Crowned With Glory

Recommendation Page

“I highly recommend Dr. Holland’s boxivok Crowned With Glory not only

for the Christian Educator and Pastor, but for the lay person as well. A

tremendous amount of information has been gathered together into one eas-

ily accessible source.”

-Dr. Thomas Cassidy, President,

San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary San Diego, California, USA

“I am honored to recommend this book. For years, my students have

taken classes from Dr. Holland, and they have consistently stood out in

classroom discussions and in their research assignments. So much, in fact,

that eventually I took some of his courses myself. Dr. Holland has been a

tireless servant with a love for truth and character, a true Philosopher.

Thank you for making this book available to us.”

-Dr. John Harbaugh, President

Bible Institute of Naples, Italy and Kentucky Bible Institute

“Much of what has been written regarding the KJV over the past century

has been superficial and partisan, intent on finding fault with the version of

1611 and without any real awareness of its deep and continuing significance.

Dr. Thomas Holland has gone a long way toward returning to the KJV its

due in this book. His scholarship is solid, his tone is that of a true gentleman,

and his perspective is historically sound. It is my hope that a book of this cal-

iber and substance will do much good, and that it will counteract some of the

straw and chaff on this subject already in the marketplace.”

-Thomas L. Hubeart Jr.

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

“Dr. Thomas Holland is unquestionably one of the finest scholars I

have ever encountered. Tom Holland leaves nothing to chance, nor does

he ride on the coattails of other pundits. Rather, Dr. Holland unravels the

fabric of each subject strand by strand until the material is thoroughly

exposed. Laymen and scholar alike are fortunate to be the recipient of Dr.

Holland’s labors in such a critical discipline. This book is a must read for

every Christian.”

-Scott Jones

Author of Heavens War

“ Crowned with Glory by Thomas Holland, helps to defend the Greek

Received Text. Noteworthy of many features in this book is his defense of

the two most attacked passages, 1 John 5:7-8 and the last six verses of

Revelation.”

-Michael Maynard,

Author of A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8

“It is with great enthusiasm and gratitude that I recommend the writ-

ings of Dr. Thomas Holland. With enthusiasm because it is time for a

book of this nature. With gratitude because Bible-believing Christians are

in great need of scholarly writings that express God’s ability to preserve his

Word. This book will become one of the most valued study resources for

any serious student of Scripture.”

-Pastor Dan Parton

Timberline Baptist Church

Manitou Springs, Colorado

Crowned With Glory

The Bible from Ancient Text to

Authorized Version

Dr. Thomas Holland

Writers Club Press

San Jose New York Lincoln Shanghai

Crowned With Glory

The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version

All Rights Reserved © 2000 by Dr. Thomas Holland

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,

taping, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the

permission in writing from the publisher.

Writers Club Press

an imprint of iUniverse.com, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse.com, Inc.

5220 S 16th, Ste. 200

Lincoln, NE 68512

www.iuniverse.com

ISBN: 0-595-14617-1

ISBN: 978-1-4697-9923-0 (ebook)

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Dedication

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Editorial Method

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

About the Author

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Glossary

Bibliography

Endnotes

Dedication

To Amy

Your friendship, intellect, compassion, and devotion have enriched me.

Each day I strive to be more like you. How fortunate indeed I am for hav-

ing you as my best friend and wife. Truly I am blessed.

“My River runs to thee—

Blue Sea! Wilt welcome me?

My River waits reply—

Oh Sea—look graciously—

I’ll fetch thee Brooks

From spotted nooks—

Say—Sea—Take Me!”

-Emily Dickinson

“Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD,

and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.”

-Isaiah 62:3

Foreword

Due to the great popularity enjoyed by the King James Version of the

Bible, discussions about whether it is or is not a completely faithful ren-

dering of the original languages into English are often heated. One side of

the discussion is typically dominated by persons who rant about how anti-

quated the KJV is, asserting without proof the superiority of most modern

versions. From the other camp, we typically hear attacks on nineteenth

century textual criticism and on the defective state of all modern transla-

tions. Surprisingly, most of the arguments presented by both sides are

done second-hand and without a knowledge of the issues of textual criti-

cism, but here, Dr. Holland attempts the very difficult task of keeping the

debate on a scholarly level.

This book does not provide absolute proof that God preserved his

Word in English through the translators of the Authorized (King James)

Version, but it does present evidence for the text types that support the

KJV, and it does make known to the modern generation the level of schol-

arship that went into completing the translation of 1611. Such is Dr.

Holland’s attempt to raise levels of awareness. As a mathematician and sci-

entist himself, this reviewer appreciates the approach taken here.

This reviewer does not subscribe to the views expressed in Dr.

Holland’s book; however, he is impressed with the level of discussion that

such a book will hopefully bring about. Other recent and popular

attempts at presenting a foundation for the discussion have occasionally

betrayed their own ignorance, but Dr. Holland pulls every scrap of evi-

dence—for and against his view—out from the closet of the certainty of

the modern paradigm and reopens an honest discussion of the issues

themselves. For this he is to be commended, and there should be no doubt

that any modern debate on the subject of Biblical preservation should

include a thorough examination of the evidence presented in this volume.

Frank Daniels, PhD (Mathematics)

Translator, “A Non-Ecclesiastical New Testament”

Acknowledgements

Throughout the course of presenting my lessons on textual criticism, sev-

eral have provided suggestions and insight into this subject, making what

is complex more reader friendly. To all who have contributed, I am greatly

indebted. There are, nevertheless, certain individuals who have directly

helped with the preparation of this book; it is their assistance with proof-

reading, editing, and research that have made this book possible.

Therefore, thank you to my wife Amy, Thomas Hubeart Jr., Scott Jones,

Dr. Frank Daniels, Sonny Pate, and Myrtle Pond. Your efforts have not

gone unnoticed and are greatly appreciated.

Editorial Method

The majority of Greek and Hebrew words found within this volume have

been transliterated for the convenience of those who do not read either

Hebrew or Greek. Additionally, orthography has been modernized in

regard to early English versions of the Bible and identification of early

Greek papyri. When church fathers are mentioned followed by a specific

date, the date given is that of their death and not the work cited.

Introduction

“A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:

Its loveliness increases; it will never

Pass into nothingness;”

-John Keats, Endymion: A Poetic Romance (1817)

There are a myriad of books available today that analyze, criticize, and

debate the issues of biblical preservation and textual criticism. After all,

there is much to explore in this vital area of Christianity. It has been nearly

two thousand years since the completion of the New Testament. Since

then, the Bible has been copied over and over by hand, translated into

other languages, and massively produced in the electronic age. From our

perspective in the twenty-first century, it is natural to inquire if what was

given originally has passed through time unaltered. Is it possible that

changes were made, inadvertently or intentionally, to some or part of the

text over the centuries? Could it be that some of the original words have

been lost during this long process of transmission, or have they been pre-

served so that we have exactly what was originally penned? Have modern

discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or ancient manuscripts shed any

light on these questions? Can we fully trust any translation of Scripture, or

must we conclude that all are faulty?

Crowned With Glory seeks to address these and other questions relating

to the Bible and its transmission over time. Its goal is to scholastically and

scripturally present textual and historical evidence while remaining true to

the premise that God has provided for us today the words he faithfully

gave us in the beginning. It will examine the many textual differences

found among manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments and attempt to

explain why some variants have permeated these manuscripts. Crowned

With Glory will also discuss ancient and current translations of Scripture,

providing analytical and biblical reasoning for the readings found in the

traditional texts.

My hope is that the information gleaned from the pages of this book

will encourage the Christian in growth and faith. The reader may not

always agree with my conclusions, but hopefully he or she will recognize

the spirit of love and truth in which my statements are presented. And for

those of like-mindedness on the issue of biblical preservation, I trust that

this book will be a valuable resource for understanding and edification.

Perhaps my greatest desire is that the reader might gain a new apprecia-

tion for the value, beauty and wealth found in the pages of the Authorized

Version. That which was given to us so long ago is well worth defending

and believing today. While it is understandable that progress brings

change, we must bear in mind that cultural, societal, or spiritual advance-

ment should never take place by sacrificing time-tested treasures. In this

book we will explore how throughout history people have thirsted for the

springs of truth and salvation found in God’s written word. Today, those

who turn to the Authorized Version find this old well still produces sweet

and living waters.

Thomas Holland

Summer, 2000

Chapter 1

The Monarch Of Books

“Both read the Bible day and night,

But thou read’st black where I read white.”

-William Blake, The Everlasting Gospel (1818)

For the past two thousand years the world has been blessed with the

monarch of books, the Holy Bible. It has been loved, read, and written

about more than any other book in history. Today, the Bible has been

printed, published, recorded, placed on CD-ROM, and videotaped. It has

been translated in whole or part into every major language throughout the

world. Many languages have several translations available. In English, for

example, there have been over one hundred versions of the New

Testament in the past century.

Of all the books of antiquity the Bible stands as the most attested.

There are over five thousand ancient Greek manuscripts of the New

Testament alone. Although the contents of these manuscripts mostly

agree, there are some differences. Such variants are the subject of this

book. Were these variants accidental or deliberate? Is it possible to know

the original wording of the Scriptures? Or, despite the passage of time and

inclusion of textual variants, have the very words of Scripture been pre-

served for all generations?

For a number of years there has been a controversy brewing among

the Bible reading public. Some believe that the Bible, especially the New

Testament, needs to be reconstructed in light of recent textual discover-

ies. The reconstruction of the New Testament is known as the science of

textual criticism. Others believe the original text of the Bible has been

preserved over time. This is known as the doctrine of biblical preserva-

tion. Neither side is without bias, nor is this book offered in an unbiased

fashion. What it does seek to do is to inform those who are interested in

this debate from both a scholastic and scriptural perspective.

Reconstruction And Biblical Preservation

The starting point of contemporary scholarship is the evidence of tex-

tual criticism. Through the ages several corrections in transmission (the

copying of manuscripts over the generations) have crept into the various

manuscripts. The place where one manuscript differs from another is

called a textual variant. The vast majority of these textual variants came

into existence before the beginning of the third century; this is significant

because the majority of existing manuscripts date after this period.

Therefore, the age of a textual variant is not limited to the age of its parent

manuscript. Whether these variants were deliberate or simply cases of

copying the text incorrectly is open for debate. Most likely examples of

both can be found in the numerous manuscripts.

The textual scholar’s job is one of sifting through these various manu-

scripts, comparing textual variants, and determining what is the most

likely reading. This is a difficult process so naturally researchers differ as to

the final consideration. Textual scholars often are certain they are right but

uncertain as to the final product. From an evangelical and conservative

perspective, it seems amazing that God gave his words without error

(inspiration) and provided the knowledge as to which books are Scripture

(canonicity), only to produce uncertainly in the final analysis or lose a por-

tion of them in the process of transmission.

To offset this, conservative and evangelical scholars will incorporate the

doctrine of preservation into the process of transmission. They will state

that somewhere in the host of textual evidence the original reading

remains. It is left to the scholar and student to discover the original read-

ing. Unfortunately, biblical scholarship and biblical preservation are not

easily compatible.

To begin with, many of the manuscripts currently known were

unknown until the middle of the nineteenth century. Since these manu-

scripts are usually favored by modern scholarship (liberal or conservative)

and considered the original reading, we must logically conclude that what

is determined to be original was hidden from the church throughout the

majority of its existence. Also, it is reasonable to assume that more manu-

scripts will be discovered with more variants, making it increasingly diffi-

cult to proclaim biblical preservation using this definition.

Additionally, modern scholarship suggests that some of the original

readings have forever disappeared. In 1 Samuel 13:1, scholars believe the

original reading of the verse has been lost in the process of transmission.2

In the New Testament, we have the example of Mark 16:9-20. Most

scholars believe the original ending to Mark’s gospel was lost and that the

current longer and shorter endings were added in the second century.3

Obviously, redefining preservation leaves us on shaky ground. If the

Scriptures teach the preservation of God’s words, we must either accept

the truth of preservation or reject the testimony of Scripture. The follow-

ing passages are often used to support the doctrine of biblical preservation

(1 Samuel 3:19; Psalm 12:6-7; 105:8; 119:89, 160; 138:2; Ecclesiastes

3:14; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 4:4; 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25).

Rudiments Of Textual Criticism

Biblical preservation does not demand the rejection of textual criticism.

It is just as essential for the student of biblical preservation to be aware of

the textual evidence as it is for any student of textual criticism. The bibli-

cal preservationist, however, first approaches the subject theologically and

then considers the existing textual evidence, usually in light of the prom-

ise of preservation.

Because there are variants within all the existing manuscripts, the sci-

ence of textual criticism is conjectural. Different scholars examining the

same manuscripts will produce differing Greek texts. This is why there are

now three basic Greek texts of the New Testament in circulation: the

Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus.

The Critical Text is the basis for the majority of modern Bible transla-

tions today. It is currently reflected in the Greek New Testament of the

UBS-4 (United Bible Societies fourth edition) and the NA-27 (Nestle-

Aland twenty-seventh edition). These two texts are now identical in regard

to their Greek text, but differ in regard to their critical apparatus (the foot-

notes discussing the different textual variants). Generally, the Critical Text

reflects a textual line called Alexandrian, a name that is explained later in

this chapter.

The Majority Text is a work in progress. As the name suggests, it cata-

logs the majority of the existing Greek manuscripts and reflects a consen-

sus of these manuscripts. However, it does not use all of the existing

manuscripts; instead, it uses only a portion of those manuscripts that

would reflect what is considered the majority.4

The Textus Receptus was the standard Greek text for centuries. It

was used by Protestant translators during the Reformation, and is

responsible for the Authorized Version and its English forerunners.5

The Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are very similar (except in

the book of Revelation) because both reflect the majority of existing

Greek manuscripts.

The history of New Testament manuscripts is divided, roughly, into

three periods: papyrus, vellum, and paper. The manuscripts we have were

usually written on one of these three and often reflect the date of the

manuscript. Papyrus6 is made from papyrus plants that grew abundantly

in Egypt. The inner bark of the plant was cut into thin strips, which were

laid side by side and crossed with other strips. They were then pressed

together and sun-dried. The papyrus was, for the most part, written only

on one side and bound together in rolls. The custom was to write in very

narrow columns that had no separation of words, accents marks, or punc-

tuation. Paragraphs were marked with a line in the margin of the text.7

The papyrus manuscripts are very fragile, and most of what we have are

fragments. This period of manuscript production lasted until the seventh

century. Philippians 1:1-2, in Greek, would read something like this:

Even when translated into English, the reading is difficult.

PAULANDTIMOTHEUSTHESERVANTSOFJESUS

CHRISTTOALLTHESAINTSINCHRISTJESUSWHI

CHAREATPHILIPPIWITHTHEBISHOPSANDDEA

CONSGRACEBEUNTOYOUANDPEACEFROMGOD

OURFATHERANDFROMTHELORDJESUSCHRIST

Manuscripts written on vellum (or in some cases, parchment) replaced

papyrus manuscripts during the period from about the end of the third

century to the fifteenth century. The narrow columns used in the papyrus

manuscripts were maintained in the vellum manuscripts. Vellum is made

of dried animal skins that were cut into leaves and formed into a book

called a codex. Some vellum manuscripts maintain the same style of writ-

ing used in papyrus manuscripts. Manuscripts that use this style are

9

referred to as uncials, which consist of all capital letters written without

accent marks, with no separation of words or sentences, and typically no

punctuation. Later, around the ninth century, small letters were also used

in manuscripts, with spacing between the words. These manuscripts are

referred to as minuscules or cursives.

Manuscripts written on paper date from about the fourteenth cen-

tury to the present. Until this period, it was rare to have a complete

Bible in one book. Most of the papyrus and vellum manuscripts are

fragments, passages, or maybe a book of the New Testament. But, in

the thirteenth century whole books containing all or most of the New

Testament became common.

Sources For New Testament Texts

There are three classes of evidence used by textual critics in the recon-

struction of the New Testament. First, the main sources for reconstructing

the New Testament are the extant Greek manuscripts, which exist in

papyrus, vellum, or paper and contain variants. These manuscripts are

classified under one of four textual types.

The Byzantine Text. The name is derived from the Byzantine Empire,

as it is the type of text copied by Byzantine monks. There are more manu-

scripts of this text-type than of the other three combined. This line of

manuscripts would reflect the Greek Textus Receptus that was used to

produce the King James Version. It is also known as the Traditional Text or

the Syrian Text.

The Alexandrian Text. The name refers to Alexandria, Egypt where

scribes prepared most of these texts. Most contemporary versions are

derived from this textual line. The three most important manuscripts that

reflect this text-type are Alexandrinus11 (also known as Codex A, fifth cen-

tury), Sinaiticus (also known as Codex Alpha, fourth century), and

Vaticanus (also known as Codex B, fourth century).12

The Western Text. Some scholars debate whether this is a real text-type

or not. Most believe it is, while others deny its existence as a text-type

because of the vast diversity within its representative manuscripts.13 This

line has several sub-groups of manuscripts or families within it. The text is

longer than the Alexandrian, sometimes given to paraphrases, and is closer

to the Byzantine Text. Some have considered this the oldest textual line.14

Codex Bezae (also known as Codex D05) in the Gospels and Acts and

Codex Claromontanus (also known as Codex D06) in the Epistles reflect

the Western Text. The majority of the Old Latin manuscripts are usually

classified as Western.

The Caesarean Text. This text-type seems to be a mixture of the

Western and Alexandrian line of manuscripts. It is represented in a few

manuscripts (0, 22, 28, 565, 700, family 1, and family 13).15 Some

believe it was derived in Egypt by Origen and brought to Caesarea.

Because it is a mixture, some question if this should be classified as a sep-

arate text-type.16

The second source for making a Greek text is the testimony of ancient

versions. These versions, usually translated from Greek, are used as a

source for establishing a Greek text. Like the Greek manuscripts, there are

a variety of ancient versions that do not agree. Among these are the Latin

versions (including both the Old Latin and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate), Syrian

(including the Old Syriac and the Peshitta), Coptic (Egyptian), Gothic

(early German), Armenian, Ethiopic, and others. These are useful in

demonstrating what the non-Greek reading world used.

The third source is the quotations of the early church fathers, called

patristic citations. Again, we have differences in several of the quotations

that demonstrate differences in New Testament texts. More will be given

about some of the early church fathers in later chapters.

Other sources used in reconstruction include lectionaries and extra

biblical writings such as apocryphal works. Lectionaries were books used

by the early church that contained lessons, hymns, and citations from pas-

sages of Scripture. These would show that certain Scriptures were in use at

a given time and substantiate a questioned text. Apocryphal and extra bib-

lical writings would be citations from books contemporary with the New

Testament or works written within the first few hundred years of

Christianity. Although not inspired, they often quote Scripture. The fol-

lowing are a few examples.

In Romans 14:10, the King James Version reads, “For we shall all stand

before the judgment seat of Christ.” Modern versions tend to read, “judg-

ment seat of God” instead of “judgment seat of Christ.” The Epistle of

Polycarp to the Philippians quotes the verse as saying:

If then we entreat the Lord that He would forgive us, we also

ought to forgive: for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God,

and we must all stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and each

man must give an account of himself. (Philippians 6:2).

This reading, which dates to 150 AD, would offer support in

favor of the Traditional Text and the Authorized (King James)

Version of 1611.

The same is true of 1 John 4:3; “And every spirit that confesseth not

that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit

of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now

already is it in the world.” The phrase “is come in the flesh” is not found

in many of the ancient Greek texts and therefore is not contained in the

Critical Text and many contemporary English versions. Once more, in

Polycarp’s Philippians we read:

For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in

the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testi-

mony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the

oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither

resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan.

(Philippians 7:1).18

This apocryphal passage offers some evidence supporting the

Traditional Text.

The Textus Receptus And Preservation

Until the early 1800’s, the Textus Receptus was the only Greek text

used, at least where Protestant scholarship was concerned. Dr. Kurt Aland,

who helped with the Critical Text, wrote: “Finally it is undisputed that

from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspira-

tion assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew,

and they regarded it as the ‘original text’.”19

Critics of the Textus Receptus believe that its readings are recent and

not reflective of early manuscripts. However, there is early support favor-

ing the Byzantine line and thus the Textus Receptus. The Chester Beatty

Papyri (P45, P46, and P66) all have readings that reflect the Byzantine

line, although they are mixed and have Alexandrian readings as well.

These papyri date to the second century or before. The now famous P64

(also known as the Magdalen Papyrus) has been listed by some as the ear-

liest known manuscript, dating to before 66 AD.20 The textual variants

within this manuscript support the Byzantine line with no textual support

for the Alexandrian line.

Codex W dates from the fourth to early fifth century. It contains the

Gospels, yet uses several of the various lines of manuscripts. While most of

Mark and part of John reflect the Alexandrian and Western lines, all of

Matthew and Luke 8:13-24:25 support the Textus Receptus. Even

Codex Alexandrinus, dating around 450 AD, reflects the Byzantine line

and the Textus Receptus in the Gospels while the epistles reflect the

Alexandrian line.

Likewise, early translations such as the Peshitta (second century) and

the Gothic (approximately 350 AD) support the Traditional Text. Sir

Fredric Kenyon, a noted textual scholar, has stated that the Gothic version

represents the type of text found in the majority of Greek manuscripts,

supporting the Byzantine textual line.

Variances In Versions

Since there are differences in various Greek manuscripts, it is of no sur-

prise that there are differences in various Greek texts and therefore differ-

ences in English translations based on those texts. When we compare the

Greek Textus Receptus with the Critical Greek Text there are almost six

thousand differences. Considering that there are 7,959 verses in the New

Testament, we begin to see that the differences have a greater effect than

what we might think. In the New Testament of the King James Version we

have 181,253 words.23 When the American Standard Version was trans-

lated in 1901, it made 36,191 changes to the King James Version’s New

Testament.24 This accounts for about one-fourth of the New Testament

being changed in one form or another.

The vast majority of these differences, however, are minor. Most deal

with spelling or points of grammar. Some are of a more serious nature and

cause words, verses, or whole passages to be called into question. Below

are a few of the differences that have caused a stir over the past few years.

They are divided into several categories so the reader might have a grasp of

the situation concerning textual and translational differences.

One notable distinction deals with the number of verses contained in

the Textus Receptus that are not contained in the Critical Text, and there-

fore do not appear in most modern versions based on that text. This, of

course, does not prove a certain translation correct and another incorrect.

These verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46;

11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;

Romans 16:24; and 1 John 5:7. Additionally, Mark 16:9-20 and John

7:53-8:11 are contained in the majority of Byzantine manuscripts and the

Traditional Text. However, most Alexandrian manuscripts do not contain

these verses, and therefore are so noted in the Critical Text. This leaves the

Christian who believes the commands of Scripture in a dilemma. Three

times the Bible warns against adding to or taking from the word of God

(Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; and Revelation 22:18). Either the

Greek texts that remove these passages are corrupt or the Greek texts that

add them are corrupt; one cannot be biblical and believe that both textual

lines are pure.

Here are a few examples of phrases that are contained in the Textus

Receptus that are not contained in the Critical Text. “For thine is the

kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13).

“To repentance” (Matthew 9:13). “And be baptized with the baptism that

I am baptized with” (Matthew 20:23). “And Joseph” (Luke 2:33). “But by

every word of God” (Luke 4:4). “The only begotten Son” (John 1:18).

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ

Jesus” (Romans 8:1). “Through his blood” (Colossians 1:14). “God was

manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). “I am Alpha and Omega, the first

and the last: and, What thou seest” (Revelation 1:11).

In addition to the examples above, the following passages demonstrate

textual differences. By comparing these passages with translations based

on the Traditional Text and those based on the Critical Text, one should be

able to note where the textual variant occurs.

Matthew 5:27, 44; 13:51; 15:6, 8; 19:9, 20; 20:7, 16, 22; 22:13; 23:4,

5; 25:13; 26:3, 60; 27:35; 28:2, 9

Mark 1:1, 14, 42; 3:5, 15; 6:11, 33, 36; 7:2, 8; 8:9, 26; 9:38, 45, 49;

10:7, 21, 24; 11:8, 10, 23; 12:23, 29, 30, 33; 13:11, 14; 14:19, 27, 68,

70; 15:3

Luke 1:28, 29; 2:42; 4:5, 8, 18; 5:38; 6:45; 7:31; 8:43, 45, 48, 54;

9:10, 54, 55, 56; 10:38; 11:2, 4, 11, 44, 54; 12:39; 17:9, 24; 18:24;

19:45; 20:13, 23, 30; 22:31, 64, 68; 23:23, 38; 24:1, 36, 42, 46, 51, 52

John 1:27; 3:13, 15; 5:3, 16; 6:11, 22, 47, 51; 7:46; 8:9, 10, 59; 9:6;

10:13, 26; 11:41; 12:1; 13:32; 16:16; 17:12; 19:16

Acts 2:30, 47; 3:11; 7:37; 9:5, 6; 10:6, 12, 21, 32; 13:42; 15:18, 24;

18:21; 20:15; 21:8, 22, 25; 22:9, 20; 23:9; 24:6, 8, 26; 26:30; 28:16

Romans 9:28; 10:15; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6, 21; 15:24, 29

1 Corinthians 6:20; 10:28; 11:24; 15:54

2 Corinthians 5:17; 12:9; 13:2

Galatians 3:1; 4:15; 5:19, 21

Ephesians 1:15; 3:14; 5:30

Philippians 3:16, 21; 4:23

Colossians 1:2; 2:18; 3:6

1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:15; 3:2

1 Timothy 1:17; 3:3; 5:4, 16; 6:5, 7

Hebrews 2:7; 3:6; 7:21; 8:12; 10:30, 34; 11:11, 13; 12:20

1 Peter 1:22; 4:3, 14; 5:2, 5, 11

2 Peter 1:21; 3:10

1 John 4:3; 5:13

Revelation 1:8; 5:14; 11:1, 17; 14:5; 15:2; 21:24; 22:14, 19

There are also places where names involving deity are either lengthened

or shortened, or added or removed. Most on the surface seem minor,

though some have enormous significance and may affect biblical doctrine

or their historical setting.

