are referring to. For instance,
some of the "new versions" state they come from the Majority
Text. Well, this is true. They are not speaking of the same
text that the KJB came from, although they use the Majority
Text that it came from in their Majority Text -- got that!
What they have done is add corrupt texts with it known as
the Alexandrian Text. The "new version" translators often go
to the Alexandrian Text in fabricating their counterfeit
"Bibles". As always, you are better off reading the words of
God found in the King James Bible.
Alexandrian Text - Is based mainly on two manuscripts; the
Vaticanus, and the Sinaiticus.
Almost all modern English Bibles are based on the
Alexandrian Text, (NIV, NAS, Good News, Living Bible, etc.);
however, the King James Version is based on the Received
Text.
When examining most modern English Bibles in relation to
King James Bibles, there can be found many omissions and
different wordings or verses. To understand what is going
on, one must understand the history of the manuscripts in
question.
There are two basic trains of thought concerning manuscripts
that should be used when translating the Bible. One idea
states that because the Alexandrian Text is older in age,
(250 to 300 AD), in comparison to the Received Text, (400 AD
for some of the oldest Received Text), that it should be
trusted more than the Received Text. The other idea states
that if you have two older manuscripts that omit a verse,
while you have several hundred manuscripts from a later date
that have that verse, then the later Majority Text can and
should be trusted.
Now let's take a look at some facts about the Alexandrian
Text from which most modern translations are derived. One of
the manuscripts that make up the Alexandrian Text, is the
Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican
Library. It was available in the time of Erasmus, but was
not used. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The
Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at St.
Catherine's Monastery. It has a great number of omissions
and has many words and phrases marked out adn re-written.
Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin.
Which Version Best Renders The Original Manuscripts?
Even many King James Bibles have footnotes referring to what
are said to be "better manuscripts", which indicate that
certain changes should be made in the King James text. But
what are these manuscripts, and are they really better? It
is significant that almost all of the new versions of the
New Testament are based on what is known as the
Westcott-Hort Greek text, whereas the King James is based
largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus. As far as
the Hebrew text is concerned, the King James is based on the
Masoretic Text, while the modern versions rely heavily on
Kittel's revised Masoretic Text.
The Masoretic Text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts
of the Old Testament by the Masoretes Hebrew scholars
dedicated to guarding and standardizing the traditional
Hebrew text as "handed down" (the basic meaning of
Masoretic) from the earlier Hebrew scribes, who had in turn
meticulously copied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts,
scrupulously guarding against error. As far as the Hebrew
text developed by Rudolf Kittel is concerned, it is worth
noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher critic,
rejecting Biblical inerrancy, and firmly devoted to
evolutionism.
The men most responsible for alterations in the New
Testament text were B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, whose
Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle
and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists.
Furthermore, Westcott and Hort both denied Biblical
inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and
Aland, like Kittel, were German theological skeptics.
Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of
the English revision committee which produced the English
Revised Version of the Bible. The corresponding American
revision committee, which developed the American Standard
Version of 1901, was headed by another liberal evolutionist,
Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have
adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th
century revisers.
Furthermore, the Westcott-Hort text was mainly based on two
early Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts,
which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and
well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century. Since these
are both said to be older than the 5,000 manuscripts that
support the Textus Receptus, they were called "better". This
was in spite of the fact that they frequently disagreed with
each other, as well as with the Textus Receptus, and also
contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes.
The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does
not prove they are better. More likely, it indicates that
they were set aside because of their numerous errors. Thus,
they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts
which were being used regularly.
So one of the serious problems with most modern English
translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals,
rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in
the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would
preserve His word? Would He not more likely have used devout
scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and
authority of the Bible?
Ancient Greek Manuscripts
It is true that several thousand manuscripts have been
discovered since 1611. This is the major factor that has
been used to justify to the church at large, the need for a
major revision of the King James. It seems logical that if a
vast amount of data not available to the King James
translators has been brought to light, these new materials
must be considered. This especially seems reasonable, as
some of these manuscripts were dated between 350 - 380 A.D.,
whereas Erasmus' five manuscripts were from the 10th to 15th
centuries. Admittedly, this rhetoric seems very compelling;
however, of the several thousand manuscripts discovered
since 1611, the great majority, (90 - 95%), agree with the
Greek text of those five manuscripts which Erasmus used.