Matthew 4:12, 18, 23; 6:33; 8:3, 5, 7, 29; 9:12; 12:25; 13:36, 51;

14:14, 22, 25; 15:16, 30; 16:20; 17:11, 20; 18:2, 11; 19:17; 21:12; 22:30,

32, 37; 23:8; 24:2; 25:13; 28:6

Mark 1:1, 41; 5:13, 19, 6:34; 7:27; 8:1, 17; 9:24; 10:6, 52; 11:10, 11,

14, 15, 26; 12:27, 32, 41; 14:22, 45

Luke 2:40; 4:4, 41; 7:22, 31; 8:38; 9:43, 56, 57, 59, 60; 10:21; 12:31;

13:2, 25; 21:4; 22:31, 63; 23:42, 43; 24:36

John 3:2, 34; 4:16, 42, 46; 5:17, 30; 6:14, 39, 69; 8:1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11,

16, 20, 21, 29; 9:35; 11:45; 13:3, 32; 16:16; 18:5; 19:38, 39

Acts 2:30; 3:26; 4:24; 7:30, 32, 37, 46; 8:37; 9:5, 6, 29; 15:11, 18;

16:31; 19:4, 10; 20:21, 25; 22:16; 23:9

Romans 1:16; 6:11; 8:1; 14:6; 15:8, 19; 16:18, 20, 24

1 Corinthians 1:14; 5:4, 5; 6:20; 9:1, 18; 10:28; 11:29; 15:47; 16:22, 23

2 Corinthians 4:6, 10; 5:18; 10:7; 11:31

Galatians 1:15; 3:17; 4:7; 6:15, 17

Ephesians 3:9, 14; 5:9

Philippians 4:13

Colossians 1:2, 28; 2:2

1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:19; 3:11, 13

2 Thessalonians 1:8, 12; 2:4

1 Timothy 1:1; 2:7; 3:16; 5:21

2 Timothy 4:1, 22

Titus 1:4

Philemon 1:6

3

Hebrews 3:1; 10:9, 30

James 1:12

1 Peter 1:22; 5:10, 14

1 John 1:7; 3:16; 4:3; 5:7, 13

2 John 1:3, 9

Jude 1:4

Revelation 1:8, 9, 11; 12:17; 14:5; 16:5; 19:1; 20:9, 12; 21:3, 4; 22:21

Clearly textual evidence supports the scriptural teaching of biblical

preservation. Such evidence plays a vital role in the biblical transmission

process, and ultimately, in the culmination of God’s preserved word today.

Chapter 2

Tampering With Texts

“I fancy that the poor fellow murmured some incoherent delirious words,

and that she twisted them into this meaningless message.”

-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Golden Pince-Nez (1904)

The Bible warns of those who would “corrupt the word of God” (2

Corinthians 2:17) and handle it “deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2). It

refers to false gospels and epistles (2 Thessalonians 2:2), combined with

false prophets and teachers who would seek to “make merchandise” of

the true believer through “feigned words” (2 Peter 2:1-3). It did not

take long for this to occur. In the days of the apostles and shortly after-

wards, several doctrinal heresies arose. Their beginnings are referred to

in the New Testament (Galatians 1:6-8; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7; and

Jude 1:3-4). Such heresies plagued the early church and attempted to

influence the transmission of Scripture, changing the text to fit their

various doctrines whenever possible.

Gnosticism

Gnosticism was by far the most influential heresy confronting the early

church. Historian Will Durant defines Gnosticism as “the quest of godlike

knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means.” Not only did the Gnostics

corrupt many readings found in the New Testament; they offered their

27

own writings as inspired Scriptures such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The

Gospel of the Ebionites, The Acts of Andrew, and The Gospel of Mary

(Magdalene). Gnosticism assumed a variety of forms and sects that

broadened its base and growth.

In general, the Gnostics taught that the physical was evil and the spiri-

tual was good. A good god could not have created a physical world

because good cannot create evil. So the Gnostic god created a being (or a

line of beings called aeons) and one of these aeons, or gods, created the

world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these

aeons who created the world. Some Gnostics taught that Jesus Christ did

not have a physical body, and when he walked on the earth he left no foot-

prints because he never really touched the earth (Jesus being spiritual and

the world physical). Other Gnostics taught that only our spiritual bodies

were important; the physical body could engage in whatever it desired

because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught

that the physical body was so evil, it must be denied in order for the spiri-

tual body to gain salvation, thereby shunning marriage and the eating of

meat (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

The influence of Gnosticism may be felt today. For example, the

Christian Gnostics taught that Jesus Christ was an aeon, a created god

who in turn created the world. To them, Christ was a begotten god from

29

the “Unbegotten Father.” The Authorized Version refers to Christ as,

“the only begotten Son” (John 1:18). This is a literal translation of the

Greek monogenes huios. However, some of the Egyptian manuscripts read

monogenes theos (the only begotten god). The change in the Greek manu-

scripts reflects a textual variant that also happens to agree with Gnostic

thought. It is possible that huios (Son) was changed to theos (god) to reflect

Gnostic teaching.30

Another example of Gnostic teaching concerns the dual sexual nature

of God. In her book, The Gnostic Gospels, Dr. Elaine Pagels notes that

some Gnostics taught that God was both Father and Mother.31 Pagels

states that Clement of Alexandria was influenced by this doctrine of a

“masculo-feminine” God and characterized God in both masculine and

feminine terms. In today’s society the same thought can be found. For

example, the politically correct Inclusive Version renders the Lord’s Prayer

as, “Our Father-Mother in heaven, hallowed be your name.”33 This is not

to say that the translators of the Inclusive Version are modern-day

Gnostics, nor that they were influenced by Gnostic doctrine. It is to say

that the teaching of a masculo-feminine deity propagated by some

Gnostics has a contemporary advocate.

Docetism, a form of Gnosticism, taught Christ was a phantom without

a physical body in accordance with the sect’s teaching that only the spiri-

tual was good and the physical evil. This was the heresy of Simon Magus

from the book of Acts. He taught that Jesus Christ was only an appearance

of God, rejecting the orthodox teaching that Christ was God incarnate.34

Others believed that the nature of Jesus Christ was two-fold, spiritual and

physical, with Jesus being physical and “the Christ” spiritual. They

believed “the Christ” departed Jesus at the crucifixion and left him on the

cross to suffer and die. The Gospel of Peter reflects such beliefs. Although

cited by Justin Martyr, Origen, and Eusebius, scholars did not discover a

manuscript of this Gnostic writing until 1886. While excavating the grave

of a monk in Egypt, a French archaeological team discovered a copy of this

Gnostic gospel. Only a small portion of it remained, providing a conflict-

ing account of the crucifixion than the four Gospels of the Bible. This sep-

aration of Christ from Jesus is seen in the following quotation:

And many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night:

and some fell. And the Lord cried out aloud saying: My power, my

power, thou hast forsaken me. And when he had so said, he was

taken up. And in the same hour was the veil of the temple of

Jerusalem rent in two.

These Gnostics believed the power of Jesus, “the Christ,” left him while

he was on the cross. This may account for variants in Greek manuscripts

in places such as 1 John 1:7. Some texts read “the blood of Jesus Christ”

while others read “the blood of Jesus.” The difference may on the surface

seem minor, but when examined in light of such heresy it could reflect a

major tampering. These Gnostics would not reject the reading “the blood

of Jesus” because they believed Jesus shed his blood and died on the cross

when “the Christ” left him. However, the phrase “Jesus Christ,” which is

the most common phrase used by John in his epistle, would be a direct

attack on their dualistic heresy.

The following account of the resurrection in the Gospel of Peter is

Docetic in nature. The Gospel of Peter reads:

Now in the night whereon the Lord’s day dawned, as the soldiers

were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great

sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two

men descend thence, shining with a great light, and drawing near

unto the sepulchre. And that stone which had been set on the

door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepul-

chre was opened and both of the young men entered in. When

therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and

the elders (for they also were there keeping watch); and while they

were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw

again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sus-

taining the other, and a cross following, after them. And of the

two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him

that was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they

heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast thou (or Thou hast)

preached unto them that sleep? And an answer was heard from the

cross, saying: Yea.

Irenaeus, an early church father who confronted various false doctrines,

notes that such Gnostics used and corrected the Gospel of Mark. He

wrote, “Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ

remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the

Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors

rectified.”37The Latin manuscript k may reflect such tampering.38 In Mark

16:4, k reads:

Suddenly, moreover, at the third hour of the day, darkness fell

upon the whole world, and angels descended from heaven, and as

the Son of God was rising in brightness, they ascended at the same

39

time with him, and straightway it was light.

This citation from k matches the citation from the Gospel of Peter con-

cerning the resurrection.

Gnosticism influenced a second century heretic named Marcion,

though he did not fully embrace its teachings. Instead, he developed his

own religious following, vowing to complete the work of St. Paul and sep-

arate Judaism from Christian teachings. However, he did so in an anti-

Semitic fashion. In 140 AD he went to Rome and established his

doctrines, teaching that the God of the Old Testament could not have

been the Father of Jesus Christ because Christ speaks of his Father as a

God of love and the God of the Jews was a God of wrath. Marcion taught

that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, created the world but that all

created flesh was evil. A greater god, claimed Marcion, created the soul.

This other god also created the spiritual realm and was the true Father of

Jesus Christ. To release man’s soul from his flesh, this greater god sent

Christ, who appeared as a thirty-year-old male in an unreal-spiritual body

and not a physical one. Salvation was gained by renouncing Jehovah and

all things physical.

Marcion rejected the Hebrew Scriptures and their quotations in the

New Testament. The followers of Marcion issued their own New

Testament composed of Luke and Paul’s letters. This may account for

some of the variations in these books among the manuscripts; followers of

Marcion would want these books to reflect their doctrines.40 Irenaeus

wrote “Marcion cut up that according to [the Gospel of] Luke.”41 This

would account for the numerous changes found in varying manuscripts of

Luke and the large number of verses omitted. It is, for example, under-

standable why the sentence “And when he had thus spoken, he shewed

them his hands and his feet” (Luke 24:40) would be omitted by Marcion.

After all, he did not believe in the physical resurrection ofJesus but only in

a spiritual resurrection.42

Jesus taught that a corrupt tree will produce corrupt fruit (Matthew

7:17). He was speaking of false prophets and teachers who corrupt the

Scriptures (2 Peter 2:1-3). We are told we can recognize them by their

fruits. An apple tree produces apples and a fig tree brings forth figs. The

fruit of the false prophet is false prophecies and the fruit of the false

teacher is false doctrine. If a man’s doctrine is suspected of being corrupt,

we must conclude that he will corrupt the Scriptures (2 Corinthians

2:17). In the transmission of Scripture, we must understand that there will

always be a line of perversion just as there will be of preservation.

According to our Lord, we must become “fruit inspectors.” The remainder

of this chapter and the next will demonstrate both lines in operation.

Tatian (110-180 AD)

Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, was a doctrinal apologist and second

century textual scholar. In 170 AD, he produced a harmony of the

Gospels called the Diatessaron (Gk. through the four). It is thought that

this harmony was written in Greek and translated into Syriac, but it is

possible that it was originally written in Syriac. The Bishop of Syria,

Theodoret, thought it so corrupt that he had all two hundred known

copies destroyed. Today, we only have a fragment of Tatian’s Diatessaron

along with two Arabic translations and a commentary.

After the death of Justin Martyr, Tatian fell under the influence of

Gnosticism. Several details about Tatian’s heresy are recorded by the

church fathers Irenaeus and Eusebius. Irenaeus testifies that Tatian:

.. .composed his own peculiar type of doctrine. He invented a sys-

tem of certain invisible Aeons, like the followers of Valentinus;

while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was

nothing else than corruption and fornication.

Eusebius quotes Irenaeus’ testimony and adds that Tatian:

…formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels,

I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and

which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ven-

tured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to

improve their style.

Tatian’s harmony does not contain verses such as Matthew 21:44; Luke

23:17; 24:12; and John 7:53-8:11. However, since we do not have the

original Diatessaron, it is hard to say how much influence the Diatessaron

had on any line of manuscript. Nevertheless, with Tatian and his

Diatessaron we see the influence of Gnosticism, which may have tainted

the transmission of Scripture within the first hundred years of the com-

pletion of the New Testament.

Clement Of Alexandria (150-215 AD)

Titus Flavius Clement was born of pagan parents in Athens, Greece.

He was influenced by Christian doctrine, yet held that God inspired the

Greek poets in a diminutive sense. He went to Alexandria, Egypt where he

became head of the Catechetical School in about 200 AD. A few years

later he was forced to leave Egypt under the persecution of the Roman

Emperor Septimius Severus. He died in Cappadocia around 215 AD.

There are approximately twenty-four hundred New Testament quo-

tations by Clement in his writings. Dr. Alexander Souter, a textual

scholar of the early twentieth century, noted that Clement did not

quote Scripture very carefully, and that his Greek text was closely

related to Codex D. Dr. Kurt Aland, a prominent textual critic, stated

that Clement’s citations disagree with the Traditional Text fifty-six per-

cent of the time. Twenty-four percent of the time his citations agree

with the Alexandrian line of manuscripts and twenty-nine percent they

agree with both. Only fifteen percent of the time does Clement choose

the reading of the Traditional Text.

We have already learned that Clement was influenced by the Gnostics

in his view of God as both Father and Mother. In The Instructor

(Paedagogus), written about 202 AD, Clement reveals several other ques-

tionable beliefs. He accepted some books from the Old Testament

Apocrypha, such as Baruch, as divinely inspired Scripture.48 He also

believed in the divinity of man, agreeing with Heraclitus that men are

49

gods. Protestants would certainly reject the notion of divine inspiration

attributed to apocryphal books, and both Catholic and Protestant believ-

ers would reject the doctrine of the dual sexual nature of God and the mis-

taken belief that man has the ability to become a god himself.

Origen (185-254AD)

When Clement left Alexandria because of persecution, Origen suc-

ceeded him as headmaster at the Catechetical School. Origen developed

the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. He interpreted most of the

Bible symbolically. Yet, passages that are clearly symbolic he interpreted

literally. As a textual scholar he produced the Hexapla, a Bible containing

six translations of the Old Testament including the famous Septuagint. He

considered the Old Testament Apocrypha inspired Scripture and included

it in his Hexapla. Additionally, Origen accepted some books from the New

Testament Apocrypha as canonical, such as The Shepherd of Hermas and

The Epistle of Barnabas.

Historian Will Durant notes that Origen held to some heresies of his

own. Origen rejected the literal interpretation of Scripture, questioned the

truthfulness of the book of Genesis, and was skeptical of the fall of man.

When the Old Testament depicts certain attributes of God, such as his

divine wrath and judgment, Origen explained these away as merely sym-

bolic. Likewise, he did not consider the temptations of Christ as literal

temptations, but as symbolic truths.51 In his work, De Principiis, Origen

said that he could not determine if the Holy Ghost was born or innate, or

if the Holy Spirit is to be considered a Son of God.52 He believed Christ

53

was unable to see the Father. He claimed that those who were in hell

54

could be restored. Origen also suggests that the sun, moon, and stars

were living beings.55 It is clear that he was a man of questionable doctrine,

and on three different occasions his orthodoxy was challenged (300 AD,

400 AD, and 550 AD). Ultimately he was considered a heretic, which

may explain why so many of his writings have perished.

Someone with the same belief system as Origen would not be our first

choice in revising or editing our Bibles for fear that such views may taint

the translation. Nevertheless, Origen’s position as a textual critic is

unquestionable. He was one of the most prolific writers of his day, writing

over six thousand letters and books. In his writings he makes almost eight-

een thousand quotations and allusions from the New Testament. Dr.

Aland showed that Origen’s scriptural citations are mostly Alexandrian.57

Eusebius (263-340 AD)

Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea, was a church historian and

textual critic responsible for writing The Ecclesiastical History in 325

AD. His work details what was occurring in the early church, especially

during the canonization of Scripture. However, as noted by historian

Will Durant, Eusebius sometimes glossed over some facts, a tendency

shown in his Life of Constantine. Durant calls Eusebius’ technique “hon-

est dishonesty” and points out that from reading the biography, one

would never suspect that Constantine had killed his son, his nephew,

and his wife.58 The same sort of exaggerations crept into Eusebius’

account of early Christian martyrs.59

Eusebius produced a form of the Gospels, dividing them into para-

graphs and numbering them for cross-reference (they were not divided as

we have chapter and verse divisions today in our Bibles). Concerning the

canon of Scripture, Eusebius questioned the authenticity of James, 2

Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the book of Jude.

Emperor Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce fifty copies of the

Bible. Constantine stated these copies were to “be written on prepared

parchment in a legible manner.” Some have suggested that the famous

manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were two of these fifty copies. These

two manuscripts provide the basis of many of the changes in modern

translations today. This was the view of Constantin Tischendorf, F. John

A. Hort, and Alexander Souter as they commented on the subject. If this

is true, Eusebius not only produced the famous Alexandrian manuscripts;

he also advocated a text-type that supports this same line of manuscripts.

From the many citations of Eusebius, it is certain that he did favor the

Alexandrian family.

There should be little doubt that the views and textual changes of

Origen found their way into the textual work of Eusebius. Eusebius was

the student of Pamphilus (hence the name “Eusebius Pamphili” by which

the former was known in ancient times). Together they founded a library

at Caesarea consisting of biblical and patristic writings plus Origen’s

works. Pamphilus was the student of Origen while he was in Alexandria.

We can see a direct line from Origen to Eusebius and his work in early tex-

tual criticism.

Jerome (340-420 AD)

Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus, known as St. Jerome, was responsi-

ble for producing the Latin Vulgate. Pope Damasus requested Jerome to

produce a new Latin Version of the Old and New Testaments in 383 AD.

Jerome reluctantly agreed, knowing his version would not be welcomed

since Christendom had already begun to divide itself as to which line of

manuscript and which translation best reflected the original autographs.

In 405 AD, Jerome finished the Latin Vulgate and gave the Roman

Catholic Church its official Latin Bible.

Most textual scholars believe that Jerome revised the Old Latin manu-

64

scripts according to his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. However, we

do not possess many Latin versions which predate the Vulgate of Jerome

and what we do have are fragmentary. The vast majority of Old Latin

manuscripts we now have were written after the Vulgate and are divided

into two groups, African and European.

Jerome was influenced by the work of Eusebius. Dr. Souter believed

that we must look to Egypt for the origin of Codex Sinaiticus, which he

claimed was produced by Eusebius. While in Bethlehem, Jerome had a

Greek manuscript that was closely related to Sinaiticus. In like manner,

Sir Frederic Kenyon noted that the Greek manuscript conspicuously

agreeing with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is Sinaiticus,66 again demonstrating

the influence the Alexandrian textual line had on Jerome. However, it

should be noted that Jerome was willing to reach a compromise and not

make as many changes to the text as one finds in the Alexandrian line.

Kenyon also notes that Jerome left the Old Latin readings standing when-

ever possible. The Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome contains several

readings that support the Traditional Text because they were originally in

the Old Latin manuscripts.

Tischendorf (1815-1874AD)

Constantin von Tischendorf is responsible for providing the Protestant

world with two of the oldest known uncials, Codex Vaticanus (also listed

as Codex B) and Codex Sinaiticus (also listed as Codex Aleph). These two

manuscripts date between 325 and 350 AD. Codex Vaticanus and Codex

Sinaiticus are two of the best examples of the Alexandrian line of manu-

scripts, and are responsible for numerous changes found in modern Bible

versions. These two manuscripts formed the basis for the Greek text later

produced by Westcott and Hort, a work that was the foundation for the

Critical Greek Text.

Tischendorf edited more New Testament editions and documents than

any other scholar of his day. By the age of twenty-nine he had already

produced three editions of the Greek New Testament. Believing the

Alexandrian line of manuscripts reflected the better readings, Tischendorf

set off in search of additional manuscripts.

In 1844, he visited the monastery of St. Catherine located at Mt. Sinai.

While there he saw several leaves of a manuscript written on vellum lying

in a basket ready to be destroyed. The monks would burn such leaves to

warm themselves. Tischendorf, desiring to save the manuscript, was

allowed to keep forty-three leaves. The manuscript, which contained the

Greek Septuagint, was recognized by Tischendorf to be of the same textual

line as Codex Alexandrinus. However, this manuscript was about a hun-

dred years older. A second visit to the monastery occurred in 1853 with

nothing found. On his third visit in 1859, Tischendorf was shown the

codex that is now known as Sinaiticus. He was denied custody of the man-

uscript at that time. He went to Cairo to speak to the Superior who

granted him the codex. It was not until nine months later, after

Tischendorf paid a good sum, that he was given the codex. Codex

Sinaiticus contains over half of the Old Testament and almost all of the

New Testament except for large passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and John

7:53-8:11, along with several other verses. It has the Old Testament

Apocrypha laced within it as Scripture and the New Testament apocryphal

books of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Codex Vaticanus, known to have been in the Vatican Library since

1475, receives its name because it is the property of the Vatican. No

Protestant scholars were permitted to view this codex for four hundred

years until Rome produced a facsimile in 1890. There were two exceptions

to this rule: S. P. Tregelles, who viewed it in 1845 and reproduced a mem-

orized copy of it, and Tischendorf who viewed it between 1843 and 1866.

Vaticanus is missing Genesis 1:1-46:28; 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalm

106:27-138:6; Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; and everything after

Hebrews 9:14.

Westcott & Hort

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort

(1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the

findings of Tischendorf. This Greek New Testament was the basis for the

Revised Version (RV) of that same year, and later for the American

Standard Version of 1901. They also developed a theory of textual criti-

cism used as a basis for their Greek New Testament and several other

Greek New Testaments since (such as the Nestle-Aland and United Bible

Societies’ texts). Greek New Testaments such as these are the basis for

most contemporary English translations of the Bible. Therefore, it is

important for us to know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as

something about the two men who have so greatly influenced modern

textual criticism.

In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be

treated as any other book. When textual variants occur, the harder reading

is usually considered the correct reading instead of the easier. They also

believed the shorter reading among textual variants is most likely the orig-

inal reading. The Alexandrian textual line tends to contain shorter read-

ings, as well as the more difficult ones. Therefore, they considered this

textual line to most likely reflect the original. Using these theories, the

Bible is approached as a naturalistic book without divine intervention pre-

serving the text from corruption.

Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text underlining the King James

Version was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus “vile”

and “villainous.” They believed the Traditional Text did not exist until

the fourth century and was created by Lucian of Antioch, under the

authority of a church council, to unify the Western and Alexandrian tex-

tual lines. This mixing of the two lines, and filling them with additional

texts, is called conflation.

There are several problems with this theory of a Lucian recension (that

Lucian conflated the Western and Alexandrian texts to produce the

Traditional Text). First, many citations of the early church fathers reflect

the Traditional Text with the “fuller readings” long before the fourth cen-

tury. Second, there is no evidence that there ever was a council or even a

74

conference of scholars in Antioch to produce this conflated text. Even

Kenyon, who supported the Critical Text, noted that we know the names

of several of the revisers of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. It seemed

unbelievable to him that such a council could have taken place without

any historical record whatsoever. 5 Third, God told us not to add to his

word. If the Traditional Text has added to God’s word, why has it been so

greatly used in the history of the church?

As the fathers of modern textual criticism, should we not know some-

thing of the beliefs of Westcott and Hort? Westcott denied biblical infalli-

bility. Hort stated that those who believed in biblical authority were

perverted. Hort taught that Revelation 3:15 proclaimed Christ was the

first thing created, agreeing with the Gnostic teaching that Christ was a

begotten god. Westcott denied that Saint John ever claimed Christ to be

God. 9 Hort stated that the ransom for our sin was paid to Satan.80 Both

men denied the doctrine of eternal damnation, stating hell is not a place of

punishment. These beliefs stand in direct opposition to the teachings of

the New Testament and should be carefully considered when those who

hold to such beliefs suggest changes in the New Testament. No matter

how careful or unbiased a scholar may be, it is the nature of man to slant

Scripture towards his understanding.

Since 1881

There have been several findings since the discovery of Vaticanus and

Sinaiticus. Perhaps the most famous deals with textual criticism of the Old

Testament: the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Concerning the New

Testament, there is the John Rylands fragment known as P52, a Greek

manuscript which some date between 117 and 138 AD. It was discovered

in Egypt and contains five verses from the gospel of John. It now resides at

the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. There is also some con-

troversy concerning P64 and its redating to before 66 AD. There is even

the possibility that New Testament fragments have been discovered

among the Dead Sea Scrolls (7Q4 and 7Q5).

Sir Alfred Chester Beatty discovered several papyrus manuscripts

known as P45, P46, and P47. They date to the second and third centuries,

and demonstrate a mixed text revealing both Alexandrian and Byzantine

readings. P46, however, has recently been argued by some to date to the

83

last half of the first century, around 85 AD. The same may be said of the

findings of M. Martin Bodmer concerning P66, P72, and P75. These

manuscripts traditionally date around the third century. P66, however, has

been redated by some to the first half of the second century.84 If the

redating of all these texts holds true it lends support to the thought that

most textual changes occurred before 200 AD. It also could suggest that

the Alexandrian text-type was in an evolutionary stage only to be fully

developed by the fourth century. In either case, we see that the earliest

manuscripts reveal a mixed text containing both Alexandrian and

Byzantine readings.

No one would demand that each and every scholar, theologian, textual

critic, and church historian agree on everything as it relates to Bible doc-

trine. But, when we find early heresies mixed with present day false teach-

ings, it should cause us some concern. The concern should intensify when

we discover that many who have influenced biblical transmission held

such heresies. At the very least, their influence should be called into ques-

tion. After all, do we really want to trust the safe keeping of Holy

Scripture with those who have proven themselves to be corrupt in regard

to biblical doctrine?

Chapter 3

Testimony Through Time

“A word is dead

When it is said,

Some say.

I say it just

Begins to live

That day.”

-Emily Dickinson, (1872)

The Church at Antioch has a noteworthy position in Scripture as the first

place believers were called Christians (Acts 11:26). It is also interesting

that where both Antioch and Alexandria are mentioned in the same pas-

sage, Antioch is listed as a place of service and Alexandria as a place of dis-

ruption (Acts 6:5-10). Could it be that God, who foreknows all things,

provides for us our starting point in searching for the original text? If so,

the direction would not be in Alexandria, Egypt. Instead, it would be in

the cradle of New Testament Christianity at Antioch of Syria, where the

Traditional Text originated.

Ignatius (d. 107 AD)

Ignatius (or Theophorus) was the bishop of Antioch, Syria. Because

of his Christian testimony, he was arrested and sent to Rome to be mar-

tyred by wild beasts in the imperial games. En route to his martyrdom

this saint wrote letters to six different churches (Ephesians, Magnesians,

Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, and Smyrnaeans), as well as one let-

ter to Polycarp.

Ignatius was sound both in doctrine and spirit. Traditionally it is

claimed that he knew several of the apostles personally and sought to fol-

low their examples. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Wherefore I beseech you, be

ye followers of me” (1 Corinthians 4:16). Ignatius lived this admonition.

He patterned his life after Paul’s, and his theology and attitude reflect his

closeness with the Apostle John. Like John, Ignatius proclaimed the

Trinity and deity of Jesus Christ. He states that Christians should be

found “in the Son, and in the Father and in the Holy Ghost” (Magnesians

13:1) and refers to Christ as “our God” (Trallians 7:1). Concerning bib-

lical atonement, he writes:

Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven,

and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if

they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence,

incur condemnation. (Smyrnaeans 6:1).

Ignatius reflects a Christian attitude in regard to others and rejects the

anti-Semitism of Marcion and Origen. Ignatius agrees with Scripture and

crumbles the walls of racism in a day when the Jews were despised by the

Gentile nations.86

Sadly, the scriptural citations made by Ignatius are often ignored or

regarded as unimportant in the study of textual criticism. Dr. Alexander

Souter wrote that Ignatius’ citations hardly have any bearing in respect to

textual variants. With such statements the writings of Ignatius are dis-

missed. Perhaps this is because the biblical citations used by this early

church father support the Traditional Text. When we look at his writings,

we find that he made several quotations from and allusions to Scripture.88

It is true that he does not cite word for word; however, it should be

remembered that he was not writing a theological dissertation. He was on

his way to be martyred, most likely citing Scriptures from memory. Yet, it

is clear from these citations that the text of Ignatius agrees with the

Traditional Text.

A textual variant of great importance is found in 1 Timothy 3:16. The

King James Version reads, “God was manifest in the flesh.” Most contem-

porary versions, using the Alexandrian Text, read, “He was manifest in the

flesh.” There is an obvious difference between He and God. The KJV

makes a clear proclamation concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. Ignatius

apparently used a text that reflected the reading found in the KJV. He

writes, “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit;

both made and not made; God existing in flesh” (Ephesians 7:1) and “God

Himself being manifested in human form” (Ephesians 19:1). Ignatius uses

the Greek words for God (theos) and for flesh (sarki) in the first citation,

and a form of the Greek word for manifest (peanerosas) in the second. This

would agree with the Greek found in the Traditional Text.

It is also interesting to read the phraseology of Ignatius in reference to

the person of Jesus Christ. Consistently he refers to the Second Person of

the Trinity as the “Lord Jesus Christ,” or “our God Jesus Christ,” or the

more often used phrase, “Jesus Christ.” Very rarely do we find “Jesus” or

“Christ” by themselves in his writings. This would demonstrate a fuller

text concerning divine titles that we also find consistently used in the

Traditional Text of the New Testament.

Polycarp (70 to 155 AD)

Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna and traditionally is considered a

disciple of the Apostle John. In 155 AD Polycarp was martyred for his

faith in Jesus Christ. It is said that he was first placed at the stake to be

burned, singing hymns while waiting for the fire to devour him. However,

the fire burned around him but did not consume him. The order was then

given to stab him to death and burn his remains.

The witness of Polycarp is important in the study of textual criticism

for the following reasons. First, he makes about sixty New Testament

citations in his one letter, Polycarp to the Philippians. Over half of these

are citations from Paul’s epistles, showing his acquaintance with the apos-

tle and the acceptance of Paul’s letters as Scripture. Second, he was a con-

temporary of the apostles and would have had access to either their

original writings or copies that were written shortly after the originals.

Third, his biblical citations do not differ with the Traditional Text;

instead they support it.

Most of what Polycarp writes deals with Christian living. He states his

profession of faith early in his letter: “forasmuch as ye know that it is by

grace ye are saved, not by works, but by the will of God through Jesus

Christ” (Philippians 1:3). And, “He that raised Him from the dead will

raise us also” (Philippians 2:2). Further, he makes a good profession and

stands against the dualism of the Gnostics in stating:

For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in

the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testi-

mony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the

oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and says that there is neither

resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan.

(Philippians 7:1).

The biblical quotation Polycarp uses to confront Gnosticism is a cita-

tion from the Traditional Text. 1 John 4:3 reads, “And every spirit that

confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” The

Alexandrian line does not contain the phrase “is come in the flesh” in verse

three. The verse deals with the lack of confession, not the believer’s profes-

sion found in verse two. As quoted above, Polycarp writes that “every one

who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,” agreeing with

the Traditional Text.

Some have suggested that Polycarp is really citing 2 John 1:7 and not 1

John 4:3. This does not seem to have been the view of the renowned New

Testament and patristic scholar J. B. Lightfoot. In his book, The Apostolic

Fathers, Lightfoot identifies the quotation as being from 1 John 4:3, as

does Archbishop Wake in his translation of Polycarp.91 Their observations

are well taken as the Greek of 1 John 4:3 more closely matches the Greek

citation of Polycarp. Note the following comparisons taken from the

Greek text of Polycarp and the Greek New Testament:

Reference

Greek

English Translation

1 John 4:3

en sarki eleluthota

in flesh come

Polycarp

en sarki elelgthenai

in flesh come

2 John 1:7

erchomenon en sarki

coming or is come in flesh

1 John and Polycarp use the perfect tense, 2 John uses the present tense.

The perfect tense means a present state resulting from a past action (i.e.,

because Christ came in the flesh, he is now in the flesh). Clearly Polycarp

was citing 1 John 4:3, which matches the Traditional Text.

Another example is found in Romans 14:10, “for we shall all stand

before the judgment seat of Christ.” Polycarp writes “And we must all

stand at the judgment-seat of Christ;” (Philippians 6:2), agreeing with the

Traditional Text. The Alexandrian Text changes “judgment seat of Christ”

to “judgment seat of God.” Since this passage in Romans is the only pas-

sage in the New Testament that speaks of the “judgment seat of Christ,”

Polycarp must have received his reading from the Traditional Text.

The same may be said of the reading in Galatians 4:26, “which is the

mother of us all.” The Alexandrian Text reads: “and she is our mother.”

The Greek word panton (of us all) is not contained in the Alexandrian

manuscripts, while it is in the majority of all Greek manuscripts. Polycarp

writes “which is the mother of us all” and uses the Greek word panton

(Philippians 3:3). Where did Polycarp get the phrase if not from the

Traditional Text? Plainly the disciple of St. John and friend of the Apostle

Paul was using a Greek text very much like the Textus Receptus.

Finally, as with Ignatius, Polycarp uses the fuller text when making ref-

erence to the Person of Jesus Christ. In his brief epistle, consisting of only

four chapters, Polycarp uses the triune phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” seven

times. This seems amazing since the Apostle Paul in his letter to the

Philippians used the phrase only three times. However, in his letter to the

Ephesians, Paul uses “Lord Jesus Christ” the same number of times as

Polycarp. In this light, the thought that the multiple uses of “Lord Jesus

Christ” found in the KJV were added to the New Testament text by

Byzantine monks long after the apostolic age seems far-fetched. It is obvi-

ous from Polycarp that the expanded phrase was in common use at the

time of the New Testament and shortly thereafter, again demonstrating a

link with the Traditional Text.92

Early Translations

In addition to the Greek, we have many early and old translations of

the Bible that are classified as Byzantine or have readings that differ from

the Alexandrian Text in favor of the Traditional Text. An early translation

must have had a source. If an early translation has a certain reading, and a

later Greek manuscript has the same reading, we can conclude that the

source for the early translation had the reading as well even if we no longer

have that original Greek source. The following translations have readings

that support the Traditional Text.

The Peshitta

The Peshitta (meaning clear or simple) is the standard Syrian version

and was authorized by two opposing branches of the Syrian Church, the

Nestorians and the Jacobites. Today the Syrian Church still holds this ver-

sion in a place of special reverence. Their tradition states that the Peshitta

was the work of St. Mark or the Apostle Thaddeus (Jude). The Peshitta

New Testament resembles the Byzantine text-type and therefore supports

the Traditional Text. Alexander Souter noted that “the Peshitta Syriac

rarely witnesses to anything different from what we find in the great bulk

of Greek manuscripts.”94 It should be remembered that the “great bulk of

Greek manuscripts” are Byzantine.

The Peshitta was considered the oldest of the Syrian versions dating to

the second century or perhaps before, although some scholars disagreed

and assigned it to the first part of the fifth century.95 In 1901, textual

scholar F. C. Burkitt questioned the early date of the Peshitta and attrib-

uted the work to Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa. This soon became the stan-

dard position adopted by most textual scholars. Dr. Arthur Voobus

attacked Burkitt’s view and compared Rabbula’s citations with the

Peshitta, finding several differences. Likewise, Dr. Edward Hills argued

that Rabbula could not have been the translator because the division

within the Syrian Church took place during the time of Rabbula, who led

one of the divisions. Yet both sides claim the Peshitta as Holy Scripture.

Such unanimous acceptance would not have been likely if the leader of

one side had translated it. Metzger justly points out that the question as

to who really produced the Peshitta will most likely never be answered.97

The Old Latin

The Old Latin versions are divided into two types, African and

European. The earliest Old Latin manuscripts in existence today date

from the fourth century and onward. However, it is also thought that

these later manuscripts strongly reflect the Old Latin New Testament that

was in existence in the second and third centuries.

At the beginning of the twentieth century the majority of textual schol-

ars believed that Antioch of Syria was the birthplace of the Old Latin ver-

sions.99 Today, they are more inclined to look to North Africa. Regardless

of where the Old Latin originated, it is clear that it is strongly associated

with the Syrian text-type, what we have called the Traditional Text.

An example of this may be found in Mark 1:2. The Traditional Text

read, “As it is written in the prophets.” The text of Mark then quotes from

two prophets, Malachi (3:1) and Isaiah (40:3). The Alexandrian Text

reads, “As it is written in the Prophet Isaiah” and then quotes the two

prophets. The first reading is found in the King James Verson, the New

King James Version and the Traditional Greek Text. It is also found in the

Peshitta. Among the Old Latin manuscripts (which are usually classified

with small Roman letters in italics), we find the same reading as in the

Traditional Text. The reading is in a (fourth century), aur (seventh cen-

tury), b (fifth century), c (twelfth century), d (fifth century), f (sixth cen-

tury), ff2 (fifth century), and q (seventh century).

The same is true of the longer ending of Mark and the story of the

woman caught in adultery (known as the pericope de adultera). The

Alexandrian Text does not contain Mark 16:9-20, though it is found in

the majority of Greek manuscripts, the Peshitta, and almost all Old Latin

manuscripts. The pericope de adultera, found in John 7:52-8:11, is also the

reading of the Traditional Greek Text and found in the majority of Old

Latin witnesses.

Other Early Versions

The Ethiopic Version is thought to have originated at the beginning of

the fourth century; however, the existing manuscripts now extant date to

the eleventh century. While it does contain a mixed reading, it is classified

as basically Byzantine in origin. Likewise, the Armenian Version,

Georgian Version, and the Slavonic Version are of the same textual family

as the Traditional Text. The Gothic Version dates to the first part of the

fourth century, and was translated by Wulfilas who used the Traditional

Text. Thus, these early versions are more closely related to the Majority

Text and the Textus Receptus than to the Critical Text.

Chrysostom (345-407AD)

John Chrysostom was both a great biblical expositor and preacher.

His parents were Christians and came from Antioch. Chrysostom

began his career as a lawyer until his conversion in 368 AD. He then

began to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was ordained in 386 AD

and preached in Antioch until 398 AD when he became the Bishop of

Constantinople. The Greek New Testament he used was of the

Traditional Text.

Even though Christian historian Earle Cairns describes Chrysostom as

courteous, affectionate, and kindly natured,103 Chrysostom was not

ashamed to boldly proclaim the truth no matter who was offended. While

at Constantinople he affronted Empress Eudoxia, the wife of Emperor

Arcadius, preaching against her manner of dress and the silver statues of

her placed throughout the city. Like the preaching of John the Baptist, his

sermon came at a personal cost. He was banished from the city in 404

AD, and died while in exile.

Chrysostom left about six hundred forty sermons that are still in exis-

tence. He was so eloquent in his presentation of the gospel that he earned

for himself the name Chrysostom meaning golden mouth, and is hailed as

one of the greatest preachers of the church. Because of the massive

amount of homilies left by Chrysostom, and because of his expository

style of preaching, it is very easy to determine the text-type he used. Dr.

Souter notes that the type of text Chrysostom used is reflected by Codex

K, which is of the Byzantine line. However, it should be noted that

Codex K dates to the ninth century, several hundred years after

Chrysostom. This demonstrates the continued use of the Traditional Text

throughout the centuries.

The fact that Chrysostom used the Traditional Text is without ques-

tion. An example of this may be found in his homilies on the Sermon on

the Mount. In Matthew chapter 6:1-15 there are two very notable differ-

ences between the major lines of manuscripts. They are found in verses 1

and 13 and can be illustrated by comparing the King James Version with

the New International Version:

Matthew 6:1 (KJV)

“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them:

otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”

Matthew 6:1 (NIV)

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen

by them. Ifyou do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

The KJV uses the word “alms” (eleemosunen), while the NIV uses the

phrase “acts of righteousness” (dikaiosunen). One can see from the English

and the Greek that these are two different words with two different mean-

ings. Chrysostom makes mention of this text and uses the word alms

(eleemosunen). He writes, “Thus, ‘take heed’ saith he, ‘as to your alms’”

Another example may be found in what has been dubbed the Lord’s

Prayer. Protestants conclude the prayer with the phrase, “for thine is the

kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.” Most Roman Catholics

end the prayer with the phrase, “but deliver us from evil.” The Latin

Vulgate of Jerome does not contain the final benediction; however, it is

found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and the Traditional Text.

Again, the two may be compared in our English versions this way:

Matthew 6:13 (KJV)

“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is

the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”

Matthew 6:13 (NIV)

“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.”

In this same sermon, Homily XIX, Chrysostom cites the passage as

found in the Traditional Text and then expounds on the words kingdom,

power, and glory. This would be rather difficult to do if his Bible did not

contain them.

The Three Cappadocian Fathers

John Chrysostom was not alone in his use of the Traditional Text. Basil of

Caesarea (329-379 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389 AD), and Gregory

of Nyssa (330-395 AD) used the same text. These three saints are known as

the Cappadocian Fathers. They are noted for their strength in doctrine and

opposition to the heresy of Arianism, which denied the Trinity. All three are

associated with the Orthodox Church of Constantinople.

The Greek and Old Latin manuscripts used by these men reflect the

text of the traditional line. Dr. Souter states that their Greek text most

likely originated in Constantinople. Souter also lists the Gospel manu-

scripts of N, O, S, and F as reflecting the textual line of these three church

fathers. These manuscripts (N, O, S, and F) are from the sixth century

and represent the Traditional Text.

The following examples help to demonstrate the text-type used by the

Cappadocian Fathers. In Matthew 17:21 the Alexandrian Text does not

contain the verse. But the verse is found in the Traditional Text and is

quoted by the Cappadocian Fathers. In Mark 1:2 we find the reading

“Isaiah the prophet” in the Alexandrian Text. The Traditional Text and the

Cappadocian Fathers render the passage as “prophets.” In Mark 16:9-20,

the longer ending is not contained in the Alexandrian Text but found in

the Traditional Text and in the Greek of the Cappadocian Fathers. In Luke

2:14 the Alexandrian Text has the phrase “men of goodwill.” The

Traditional Text and the Cappadocian Fathers render it as “good will

toward men.” In John 5:4 the Alexandrian Text does not contain the verse.

Nevertheless, it is found in the Traditional Text and the Greek text of the

Cappadocian Fathers.

The Church Under Fire

Throughout the centuries there have been those strong in the faith that

were willing to suffer and die for the cause of Christ. John Foxe, in his Acts

and Monuments (later called Foxes Book of Martyrs), recorded the bravery

and honor with which many of them met death. Those who persecuted

them also left written records, often accepted by later historians, which

stigmatized the persecuted as “heretics.” Among those groups of

Christians who suffered were the Paulicians, the Bogomiles, the

Anabaptists, the Waldenses, and the Albigenses. They are mentioned here

because they used the Traditional Text or a translation that reflected the

readings found in the Traditional Text.

Most were labeled as heretics in order to justify their mass murder. A

case in point would be the Albigenses, so named because they originated

in southern France near the old city of Albiga. To this date, they are listed

in most histories of the church as a heretical sect that practiced dualism. It

has been claimed that the Albigenses believed in two gods, one good and

the other evil. This is not the case. American Baptist historian Dr. Henry

C. Vedder demonstrated that the Albigenses were never dualistic but were

Bible-believing Christians. Those who persecuted them did not theologi-

cally distinguish between the Albigenses and heretics who were dualists.

Actually, the Albigenses opposed the dualists as much as they did the

Roman church.

The true “heresy” of these French believers was that they would not con-

form to Rome. They believed each Christian had the right to read the Bible

for himself in his own language. Pope Innocent III declared war on them and

began the infamous Inquisition. This cruel war on “heretics” claimed the

lives of countless thousands without formal trials or hearings. In this dark

period of church history, unnamed thousands died because they wished to

place the Bible into the hands of the common man.

Some Catholic historians and theologians today, while opposing the

deeds of the Inquisition, argue that there was no need for the Bible to be

translated into the language of the common man during this time because

most could not read. They further state that since those who could read

did so in Latin, there was no need to have any other translation other than

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. This by no means justifies the mass torture and

murder of thousands of people. Besides, it overlooks several simple truths.

First, because someone could not read would not prevent a person from

wanting a Bible in his or her own language. It is possible that someone else

could have read it to him or her. Second, if there had been only Latin

Bibles, those who could not understand Latin would have been without

hope of ever hearing the word of God in their own language. Third, his-

tory shows that once the Bible is translated into the language of the peo-

ple, the people learn to read. Time and again the Bible has been the basic

textbook for individuals to learn their own language in written form.

Another example of persecution concerns the Waldenses, who are often

linked in history with the Albigenses. Some have suggested that the name

Waldenses came from Peter Waldo, a Bible-believing merchant turned

preacher. Others believe the name comes from the Italian or Spanish word

for valley, implying they originated in the valley region of northern Italy.

Regardless of where they derived their name, they strongly stood against

many teachings of the Roman Catholic Church of that day.

Catholic and Orthodox historians David Knowles and Dimitri

Obolensky call the Waldenses proto-Protestants. This group regarded the

Bible as their supreme authority in all matters of practice and faith. They

did not believe the Eucharist contained the literal body and blood of Jesus

Christ. Instead, they viewed it as a symbolic memorial of Christ’s suffering

for redemption. They proclaimed salvation was not by works, but was

the free gift of God. Baptism for the Waldenses followed conversion and

was not administered to infants. The Waldenses copied and translated the

Bible in the vernacular and freely published their translation, believing

that everyone should have the Bible in their own language. Therefore,

their work in using the Traditional Text and providing indigenous transla-

tions must not go unnoticed in the biblical study of textual criticism.

Because of the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and others, the Bible was

translated into Old French, Old High German, Slavonic, Old and Middle

English, and other languages. One such translation that dates from this

period is the West Saxon Gospels. This is the oldest version of the Gospels

in English. The following example from Luke shows that this version fol-

lowed the Traditional Text (or a Latin manuscript of the Traditional Text).

Luke 15:16 (KJV)

“And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine

did eat: and no man gave unto him.”

Luke 15:16 (RSV)

“And he would gladly have fed on the pods that the swine ate, and no

one gave him anything.”

Luke 15:16 (West Saxon Version)

“Da gewilnode he his wambe gelyllan of pam beancoddum be oa swyn

aeton: and him man ne sealde.”

The subtle difference comes from the variance between the two lines

of manuscripts. The Greek Textus Receptus reads, gemisai ten koilian

autou apo (to fill his belly with). The Critical Text reads chortasthenai ek

(fed out of). P75, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus support the reading of the

Critical Text. All the Byzantine manuscripts, most Old Latin manu-

scripts, the Peshitta, and the Armenian support the Textus Receptus. It

is plain from the reading of the West Saxon Gospels which one they fol-

low. The words “wambe gefyllan” mean “stomach filled” and agrees

with the Traditional Text.

To date we have over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New

Testament. Eighty to ninety percent of these Greek manuscripts support

the Traditional Text.113 The agreement within this vast host of manuscripts

is astounding (especially when compared to the tremendous amount of

disagreement found within the few Alexandrian manuscripts). To these

textual witnesses we can add the testimony of history, as we have seen in

this chapter. This wealth of textual evidence is reflected the work of such

men as Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), Robert Stephanus (1503-1559),

Theodore Beza (1519-1605), and Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir

(1624).114 All of them produced Greek New Testaments supporting the

Traditional Text. In turn, their work provided the word of God to the

world. The Greek text of Erasmus was the one used by Martin Luther for

his eminent and exquisite German Bible. These Greek texts served as the

basis for the brilliant and beloved Italian, French, and Spanish Bibles as

well. Ultimately the jewel in this textual crown was set in 1611 with the

translation of the English Authorized (King James) Version.

These texts and their translations did not go unrewarded by God. The

Greek text of the Reformers was that of the Traditional Text. Every

Protestant Church formed during this period of church history used the

Traditional Text or a translation based on it. The Traditional Text pro-

duced reform and revival. It has proven itself to work effectually within the

community of believers who have received it as the very word of God (1

Thessalonians 2:13). Consequently, it has affected history itself.

Chapter 4

Forging The Metal

“God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age,

some by sickness, some by war, some by justice.”

-John Donne, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions (1624)

From the fire of the Reformation the word of God was forged for the laity.

No longer did it solely rest in the hands of ecclesiastical orders. Yet the

privilege did not come without a price. Many saints sacrificed wealth, rep-

utation, and ultimately their lives, in order to secure a copy of sacred

Scripture. It is because of their suffering that we have been granted the

franchise to read the Bible for ourselves. For this, we owe them eternal

gratitude and the responsibility to recognize their efforts.

The German Bible

Perhaps no other translation of the Bible, apart from the King James

Version, has had a greater impact upon its people and their culture than

the German Bible of Martin Luther (1483-1546). Not only has this

delightful version affected the history and language of Germany, but also

the many immigrants and early settlers who carried their copy of Die

Heilige Schrift to the United States.

Students of history recognize the great contribution Martin Luther

made to the common faith. It was Luther who echoed the cry of justifica-

tion by faith and brought Reformation to Germany. At first he began a

career in law. However, following a narrow escape from a storm, Luther

decided to become a Catholic monk. After a study of Scripture on the

doctrine of justification through faith, Luther published his Ninety-Five

Theses and nailed it to the door of the church at Wittenberg in 1517. He

spent the next few years defending his charges, only to be excommuni-

cated in 1521. In April of that same year, Luther was summoned before

the Holy Roman Emperor at the Diet of Worms. There he refused to

recant and was banished from the empire.

Luther fled to Wartburg, and for the next eight months worked on his

translation of the New Testament. The Greek text used by Luther was the

one produced by Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). This text was based

on the Traditional Text and later became known as the Textus Receptus.

Luther’s translation not only provided the German people with the Bible

in their own language; it set the standard for the German language for

centuries to follow.115

The following is taken from Luther’s 1545 edition of the New Testament.

Romans 10:9-17

Denn so du mit deinem Munde bekennest JEsum, da£ er der HErr

sei, und glaubest in deinem Herzen, da£ ihn GOtt von den Toten

auferweckt hat, so wirst du selig. Denn so man von Herzen glaubet,

so wird man gerecht, und so man mit dem Munde bekennet, so wird

man selig. Denn die Schrift spricht: Wer an ihn glaubet, wird nicht

zuschanden werden. Es ist hier kein Unterschied unter Juden und

Griechen; es ist aller zumal ein HErr, reich uber alle, die ihn anrufen.

Denn wer den Namen des HErrn wird anrufen, soll selig werden.

Wie sollen sie aber anrufen, an den sie nicht glauben? Wie sollen sie

aber glauben, von dem sie nichts gehoret haben? Wie sollen sie aber

horen ohne Prediger? Wie sollen sie aber predigen, wo sie nicht

gesandt werden? Wie denn geschrieben stehet: Wie lieblich sind die

Fu£e derer, die den Frieden verkundigen, die das Gute verkundigen!

Aber sie sind nicht alle dem Evangelium gehorsam. Denn Jesaja

spricht: HErr, wer glaubet unserm Predigen? So kommt der Glaube

aus der Predigt, das Predigen aber durch das Wort GOttes.

The Spanish Bible

The standard Spanish Bible is the Reina-Valera Version. It has been

called the King James Version of the Spanish-speaking world. It is the

labor of two men, Casidoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera, who suf-

fered for the cause of Christ in order to provide their people God’s word in

their native tongue. As with the German Bible of Luther, this Spanish

Bible is based on the Traditional Text.

Casidoro de Reina (1520-1594) was the first to translate the Bible into

Spanish. His work took twelve years to complete at the cost of great per-

sonal sacrifice. He was born in Seville and became a Catholic monk.

While at the San Isidro Monastery of Seville, he heard the lectures of the

Superior of the monastery, Dr. Blanco Garcia Arias, who had been influ-

enced by the preaching of the Albigenses. Being exposed to the writings of

the Reformers and reading the Old Latin Bible of the Waldenses, Reina

was converted to Protestantism.

Upon his conversion, persecution fell upon him. Reina had to flee

Spain, never to return, in order to escape the claws of the Inquisition.

Along with ten of his friends, Reina arrived in Frankfurt, Germany in

1557. Two years later he moved to London and became the pastor of a

group of Spanish Protestants who also had escaped Spain and the

Inquisition. Later, because of persecution in England, Reina and his wife

fled to Antwerp in the Netherlands. During this time, he worked on his

Spanish Bible. In 1569, he published twenty-six hundred copies of the

entire Bible in Spanish. It was nicknamed the “Bear Bible” because it fea-

tured on its title page an engraving of a bear retrieving honey from a tree.

The Inquisition seized as many copies of this version as possible and

had them destroyed, calling it the most dangerous edition of the

Bible.117 The Roman Church had issued a decree stating that the Bible

in Spanish or in any other common tongue was prohibited.