Nevertheless, the new translations are rife with footnotes
informing the reader that "the oldest, the best manuscripts
read such and such" as opposed to the King James. But is it
not devastating to realize that what has been kept from the
church at large, is the fact that the vast majority (c. 90 -
95%) of these more recent finds read the same as the
Traditional Text which underlies the Reformers Bibles and
the King James translation?
The Alexandrian manuscript ("A") arrived in London in 1627.
Consequently, we often hear how unfortunate that was for the
King James translators, as it arrived sixteen years too late
for their use.(1) Being untrue, this serves as an example of
the unreliable manner in which most of the history
concerning the Authorized Version is reported. In the first
place, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph (2) were well known,
not only to translators of the King James, but to Erasmus.
The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus was printed in 1587,
so the King James translators in 1604 knew all about
Vaticanus insofar as the Old Testament was concerned.
Thus, the men working on the 1611 publication of the King
James Bible knew the variant readings in Vaticanus B, and
since they knew about B, they already knew about Sinaiticus
and its variant readings, even though the first portion of
it was not discovered until 1844, (the remainder in 1859),
as the two of them read so similarly. In fact, the
translators of 1611 had available all the variant readings
of those vaunted manuscripts, and they rejected them! They
also knew the readings of the codices of Alexandrinus A, B,
C and D, (the "old uncials"), where they differed from the
Received Text, and they denounced them all. How can this be
so? The readings of those much boasted manuscripts recently
made available are essentially the same as Jerome's Latin
Vulgate (3) which finds its foundation in the works of
Origen.
The Reformers knew all about the variant readings of the
Vulgate, and they rejected them, which is the same thing as
rejecting Origen. In rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex
Vaticanus, as it was copied from his work. Thus, the
Reformers had all the material necessary for the task at
their disposal.
As to the oft heard claim that since much of the newly
discovered material was older than that used by Erasmus and
subsequently the Reformers, they were more reliable, the
reader is reminded that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to
the corruption of the Word in his day. Hence, "oldest" is
not necessarily the best. This point will be more thoroughly
dealt with later in our expos̩.
Virtually all modern Bibles published since the late 1800's
are translated from Alexandrian texts. Bibles translated
since 1898 use the Nestle's Greek New Testament, collation
of Alexandrian texts. This includes the New American
Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living
Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World
Translation, the New Century Version, etc. Up until the late
1800's, the Alexandrian texts were utterly rejected by
orthodox Christians.
The words of God have been mutilated in the Alexandrian
texts by many different Egyptian, Greek philosophy, and
Humanistic "scholars". Perhaps one of the worst of these was
Origen. Among other things, Origen said that Christ was a
"created" God. (5) Origen also said, "The scriptures are of
little use to those who understand them as they are
written." (6) Two men, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John
Anthony Hort, are probably the most responsible for
introducing Alexandrian texts into modern Christianity.
Their text of 1881 laid the foundation for modern
"Christian" textual scholarship, and also was collated into
Nestle's Greek New Testament.
Since modern Bible versions, Greek New Testaments, and
textual scholarship is founded upon the teachings and fruits
of these two men, it would be beneficial to know what these
men thought on spiritual matters. After all, the Bible is a
spiritual book!
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) Chief Translator
of the Revision Committee of the Church of England (1871 -
1881) (Responsible for the underlying Greek text used in the
RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV)
Dr.Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) Chief Translator of
the Revision Committee of the Church of England (1871 -
1881) (Responsible for the underlying Greek text used in the
RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV)
On the authority of the Bible : "I agree with them in
condemning many leading specific doctrines of popular
theology...especially the authority of the Bible."
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Creation/Evolution : "But the book which has most engaged
me is Darwin...My feeling is strong that the theory is
unanswerable"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Satan : "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a
corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil,
his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation
of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the
support of such a nature as that?"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Jesus' Atonement : "The fact is, I do not see how God's
justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in
his own person the full penalty for his sins."
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Miracles : "I never read an account of a miracle, but I
seem instinctively to feel its improbability..."
Dr.Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On Catholisim : "Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very
much in common"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Baptism : "Baptism assures us that we are children of
God"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Infallibility of Scripture : "I am not able to go so far
as you in asserting the absolute infallibility the canonical
writing"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Infallibility of Scripture : "I reject the word
Infallibility...of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly"
Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On Creation : "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first
three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal
history...I could never understand how anyone reading them
with open eyes could think they did"
Dr.Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On Democracy : "I...cannot say that I see much as yet to
soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Democracy : "I suppose I am a Communist by nature"
Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On America : "I care more for England and for Europe than
for America, how much more than for all the niggers in the
world! And I contend that the highest morality requires me
to do so. Some thirty years ago Niebuhr wrote to this
effect: Whatever people may say to the contary, the American
empire is a standing menace to the whole civilization of
Europe, and sooner or later one or the other must perish.
Every year has, I think, brought fresh proof of the entire
truth of these words. American doctrine...destroys the root
of everthing vitally precious which man has by painful
growth been learning from the earliest times till now, and
tends only to reduce us to the gorilla state. The American
empire seems to me mainly an embodiment of American
doctrine, its leading principle being lawless force. Surely,
if ever Babylon or Rome were rightly cursed, it cannot be
wrong to desire and pray from the bottom of one's heart that
the American Union may be shivered to pieces"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
We can see from these quotes that Westcott and Hort were far
from "Fundamental". One should wonder why "Christian"
scholarship regards these two men in such high esteem!
Does it make sense to trust Egypt for God's words, Origen
for God's words, and Westcott and Hort for God's words?
Indeed it is undeniable that modern scholarship relies on
the fruits of these men. "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or
figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth
good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
(Matthew 7:16-17) After examining the beliefs of Origen,
Westcott, and Hort, you should seriously consider whether or
not they could bring forth good fruit! But we have only
scratched the surface. The Alexandrian texts, which modern
versions are all based on, have a very disturbing history of
corruption by Greek philosophy and humanism.
The King James Bible, on the other hand, is translated from
the Textus Receptus, (Received Text), also known as the
Traditional Text, Majority Text, Universal Text, Byzantine
Text, and other names. The Textus Receptus is made up of
Antiocian texts, which have avoided the corruption of
Alexandrian scholars. The Antiocian texts have passed down
through time, copied by people who fear God, and believe the
ultimate authority of His word. History shows that the
Textus Receptus has the strongest claim of being the
authentic representation of the original manuscripts.
How About The Archaic Language In The King James?
The beautiful prose of the King James is a treasure which
should not be lost. It has been acclaimed widely as the
greatest example of English literature ever written. Apart
from a few archaic words, which can be easily clarified in
footnotes, it is as easy to understand today as it was four
hundred years ago. This is why the common people today still
use and love it. It is the "intelligentsia" who tend to
favor the modern versions. The King James uses mostly one
and two-syllable words, and formal studies have always shown
its readability index to be 10th grade or lower.
It is also noteworthy that the King James was produced
during the period when the English language and literature
had reached their zenith of power and expressiveness. This
was the age of Shakespeare, for example. Modern English is
merely a decadent remnant of its former beauty and clarity.
It is no wonder that a Bible translation produced at that
special time in history has endured for almost 400 years,
meeting the needs and guiding the culture of over ten
generations of English speaking peoples.
We have abandoned today many fine points of grammar commonly
used in 1600. For example, we forget that "thee," "thou,"
and "thine" were used to express the second person singular,
with "you," "ye," and "yours", reserved for second person
plural. Today we use "you" indiscriminately for both
singular and plural, thereby missing the precise meaning of
many texts of Scripture.
Furthermore, the translators were not only Biblical
scholars, but accomplished writers, and one of their goals
had been to produce a Bible that would "sing" with beauty
and power, as well as retaining literal faithfulness to the
original texts, which had themselves been written with
majestic musical beauty.
With all these factors in mind, do we not most honor the
Lord and His revealed word by having it read and used in
that form of our language which was in use when the English
language was at its best, instead of in our modern jargon?
All modern versions are inferior to the King James in this
important regard.
Conclusion
I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving
the Bible that Christians -- especially creationists! --
need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as
they live. God has uniquely blessed its use in the great
revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the
personal lives of believers, more so than He has with all
the rest of the versions put together, and "by their fruits
ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
It is the most beautiful, the most powerful and, (I strongly
believe), the most reliable of any that we have or ever will
have, until Christ returns.