Consequently, few copies of Reina’s Spanish Version ever made it into

Spain. Notwithstanding, it was greatly used by Spanish-speaking

refugees who fled Spain because of the persecution.

After the publication of his Bible, Reina organized a church that

became noted for its zeal and evangelistic outreach in Frankfurt. He

remained the pastor of this church until his death on March 16, 1594. To

Spanish and Latin-American Christians, Casiodoro de Reina was more

than a Bible translator; he was a hero in the faith.

Cipriano de Valera (1531-1602) was one of Reina’s friends who fled

Spain with him in 1557. Like Reina, Valera had been a monk at the San

Isidro Monastery in Seville. It was there he first heard the gospel of

redemption and was converted. Soon after he arrived in Frankfurt,

Valera moved to Geneva where he became a follower of reformer John

Calvin. He became a street preacher and later moved to England to

study at the University of Cambridge. Afterwards, he taught at the

University of Oxford. While in England, he translated Calvin’s Institutes

into Spanish and wrote a book entitled El Papay la Misa (The Pope and

the Mass). In it, he condemned the authority of the Pope and the service

of the mass, calling it pagan. While in England, he married and began a

ministry to seamen as well as a ministry to those imprisoned.

In 1582, Valera began to revise the work of Reina. His revision was

thorough but conservative in that he made as few changes to Reina’s text

as possible. At the age of seventy, after twenty long years of working on his

revision, Valera published what has become known as the Reina-Valera

Version. Valera wrote:

The reason that motivated me to make this edition was the same

that motivated Casidoro de Reina, who was motivated by the

pious Person, the Lord himself, and wanted to spread the glory of

God and make a clear service to his nation.119

Valera believed his Bible was the perfect word of God for the Spanish-

speaking people. One authoritative Spanish-language work on Bible trans-

lations in that language, Versiones Castellanas De La Biblia, states: “The

authors [Reina and Valera] claim to have penetrated to the depths of Holy

Scriptures and have translated with perfection the Greek and Hebrew lan-

guages.” Like Reina, Valera is a hero in the faith. Because of his belief in

personal salvation by grace alone through faith, and his desire to see the

word of God published in Spanish, this same work records that “Valera

121

suffered great misery.” It is also noted, “When the Lord rewards his ser-

vants, Cipriano de Valera will receive a great prize from the hand of the

122

C • “

Saviour.

The following passage is taken from the 1858 edition of the Reina-

Valera Version.

1 John 5:1-8

TODO aquel que cree que Jesus es el Cristo, es nacido de

Dios: y cualquiera que ama al que ha engendrado, ama tam-

bien al que es nacido de el. En esto conocemos que amamos a

los hijos de Dios, cuando amamos a Dios, y guardamos sus

mandamientos. Porque esta es la caridad de Dios, que

guardemos sus mandamientos; y sus mandamientos no son

graves. Porque todo aquello que es nacido de Dios vence al

mundo: y esta es la victoria que vence al mundo, es d saber,

nuestra fe. ^Quien es el que vence al mundo, sino el que cree

que Jesus es el Hijo de Dios?Este es Jesu Cristo, que vino por

agua y sangre: no por agua solamente, sino por agua y sangre.

Y el Espfritu es el que da testimonio: porque el Espfritu es la

verdad. Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo, el

Padre, la Palabra, y el Espfritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.

Tambien son tres los que dan testimonio en la tierra, el

Espfritu, el agua, y la sangre, y estos tres son uno.

The Early English Bibles

The history of the English Bible is a rich history. Like the Scriptures

themselves, it records the best and worst in man. It shows the beauty of

man’s expressions, the pureness of his devotion, and the depth of his sacri-

fice. History also records man’s vile thoughts, misguided piety, and the

extent of his depravity. The freedom we have to read the word of God in

our own language was paid for with the price of sweat and blood.

Before we can understand the labors of English translators, we must

understand the times they lived in. Until 1382 there was no English Bible.

In fact, to have the Bible in the language of the people was forbidden. The

church in power was the Roman Catholic Church, whose Bible was the

Latin Vulgate and whose influence spread to the monarchy in England.

The Church believed men would misunderstand and mistranslate the

Scriptures, and they had the power of the state to enforce this ban. If we

are to know the history of the English Bible, we must acquaint ourselves

with the history of English monarchs. This is especially true of the years

from William Tyndale to the translation of the Authorized Version, for

during this time England faced it own Reformation.

The House Of Tudor

To help children remember the kings and queens of England, an

unknown poet chronicled their reigns in verse. A great deal of truth con-

cerning the House of Tudor is revealed in this rhyme:

Henry the Seventh was frugal of means;

Henry the Eighth had a great many queens.

Edward the Sixth reformation began;

Cruel Queen Mary prevented the plan.

Wise and profound were Elizabeth’s aims.

Henry VIII (reigned 1509-1547):

“Lord! open the King of England’s eyes,” was the fiery death cry of

123

translator William Tyndale. The king he was praying for was Henry

VIII, the second king of the House of Tudor (1485-1603). Tyndale’s

prayer was answered, for during the time of Henry several major English

translations appeared with the king’s approval and the Church of England

was born.

Henry’s elder brother Arthur had been Prince of Wales and heir appar-

ent to their father, Henry VII, but died in 1502 before taking the throne.

Arthur was married to Catherine of Aragon in a political alliance between

England and Spain. Henry became king upon his father’s death and mar-

ried Catherine to continue the alliance with Spain. All was well for a

period of time, but when Catherine did not give Henry any male children

he sought to divorce her. As scriptural proof for his divorce the king cited

Leviticus 20:21, “And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean

thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.”

Pope Clement VII, however, was unwilling to grant the divorce. This

did not stop the king. In 1529 Henry held a trial in London to divorce

Catherine. The trial reached no decision, so the king dismissed his chief

minister, Cardinal Wolsey, and made Thomas Cromwell his new chief

minister. Cromwell proposed to Parliament that England break with

Rome and appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury as the highest officer in

the English church. Parliament passed legislation to this effect in 1533,

and the Archbishop granted the divorce. Immediately afterwards, Henry

married Anne Boleyn; however, as is well known to students of history,

this was not the end of Henry’s marriages. During his reign he married six

times: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves,

Catherine Howard, and Catherine Parr. Three of Henry’s children ruled

England: Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I.

Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553):

Edward was the son of Henry and Jane Seymour, Henry’s third wife.

He was only nine years old when he became king of England. Educated by

Protestant tutors, he favored major reforms in the Church of England.

During his reign the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, com-

piled the Book of Common Prayer. This prayer book offered an English ver-

sion of prayers, devotions, and Scripture readings instead of the Latin

liturgy used in the Roman Catholic Church. However, the young king

became ill in 1552 and died on July 6, 1553.

Mary I (reigned 1553-1558):

“Light came and went and came again.” So wrote Thomas Wolfe in his

semi-autobiographical story, The Lost Boy. The same imagery comes to

mind during the reign of Mary Tudor. She brought with her rule days of

darkness. Born of Henry and Catherine of Aragon on February 18, 1516,

Mary became queen of England upon the death of her half-brother

Edward. She was a strong Catholic who sought to bring England back

under the Papacy.

Misguided by her zeal, she soon earned for herself the infamous name

“Bloody Mary.” During the last three years of her reign she executed over

three hundred Protestants by burning them at the stake. One of these was

the Archbishop himself, Thomas Cranmer. While imprisoned, Cranmer

had signed a statement of recantation. Before being burned at the stake it

is reported that Cranmer placed the hand he used to sign the statement in

the fire first as a sign of his remorse. Many of the great scholars who were

not executed fled to Geneva during this period. It was there that they pro-

124

duced the beloved Geneva Bible.

Elizabeth I (reigned 1558-1603):

Light came again with the rule of Elizabeth I. As Mary’s reign was noted

for its bloodshed, Elizabeth’s was noted for its glory. Born on September 7,

1533, Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn. It is during her

reign we have what is now referred to as the “Elizabethan Age,” considered to

be one of England’s grandest periods of history.

England’s advancements were massive. In literature, great works by

Shakespeare, Spenser, and Marlowe were composed and a fine tuning of

the English language developed that influenced novelists and playwrights

for years to come. In exploration, achievements included the rewards of

seamen such as Drake, Hawkins, and Raleigh, the establishment of the

East India Company, the first colonies in the New World, and the defeat

of the Spanish Armada. Advancements in religion range from the

“Elizabethan Settlement” that helped soothe the strong conflict between

Catholicism and Calvinism to the reestablishment of the Church of

England and the reissuing of the Book of Common Prayer. It was also dur-

ing this time the Bishops’ Bible was translated, which helped to guide the

translators of the Authorized Version.

Elizabeth’s reign was not without conflict. Mary, Queen of Scots, fled

to England in 1568 to escape a rebellion in Scotland. Mary was a strong

Roman Catholic and thus became the axis of several English Catholic con-

spiracies that arose, seeking to reestablish the primacy of the Roman

Church. This finally led Elizabeth to have Mary arrested and sentenced to

death in 1587. Mary’s son, James, was King James VI of Scotland. Upon

the death of Elizabeth, he became King James I of England in 1603. As

staunch a Protestant as his mother had been a Catholic, James was the

monarch who permitted the translators to produce the Bible that now

commonly bears his name.

John Wycliffe (1324-1384)

“I believe that in the end the truth will conquer.” So wrote John

Wycliffe (or Wyclif) to the Duke of Lancaster in 1381. Although

Wycliffe’s translation was taken from the Latin Vulgate, and was not one

of the translations underlying the Authorized Version, his accomplish-

ments demand discussion in any survey of early English versions of the

Bible. It was Wycliffe who gave us the first English translation of the

whole Bible, and it was his labor that inspired others to follow in his foot-

steps by translating the word of God in the language of the people.

Wycliffe translated the New Testament by himself, but was most likely

aided by Nicholas of Hereford with the Old Testament. His Bible was

introduced in 1382 and later was revised by John Pervy. This was a noble

task because the printing press had yet to be invented and all copies of the

translation were written by hand. Today we have almost two hundred of

these handwritten Wycliffe Bibles.125

Though still in the Roman Church, Wycliffe and his followers (a group

of poor monks known as Lollards) taught doctrines that differed signifi-

cantly with the teachings of the Catholic Church of that day. They

believed in the authority of the word of God and that it should be trans-

lated into English. They believed in a personal salvation based upon divine

election. And they rejected the doctrines of transubstantiation and indul-

gences. Further, they taught that the Church’s hierarchy was unscriptural

and that the Pope had no more authority then any other priest. Obviously,

their doctrines were unpopular with Rome.

Several of the Lollards suffered for their faith. John Purvey and Nicholas of

Hereford, who helped with the Wycliffe translation, were arrested and forced

to recant their beliefs. In London in 1382, after many of Wycliffe’s teachings

were condemned as heretical, a great number of his followers in Oxford were

also forced to recant. Wycliffe himself, however, was never tried nor mar-

tyred. Still his memory and work received the wrath of Rome. Wycliffe was

forced into retirement and remained at his rectory at Lutterworth, England

until his death in 1384. In 1401 Parliament ordered the penalty of death for

those caught teaching and proclaiming the doctrines of John Wycliffe. On

May 4, 1415 the Council of Constance ordered Wycliffe’s body to be

exhumed and burned for heresy.

The following compares the translation of Wycliffe with that of the

King James Version in one of the most popular Psalms of Scripture, the

Shepherd’s Psalm.

Psalm 23:1-6 (KJV)

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh

me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still

waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of

righteousness for his name’s sake. Yea, though I walk through

the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou

art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou pre-

parest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou

anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely

goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and

I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Psalm 23:1-6 (Wycliffe Version)

The lord gouerneth me, and no thing schal fail to me; In

the place of pasture there he hath set me. He nourished me on

the water of refreshing; He conurtide my soul. He lead me

forth on the paths of rightfulness; for his name. For whi

though Y shall go in the midest of shadow of death; Y shall not

dread evil, for thou art with me. thy yard and thy staff; tho

han comforted me. Thou hast made ready a boord in my

sight; agens hem that troblen me. Thou hast made fat myn

heed with oyle; and my cuppe, fillinge greetli, is ful cleer. And

thi merci schal sue me; in alle the daies of my lijf. And that Y

dwelle in the hows of the Lord; in to the lengthe of daies.

William Tyndale (1494-1536)

The name of William Tyndale has borne the slander of the Roman

Catholic Church. In his own day, Sir Thomas More accused him of

“abominable heresies,” and twentieth-century Catholic historian Henry

G. Graham refers to Tyndale as an inept rebellious priest.126 Despite the

defamation, God used William Tyndale to provide for us the first English

Bible printed on the printing press. Tyndale also set the stage for the

English translations that followed.

John Foxe provides us with a contrasting view of this saint of God. Foxe

tells us of his early training at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge,

and as a schoolmaster who taught the children of the Knight of

Gloucestershire. Foxe also points out it was in this capacity that Tyndale

earned himself a reputation for being contentious with local priests who

would visit the Knight and his family. Despite his leanings towards bib-

lical debate, Foxe describes Tyndale as a gracious man who opened his

heart and home to strangers and offered fellowship to all that wished it.

It was his openness and generosity that led to his demise. While in

Antwerp, Tyndale befriended fellow Englishman Henry Philips. Tyndale

showed Philips all his works, translations, plans, and personal theology.

He trusted Philips as a good man and fellow believer. Philips was neither.

Like Judas of old, Philips arranged with officers for the arrest of William

Tyndale and then, while in the public street, pointed to Tyndale so the

officials knew whom to arrest.

Tyndale’s “crime” was the publishing of God’s word in the language of

the people. He was charged with heresy and sentenced to death by burn-

ing. While tied to the stake and awaiting his fiery death, William Tyndale

offered his final prayer before being ushered into eternity, beseeching the

Lord to “open the King of England’s eyes.” Once again the English Bible

was purchased with the blood of the saints.

Tyndale used the Traditional Text and laid the foundation for the KJV

that followed years later. Although Tyndale translated a few Old

Testament books, his emphasis was on the New Testament, of which his

translation was first published in 1525. However, Cuthbert Tunstall,

Bishop of London, seized and burnt most of these editions in London in

October of 1526. Only two first editions survive today. Tyndale published

revised and corrected editions in 1534 and 1535.

One interesting historical fact concerning Tunstall and his collection

and consequent burning of Tyndale’s New Testament should be noted. In

order to assure that all copies were retrieved, Tunstall arranged to purchase

a large quantity of Tyndale’s earlier editions. The monies paid by Tunstall

for these earlier defective copies were used by Tyndale to finance the revi-

sion of his New Testament. Thus, Tunstall unknowingly furthered the

translation and publication of the English version he so greatly hated.

The following comparison illustrates the impact Tyndale’s New

Testament had on the Authorized Version.

Matthew 6:9-13 (KJV)

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art

in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy

will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our

daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our

debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from

evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,

for ever. Amen.

Matthew 6:9-13 (Tyndale)

After thys manner therfore praye ye. O oure father which

arte in heven, halowed be thy name. Let thy kyngdome come.

Thy will be fulfilled, as well in erth, as it is in heven. Geve us

this daye oure dayly breede. And forgeve us oure treaspases,

even as we forgeve oure trespacers. And leade us not into

temptacion: but delyver us from evyll. For thyne is the kynge-

dome and the power, and the glorye for ever. Amen.

Miles Coverdale (1488-1569)

Tyndale’s final prayer was answered in the work of Miles Coverdale.

Coverdale had befriended Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry

VIII. In addition, the chief minister to Henry was Thomas Cranmer,

the Archbishop of Canterbury who encouraged Coverdale in his trans-

lational work. Consequently, the Lord was setting the stage to provide

England and the English-speaking world with its first translation

approved by a king.

God used Miles Coverdale in a unique way because Coverdale labored

on three early English translations: his own Coverdale’s Bible (1535), the

Great Bible (1539), and the Geneva Bible (1560). Indirectly he helped

with the Matthew’s Bible (1537) and the Bishops’ Bible (1568), as these

were revisions of his works. All of these early translations, as well as

Tyndale’s translations, were based on the Traditional Text and used by the

translators of the KJV of 1611. These were the English translations

referred to by the KJV translators when they wrote:

Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the begin-

ning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to

make of a bad one a good one;.. .but to make a good one better,

or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to

be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our

. 128

mark.

Miles Coverdale was born in Yorkshire, the birthplace of John Wycliffe.

He was educated at Cambridge and became an Augustinian friar. In 1528,

after embracing the teachings of Martin Luther, Coverdale left the priest-

hood and was forced to leave England. Coverdale soon became a disciple

of William Tyndale and took up his work of translating the Bible in the

English language. His first translation of the Old Testament as it is found

in the Coverdale’s Bible was not translated from Hebrew, a language he

did not know, but from German and Latin. His New Testament was a

revision of Tyndale’s New Testament. When he published his Bible in

October 1535, it became the first complete Bible printed in English.

Matthew’s Bible (1537)

Thomas Matthew was the pseudonym of John Rogers (1500-1555).

Rogers received his degree from Cambridge in 1525 and became a

priest in London. In 1534 he went to Antwerp as chaplain to the

Merchant Adventurers. There, he became associated with William

Tyndale and was converted to Protestantism. Rogers, with his wife and

eight children, went to Wittenberg where he pastored a church. Under

the reign of Queen Mary, Rogers was charged with heresy and was

burned at the stake for the gospel.

His work is a mixture of Tyndale and Coverdale. The New Testament is

William Tyndale’s, as are the first five books of the Old Testament. Some

also attest that Joshua to 2 Chronicles were likewise the work of Tyndale,

which he finished shortly before his death and were first published here by

Rogers. The rest of the Old Testament is the work of Coverdale.129

The Great Bible (1539)

This was the second major work done by Miles Coverdale, called the

Great Bible because of its size.130 It is a very thick Bible with pages

measuring nine inches wide and fifteen inches long. It was produced

for English churches with the full approval of the king, Henry VIII.

Some consider this the first “authorized” Bible because the king

approved it and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, over-

saw it.131

This version, based on the Traditional Text of the New Testament, was

revised and altered in accordance with the Latin Vulgate. It never became

“great” with the public and ceased publication within thirty years. The

desire for an English Bible still remained. The public longed for a Bible

that the average Englishman could hold in his hands and read at home.

This need was met with the Geneva Bible that followed.

The following compares the Great Bible with the King James Version.

The spelling in the KJV reflects our current editions, while the spelling in

the Great Bible remains as it was in 1539.

Mark 1:1-3 (KJV)

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger

before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The

voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the

Lord, make his paths straight.

Mark 1:1-3 (Great Bible)

The begynnynge of the Gospell of Jesu Chryst the sonne of

God, As it is written in the Prophetes, behold, I sende my

messenger before thy face which shall prepare thy waye before

the. The voyce of a cryer in the wildernes: prepare ye the waye

of the Lorde, and make his pathes strayte.

The Geneva Bible (1560)

In 1553, Mary became Queen of England and began a fiery persecu-

tion against Protestants. The Great Bible was removed from churches,

and many Christians fled the country in order to escape her religious

wrath. Many of those who fled persecution found refuge in Geneva.

Knowing the need to preserve God’s word in English, some who had

either suffered persecution under Mary, or had fled because of the per-

secution she produced, began work on a new translation of the Bible.

In 1557 the New Testament was published. It was mostly the work of

William Whittingham, brother-in-law of the great reformer John

Calvin. With the aid of Anthony Gilby and Thomas Sampson,

Whittingham immediately revised his New Testament. For the Old

Testament, the 1550 edition of the Great Bible was used and revised.

By 1560 the entire Geneva Bible was complete and published.

It was produced in a handy size using Roman type that made it eas-

ier to read than the “black letter” used in earlier English Bibles. It also

contained several notations that the Catholic Church found offensive.

For example, the notation found in Revelation 9:3, which describes the

locust coming out of the pit, reads, “Locusts are false teachers, heretics,

and worldly, subtle prelates, with monks, friars, cardinals, archbishops,

bishops, doctors, bachelors, and masters, which forsake Christ to main-

tain false doctrine.”132 Unlike previous translations, it was the work of a

committee and not the work of one man or a revision of one man’s

work. Readers of William Shakespeare will undoubtedly recognize

many of the citations from the Geneva Bible, for it was the translation

from which he quoted in his plays.

Colossians 1:12-17 (KJV)

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be

partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath

delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated

us into the kingdom of His dear Son: In whom we have

redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every

creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,

and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be

thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things

were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things,

and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:12-17 (Geneva Bible)

Gyving thankes unto the Father, whiche hathe made us mete

to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saintes in light. Who

hathe delivered us from the power of darkenes, and hathe

translated us into the kingdome of His deare Sonne. In whom

we have redemption through His bloode, (that is, ) the for-

givenes of sinnes. Who is the image of the invisible God, the

first borne of everie creature. For by him were all things cre-

ated, which are in heaven, and which are in earth, things visi-

ble and invisible: whether (they be) Thrones, or Dominions,

or Principalities, or Powers, all thynges were created by hym

and for hym. And he is before all thynges, and in hym all

things consist.

The Bishops’ Bible (1568)

Perhaps the loveliest Bible printed at this time was the Bishops’ Bible, a

large folio with many beautiful engravings throughout. Following the per-

secutions and the banning of the Scriptures during Queen Mary’s reign,

Queen Elizabeth, who succeeded Mary to the English throne, ordered

the Bible to be restored to the British churches. Archbishop of

Canterbury Matthew Parker, desiring a new translation, assigned sec-

tions of the Great Bible to a team of bishops for revision. This occurred

in 1566, and the new revision was accomplished and published in 1568.

It had fewer notes than the Geneva Bible and was designed to give the

clergy and congregates of the Church of England one official, standard

Bible. However, it was not successful in this task. Because this version

was issued under the authority of Queen Elizabeth, it is considered the

second “authorized” English Bible.

Revelation 1:1-3 (KJV)

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to

shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to

pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant

John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testi-

mony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is

he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,

and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is

at hand.

Revelation 1:1-3 (Bishops’ Bible)

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, for

to shewe unto his servauntes thinges which must shortly come

to passe: and when he had sent, he shewed by his Angel unto

his servant John, Which bare record of the word of God, and

of the testimonie of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Happie is he that readeth, and they that heare the wordes of

this prophecie, and keepe those things which are written

therein: for the time is at hand.

“A Good One Better”

The goal of the translators of the Authorized Version was to make their

new translation even better than its predecessors. As we have seen, these

translators stated that they did not consider previous translations bad, but

wanted to make “out of many good ones, one principal good one, not

justly to be excepted against.” Their desire was to take God’s word in

English and provide one principal translation based on these earlier

English Protestant versions. Their work was successful. The KJV was not

only based on earlier English versions, but also became the standard

English Bible for the next four hundred years.

Chapter 5

The English Jewel

“The English Bible—a book which, if everything else in our language

should perish, would alone suffice to show the whole extent of its beauty

and power.”

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Edinburgh Review (1828)

John Rainolds had been addressing the newly crowned king of England,

James I. Various concerns among the Puritans had arisen, and now was an

opportunity to present them before the king. It was cold and damp that

wintry day, much like the coldness that faced this English Church of the

Reformation. Elizabeth, the beloved queen, had died and the thick-

tongued Scotsman now ruled in her stead. Dr. Rainolds was well aware of

the concerns that had risen within the Church and the nation. What

would this new king do?

Within the contents of his address, Rainolds raised a proposal: “May

your Majesty be pleased to direct that the Bible be now translated, such

versions as are extant not answering to the original.” With lisping tongue

the king answered, stirring the desires of all those who wished to see a new

translation that would standardize the word of God among the English-

speaking world. “I profess, I could never yet see a Bible well translated in

English, but I think that of Geneva is the worst.”133

With these few fateful words, the greatest English translation the world

has ever known was born. The place was Hampton Court. The day was

Monday, January 16, 1604. By July 22 of the same year, Bishop Richard

Bancroft had been notified by the king to appoint certain learned men,

numbering fifty-four, for the purpose of newly translating the Scriptures.

What they produced John Livingston Lowes called “the noblest monu-

ment of English prose.” For us, it simply became the Bible.

Sadly, of late it has fallen under attack. Not only from skeptics who

doubt God’s word, but from various theologians and biblical scholars.

Many have used faulty forensic reasoning in order to discredit this lovely

version. It is, therefore, essential for us to understand the history of the

Authorized Version in order to refute the contentions of such individuals,

for in disparaging this Bible, they (wittingly or not) imperil the work and

word of God among the English-speaking peoples.

James I of England (1566-1625)

Some erroneously believe that the King James Version was the transla-

tion of King James I of England (VI of Scotland). Others attempt to dis-

credit the KJV because of the king himself. However, neither of these is a

substantive objection to the KJV. James did not translate the Bible, and his

character has little to do with the translation that bears his name. He was

the King of England in 1611 when the KJV was completed, and it was

under his authority that the translators began their endeavor.

James was born in Scotland and was the only son of Mary Queen of

Scots. His famous mother was a strict Roman Catholic; however, James

was raised a staunch Protestant. He had a love for sports as well as for

scholarship. British author Caroline Bingham writes of James that at “sev-

enteen he was a remarkable youth who had already achieved an intellec-

tual and political maturity; already he was recognizable as the canny and

learned King who never achieved wisdom, who committed follies but was

134

not a fool.” Nevertheless, King Henry IV of France referred to James as

the “wisest fool in Christendom.” The New Testament reminds us that

God is capable of using the foolish to astound the wise of this world (1

Corinthians 1:25-29).

The Translation

On that cold January day when Dr. Rainolds suggested to the king that

the English Bible be revised, James reacted with delight and instructed

Bishop Bancroft to appoint fifty-four scholars for the purpose of translat-

ing the word of God. The actual number of translators who worked on the

KJV remains a mystery since some died before the work was completed.

Nevertheless, the majority of the translator’s names have survived (see

Appendix A). These men were divided into three groups located at

Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge. Each group was divided into two

sections; one worked on the Old Testament, the other on the New

Testament. Only the group at Cambridge had an additional team working

on the Apocrypha.

The translators were great scholars. Many laid the foundation for lin-

guistic studies that followed. They spent most of their time in the pursuit

of learning and development of their knowledge of biblical languages.

Some, while waxing eloquent in Latin or Greek, fared poorly with their

native English. Gustavus S. Paine noted that the king’s translators were

not superb writers doing scholarly work, but were superb scholars doing

superb writing. Judged by their other extant works, which are common-

place in style, the writing of what would become the Authorized Version

should have been far beyond their abilities. Yet, they were able to reach

beyond themselves. Paine makes the following assessment:

Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspira-

tion, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their

profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own

words, they spake as no other men spake because they were

filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our

time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work

as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning

thereafter as an organic entity—no mere mechanism equal to

the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them.137

The translation went through a series of committees, all consisting of

various groupings of the translators themselves. Upon finishing the

assigned portion given to him, a translator would meet with the first com-

mittee and read the work he translated. Those within the committee fol-

lowed the reading from various sources, such as the original languages,

early English translations, and foreign translations including German,

French, Italian, and Spanish. If there were no differences of opinion con-

cerning the translation, the reader pressed on. If there were differences, the

committee would reach a consensus before proceeding. The findings were

then presented to the other two companies for their committees to review

in like fashion. If these committees differed at any given point, the differ-

ences were compounded and presented to a third committee consisting of

twelve members. This committee (known as the General Meeting)

reviewed what the previous committees had produced and agreed upon

the finished translation before presenting the work to two final editors,

Bishop Thomas Bilson and Dr. Miles Smith.138

True Rewards

Some writers have asserted that the translators “may have harbored less

than perfect motivations” for their efforts, such as seeking royal favor and

advancement, or being “far too enamored with the idea of royalty.” It has

139

also been charged that the English Crown paid for the translation. None

of these accusations are worth serious consideration. There is no hint that

any of the translators sought to be on the translational committee to gain

favor with the king or promotion. There is some evidence that William

Barlow, one of the translators, was a man who was soundly supportive of

140

the British Crown and a man whom King James greatly approved. But

many Englishmen of that day held similarly exalted notions of royalty,

including James I himself who objected to the Geneva Bible precisely

because its marginal notes did not accord with his notions of the obedi-

ence due to kings.141

As for the matter of who paid for the KJV, the historical truth is that

payment did not come from the Crown but from the Church, and Church

funds were very limited. Funds were raised and received for the purpose of

sustaining the translators during their work on the translation, but they

were not given financial reward. It is true that several of the translators

did advance within the Church after the translation was complete, but this

was due to their ability. Their greatest reward was in the fruit of their labor,

the KJV itself. The translators wrote:

But amongst all our joys, there was no one that more filled our

hearts than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s

sacred Word amongst us; which is that inestimable treasure

which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit

thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this tran-

sitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eter-

nal happiness which is above in heaven.

The Cum Privilegio

Another common myth concerning the KJV is that it was under the

sole printing authority of the Crown. This is known as the Cum Privilegio

(i.e., with privilege). Some have thought this made it impossible for any-

one else to publish the KJV for the first hundred years of its existence.144

Such a claim is erroneous.

It is true the KJV was under the Cum Privilegio, and that the royal

printer was Robert Barker; it is also true that others printed the KJV long

before 1711. Royal historian John Dore noted:

In the year 1642, a folio edition of King James’s Version was

printed at Amsterdam by “Joost Broersz, dwelling in the

Pijlsteegh, in the Druckerije”…The notes of the King James’s

Bible are omitted, and the arguments and annotations of the

“Breeches” Bible are inserted in their place.145

Dr. Jack Lewis also notes that the KJV was printed in Geneva, without

the Crown’s approval, during its first one hundred years. Various editions

of the KJV were published outside of England in 1642, 1672, 1683,

1708, and in England itself in 1649.146

Dore points to Scotland as printing the KJV in 1628. He also notes that

the KJV was printed in England without the Cum Privilegio. A special dis-

pensation was granted to the University of Cambridge and the University of

Oxford so that they could print Bibles without the Cum Privilegio.

Although the Universities always claimed the right to print the

Bible, Cambridge had not exercised that right since the year

1589; but in 1628 a duodecimo Testament was published at

Cambridge, by the printers to the University, and the follow-

ing year Thomas and John Buck issued the first Cambridge

Bible…The University of Oxford did not begin to print Bibles

until the year 1675, when the first was issued in quarto size;

the spelling was revised by Dr. John Fell, Dean of Oxford.

Once again, the evidence shows this assault is unwarranted.

The Apocrypha

Another objection to the KJV concerns the Apocrypha. The KJV trans-

lators did not consider the Apocrypha inspired Scripture. They placed it

between the Testaments, indicating that they regarded it valuable only as

historical record and for edification, not for doctrine. The same is true of

other early English versions. For example, on the opening page of the

Apocrypha in the Geneva Bible we read:

These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the

New Testament are called Apocrypha—that is, books which

were not received by a common consent to be read and

expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove

any point of Christian religion, save inasmuch as they had the

consent of the other Scriptures called canonical to confirm the

same, or rather whereon they were grounded; but as books pre-

ceding from godly men, [which] were received to be read for the

advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the history,

and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare

that at all times God had an especial care of his Church, and left

them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm

them in the hope of the promised Messiah; and also witness that

those calamities that God sent to his Church were according to

his providence, who had both so threatened by his Prophets, and

so brought it to pass for the destruction of their enemies, and for

the trial of his children.

Likewise, the translators of the KJV did not give the Apocrypha the

respect they had given the Holy Scriptures. Their relative disregard for

these books is not expressed in an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva

Bible, but can be seen in the way they are presented in the first edition of

1611. In addition to placing the Apocrypha between the Testaments

(rather than interspersing them with the canon as was Roman Catholic

practice), the translators did not mention the Apocrypha at all on the title

page, which simply reads, “The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old

Testament, and the New.” The listing on the table of contents page refers

to them only as “The Bookes called Apocrypha” and segregates them, as in

the text, from the Old and New Testaments. Additionally, both the Old

and New Testaments have elaborate engravings placed before each

Testament; the Apocrypha does not. The running heads that adorn the

tops of the pages in the canon with summaries of the contents (e.g., in

Genesis, “The creation of man;” “The first Sabbath;” “Marriage insti-

tuted”) are replaced in the Apocrypha by generic running heads that read

only “Apocrypha” throughout and do not summarize. Further, the transla-

tors of the KJV did not malign the canonical books of the Bible the way

they did the Apocrypha. At 1 Esdras 5:5 the margin states, “This place is

corrupt,” an allusion found nowhere in either of the Testaments. The

additional chapters to the Book of Esther are entitled “The rest of the

Chapters of the Booke of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew,

nor in the Calde.”

Revisions And Printing Errors

Another popular argument used to oppose the KJV is to ask which edi-

tion of the KJV is being used, implying that the KJV has been substan-

tially changed. If extreme changes in the text have occurred, there would

be justification for additional revisions. The truth, however, is that the text

has not really been changed. The revisions of the KJV dealt with the cor-

rection of early printing errors or the modernization of the text as it

regards spelling and punctuation. The verses have remained the same.

There have been four major revisions of the KJV. They took place in

1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. The 1762 revision was the work of Dr. F. S.

Paris of the University at Cambridge. The work of this revision laid the

foundation for most modern editions of the text. He greatly enhanced the

use of italics (which in the KJV denote supplied words not in the original

languages) and modernized most of the spelling. His edition also added

several marginal references. The 1769 edition came from Oxford, and was

the work of Dr. Benjamin Blayney. In this edition, several additional revi-

sions were made in correcting earlier printing errors, spelling, and expand-

ing marginal and introductory notes. This edition has become the

standard by which modern texts are printed.

An example of differences in spelling may be seen in this comparison of

Galatians 1:1-5 from a 1612 edition of the KJV and a current one. Note,

however, that the text remains the same.

1612 Edition:

1. Paul an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus

Christ, and God the Father, who reised him from the dead, 2.

And all the brethren which are with me, vnto the Churches of

Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace, from God the Father,

and from our Lord Iesus Christ; 4. Who gaue himself for our

sins, that he might deliuer vs from this present euil world,

according to the will of God, & our Father. 5. To whom be

glory for euer and euer, Amen.

Current Editions:

1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus

Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2.

And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of

Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace from God the Father,

and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4. Who gave himself for our

sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world,

according to the will of God and our Father: 5. To whom be

glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Other revisions sought to correct printing errors. Sometimes the printer

omitted a word or words were printed twice. These were corrected in order to

produce the text as the translators gave it.150 The 1632 edition, for example,

left out the word “not” in the Commandment “Thou shalt not commit adul-

tery,” thus earning it the nickname The Wicked Bible. Even today with com-

puterized checking of the text, printing errors can occur. This does not

invalidate the preserved word of God or prove the KJV is corrupt. After all,

one finds these same errors of transmission within the host of existing Greek

manuscripts. Yet, it does not nullify the doctrine of preservation for the orig-

inal reading still can be found despite copyists’ mistakes.151 It does mean that

sometimes printers have made mistakes and the four major revisions of the

KJV have sought to correct such errors.

“Printers have persecuted me without cause” (Psalm 119:161). Or so it

reads in a 1702 edition of the KJV. One of the great misconceptions about

the Authorized Version concerns the diverse errors printers have made

throughout its history. Some have concluded that to correct its printing

mistakes is to change the text. This, however, is not the case. Others have

thought so highly of the King’s Bible as to think that the printers were free

from error. This, also, is not so. Printers have made quite a few errors in

editions of the Authorized Version.

The first edition of the KJV is often called the “He Bible” because of

the printing error that occurred at Ruth 3:15. Here, the first edition read

“he went into the city” instead of “she went into the city.” The corrected

edition is sometimes referred to as the “She Bible.” The number of print-

ing errors in the first few decades of editions caused William Kilburne to

write a treatise in 1659 entitled, Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed

Bibles to the Great Scandal and Corruption of Sound and True Religion.

Other misprints in the 1611 edition included Exodus 38:11 where

“hoopes” was used for “hooks” and Leviticus 13:56, “the plaine be” for

“the plague be.” In Ezra 3:5 the printer repeated the word “offered” twice.

The running head over the fourth chapter of Micah reads “Joel” instead of

its proper name of Micah. “He” is used instead of “ye” in Ezekiel 6:8. In

Ezekiel 24:7, the text was to read, “She poured it not upon the ground”;

however, the Royal Printer left out the word “not.” In 1 Esdras 4 the run-

ning head reads “Anocrynha” instead of “Apocrypha,” and several of these

headings misnumber chapters immediately afterwards in 2 Esdras.

Between the printing conditions and the style of print, it can be easily

understood why such errors occurred. Below are listed five passages where

printing errors occurred in the 1611 edition. Even when we make adjust-

ment for the differences in orthography and calligraphy it takes careful

reading to locate these printing mistakes.

Genesis 10:15-18

And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, And the

Jebusite, and the Emorite, and the Girgasite, And the Hivite,

and the Arkite, and the Sinite, And the Arvadite, and the

Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families

of the Canaanites spread abroad.

Exodus 14:10

And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up

their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them;

and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel lifted up

their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them and

they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto

the LORD.

Leviticus 17:14

For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:

therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the

blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood

thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Jeremiah 22:3

Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteous-

ness, and deliver the spoiler out of the hand of the oppressor:

and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the father-

less, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

Matthew 16:25

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will

lose his his life for my sake shall find it.152

Other editions contained similar errata. In 1653 one edition read,

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” in 1

Corinthians 6:9. An 1801 edition misreads Jude 16 as, “There are mur-

derers, complainers, walking after their own lusts.” The word “murmur-

ers” should have been used. “Discharge” is used instead of “charge” in an

1806 KJV printing at 1 Timothy 5:21, and “wife” was changed to “life” at

Luke 14:26 in an 1810 edition.

Even though errors occur occasionally in print, they are detected and

corrected in later editions. For example, notice how this 1638 edition

changes the text of Acts 6:3, yet it is now corrected to read as the 1611 edi-

tion read.

1611 edition:

Wherefore brethren, looke ye out among you seuen men of

honest report, full of the holy Ghost, and wisedome, whom

we may appoint ouer this businesse.

1638 edition:

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of

honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom ye

may appoint over this business.

Current edition:

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of

honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we

may appoint over this business.

An example of a printing error found in some current editions is

located in Jeremiah 34:16. Here there is a difference in two editions, the

one from Cambridge and the one from Oxford.

Cambridge edition:

But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man

his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at

liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into sub-

jection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Oxford edition:

But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man

his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at

liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into sub-

jection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Is the correct reading “whom ye” or “whom he”? After all, both appear

in various editions of the King James Version, depending on if they follow

the Cambridge edition or the Oxford edition. This problem has nothing

to do with preservation or the effectiveness of the KJV as a translation. It

has to do with the correction of a printing error still in existence. The orig-

inal edition of1611 reads “whome yee had set at libertie at their pleasure.”

According to John R. Dore, “The University of Oxford did not begin to

print Bibles until the year 1675, when the first was issued in quarto size;

the spelling was revised by Dr. John Fell, Dean of Oxford.”153 Cambridge,

agreeing with the edition of1611, first began printing KJV Bibles in 1629

by Thomas and John Buck. Although one cannot prove that this error is

the fault of Dr. John Fell in his 1675 Oxford edition, we can state that

considerable time had passed before the error was introduced, and that the

error was limited to the editions published by Oxford or those based on

the Oxford edition. This has nothing to do with the issue of biblical

preservation, for the correct reading is found in the original edition, the

Cambridge edition, and current editions based on either the original 1611

or Cambridge editions.

It must be asserted that the text of the KJV has come to us unaltered.

What has changed is the correction of printing errors, changes in punctu-

ation and italics, and changes in orthography and calligraphy. This was

verified by the American Bible Society in a report published in 1852 (after

the fourth major revision of the KJV took place) entitled Committee on

Versions to the Board of Managers. An additional report was issued in 1858

by the American Bible Society titled, Report of the Committee on Versions to

the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society. Apart from the

changes just listed, the reports stated that the “English Bible as left by the

translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text.” John R.

Dore, also attests to this. In a study published by the Royal Printers in

1888, Dore stated, “That pearl of great price, the English Bible of 1611,

remained so long without alteration, that many of us had forgotten that it

155

was only one or a series of versions.

The Influence And Durability Of The Authorized Version

King James may not have been a great king; he may not have even been

a good king. He did something, though, that no other monarch has ever

done. He gave us the word of God in such a fashion that it has lasted for

four hundred years. In fact, it has affected our very language, culture and

history. Many of the common expressions we use have their roots in the

Authorized Version. Here are a few examples:

Phrase

Reference

The fat of the land

Genesis 45:18

The skin of my teeth

Job 19:20

At their wit’s end

Psalm 107:27

A soft answer

Proverbs 15:1

A thorn in the flesh

2 Corinthians 12:7

Labour of love

1 Thessalonians 1:3; Hebrews 6:10

The root of all evil

1 Timothy 6:10

Clear as crystal

Revelation 21:11; 22:1

Apart from Shakespeare’s collected writings, no other body of work has

had such influence on English literature. Unlike Shakespeare, who utilized

the vast richness of English phraseology, the Authorized Version limited its

vocabulary to a mere eight thousand words. Even with such economy of

word choice, it has become a valued part of our language and culture. In

his book The Bible: Designed to be Read as Living Literature, Ernest

Sutherland Bates has correctly noted that the King James Version has

secured a place for itself in literature along with Shakespeare, Homer, and

Dante.156 However, unlike these great works, it is the only one produced

by a committee, and the only translation of Scripture that can make such

a claim. Literary scholars have seen its influence on Milton, Pope, Byron,

Keats, Tennyson, Shaw, Whitman, Dickinson, and Twain, to name only a

few. The classic Christian masterpiece Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan

made use of this translation above all other early English versions that

could have been used. Its rhythm and cadence speaks as no other English

version ever has. Without question, the Authorized Version has influenced

countless multitudes with its glorious presentation of the truth.

The KJV is not only a literary masterpiece; its representation of the

original languages is phenomenal. It is not enough for a proper translation

to correctly transmit the words from one language into another; it also

must carry the sense of the original. Without question the Authorized

Version has successfully accomplished this extremely difficult task.

Professor Gerald Hammond of the University of Manchester, England,

has correctly noted that the KJV translators “have taken care to reproduce

the syntactic details of the originals.” He further notes that “At its best,

which means often, the Authorized Version has the kind of transparency

which makes it possible for the reader to see the original clearly. It lacks

the narrow interpretative bias of modern versions, and is the stronger for

it.” Textual and literary scholar Roland Mushat Frye agrees and writes

that the KJV “makes possible translations of Hebrew poetry which are

characterized at once by beauty of English form and essential faithfulness

159

to the original.” Therefore, the KJV is not only outstanding English, it is

outstanding as a representative of biblical languages.

The King James Version has also affected our culture. With the expan-

sion of the British Empire, the English language and culture spread

throughout the world, taking with it the English Bible of 1611. In the

New World the Authorized Version soon replaced the beloved Geneva

Bible, and as early as 1637 it was the preferred translation throughout the

Massachusetts Bay Colony. Often the only book carried by pioneers

during the western expansion was the King James Version. Likewise, it

sometimes served as the sole source in teaching both settler and slave how

to read. Historians Will and Ariel Durant credited it for diminishing the

anti-Semitism that had run rampant throughout England prior to its

translation. They write, “The spread of the Bible, accelerated by the King

James Version, modified anti-Semitism by giving England a closer

acquaintance with the Old Testament.” They may be correct, for the

message of the gospel reminds us that “There is neither Jew nor Greek,

there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are

all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Certainly, the Authorized Version

serves as a polished jewel in the crown of English language and culture.

For the past four centuries the Authorized Version has served as the

standard English Bible, reaching across denominational lines to reign in

the hearts of the English-speaking people. Even with the plethora of mod-

ern versions, the King James remains as the defining emblem of the

English Bible. Although the New International Version has replaced the

King James Version as the best selling translation among Christian book-

sellers for the past several years, the King James has remained in a strong

second place among these booksellers while seemingly taking a much

stronger lead as the version of choice. A 1995 poll concerning Bible trans-

lations showed that nearly all Americans own at least one version of the

Bible, and that approximately two-thirds of those surveyed claim the

Authorized Version as their main translation. Additionally, in 1997 the

Barna Research Group established that the King James Version is more

likely to be read than the New International Version by a ratio of five to

164

one. Other polling through the Internet has established the King James

as the most likely favored English translation. The King James Version

has maintained its place as a top selling version, it remains the most repro-

duced translation for the purpose of evangelism, and is the translation of

choice in American households.

For years some have thought that the popularity of the King James

Version would soon come to an end. Perhaps a day will come when a new

translation of God’s word will win the hearts of all English-speaking peo-

ple as the Authorized Version has done. There may come a day, perhaps,

when we will look back at a modern version and see that it has played a

major role in the development of our language and literature with the

same impact that the version of 1611 has provided for us. Perhaps a day

will arise when this new translation will affect our history and our very

culture even as the King James Bible has done in the past four hundred

years. There very well may come such a day…perhaps…but not today.

Chapter 6

Oracle Of The Jews

“They give us Scriptures, but Thou makest known the sense thereof.

They bring us mysteries, but Thou revealest the things which are signified.

They utter commandments, but Thou helpest to the fulfilling of them.

They show the way, but Thou givest strength for the journey.”

-Thomas va Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (1415)

According to Scripture the Hebrews were God’s oracles (Romans 3:1-2). It

was unto the Jews that the Old Testament revelation and canon were com-

mitted. This is why twice in the Old Testament they were instructed not

to add to or take from the word of God.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither

shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the com-

mandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

(Deuteronomy 4:2).

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be

found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6).

Faithful Hebrew scribes took this task very seriously. Precise steps

were taken in preparing the parchment upon which they wrote, and in

preparing themselves in order to write on it. According to the Hebrew

Talmud, a body of civil and religious laws that also provided commentary on

the Hebrew Scriptures, the rules for the scribes consisted of the following:

1. The skins of the parchments had to be prepared in a special way

and dedicated to God so that they would be clean in order to have

God’s words written on them.

2. The ink that was used was black and made in accordance to a spe-

cial recipe used only for writing Scripture.

3. The words written could not be duplicated by memory but must

be reproduced from an authentic copy that the scribe had before

him. And, the scribe had to say each word aloud as he wrote it.

4. Each time the scribe came across the Hebrew word for God, he

had to wipe his pen clean. And when he came across the name of

God, Jehovah (YHWH), he had to wash his whole body before

he could write it.

5. If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was con-

demned. If there were three mistakes found on any page, the

whole manuscript was condemned. Each scroll had to be checked

within thirty days of its writing, or it was considered unholy.

6. Every word and every letter was counted. If a letter or word was

omitted, the manuscript was condemned.

7. There were explicit rules for how many letters and words were

allowed on any given parchment. A column must have at least forty-

eight lines and no more than sixty. Letters and words had to be

spaced at a certain distance and no word could touch another.168

In his book, The Text of the Old Testament, noted Old Testament textual

scholar Dr. Ernst Wurthwein mentions that the scribes counted the verses,

words, and letters of each part of the Scriptures they were copying. The

Jewish historian Josephus (37-95 AD) comments on the preciseness of the

Jewish scribes and their faithfulness in copying the Old Testament

Scriptures:

.for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so

bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or

to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, imme-

diately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain

divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to

die for them.

Some have taken Josephus’ statement to mean the contents of the Old

Testament. Other have understood it to mean the canon of the Old

Testament. Either way, his statement affirms the sacredness the Hebrews

ascribe to Holy Scripture.

For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek

Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the

Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew since the

international language of that day was Greek. However, with the discovery

of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in the fol-

lowing chapter), it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use

of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise)

were written in Hebrew.

1^69

169

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at

the University of Liverpool, England, observed that for years scholars

believed that Hebrew was limited to religious usage during the time of

Christ. But from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and books written

in common Hebrew among them, it can now be established that a form of

Hebrew, like the Hebrew used in the Old Testament yet distinct in form,

was in use during the time of Christ and the apostles.171 This confirms

what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used

by Christ. Jesus proclaimed; “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” (Matthew 5:18). It is interesting that Christ used the words jot

172

and tittle which are Hebrew letters, not Greek. Additionally, Jesus states

in Luke 11:51; “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zecharias,”

attesting to the Hebrew order of Scripture. The placement of Old

Testament books are different in the Jewish order, ending with 2

Chronicles and not Malachi. In 2 Chronicles 24:21 we are told of the

stoning of faithful Zechariah, and Christ’s statement not only spoke of the

martyrdom of Old Testament saints, but marks the limits of the Hebrew

order: from the beginning (Genesis) to the end (2 Chronicles).

The Masoretic Text

The Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew Old Testament text of

both Judaism and Protestantism. The Roman Catholic Church histori-

cally has used the Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome, though this position

has been revised and now the Catholic Church uses the Hebrew text. The

174

Orthodox Church has historically used the Greek Septuagint. Masoretic

comes from the Hebrew word masora, referring to the marginal notes

added by Jewish scribes and scholars of the Middle Ages (known as the

Masoretes).

Until recently, the most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Old

Testament dated to the ninth century. This has changed with the discov-

ery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 168 BC to about 68 AD. The

Scrolls provide us with Hebrew manuscripts more ancient than the previ-

ous manuscripts by one thousand years. What is interesting to the stu-

dent of textual criticism and the believer in biblical preservation is that the

majority of biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with

the Masoretic Text. This further provides evidence of the text’s credibil-

ity and testifies to the accuracy of the Hebrew scribes in their reproduc-

tion of biblical manuscripts throughout the ages. Consequently, it

establishes the preservation of the Old Testament text in Hebrew by God.

The earliest biblical fragments among the Scrolls come from the book of

Leviticus (1QLev.a) and add support to the antiquity of the Masoretic

Text.17 These fragments encompass Leviticus 19:31-34 and 20:20-23.

There is but one minor variant from the Masoretic Text found in 20:21.

The Masoretic Text uses the Hebrew word hoo while the Dead Sea Scrolls

uses the Hebrew word he. It is the same Hebrew word and is a personal

pronoun meaning he, she, or it. The two are used interchangeably through-

out the Hebrew Old Testament.

Additional manuscripts have also been found that supports the Masoretic

Text. In the early 1960’s biblical texts were discovered during the excavation

of Masada, the renowned rock fortress where Jewish zealots made a successful

last stand against the Roman army after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70

AD. These texts were approximately nineteen hundred years old, dating

slightly before 73 AD when Masada finally fell. The manuscripts were exclu-

sively Masoretic.178 To these we can also add the Geniza Fragments which

were discovered in 1890 at Cairo, Egypt. These fragments date to the fifth

century AD. They were located in a geniza, a type of storage room for worn

or faulty manuscripts. The fragments number around two hundred thousand

and reflect biblical texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. The biblical texts

discovered support the Masoretic Text.179

In one sense, the Masoretic Text may be thought of as the Textus

Receptus (Latin for received text) of the Old Testament. In fact, some

scholars have referred to it as such. Like the Textus Receptus of the New

Testament, the Masoretic Text is based on the majority of manuscripts and

reflects the Traditional Text used. Although there are differences found in

some Masoretic Texts, these differences are minor and usually deal with

orthography, vowel points, accents, and divisions of the text. In 1524-25,

Daniel Bomberg published an edition of the Masoretic Text based on the

tradition of Jacob ben Chayyim, a Jewish refugee who later became a

Christian. It was his text that was used by the translators of the King James

Version for their work in the Old Testament. Wurthwein notes that the

text of ben Chayyim was looked upon as almost canonical, and was con-

sidered the authoritative Hebrew text.

For about six generations the ben Asher family reproduced the

Masoretic Text. Moses ben Asher produced a text in 895 AD known as

Codex Cairensis containing the writings of the Prophets. Codex

Leningradensis (cataloged as “Firkovich B 19 A”) dates to 1008 AD

and was based on the work of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, the son of

Moses ben Asher. This codex is the oldest Masoretic manuscript con-

taining the complete Bible. In 1935 the manuscript was loaned to the

University of Leipzig for two years while Rudolf Kittel used it for his

Biblia Hebraica, third edition. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has since then

become the standard Hebrew text used by scholars in producing mod-

ern translations of the Old Testament.

Generally scholarship agrees that the Masoretic Text became the

standard authorized Hebrew text around 100 AD in connection with

the completion of the New Testament. It is obvious the Masoretic Text

existed prior to the writings of the New Testament, and it was used as

the official Hebrew Old Testament at the time of the establishment of

the biblical canon. It has been used since as the official representation

of the Hebrew originals.

The Greek Septuagint

The most notable Greek Old Testament, and arguably the most influ-

ential early translation of the Hebrew canon, is the Septuagint (LXX). The

LXX is believed to have been translated from the Hebrew text by

Hellenistic Jews during a period from 275 to 100 BC at Alexandria,

Egypt. Scholars such as Ralph W. Klein have noted that the LXX used a

different Hebrew text than the one found in the Masoretic Text.183 Jerome

used the LXX extensively as a help in translating his Latin Vulgate, and it

remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church.

The association of the Latin numeral LXX (70) with the Septuagint

comes from a legend concerning the origin of this Greek translation.

184

According to the Letter of Aristeas, Jewish scholars were chosen to trans-

late the Law of Moses into Greek so that it could be added to the great

library of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria, Egypt. The letter states

that the High Priest in Jerusalem sent seventy-two scholars to the

Egyptian king. According to this document, the High Priest writes to the

king as follows:

In the presence of all the people I selected six elders from each

tribe, good men and true, and I have sent them to you with a

copy of our law. It will be a kindness, O righteous king, if you

will give instruction that as soon as the translation of the law is

completed, the men shall be restored again to us in safety.185

Six scholars from the twelve tribes of Israel equal a total of seventy-two.

It is assumed that the seventy is merely a rounding off of the seventy-two.

It is further stated that they accomplished their task in seventy-two days.

Even if the story given in the Letter of Aristeas could be taken as literally

true, it deals only with the translation of the first five books of the Old

Testament. Furthermore, most scholars note that there are differences in

style and quality of translation within the LXX and assign a much greater

time frame than the 72 days allotted in the Letter of Aristeas.

The most noted copy of the LXX, produced by Origen, is an Old

Testament consisting of six parallel versions of the Scriptures called the

Hexapla, meaning six-fold. The columns of the Hexapla consisted of: 1.

The Hebrew text. 2. The Hebrew transliterated into Greek. 3. The

Greek translation of Aquila. 4. The Greek translation of Symmachus. 5.

The Septuagint. 6. The Greek translation of Theodotion. With the

exception of a few limited fragments, we do not have Origen’s Hexapla

today. We cannot fully reconstruct Origen’s fifth column, let alone a

pre-Origenian Septuagint.

Origen’s Hexapla was revised and edited by two of his disciples,

Pamphilus and Eusebius. As mentioned above, there were other Greek

translations of the Old Testament during this time, in addition to the

LXX, which were contained in the Hexapla such as the versions of

Aquila and Theodotion. Some scholars believe that the translation pro-

duced by Theodotion replaced the LXX in the book of Daniel, so that

the readings there are really those of Theodotion and not of the LXX.

Others have claimed that this is not the case. Concerning Origen’s

Hexapla and the LXX, the best scholars can say is that what has sur-

vived represents Origen’s text. Two such manuscripts that represent

the text of Origen are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the

Alexandrian line of manuscripts.

The LXX And The New Testament

There are a number of Old Testament quotations found in the New

Testament that are said to be from the LXX. Several of these passages agree

because of the limitations of translating Hebrew into Greek. Such would

be the case in Genesis 5:24 as compared with Hebrews 11:5. The writer of

the book of Hebrews and the LXX both use the phrase “God translated

him” in reference to Enoch. The Greek, metetheken auton o theos, is the

same in both the New Testament and the LXX.

Genesis 5:24 (KJV)

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took

him.

Genesis 5:24 (LXX)

And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found,

because God translated him.

Hebrews 11:5 (KJV)

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;

and was not found because God had translated him: for before

his translation he had this testimony, that he please God.

At first glance it would seem that the passage in Hebrews is closer to the

LXX. However, the Hebrew word for “took” in this passage is lawkakh,

which means to take or move from one place to another. The Greek way

of saying the Hebrew lawkakh is metetheken, which means “translated.”

This is not a citation of the LXX, but a Greek translation of the Hebrew

word for took.

There are times when the Greek of the LXX and the Greek of the New

Testament match perfectly. There are also places where the two do not

match. To explain this most scholars assume the New Testament writers

were paraphrasing from the LXX. But once we explore the possibility that

the citations are not quotations but paraphrases of the LXX, we can no

longer be certain it was the LXX that was originally used.

Romans 9:17 illustrates this. While part of the passage seems to match

the LXX, part does not at all match. This causes us to wonder why Paul

did not fully quote the LXX if it was his source.

Exodus 9:16 (KJV)

And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to

shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared

throughout all the earth.

Exodus 9:16 (LXX)

And for this purpose hast thou been preserved, that I might

display in thee my strength, and that my name might be

declared throughout all the earth.

Romans 9:17 (KJV)

For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose

have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and

that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

The last phrase, “and that my name might be declared throughout all

the earth” is a perfect match between the New Testament and the LXX, as

is the phrase “that I might shew my power in thee.” However, this also

matches the Hebrew text as seen in the King James rendering of Exodus

9:16. It is important to note that there are differences between the LXX

and the Greek New Testament at the very beginning and in the middle of

the verse. The Greek New Testament begins with Oti eis auto touto exegeira

se opos (For this purpose have I raised out thee, so that). The LXX begins

with Kai eneken toutou dieterethes, ina (And for this purpose hast thou

been preserved, that). These are two differing readings in both Greek and

English. Moreover, the New Testament uses the Greek word dunamin

(power), while the LXX uses the Greek word ischun (strength).

Since there are differences between the New Testament citations in

both the LXX and the Masoretic Text, the question arises as to what trans-

lation the writers of the New Testament used. At times it seems they are

using the Traditional Hebrew Text; at other times it seems as if they are

taking great liberties with the Hebrew text. Sometimes their quote

matches the LXX; other times their citation differs from the LXX. How

do we resolve this dilemma?

First, not every passage cited as an Old Testament quotation is actually

a quotation. Many times a given passage is simply an allusion or a general

reference. Second, just because one quotes from a source does not mean he

is fully endorsing that source. We find, for example, Paul citing from the

philosophies of the Greeks in order to reach the Greeks (Acts 17:23; Titus

1:12). This did not mean that he accepted their philosophies. Third, we

must remember that the writers of the New Testament had a unique posi-

tion. They wrote under inspiration. Both the Old and New Testaments are

Holy Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is God’s word and he cer-

tainly has the right to make changes as he sees fit, a liberty any author can

take when self-quoting.

On the whole, it seems unlikely that the writers of the New Testament

favored the Greek LXX over the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Sir Frederic

Kenyon brilliantly observed that the biblical guardians of the Old

Testament, the Jews, throughout history have not accepted the LXX.

Josephus, for example, rejected the LXX because of its addition to the

Hebrew canon of Scripture, as did other strict Jewish scribes.187 Likewise,

scholarship recognizes that the enhancement of the LXX in history came

not from the Jewish scribes but from sources within Christendom around

the third century. Therefore, it does not seem likely that the New

Testament writers would have embraced such a translation, at least not to

the exclusion of the Hebrew text. Dr. Ernst Wurthwein correctly stated

that the LXX does not shed light on the text of the original Hebrew, but

only on how some interpreted the Hebrew text. Yet, many scholars of the

past one hundred years or so have seemed to prefer it over the Masoretic

Text, something Wurthwein found to be astounding. When we consider

all of this, we understand the wisdom of the KJV translators in preferring

the Hebrew Masoretic Text for their translation of the Old Testament.

The LXX And The KJV Translators

It is interesting to note how the translators of the KJV viewed the LXX.

They recognized that it was produced by interpreters and not by inspired

prophets. They admitted that although the LXX translates many things

well, it also failed many times and departed from the Hebrew causing the

New Testament writers to depart from the LXX.

.the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets. They

did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they

stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while

through ignorance; yea, sometimes they may be noted to add

to the original, and sometimes to take from it: which made the

Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew,

and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the

word, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice

touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.190

It is also clear that the KJV translators promoted the use of such trans-

lations since they recognized the importance of having God’s word trans-

lated into the language of those who cannot read Hebrew or Greek,

191

despite the lack of quality and accuracy contained in those translations.

Their argument with the Catholic Church, which at that time made a

practice of burning Bibles that were in any language other than Latin, was

that God’s word translated poorly was still God’s word and must be

treated with respect and dignity. They illustrate their point with the Greek

translations of Aquila, Theodotion, and the LXX.

The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn

the word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace,

from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and mean-

ing, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express…The

like we are to think of translations. The translation of the Seventy

dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it

come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the

Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it…To be

short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hun-

dred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from tread-

ing under foot, (much more from burning) the translation of

Aquila a proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of

Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, one vile

hereticks, that they joined them together with the Hebrew origi-

nal, and the translation of the Seventy, (as hath been before signi-

fied out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be

considered of and perused by all.192

The demeanor of the New Testament writers, early Christians, and

the KJV translators regarding the LXX provide for us a two-fold argu-

ment. First, the importance of accuracy and nobility in regard to the

translation of God’s word. Truth must not be replaced with either ease

or simplicity. That which God has given is of utmost importance and

should be proclaimed in its unique majesty. After all, one is dealing

with the words of the most Sovereign King. Second, the vilest transla-

tion of men poorly done should be corrected, not destroyed or

defamed. An inferior translation, when that is all one has, is better than

no translation. Fortunately for English-speaking people worldwide, the

second point has fallen prey to the first. Nevertheless, it is better to pro-

mote God’s word translated than to disparage it.

Chapter 7

Understanding The Dead Sea

Scrolls

“It is concealed and hidden, but God does not forget it.

Delayed is not forgotten!”

-Hans Christian Andersen, Delaying Is Not Forgetting (1872)

West of the northern half of the Dead Sea lies the ruins of Qumran. A fan-

tastic discovery was made in 1947 in the various caves throughout that

region. Scrolls and fragments of scrolls were found. These ancient writings

became the center of attention for the media, as well as for students of the

Bible and archaeology. Like sheep desiring water, a Bedouin shepherd had

led a thirsty world to the most acclaimed find of the twentieth century, the

Dead Sea Scrolls.

Many claims have been made regarding the Scrolls. Some, while drink-

ing at this newly found fountain of knowledge, have seen the Scrolls as a

pool of Bethesda offering spiritual or academic healing of some sort.

Others have seen them as the waters of Marah, bitter and full of corrup-

tion. Perhaps the best way to view them is to see them for what they are,

scrolls written by scribes. Like the many writings of men, they offer things

that are both sweet and bitter.

At least five hundred different scribes were responsible for writing the

Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of the Scrolls are dated before the time of Christ,

while some are dated during and after Christ. One wonders if any of the

writers of the Scrolls heard the message of Jesus Christ and his condemna-

tion for not practicing what they had copied (Matthew 23:13). What is

certain, however, is that those scribes who heard the Savior’s message had

access to what became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Historical Background

The story tells of a shepherd boy, Muhammad adh-Dhib (which means

Muhammad the wolf), out seeking his lost goat (or sheep according to

some accounts). Thinking that the animal had wandered into one of the

many nearby caves, Muhammad threw a stone into one of them hoping to

hear the sound of his lost goat scurrying off. Instead, he heard the sound

of a jar breaking. Calling one of his friends, he entered the cave and found

ancient manuscripts lying in the cave, hidden in primitive jars.

There are other versions concerning Muhammad adh-Dhib and his

amazing discovery. One account says the fifteen-year-old shepherd was

simply herding some goats when he found the cave. Still other accounts

say that Muhammad adh-Dhib was seeking shelter from a storm in the

cave when he came across the manuscripts. There is also the story of shep-

herds who were smuggling goods from Jordan to Bethlehem who inadver-

tently found the Scrolls.

Regardless which account of the story is true, the seven scrolls discov-

ered in this cave are very significant findings. The scrolls found in what

was later designated as Cave 1 were the two Isaiah Scrolls (1QIsa.a and

1QIsa.b), The Habakkuk Commentary, The Manual of Discipline, The

Thanksgiving Scroll, The War Scroll, and the Genesis Apocryphon. Later,

additional manuscripts were discovered revealing the vast majority of the

Old Testament books along with additional religious and secular writings.

Scholars consider these scrolls and fragments to be the greatest manuscript

discovery of modern times.

Cave 1 is located in the northwest corner of the Dead Sea, about a mile

and a half from the shore line in what was then the Wilderness of Jordan.

It also stands about a mile from the Khirbet Qumran, the old ruins

believed to be the dwelling place of the Essene sect. However, at the time

of the discovery, Qumran was thought of as an old fortress.

Dr. Eliezer Sukenik, who purchased some of the shepherd’s findings,

took three of the scrolls to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The other

scrolls were sold to St. Mark’s, a Syrian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem,

where the church’s head, Metropolitan Mar Samuel, retained them.

Samuel took the scrolls to the American School of Oriental Research, also

in Jerusalem, for their examination. It was then that an announcement

was made to the world. In the Times of London an article dated April 12,

1948, read as follows:

Yale University announced yesterday the discovery in

Palestine of the earliest known manuscript of the Book of

Isaiah. It was found in the Syrian monastery of St. Mark in

Jerusalem, where it had been preserved in a scroll of parch-

ment dating to about the first century BC. Recently it was

identified by scholars of the American School of Oriental

Research at Jerusalem.

There were also examined at the school three other ancient

Hebrew scrolls. One was part of a commentary on the Book of

Habakkuk; another seemed to be a manual of discipline of

some comparatively little-known sect or monastic order, possi-

bly the Essenes. The third scroll has not been identified.194

Dr. Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin (also noted as a Qumran expert), was in

the United States in 1954. Mar Samuel was visiting the United States at

that same time seeking to sell his scrolls. Yadin purchased the four scrolls

from Mar Samuel for $250,000 dollars and gave them to the newly

formed state of Israel. The seven scrolls were united and placed in a special

museum, shaped like the lid of one of the jars in which the scrolls were

kept. The museum is known as the Shrine of the Book.

It was difficult to excavate the caves in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s,

an unsettled period in Middle Eastern history. By the time the importance

of the scrolls was known, the state of Israel was being formed. War raged

in the Middle East. Despite this turbulent interval, the Bedouins contin-

ued to search the region and discovered additional scrolls. Eventually,

eleven caves were excavated and thousands of fragments were discovered.

Through the years these scrolls and scroll fragments have gradually been

translated and published. Many of the manuscripts remained unpublished

195

until the early 1990’s.

Dating the Scrolls has always been a problem as not all scholars agree in

this area. For the most part, the Scrolls are dated from about the third cen-

tury BC to around 68 AD. The method of dating rests on several factors.

Findings among the Scrolls or at Qumran, such as pots and coins, have

helped set certain dates. Paleography, the science of dating manuscripts by

the shape of letters used in writing, also helps determine the dates of the

Scrolls. Carbon-14 dating was used on the cloth that held one of the

Isaiah scrolls, but until recently Carbon-14 dating could not be used on

the Scrolls themselves because it required a large section of a scroll to be

destroyed. Now Carbon-14 dating methods have improved and only a

small fragment is needed for this process. George Bonani in the Biblical

Archaeology Review reports that the dates fixed by paleography have been

confirmed by Carbon-14 dating.196 It is interesting, however, that the

Masada manuscript of Joshua, which is of the Masoretic Text, had been

dated by scholars as written somewhere around 30 AD according to pale-

ographic studies. Carbon-14 dating on the same manuscript gave it a

range of 150 to 75 BC.

Textual Variance Among The Scrolls

Some have mistakenly assumed that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain only

biblical writings. Actually the Scrolls reflect a library scattered throughout

eleven caves, containing biblical and non-biblical books. Some are still in

scroll form, but most are fragmentary after over two thousand years of

aging. With the exceptions of Esther and Nehemiah, every book of the

197

Old Testament is represented in the findings at Qumran. It should be

noted, however, that representation and full representation are not the same

thing. Some books are represented with only fragmentary evidence in very

limited number, while other books are better and more fully represented

among the findings.

In the most current published lists of manuscripts among the Dead Sea

Scrolls there are thirty-six manuscripts which represent the Book of

Psalms, making it the most represented biblical book among the Scrolls.

Deuteronomy follows with twenty-nine manuscripts and Isaiah with

twenty-one. First and Second Chronicles are represented by only one

manuscript, as is Ezra. Most of the others are represented by fewer than

ten manuscripts. The exceptions are those previously listed, as well as

Genesis (with fifteen manuscripts), Exodus (with seventeen), and

Leviticus (with thirteen). There are about eight hundred manuscripts

among the Scrolls. Of these, slightly over two hundred represent biblical

books, which means only about one-fourth of the Qumran library con-

tained copies of the Scriptures.

It should also be pointed out that not all of these biblical books repre-

sent the same textual history. The biblical books found at Qumran are

divided into three textual categories:

1. Manuscripts that represent the Masoretic Traditional Text.

2. Manuscripts that represent the text of the Septuagint.

3. Manuscripts that represent the Samaritan text.

However, according to Dr. Emanuel Tov, who became co-editor-in-

chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991, there are two additional groups.

4. Texts that demonstrate a unique style of writing, spelling, and

grammar found only at Qumran.

5. Nonaligned texts that do not show any allegiance to the four other

groups. About twenty-five percent of the biblical manuscripts

found at Qumran fall into the nonaligned category.198

The Proto-Masoretic Text

These manuscripts are called Proto-Masoretic because they agree with

the Masoretic Text, yet date before the Masoretic Text became the official

Hebrew Bible. It should be noted that the Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly

enhanced the evidence supporting the authority of the Masoretic Text.

Until the findings at Qumran (as well as findings at Wadi Murabbaat), the

oldest Masoretic Texts dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now

have manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic. Most

of the scrolls from Cave 4 are of this text-type and represent biblical books

such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, and some fragments of the

Law and Historical books.

The most noted group is perhaps the Isaiah Scrolls. Two scrolls con-

taining the book of Isaiah were found in Cave 1. The first is sometimes

called the St. Mark’s Manuscript (1QIsa.a) because it was initially owned

by St. Mark’s Monastery. The second is sometimes called the Hebrew

University manuscript of Isaiah (1QIsa.b) because it is owned by that uni-

versity. Both represent the Masoretic Hebrew Text and are major victories

for the Masoretic Text and the Authorized Version.

Textual scholar Dr. James C. VanderKam has pointed out that 1QIsa.a

is almost identical to the copies of Isaiah dating to the Middle Ages. Any

differences are minor and hardly ever affect the meaning of the text. Dr.

Menahem Mansoor, another textual scholar, has likewise stated that most

of the differences are spelling or grammatical changes. Those that do not

fall into this type are minor, such as an omission or addition of a word or

two, or the mixing of Hebrew letters. One such minor variant is found

in Isaiah 6:3. The Masoretic Text and the King James Bible read, “Holy,

holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts.” The St. Mark’s Isaiah text reads, “Holy,

holy is the LORD of hosts.” Therefore, while 1QIsa.a may be in error in

its omission of the third holy, the contents of this scroll overwhelmingly

support the Masoretic Text.

As close as this scroll is to the Masoretic tradition, the Hebrew

University’s Isaiah scroll is closer. Textual scholar Dr. Ernst Wurthwein

concurred, calling the agreement between 1QIsa.b and the Masoretic

Text “striking.” Considering that a thousand years separate the Isaiah

Scrolls from their Masoretic counterparts, the term striking may be an

understatement. In either case, the evidence from Qumran demon-

strates the Traditional Hebrew Text existed long before the Middle Ages,

once again establishing the biblical principle of preservation.

About forty percent of the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are

Masoretic. Further, the group of manuscripts listed by Dr. Tov as unique

to Qumran also resembles the later Masoretic Text. These texts account

for twenty-five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore, among the bib-

lical books of Dead Sea Scrolls, sixty-five percent reflect the Traditional

Text of the Old Testament.

Providing additional support to the Masoretic readings among the

Dead Sea Scrolls are findings at Wadi Murabbaat and Masada. In 1951,

caves at Wadi Murabbaat, which is south of Qumran near the Dead Sea,

were discovered which contained biblical manuscripts. The major differ-

ence here is that these biblical texts exclusively reflect the Masoretic Text.

These manuscripts, however, are slightly younger and are believed to have

been written between 132 and 135 AD. Still, their relationship to the

Masoretic Text of the Middle Ages is virtually identical to that of the

Proto-Masoretic Qumran group.205 The findings at Murabbaat include the

Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and the book of Psalms.

Between 1963 and 1965 manuscripts were discovered while excavating

Masada, the famous rock fortress where Jewish nationalists withheld the

advances of the Roman army in 73 or 74 AD. Masada is farther south of

Qumran than Wadi Murabbaat, along the western coast of the Dead Sea.

These manuscripts must date before the fall of the fortress, which place

them before 74 AD. Fourteen scrolls containing biblical texts were found

that agree extensively with the Masoretic Text. The only possible exception

to this amazing agreement is the book of Ezekiel, and even there the textual

206

variants are extremely minor.

The Proto-Septuagint Text

Only five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint. These

are texts written in Hebrew that reflect a reading closer to the Greek

Septuagint than the Traditional Text. For example, the Greek Septuagint

and the text of Jeremiah found at Qumran (4QJer.b) agree in omitting a

healthy portion of the text. The Septuagint and Qumran text (4QExod.a)

agree in stating the number of descendants from Jacob are seventy-five,

instead of the seventy listed in the Masoretic Text. Some have assumed

that Stephen was citing either the Septuagint or the Proto-Septuagint text

of Qumran in giving the number as seventy-five (Acts 7:14 and Exodus

1:5). Yet, this can also be explained by the way the family was numbered

and not the text Stephen was citing.207

The Proto-Samaritan Text

As with the Proto-Septuagint textual type of the Dead Sea Scrolls,

only five percent of the manuscripts found comprise the Proto-

Samaritan textual type. The Samaritan Pentateuch, as indicated by the

name, consisted solely of the five books of Moses. The Hebrew text is

often the same as the Masoretic Text with differences in spelling rather

than textual variants. However, there are nineteen hundred variants

that agree with the text of the Septuagint over that of the Masoretic.

This text also has some additions to it.

The information concerning the various textual types found among the

Dead Sea Scrolls, along with other findings in that region, should reveal

something to the reader. First, as in any library, the one at Qumran

demonstrates a diversity of material. Is this not to be expected? If a student

were to visit my personal library they would discover a wide variety of

texts and general information. Second, considering the extensive use of

the Masoretic Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and its exclusive use in other

manuscript findings near the Dead Sea, the Traditional Hebrew Text must

be unquestionably authoritative.

Who Wrote The Scrolls?

The vast majority of scholars answer this question by stating that the

Essenes, a strict Jewish sect that lived in piety and isolation, wrote the

Dead Sea Scrolls. Like other Jewish groups such as the Pharisees and

Sadducees, the Essenes were both a religious group and a political one.

Some have suggested the Essenes were a splinter group of the Pharisees.

The Jewish philosopher Philo wrote that a group of Essenes lived west

of the Dead Sea in the wilderness.209 Some assume that the ruins found at

Qumran must have been the dwelling place of the Essenes because it fits

the general location. Likewise, since John the Baptist dwelt in this same

wilderness, some have concluded John was part of the Essenes sect, or else

was influenced by the strict teachings of the Essenes. However, such con-

210

clusions overstep biblical and historical facts. Josephus provides addi-

tional information about the Essenes. In his Antiquities of the Jews, he

states that the Essenes lived in groups, having all things in common. They

“neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the lat-

ter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic

quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another”

(XVIII. 1:5). They believed in the immortality of the soul and that an

eternal reward awaited those who lived a righteous life.

Certainly many of the writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the

views and teachings of the Essenes. The ruins found a mile away from

Cave 1 at Qumran most certainly could have been from an Essenes com-

munity. Nevertheless, there are those who have come to different conclu-

sions as to who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and about the community at

Qumran. One such scholar is Dr. Norman Golb, author of Who Wrote The

Dead Sea Scrolls? Dr. Golb is a recognized authority on Qumran who

believes that the Scrolls are the remains of the Jewish library located in

Jerusalem. He contends that various scrolls were hidden in the wilderness

to protect the Jerusalem Library from the Romans when they destroyed

the Second Temple and the city in 70 AD. He also maintains that the city

of Qumran was not the dwelling place of the Essenes, but was a fortress

against the Romans. Dr. Golb makes a comparison between the structures

at Qumran and the military rock fortress at Masada. He notes that accord-

ing to Josephus, the Essenes were not limited to a single settlement, but

were found in every city of Palestine.

Dr. Golb also points to evidence within the Dead Sea Scrolls them-

selves. One of the scrolls found was not written on leather, like all the

other scrolls, but on flattened copper plates that were riveted together to

form a scroll (hence it has been dubbed by scholars The Copper Scroll). It

tells of treasure from the Temple that was hidden so that the Romans

would not pillage it. Part of the Temple treasure includes a library. In

accordance with this, Dr. Golb points to the Apocryphal book of 2

Maccabees as evidence that the Jews historically hid their books when ene-

mies approached.

The same things also were reported in the writings and com-

mentaries of Neemias; and how he founding a library gathered

together the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and of David,

and the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts. In like

manner also Judas gathered together all those things that were

lost by reason of the war we had, and they remain with us.

Wherefore if ye have need thereof, send some to fetch them

unto you. (2 Maccabees 2:13-15).

Dr. Golb notes that handwriting experts have detected the Dead Sea

Scrolls were written by over five hundred various scribes. He states:

I began to see that the growing number of scripts was starting

to pose still another problem for the sectarian hypothesis [i.e.,

that the Essenes had lived together and were responsible for

writing the scrolls]: How many scribes, after all, could have

lived together at Khirbet Qumran at any one time, or even

over three or four generations?.. .Had the scrolls been written

by fewer than two hundred scribes—a number that one might

perhaps live with in defending the notion of a sectarian scrip-

torium at Qumran—or by a much greater number of copyists

as I had begun to suspect? The matter was obviously of crucial

importance. I did not know that two more decades would

elapse before facsimiles of all the Cave 4 manuscripts would be

published in the wake of an acute controversy, and that they

would confirm that at least five hundred scribes had copied

the scrolls.

Dr. Golb recognizes that his view is strongly rejected by the majority

of modern scholars. Yet, he is not alone in his view. In the 1950s,

Professor K. H. Rengstorf of the University of Munster in Germany

suggested that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the remains of the Jerusalem

library. Although Professor Rengstorf had arrived at his conclusion

years before Golb, and did so for different reasons, their view still has a

common centrality: The Scrolls must have come from Jerusalem and

not the sectarian writings of the Essenes. According to Rengstorf and

Golb, the Essenes would not have had such a variety of views within

their writings since they were sectarian. However, the library at

Jerusalem would contain such diverse writings.

Regardless of who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can safely state that

there is little in them that can be used against the Traditional Hebrew

Text. In fact, because the evidence from Qumran overwhelming supports

the Masoretic Hebrew Text, we must say the findings at Qumran strongly

favor the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version. Additionally, as we

have seen, findings at Murabbaat and Masada exclusively support the

Masoretic Text, proving that the established text accepted as the oracles of

God (Romans 3:1-2) was the Traditional Hebrew Text. The Scrolls may

have been concealed and hidden for thousands of years, but God did not

forget them. Today, they bear testimony to the Providential Hand in the

keeping of Scripture.

Chapter 8

Textual Considerations

“Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more!

Men were deceivers ever,

One foot in sea, and one on shore;

To one thing constant never.”

-William Shakespeare: Much Ado About Nothing (1598)

There are a number of passages found in the Traditional Text that have

fallen upon hard times. With the discovery of various manuscripts and

advancements in textual criticism, we now have about six thousand places

where the Traditional Text differs from the more popular Critical Text.

Most of these are minor variants not affecting the gist of the text. Some,

however, are of greater significance.

The purpose of this chapter is not to examine all the passages that have

textual variations in them. Nor is this chapter designed to condemn the

Critical Text simply because it differs from the Traditional Text. It is the

focus of this chapter to take a closer look at the textual support of certain

passages that are currently considered erroneous. Consequently, the other

side of the textual evidence that espouses the Traditional Text and biblical

preservation is presented, establishing that what has been handed down to

us through the ages has been correct after all.

Despite one’s position concerning textual criticism, an additional

point needs to be addressed: those who profess to believe its contents

should not treat the word of God as they would any other book. Along

with sound searching and solid study, we must not forsake our faith in

biblical principles and promises. William Shakespeare is not the only

one to warn us of the folly of man and the ever-changing nature of his

comprehension. Scripture itself repeats the charge and informs us that

the arm of flesh will fail. Therefore, our confidence must be placed in

the Lord and his word (2 Chronicles 32:8; Psalm 118:8).

Matthew 6:13

The passage in question is the conclusion of what is commonly known

as the Lord’s Prayer. The prayer ends with the doxology, “For thine is the

kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” This phrase is found

in the majority of Greek manuscripts, the Greek Textus Receptus and

Majority Text, and is the reading of early English versions, the KJV, and

the NKJV. It is not found in the main body of the Critical Text or most

modern versions.

Some have argued that the prayer is the same as the one found in Luke

11:2-4. In that passage the doxology does not appear. It is then suggested

that scribes who had a habit of harmonizing various passages in the four

Gospels did so with this prayer.213 While the two passages are similar in

content it is doubtful they are the same prayer. The passage in Matthew is

given for the multitude when Jesus preached his celebrated Sermon on the

Mount. The passage in Luke is given specifically for the disciples of the

Lord when asked how they should pray. Similarity, it should be remem-

bered, does not mean sameness. It is not a surprise to find this prayer, or at

least a form of it, appearing on more than one occasion.

The question then arises: “Did the prayer in Matthew originally con-

tain the concluding phrase as found in the Traditional Text?” Among the

Greek uncials it is found in W (fifth century), L (eighth century), 0233

(eighth century), K (ninth century), A (ninth century), 0 (ninth century),

and n (tenth century). It is found in the majority of all Greek minuscules

such as: 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216,

1230, 1241, 1242, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2174 (dating from the ninth cen-

tury to the twelfth century). It is also found in the majority of all existing

Greek lectionaries. Therefore, the weight of the Greek witnesses argues for

its inclusion and validity.

It is likewise found in several ancient translations such as some Old

Latin manuscripts, the Old Syrian, and some Coptic versions. The Syriac

Peshitta (second/third century)214 reads, “And bring us not into tempta-

tion, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power,

and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen.”215 Therefore, the reading

embraces antiquity as well as geographical support.

The passage also has patristic support. The distinguished orthodox

father of the fourth century, John Chrysostom, cites this passage. He

writes, “by bringing to our remembrance the King under whom we are

arrayed, and signifying him to be more powerful than all. ‘For thine,’ saith

he, ‘is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory’.” The oldest witness,

which outdates all Greek manuscripts containing Matthew chapter six, is

the Didache (otherwise known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). This

ancient catechism dates to the early second century, shortly after 100 AD,

and contains a form of the Lord’s Prayer:

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on

the second and fifth day of the week; but do ye fast on the

fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the

hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, thus

pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on

earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us

our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into

temptation, but deliver us from evil; for Thine is the power

and the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray.217

Finally, in his studies on old papyri, Dr. George Milligan includes a sixth

century prayer that incorporates the prayer of Matthew 6:13. Despite the fact

that this papyrus is badly worn, it clearly contains the phrase in question.218

The textual evidence for the traditional reading is both ancient and massive,

and should be retained in our English translations.

Mark 1:2

The Traditional Text reads, “As it is written in the prophets,” and then

cites from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. Other texts read, “As it is written in

the Prophet Isaiah,” before quoting Malachi and Isaiah. The reading of the

Traditional Text has considerable support. It is found in many of the

Greek uncials (A, K, P, W, n), the majority of Greek minuscules (28,

1009, 1010, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1242, 1252, 1344, 1365, 1546,

1646, 2148) and the majority of Greek lectionaries. Thus the Greek sup-

port dates from the fourth century onward. Additionally we also find the

same reading in the Syriac Harclean version (616 AD), the Armenian ver-

sion (fourth/fifth century) and the Ethiopic versions of the sixth century.

It also receives patristic citations from many of the church fathers such as

the Latin version of Irenaeus (202 AD), Photius (895 AD), and

Theophylact (1077 AD).

Contextually there arises a problem with the reading as found in the

Critical Text. The passage cites both the Prophet Malachi (3:1) and the

Prophet Isaiah (40:3). The reading, “As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet,”

seems inconsistent. Nevertheless, it has been noted that Isaiah was the

major prophet and therefore he takes preeminence over Malachi. To illus-

trate this point, scholars often refer to Matthew 27:9. They claim this pas-

sage is not really a citation of Jeremiah but instead a quotation of

Zechariah 11:12. Jeremiah receives the preeminence as the major prophet.

However, this point can be argued. The text in Matthew does not say

it was written as the passage in Mark does. Instead, the text in Matthew

states, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy.” God, the

Author of Scripture, is aware of who writes what and who speaks what.

Simply because Zechariah writes the passage does not mean Jeremiah

did not speak it. Also, Zechariah warned Israel to pay attention to what

the former prophets had spoken (Zechariah 7:7). The ancient Jews had

a saying that, “the spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah.”219 Much of what

Zechariah received, he did so from both the Lord and the former

prophet, Jeremiah.

The position presented by many that some copyist made the change

from “Isaiah the Prophet” to “the prophets” in Mark 1:2 in order to cor-

rect what was perceived as a possible error is conjecture.220 One can just as

easily speculate that an Egyptian copyist not overly familiar with Jewish

Old Testament prophets recognized the Isaiah quote and made the change

for what he considered to be better clarity. The point still remains that

both sides have textual support for their respective positions. It also is

understood, as Dr. George Kilpatrick has noted, that most of these types

of textual variants were introduced into the manuscripts by the second

221

century. Therefore, one reading is as likely (textually speaking) as the

other. The difference is contextually. It is more truthful to say “the

prophets” when citing two prophets. Accordingly, the reading in the

Traditional Text is both textually substantial and contextually correct.

Mark 16:9-20

222

This passage is referred to as the longer ending of Mark. Many textual

critics doubt its authenticity, believing it was an addition made in the sec-

ond century. It often appears in modern versions in brackets with foot-

notes questioning its authenticity. Most textual scholars believe that the

text abruptly ends after verse eight. Even the so-called shorter ending that is

added after verse eight is considered to have originated in the second cen-

tury. The shorter ending reads:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that

they had been bold. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by

means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable

224

proclamation of eternal salvation.

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark’s Gospel has been

225

lost. If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is

forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same

time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they

question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of

modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is prefer-

able), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not

regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the

New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of

Christendom. The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts,

minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in most of the Greek uncials (A, C, D05, K, E, A, 0, and

n) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in the

later dated Greek minuscules (such as 137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216,

1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old

Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations.

Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such

as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose

227

(397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD).

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark

16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time

and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So

then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was

received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of

God;” confirming what had been spoken by the prophet:

“The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand,

until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Thus God and the

Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by

the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we

Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the

Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this

passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the

original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this

place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the

Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The

conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative,

that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly

denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. If we allow that a passage of

inspired Scripture has been lost from this section of the Bible, what stops

us from making the same application to other passages? It is certainly

within the realm of scholastic studies to note any and all textual differ-

ences. But once we open the possibility that this or that passage has been

lost, we are now trusting in the understanding of men over the biblical

promises of God. Certainly it is better to embrace the textual evidence and

hold to the promise of preservation.228

Luke 2:22

Here the variant is small but the difference is profound. The Authorized

Version and Textus Receptus (Beza’s edition and Elzevir’s edition) use the

phrase, “of her purification” (katharismou autes). Modern versions and the

Critical Text read, “of their purification” (katharismou auton). Contextually,

the reading must stand as reflected in the KJV. Under the Levitical Law a

woman was considered unclean after giving birth and needed purification.

The passage in Leviticus 12: 2-4 reads,

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have

conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be

unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for

her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the

flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then

continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days;

she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctu-

ary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

The citation is quite clear: this was “herpurifying” and not the purify-

ing of both mother and child. Therefore, the Authorized Version and the

Greek Textus Receptus agree with the Levitical Law.

To offset this point, some have suggested that the word them is a ref-

erence to Mary and Joseph. The argument is that since Joseph and Mary

are mentioned in verse 16 and referred to in the second half of verse 22,

the word them referred to the married couple. The obvious doctrinal

problem with this is that under the Law of Moses, as set forth in

Leviticus 12, the woman and not the husband needed purification after

giving birth. The best contextual reading agrees with the Authorized

Version, as it would support both the Old Testament Law and the

actions presented in Luke’s Gospel.229

Admittedly, the Greek support now known for the reading as found

in the Textus Receptus is extremely poor. It is found in a few Greek

230

minuscules such as 76 and a few others. There is an additional textual

variant within the Greek manuscripts. Codex D05 (sixth century),

which is highly acclaimed among textual scholars, has the reading autou

(of it). While the reading autns (of her) is preferred, both readings stand

in the genitive singular and not the plural as auton (of them).

Additionally, we find the Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic Coptic ver-

sions supporting 2174 and D05.

The reading her purification has a great deal of textual support

among the Latin witnesses. The majority of all Latin manuscripts read,

etpostquam impleti sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem mosi (And

after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses). The

Latin word eius (or ejus) means her and stands in the feminine genitive

singular, thus of her. In order to have the translation of them, the Latin

texts would have to use the word eorum. When we consider the age and

the number of extant Latin manuscripts, we find the reading is both

ancient and well substantiated. It is also interesting to note that the

reading has some support in the forged Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (pos-

sible third century). Written in Latin, it allows us to see that the purifi-

cation spoken of in Luke 2:22 was a reference to Mary. Pseudo-Matthew

reads: “Now, after the days of the purification of Mary were fulfilled

according to the law of Moses, then Joseph took the infant to the tem-

ple of the Lord” (15:1).

The translators of the Authorized Version were well aware of the textual

difference concerning this verse. The Geneva Bible and Bishops’ Bible

read, “the days of her purification.” However, Tyndale’s New Testament

and the Great Bible read, “the time of their purification.” It should be

remembered that the KJV was mainly based on the 1589 and 1598 edi-

tions of the Greek New Testament by Theodore Beza. In his annotations

Beza writes:

Most of the [Greek] Codices read “of them” and likewise so

does Origen, and unfortunately so does Erasmus. However,

they have not considered what the actual Law says about the

purification of the mother. And so consequently the old edi-

tions [of the Greek] are unfavorable…because they have dis-

torted the truth of Scripture and in some degree have lessened

the image of Mary’s purity.231

A careful reading of Beza’s note reveals that he had some textual evi-

dence, based on his study of the then-existing Greek manuscripts, for the

reading her. Additionally, he recognized that this was the reading that

agrees with the Mosaic Law. In his Latin translation, which was placed

between the Greek and the Vulgate, Beza renders the phrase as “dies pura-

tionis Mariae” (days of Mary’s purification). This would agree with

Pseudo-Matthew in substituting the word her with the name of Mary.

John 5:4

This verse is usually consigned to footnotes in most modern English

versions, and is generally considered an addition by some scribe in order

to convey a traditional story regarding the healing pool at Bethesda. Yet, to

consider this text as a figment of tradition is conjecture. The passage

should be considered genuine. It appears in the Greek Textus Receptus,

the majority of all existing Greek manuscripts, all of the early English ver-

sions, the Authorized Version, and the New King James Version.

If we are to accept a reading based on its wide geographical distribu-

tion, we should accept this reading because it has old textual support with

the greatest amount of geographical distribution. It is found in codices A,

E, F, G, H, I, K, L,and the third corrector of C. The Greek

minuscules overwhelming support the verse and is contained in 28, 565,

700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253,

1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, and 2148. It is also included in the majority of

Old Latin manuscripts and early translations.

The verse is found in the Old Coptic Version as edited from the Coptic

manuscript Huntington 17 and is translated into English as follows:

There was an angel (who) came down every hour in the pool,

and moved the water. And any one (who) shall come down

first after the moving of the water shall be healed of every sick-

ness which (may) be his.232

The same is true of the Old Syriac. James Murdock’s translation of this

passage from the Peshitta reads:

For an angel, from time to time, descended into the baptistery,

and moved the waters; and he who first went in, after the moving

of the waters, was cured of whatever disease he had.233

The passage also has patristic citations. It is found in the Diatessaron of

the second century. Tertullian (200 AD) notes that an “angel, by his inter-

234

vention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida.” The passage is also cited

by Ambrose (397 AD), Didymus (398 AD), Chrysostom (407 AD) and

Cyril (444 AD), demonstrating that both Greek and Latin fathers

accepted the reading as genuine.

John 7:53-8:11

This passage is designated as the Pericope De Adultera, referring to the woman

caught in the act of adultery. The passage is included in numerous uncials

such as D05, G, H, K, M, U, and r. Among the minuscule or cursive man-

uscripts it is in 28, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1344,

1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, and 2174. Most Greek manuscripts contain this

passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the

Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from

the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of

the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The passage has

patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (fourth century),

Ambrose (fourth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest

liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD),

Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD).

Most textual scholars consider the evidence against it to be overwhelm-

ing and reject the reading as original.235 Yet, the passage still finds its way

into the text of the majority of contemporary translations. Unlike John

5:4, which is confined to a footnote, this passage is retained in the text but

usually separated with brackets (as with Mark 16:9-20). If the evidence

against it is so convincing and the text is not considered genuine, should

not this entire passage be removed from the text itself as other shorter pas-

sages are? If one is to remove smaller sections, would not consistency

demand the same be done with larger sections if the amount of textual evi-

dence is either the same or greater? Perhaps it is a matter of acceptance.

Since this passage is beloved by the majority of the Bible reading public, to

remove it from the text would be unthinkable.

Supporters of the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, on the other

hand, have soundly defended the authenticity of this passage. The vast

majority of all known Greek manuscripts contain this section. It is clearly

part of the Traditional Text. Additionally, the internal evidence demon-

strates that this passage is original. If we remove it we have a very erratic

jump in textual thought.

The question arises as to why this passage was ever omitted. We find

the answer in church history. Augustine makes an astounding statement

concerning the authenticity of the passage. After citing the forgiving

phrase of Christ, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more,”

Augustine writes:

This proceeding, however, shocks the minds of some weak

believers, or rather unbelievers and enemies of the Christian

faith: inasmuch that, after (I suppose) of its giving their wives

impunity of sinning, they struck out from their copies of the

Gospel this that our Lord did in pardoning the woman taken

in adultery: as if He granted leave of sinning, Who said, Go

and sin no more!

Augustine implies some fearful scribes who thought the inclusion

might lead to adultery omitted this passage. This argument not only seems

logical, but also consistent with human nature. It is, at least, as good as

modern scholarship’s view that the passage was added as a piece of oral tra-

dition apart from inspiration.238

Acts 8:37

Here the testimony of this faithful and beloved African, the Ethiopian

eunuch, does not appear in the Critical Text. Some have argued that the

verse is not genuine because it is found in only a few late manuscripts and

was inserted into the Greek text by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. It is

true that the passage appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. However, the

passage also appears in a vast number of other Old Latin manuscripts

(such as l, m, e, r, ar, ph, and gig). It also is found in the Greek Codex E

(eighth century) and several Greek manuscripts (36, 88, 97, 103, 104,

242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 610, 629, 630, 913,

945, 1522, 1678, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others). While there are

differences even among these texts as to precise wording, the essence of the

testimony still remains where it has been removed from other manu-

239

scripts. Additionally, Irenaeus (202 AD), Cyprian (258 AD),

Ambrosiaster (fourth century), Pacian (392 AD), Ambrose (397 AD),

Augustine (430 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD) all cite Acts 8:37.

The natural question posed by textual scholars is this: if the text were

genuine, why would any scribe wish to delete it? 240 In his commentary

on the book of Acts, Dr. J. A. Alexander provides a possible answer. By

the end of the third century it had become common practice to delay

the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly under-

stood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the

241

various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time. It is possible that a

scribe, believing that baptism should not immediately follow conver-

sion, omitted this passage from the text, which would explain its absence

in many of the Greek manuscripts that followed. Certainly this conjec-

ture is as possible as the various explanations offered by those who reject

the reading.

Nevertheless, because of biblical preservation, the reading remains in some

Greek manuscripts as well as in the Old Latin manuscripts. Clearly the read-

ing is far more ancient than the sixth century, as some scholars have sug-

gested. Irenaeus noted that “the believing eunuch himself:. immediately

requesting to be baptized, he said, ‘I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of

242

God’.” Likewise, Cyprian quotes the first half of the verse in writing, “In

the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me

from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart,

243

thou mayest’.” These statements, clearly quotations ofActs 8:37, appear by

the end of the second century and at the first half of the third. We see that the

passage was in common use long before the existing Greek manuscripts were

ever copied. This in itself testifies to its authenticity and to the assurance of

biblical preservation.

Acts 9:5-6

The phrase from verse five, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,”

is in the Old Latin and some Vulgate manuscripts. It is also in the Peshitta

and the Greek of Codex E and 431, but in verse four instead of verse five.

The passage from verse six that reads, “And he trembling and astonished

said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him” is in

the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate, and some of the Old Syrian and Coptic

versions. These phrases, however, are not found in the vast majority of

Greek manuscripts and therefore do not appear in either the Critical Text

or the Majority Text. Yet, they are included in the Textus Receptus. On the

surface the textual evidence looks weak. Why, then, should the Textus

Receptus be accepted over the majority of Greek witnesses at this point?

Because the phrases are preserved in other languages, and the internal evi-

dence establishes that Christ in fact spoke these words at the time of Paul’s

conversion and are therefore authentic.

Acts chapter nine is not the only place in Scripture where the con-

version of Paul is established. In Acts 22:10 and 26:14 we have the tes-

timony of the Apostle himself. There, in all Greek texts, the phrases in

question appear.

Acts 22:10

And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise,

and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things

which are appointed for thee to do.

Acts 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking

unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why perse-

cutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

When the apostle Paul recounts his conversion he cites the words in

question. It is certain that the Holy Spirit inspired these words which

should be included at Acts 9:5-6. We must conclude that these words were

spoken when the event originally occurred. Although they have not been

preserved in the Greek manuscripts at Acts 9:6, they have been preserved

in the Latin manuscripts (ar, c, h, l, p, ph, t) as well as other translations

(Georgian, Slavonic, Ethiopic). The greatest textual critic of all, the Holy

Spirit, bears witness to their authenticity by including them in Acts 22:10

and 26:14.

A similar example may be noted in Matthew 19:17, although the tex-

tual evidence is much stronger there. The King James Version reads, “And

he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,

that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Modern texts render “why callest thou me good” to “why do you ask me

about what is good.” Also, the reply of Christ, “there is none good but

one, that is, God” is rendered “there is only one who is good.”

This verse, as it stands in the King James, wonderfully establishes the

deity of Jesus Christ. If only God is good and Christ is called good, he

must be God. The Greek support for the reading of the KJV, as presented

in the Traditional Text, is substantial. Among the uncials it is found in C

and W (fifth century), K and A (ninth century) and a few others. It is the

reading of the majority of Greek cursives and lectionaries. It is also the

reading of the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, the Coptic, and other early

translations. The textual evidence is much stronger than that of Acts 9:5-

6. Similarly, this passage has additional references to determine what the

original reading must be. Again the Holy Spirit comes to the aid of this

textual problem by providing for us two other places where this event is

cited. In both cases there is no textual variant in the places supporting the

disputed passage.

Mark 10:18

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none

good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18:19

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good,

save one, that is, God.

In neither passage does the Lord say anything like, “Why do you ask

me about what is good?” And, in both passages we find the noun “God.”

Therefore, we do not have to ask ourselves which reading in Matthew

19:17 is correct because the Holy Spirit has made it clear in additional

passages which one is the correct reading. The same principle may be

applied to Acts 9:5-6. Once again God bears testimony to his word.

Romans 8:1

The phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’ appears in

verses one and four. Most scholars consider this a special type of scribal

error called dittography, which is the repetition of a letter, syllable, word,

or phrase. The thought is that a scribe accidentally copied the phrase from

verse four in verse one, and that the textual error repeated itself in later

manuscripts. Scribal errors do occur as is testified in the large amount of

variants within the textual witnesses. However, just because a word or

phrase is repeated does not mean that a scribal error has occurred.

The Greek phrase me kata sarka peripatousin alla kata penuma (who

walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit) is supported by the vast major-

ity of Greek manuscripts. Among them are 33, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330,

451, 614, 630, 1241, 1877, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2492, and 2495. These

date from the eleventh to the fifteenth century. The phrase is also included

in Codex K (ninth century), Codex P (ninth century), and stands in the

margin of Codex Sinaiticus. This is also the reading of the majority of

Greek lectionaries. Early versions that contain the phrase include some

Old Latin manuscripts (such as ar and o), the Harclean version, and the

Georgian version. Another textual variant that contains part of the phrase

reads me kata sarka peripatousin (who walk not after the flesh). This is the

reading found in A, D06, V, and several minuscules (such as 81, 256,

263, 365, 629, 1319, 1573, 1852, and 2127). It is also the reading of the

244

Latin Vulgate (fourth century), and the Peshitta. The reading in part or

in whole has massive and ancient textual support.

The whole verse is cited, with the phrase in question, by Theodoret

(466 AD), Ps-Oecumenius (tenth century), and Theophylact (1077 AD).

We also have partial citation of the verse by Basil (379 AD). He writes:

And after he has developed more fully the idea that it is impos-

sible for one who is in the power of sin to serve the Lord, he

plainly states who it is that redeems us from such a tyrannical

dominion in the words: “Unhappy man that I am, who shall

deliver me from the body of this death? I give thanks to God

through Jesus Christ, our Lord.” Further on, he adds: “There

is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ

Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh.”

When the phrase is not included it creates a possible doctrinal problem.

To say there is no condemnation of any kind to all who are in Christ Jesus is

to overlook the whole of Scripture. We are told that it is very possible for

those who are in Christ to suffer some condemnation, albeit not eternal

condemnation. The Christian who walks after the flesh instead of the lead-

ing of the Spirit produces works of wood, hay and stubble (1 Corinthians

3:12). Everyone’s works will be tried so as by fire. Fleshly works will be

burned and spiritual works will endure. We are told, “If any man’s work

shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by

fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15). Therefore, worldly Christians face a certain

amount of condemnation.

We must remember that the word condemnation not only carries the

246

meaning of judgment, but also of disapproval. John informs his “little

children” that the heart of the believer is able to pass such condemnation

or disapproval on our Christian living (1 John 3:20-21). Not only is there

a judgment for believers who stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ (1

Corinthians 3:12-15; 2 Corinthians 5:9-10), but there can also be a judg-

ment on believers that may cost them their lives if they continue in sin

(Acts 5:1-10; 1 John 5:16). Biblically speaking, there is condemnation for

believers who walk after the flesh and not after the Spirit. Consequently,

the phrase at the end of Romans 8:1 is theologically sound.

1 John 5:7

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the

247

majority of Greek manuscripts. However, the verse is a wonderful testi-

mony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English

versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the

external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Evidence: Although not found in most Greek manu-

scripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629

(fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century),

2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in

the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelfth

century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are

about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not

248

contain the Comma. It is clear that the reading found in the Textus

Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek

witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as

genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the

genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7.

Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts sup-

porting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the

reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John

2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts sup-

porting it, while the majority reading panta (all things) has four hundred

ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading

over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the

First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, sim-

ply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being con-

sidered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for

the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Latin man-

uscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt

if the Comma was a part of Jerome’s original Vulgate, the evidence sug-

gests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the

Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which

also the names of three, i.e., of water, of blood, and of spirit,

do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of

the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic

faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the

249

Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma.

Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the

Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: “The Lord

says, ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and

250

the Son and the Holy Spirit, And these three are one’.” Also, there is no

doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says “and there are three which give testimony on

earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in

one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the

Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in

Christ Jesus.”

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the

Varimadum (380 AD) states: “And John the Evangelist says,.And there

are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the

252

Spirit, and these three are one’.” Additionally, Cassian (435 AD),

Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops

in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma.253 Therefore, we see that

the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the

Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine

in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as “the Word.” If 1 John 5:7

were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we

would expect the verse to use “Son” instead of “Word.” However, the verse

uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and pro-

vides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels

between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it

comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of

three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself.

Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the

neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a partici-

ple that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare

witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor

grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the

same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are

three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is

found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns

(Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the

Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing

verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be mascu-

line because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were

not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the

authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar

resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes refer-

ring to John:

…(he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened

upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender

he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the defini-

tions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid

down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine

Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the

neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the

Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you your-

selves disclaim in the case of deity?254

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek gram-

mar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other schol-

ars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert

Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal

Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in

his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a

part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in

the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we

must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.255

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possi-

ble, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the

providential hand of God and his use of the Traditional Text in the

Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

Revelation 22:19

While the focus of this verse deals with the phrase “book of life,” as

opposed to “tree of life,” the issue is deeper. The manuscript Codex 1r used

by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is

missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two. It is thought

that Erasmus took the Latin Vulgate and retranslated these verses back

into Greek.256 Assuming this hypothesis is true we must ask ourselves the

following questions. First, if Erasmus did make use of the Latin Vulgate to

supply these last six verses, has the usage of the Latin corrupted the text?

Second, was Codex 1r really the only Greek manuscript used by Erasmus

for this passage?

Certainly the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Textus Receptus are similar

in these last six verses. This, of course, would be natural if the Latin was

based on early Greek manuscripts that correspond with the Textus

Receptus. We must remember that most of the Greek manuscripts of the

second, third, and fourth centuries have not survived the passage of time.

However, the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus are not identical either. For

example, the conclusion of Revelation 22:20 reads in the Receptus, Amen.

Nai, erchou, kurie Iesou (Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus). The Latin

reads, amen veni Domine Iesu (Amen come Lord Jesus). The Textus

Receptus includes an additional affirmation nai (even so), an addition not

found in either the Greek Critical Text or the Latin Vulgate.

If Erasmus did translate back into Greek from the Latin text, he did an

astounding job. These six verses consist of one hundred thirty-six Greek

words in the Textus Receptus, and one hundred thirty-two Greek words in

the Critical Text. There are only eighteen textual variants found within

these verses when the two texts are compared.257 Such textual variants,

both in number and nature, are common throughout the New Testament

between these two Greek texts. For example, the preceding six verses,

Revelation 22:10-15, have fourteen textual variants which are of the same

nature, and in Revelation 21:3-8 we find no fewer than twenty textual

variants. One would expect, therefore, a greater number of textual variants

if Erasmus was translating from the Latin back into Greek, and yet the

two texts are extremely close. Even if he did translate from the Latin into

Greek it would have no bearing on the doctrine of biblical preservation.

Preservation simply demands that God has kept and preserved the words

throughout the generations from the time of their inception until this

present day and even beyond. It does not demand that these words be pre-

served in the original languages only.

However, this brings us to our second question. Did Erasmus really

translate the Latin back into Greek? Textual scholar Herman C. Hoskier

argued that Erasmus did not do this. Instead, he suggests that Erasmus

used other Greek manuscripts such as 2049 (which Hoskier calls 141),

and the evidence seems to support this position.258 Manuscript 2049 con-

tains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual vari-

ant of Revelation 22:19. To this we can also add the Greek manuscript

evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067.

Additionally, the Greek text copied by Erasmus in Revelation 22:16-

21 reflects a consistency that is found elsewhere in the Textus Receptus,

suggesting that it was copied from other Greek manuscripts and not

translated from the Latin back into Greek. In Revelation 22:16 we find

the phrase tou dabid (the David) in the Textus Receptus as opposed to

the Critical Text’s dauid (David). While the English would translate the

two identically, it is interesting to note that in Revelation 3:7 we find

the same thing. In that passage the Textus Receptus places the definite

article before the name of David just as it does in Revelation 22:16,

while the Critical Text does not use the definite article before David’s

name in either passage.

To counter this, it has been noted that within the text of Erasmus at

Revelation 22:16-21 there are a few unusual spellings; for example, elthe

(come) instead of the normal erchou (come). This suggests that Erasmus

was copying from a Greek manuscript and not translating from the Latin.

Erasmus, it should be remembered, was one of the greatest scholars and

thinkers of his day. He was fluent in Greek and several other languages.

He would have known that the normal New Testament word for come is

not elthe but is instead erchou. In fact, Erasmus used erchou in Revelation

22:7; 22:12; and even in 22:20. There must have been a reason for

Erasmus to depart from the normal form of the word and write elthe in

22:17. Moreover, the Latin for come in 22:17 is the same Latin word in

22:20, veni. This further suggests that Erasmus was not really translating

from the Latin, but was using an additional Greek manuscript other than

Codex 1r.

Likewise, there is textual evidence for the reading book of life instead of

tree of life. As noted above, the reading is found in a few Greek manu-

scripts. It is the main reading among the Latin witnesses. The phrase book

of life is also the reading of the Old Bohairic version. Finally, it is the read-

ing found in the writings of Ambrose (397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth

century), Primasius (552 AD) and Haymo (ninth century).

One must also consider the internal evidence. The phrase tree of life

appears seven times in the Old Testament and three times in the New

Testament. In these verses we are told we will be able to eat of this tree,

and that this tree of Eden will reappear in Eternity. The idea that one can

have their share taken away from the tree of life seems abnormal to

Scripture. However, the phrase book of life appears seven other times in the

New Testament (Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15;

and 21:27). In each case we find the book of life either contains or does

not contain names, or names are blotted out of it. Therefore, the phrase,

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this

prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,” is

extremely consistent with the biblical texts.

As can be seen from this text, the warning is ominous. While one may

understand this passage to apply only to the book of Revelation, it is clear

from other passages that the same is true of the whole of Scripture

(Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6). When applied to the verses discussed

in this chapter we must conclude that somewhere in the process of trans-

mission someone either added to the text or omitted from it. There’s the

rub, and it should be taken seriously. Scholarship is a noble and honorable

profession. However, it ceases to be both if it seeks to usurp the authority

of the Lord God. After all, our commitment does not so much rest with

our scholarship as it does with the ultimate Scholar.

Chapter 9

Translational Considerations

“’Tis written: ‘In the beginning was the Word!’

Here now I’m balked! Who’ll put me in accord?

It is impossible, the Word so high to prize,

I must translate it otherwise”

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Faust (1808)

Shortly after the Authorized Version was first published in 1611 it came

under fire. In 1612 Hebrew scholar Hugh Broughton wrote a thesis enti-

tled, A Censure of the Late Translation for Our Churches, in which he expos-

tulated the new translation. Broughton had been considered for a position

as one of the translators but was overlooked. Therefore, his reproach for

the King James Version may have been a result of not being placed on the

committee. Nevertheless, it does establish that very early this beloved ver-

sion was condemned by some. Time has not changed such condemnation.

In fact, there has been a revival of criticism as contemporary versions have

found their way into the mainstream of the Bible reading public.

Such criticism is usually unwarranted and frequently demonstrates the

lack of perspective offered by the one who is disparaging the translation.

An anecdote involving one of the KJV translators, Dr. Richard Kilby, pro-

vides for us a wonderful example of this very thing. Kilby, who had

headed the Old Testament group at Oxford, was in the congregation of a

young minister who found fault with a certain way a phrase was translated

in the KJV. The minister, who did not realize that Kilby was in his con-

gregation, offered his own translation as the correct one and questioned

why it had not been considered. After the service, Kilby took the parson

aside and addressed the issue noting that the translators had indeed con-

sidered the parson’s reading as well as thirteen other readings. However,

because of the Hebrew syntax, they had settled on the reading found in

the KJV.259

Hebrew and Greek words can be translated in more than one way.

Those familiar with Biblical languages know that many phrases have sev-

eral meanings. Therefore, it is a risky thing to suggest the translators have

erred. In most cases such objections reflect the shortsightedness of the

critic, or else his or her lack of understanding either the original or host

languages. It is one thing to offer another possible translation and another

to state that a translation is in error. More times than not, the one who is

mistaken is the critic.

Mark 6:20

“For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy,

and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard

him gladly.”

It is suggested that the phrase observed him is incorrect and should be

translated kept him safe. The problem is not with the translation, but

with the lack of comprehending the English language. According to

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the word observe comes from

the Latin word observare, which means to watch, guard, and observe. This

agrees with Dr. John C. Traupman’s Latin Dictionary which defines obser-

vare as “to watch, watch out for, take careful note of; to guard; to observe,

keep, obey, comply with; to pay attention to, pay respect to.”262 Further,

the Oxford English Dictionary offers the definition of observe as, “To regard

with attention; to watch; to watch over, look after.”

For the most part, we think of the word observe as meaning to watch,

study, or take notice of. However, it also means to keep, protect, or preserve. For

example, we speak of observing the speed limit. We do not mean that we are

watching how fast we travel down the road; we mean we are obeying or keep-

ing the law of the land. Some observe the Sabbath or a religious holiday.

Again, this means they keep or respect the day. When the Coast Guard

speaks of observing our shores, they are protecting them. So it is with forest

rangers who set up observation posts for the purpose of watching and protect-

ing the wilderness. Both observe and preserve mean to keep something. This is

why the same Greek word is used in Luke 2:19 and is translated as kept:

“Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.”

The Greek word is suntereo. In The Analytical Greek Lexicon this word is

defined as “to observe strictly, or to secure from harm, protect.” James

H. Moulton and George Milligan note that one of the uses of this word in

ancient non-literary writings was when “a veteran claims that in view of

his long military service, exemption from public burdens ought to be

‘strictly observed’ in his case.” Clearly either observe or kept safe are

proper translations.

Luke 20:26

“And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they mar-

velled at his answer, and held their peace.”

This passage, along with some others, is considered an error by some

because the Greek word rhematos (word) is translated in the plural

instead of the singular. On the surface, and to those who only have a

general understanding of the Greek language, the complaint seems

legitimate. The Greek word does stand in the singular and most cer-

tainly can be translated as a word. Most modern versions translate it as

saying, thus using the singular instead of the plural. The KJV and

NKJV translate it as words.

Both renderings are correct. The Greek word rhematos (or rhema) can

refer to a word. It also can refer to a group of words gathered together in

a single discourse, speech, or clause. That is how it is used in this verse.

The saying (rhematos) that proceeds this verse is the famous phrase from

Christ regarding our duty to both God and government. Christ states,

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto

God the things which be God’s” (Luke 20:25). This was the saying at

which they marveled. As with all sayings, it does not consist of a single

word but exists as several words. A saying, speech, or discourse contains

words. Therefore, it is proper to translate the singular (which is in refer-

ence to the clause) in the plural (which is likewise in reference to the

clause). As with idioms, they can be translated literally but are better

translated colloquially. Consider the following example: “I would like to

have a word with you.” While the singular is used in this idiom it is not

to be understood literally. Instead, it is understood in the plural.

Likewise is the use of rhematos in Luke 20:26. While the singular is used,

referring to a clause, the plural is understood.

Still, this verse serves to illustrate a point regarding translations. A lit-

eral translation need not be strictly word-for-word in every instance. To do

so would render a translation that would be wooden and extremely diffi-

cult to read. When we have idioms and expressions used in the original

languages that would allow the reader to take the words in a less than lit-

eral fashion, it is proper to render them in like manner in the translation.

The Greek reader of Luke 20:26 would never understand this to mean

that Christ only spoke one singular word. The reader would understand

that several words were spoken and that the reference concerns the dis-

course itself. This is something we find throughout the New Testament

with other Greek words and phrases. To think of these as translational

errors reveals the quality of comprehension lacking in the denouncement.

John 1:18

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in

the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. “

There are really two problems here, although only one appears on the

surface. Should the proper translation be “only begotten Son” or should it

be as the New American Standard Version renders it, “only begotten

God”? This particular problem is not translational but textual because

there is a difference in the Greek texts underlining these two translations.

However, there is another problem that has to do with the Greek word

monogenes. Both the King James and the New American Standard cor-

rectly translate it as only begotten. There is a growing movement to under-

stand this word as unique, one of a kind, or simply only. We will deal with

this difference first.

Many of the current handbooks on Greek syntax state that monogenes

should not be translated as only begotten.266 Instead, they take the word to

mean only or unique. If this were true, the translation of the KJV would

not be alone in its “error” for this is the translation of the New American

Standard Version, the New King James Version, and several other transla-

tions of the twentieth century.

The problem here is a misunderstanding of the Greek language (both

Koine and Modern). The word monogenes does means one or unique in

the sense that an only child is the only one of his parents. It does not mean

unique, as in special, such as in the phrase, “his work is very unique.” Here

the Greek would be monadikos, not monogenes. As we examine the New

Testament we find the word monogenes used eight times (not counting its

usage here in John 1:18). In every case it is used to describe a relationship

between a parent and child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18;

Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Since this is how the Holy Spirit uses the

word in the New Testament, we must accept this definition when reading

John 1:18.267

The evidence establishes that Jesus Christ, although God (John 1:1), is

also the only begotten Son of God. No other can claim hold to this title.

Those who accept Christ as their personal Savior are spiritually born of

God and are called his sons (John 1:12). But no human can lay claim to

the title of only begotten Son. This phrase has not only to do with Christ’s

virgin birth, but also his eternal place within the Trinity.

Having established this point, we are now faced with the question of

the word following monogenes. Should it be heios (Son) or theos (God)?

The oldest known Greek manuscripts that contain John 1:18, P66 and

P75, read only begotten God. However, these manuscripts all come from

the Alexandrian line and smack of ancient Gnosticism. The Gnostics

taught that Christ was a begotten god, created by God the Father, whom

they called the unbegotten God.268

When those who had been tainted with Gnosticism cite John 1:18,

they cite it as only begotten God. Such is true of Tatian (second century),

Valentinus (second century), Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), and Arius

(336 AD). On the other hand, we find many of the orthodox fathers who

opposed Gnosticism quoting John 1:18 as only begotten Son (Irenaeus,

269

Tertullian, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, and Chrysostom).

Even some that served on the textual committee for the UBS-4 recog-

nized that the proper reading of John 1:18 is only begotten Son. Dr. Allen

Wilkgren, who served on the committee, writes, “It is doubtful that the

author [i.e., John] would have written monogenes theos, which may be a

primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition.”

Additionally, Professor Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill has noted that he believes the original reading is monogenes

271

heios and not monogenes theos. Although Professor Ehrman did not serve

on the UBS-4 committee, he is a recognized scholar in the field of Biblical

272

textual criticism. Thus, not all scholars agree as to the original reading in

this regard.

The majority of orthodox church fathers support the reading monogenes

heios, as do the majority of existing Greek cursive manuscripts. The read-

ing contained in the majority of uncials (such as A, C3, K, W, 0, A, n,

E, and 063), Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, and the Old Syrian also support

the reading monogenes heios.

Since we know the Greek word monogenes concerns the parent/child

relationship, and that God is never called monogenes (except for Christ

in his relationship to the Father), it is clear that monogenes heios is the

correct reading.

Acts 5:30

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”

Some scholars object to the phrase, “whom ye slew and hanged on a

tree.” They argue that the correct rendering is “whom you killed by hang-

ing on a tree” and that the conjunctive and in the KJV misleadingly sug-

gests that the Jews first killed Christ and then hanged his body on the

cross.2 3 This suggestion is faulty in that it misconstrues the text of the

Authorized Version, making the text say “whom ye slew and THEN

hanged on a tree.”

In English, the word and does not usually mean a period of time, as is

suggested with the addition of the word then. The text is not saying that

the Jews murdered Christ and then placed him on the cross. The word and

is a conjunction which simply links two thoughts together. As such, it is

used as the word further. We understand the text to mean that the Jews

were responsible for killing their Messiah. Further, they were responsible

for having him placed on the cross. This is a proper use of English. When

one assumes that the text is stating that the Jews murdered the Lord and

then crucified him, they are reading their own thoughts into the text. The

translation “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” is just as correct as the

translation “whom you killed by hanging on the tree.”

Acts 12:4

“And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered

him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to

bring him forth to the people. “

The Greek word pascha is translated as Passover in the KJV with this

one exception where it is translated as Easter. Therefore, some point to this

passage as a translation error on the KJV’s part. However, earlier English

translations such as Tyndale’s NT, the Great Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible

also translated pascha as Easter in this verse, showing that the understand-

ing here dealt with something other than the Jewish Passover. Also, the

translation of pascha as Passover in Acts 12:4 was known to the king’s

translators since this is the reading of the Geneva Bible.

The use of the word pascha in early Christian writings dealt with the

celebration of Easter, and not just the Jewish Passover. Dr. G. W. H.

Lampe has correctly stated that pascha came to mean Easter in the early

Church. The ancient Christians did not keep the Jewish Passover. Instead

they kept as holy a day to celebrate the resurrection of Christ near the time

of both Passover and the pagan festival celebrating the goddess Ostara. Dr.

Lampe lists several rules and observances by Christians in celebration of

their pascha or Easter. Lampe also points to various Greek words such as

paschazo and paschalua that came to mean celebrate Easter and Eastertide.275

Likewise, Dr. Gerhard Kittel notes that pascha came to be called Easter in

the celebration of the resurrection within the primitive Church.

It should be noted that the English word Easter originally carried a

meaning that would encompass the Jewish Passover. The Oxford English

Dictionary states that Easter also means “the Jewish passover” and cites

examples dating to 971 A.D. Likewise, the Coverdale Bible often used the

word Easter instead of Passover in its translation because the two had the

same meaning to the English mind. Further, the Homilies of the Church

of England (1563) refers to “Easter, a great, and solemn feast among the

Jewes.”277 Therefore, we see by definition, that the word Easter is correct in

the understanding of the English language.

There is also a connection between the Christian Easter as we have it

and the pagan celebration of Ostara. Early Christians in Rome could not

openly celebrate the resurrection of Christ, so they held their celebration

at the same time as the pagans. Dr. William C. Martin writes:

Modern observance of Easter represents a convergence of

three traditions: (1) The Hebrew Passover, celebrated dur-

ing Nisan, the first month of the Hebrew lunar calendar; (2)

The Christian commemoration of the crucifixion and resur-

rection of Jesus, which took place at the feast of the

Passover; and (3) the Norse Ostara or Eostra (from which

the name “Easter” is derived), a pagan festival of spring

which fell at the vernal equinox, March 21. Prominent sym-

bols in this celebration of the resurrection of nature after the

winter were rabbits, signifying fecundity, and eggs, colored

like the ray of the returning sun and the northern lights, or

aurora borealis.278

It seems that pascha can mean more than the Jewish holy day of

Passover. In fact, Greeks today who wish to send the greeting Happy Easter

say, kalee pascha. Literally it means good Passover. However it has come to

mean good or happy Easter.

Additionally, there is a possible problem if we understand this verse to

mean the Jewish Passover. Verse three of this chapter states that Peter was

taken during, “the days of unleavened bread.” The next verse then speaks

of Easter in the KJV. If the word is translated as Passover we have the Days

of Unleavened Bread coming before the Passover. In the Biblical use of the

term, Passover came before the Days of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:1-

8, 15, 19; 13:7; Leviticus 2:11; and Deuteronomy 16:4). Contextually, it

would seem that this pascha that followed the Days of Unleavened Bread

was not the pascha that preceded the capture of Peter. Instead, it is likely to

refer to the Roman celebration of Ostara, hence called Easter.

Acts 19:2

“He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any

Holy Ghost.”

Some have claimed the KJV is in error in its use of the word since

and suggest the passage should be rendered “Did you receive the Holy

Spirit when you believed.” The Greek phrase Ei pneuma agion elabete

pisteusantes is literally translated as, “[The] Spirit/Ghost Holy did ye

receive having believed?”

This phrase stands in the Greek aorist and refers to past time; thus, we

have the past tense with the words received and believed.. This would estab-

lish the translation when you believed as correct as it relates to the Greek

itself. However, the English word since also reflects past tense and is cor-

rect as it relates to the Greek text. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, noted

Greek grammarians, address the use of the aorist. They write, “The funda-

mental significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring,

without reference to its progress.” Therefore, the words since or when

both reflect the proper use of the aorist. In reference to what is called the

Culminative Aorist, Dana and Mantey add:

The aorist is employed in this meaning when it is wished to view an

event in its entirety, but to regard it from the viewpoint of its existing

results. Here we usually find verbs which signify effort or process, the

aorist denoting the attainment of the end of such effort or process.

In this regard, the word since is proper as it relates to the aorist tense.

It can indicate a past action, but one that was attained through a

process. Dr. George Ladd recognized this and stated of this passage,

“The Greek participle is having believed, and it is capable of being

translated either since ye believed (Authorized Version) or when you

believed (Revised Standard Version).” Therefore, both translations

are correct and neither are in error.

2 Corinthians 2:17

“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincer-

ity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. “

The majority of modern versions render this as “peddle” or “sell the

word of God for profit” instead of “corrupt the word of God.” The Greek

word kapeleuontes does carry the meaning of a peddler or retailer. However,

it connotes one who sells with deceit, a corrupter. Dr. Walter Bauer states

that the word came to mean “to adulterate.” Dr. Joseph Thayer agrees,

noting, “But as peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodi-

ties for the sake of gain…[the word] was also used as synonymous with to

corrupt, to adulterate.” Likewise, Dr. Gerhard Kittel states that

kapeleuontes, “also means 2. to falsify the word (as the kapelos purchases

pure wine and then adulterates it with water) by making additions…This

refers to the false Gospel of the Judaizers.”

The early church fathers understood the verse to refer to those who cor-

rupt God’s word. Athanasius (373 AD) wrote, “Let them therefore be

anathema to you, because they have ‘corrupted the word of truth’.”

Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) alludes to 2 Corinthians 2:17, Isaiah 1:22

and Psalm 54:15, using the word “corrupt”:

And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many, able

to corrupt the word of truth, and mix the wine, which maketh glad the

heart of man, with water, mix, that is, our doctrine with what is common

and cheap, and debased, and stale, and tasteless, in order to turn the adul-

286

teration to our profit.

Both translations are possible. But in light of its historical and contex-

tual usage, the word corrupt is much more likely. Regardless, it is clearly not

a translational error. Dr. James R. White, noted Christian apologist and

author, makes an interesting claim concerning this verse. He writes, “Surely

if the KJV translators were alive today they would gladly admit that ‘ped-

dle’ is a better translation than ‘corrupt, ‘ and would adopt it themselves.”287

If this is true, how would one explain the notes of Dr. John Bois, one of the

translators of the KJV? In his notes on 2 Corinthians 2:17, Dr. Bois writes,

“Ibid. v. 17. kapeleuontes ] [being a retail dealer, playing tricks, corrupting]

i.e., notheuonetes [adultering]. kapelos is derived apo tou kallunein tonpelon

[from glossing over lees] by corrupting and adultering wine.” Apparently,

the translators of the KJV were aware of the meaning of this word.

Titus 2:13

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God

and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”

Modern versions such as the NIV render this as, “While we wait for the

blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus

Christ.” It is argued that the KJV incorrectly translated this passage and

violated the Granville Sharpe Rule of Greek grammar. Basically this rule

states that the two nouns (God and Savior) refer to the same Person, Jesus

Christ. They are correct in their understanding of this grammatical rule.

They are incorrect in stating the Authorized Version has violated it.

The problem is not with the KJV, but rather a lack of understanding

English grammar. In English, when two nouns are separated by the phrase

and our, the context determines if the nouns refer to two persons or to two

aspects of the same person. Consider the following sentence, “He was a

great hero and our first president, General George Washington.” This

statement is not referring to two persons but two aspects of the same per-

son. Washington was a great hero by anyone’s standards, but he was not

everyone’s president. He was our president.

The same is true of the phrase in Titus 2:13. When Christ returns he is

coming as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16). He is

returning as the great God (Titus 2:13; Revelation 19:17). Therefore, he

will return as everyone’s King, everyone’s Lord, as the great God over all.

But he is not everyone’s Savior. He is only the Savior of those who have

placed faith in Him. When he returns he is coming as the great God but he

is also returning as our Savior, two aspects of the same Person.

This is illustrated elsewhere in Scripture. Consider the following two

passages in the New Testament. In both cases two nouns are separated by

the phrase and our. However, it is also clear that the two nouns refer to the

same Person: God, who is our Father. In Galatians 1:4 we read, “Who

gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil

world, according to the will of God and our Father.” Likewise, in 1

Thessalonians 1:3 we read, “Remembering without ceasing your work of

faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in

the sight of God and our Father.” In both passages we know that God and

Father are the same Person. They are separated by and our to convey the

truth that the Eternal God over all is also our Father, thereby personalizing

our relationship with Him.

The King James translation of Titus 2:13 is also consistent. In the

Book of Titus we find the Greek phrase soteros emon (Savior of us) used

six times (1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6). Each time the Authorized Version

consistently translates it as our Saviour. In the final analysis, we see that

the KJV is harmonious in its use of Greek as well as in its proclamation

of the deity of Christ.

Hebrews 10:23

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is

faithful that promised;)”

The common word for faith is the Greek word pistis. However, the

word used here is elpidos (a form of the word elpis), usually translated as

hope. This does not mean the translation of elpidos or elpis as faith is a mis-

translation. In fact, the King James translators stated that they were not

bound by strict word counts, and that sometimes the context demands

that the same Greek word be translated differently.

The English words faith and hope carry the idea of trust, assurance that

what has been told will occur. The word hope means confidence, faith,

reliance, trust, belief and assurance. There is within Scripture a clear con-

nection between faith and hope. “Faith is the substance of things hoped

for” (Hebrews 11:1). The Scriptures state, “By whom also we have access

by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory

of God” (Romans 5:2). And in reference to Abraham, the word of God

says, “Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the

father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy

seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now

dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of

Sara’s womb” (Romans 4:18-19). We are saved by hope (Romans 8:24)

and yet we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). We are told to

place our faith and hope in God (1 Peter 1:21).

The context of Hebrews chapter ten informs us that we are to have full

assurance of faith (verse twenty-two) and the One we are trusting is “faith-

ful” (verse twenty-three). The context of the Greek word elpis in this verse

can be expressed by the English words faith, hope, or trust. Dr. Gerhard

Kittel notes the comparison of faith and hope when defining the Greek

word elpis (hope). He even notes that in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) there

is an “interrelating” of the two Greek words for faith and hope.

Faith, trust, and hope are used interchangeably. A related word to elpis

(hope) is elpizo. It is translated as hope in places such as Luke 6:34 and

Romans 8:25. However, it is mostly translated as trust in places such as

Matthew 12:21 and Romans 15:24. A related word to pistis (faith) is pis-

tio. It is translated as believe in places such as Matthew 8:13 and John

3:16. However, it is also translated as trust in 1 Timothy 1:11 (as is

another form of it in 1 Thessalonians 2:4 which is translated as trust). The

context of Hebrews chapter ten and eleven permits this type of trust be

translated as faith instead of its normal translation hope.

1 Peter 3:1

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any

obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversa-

tion of the wives;”

This verse, along with a handful of others, is questioned because of the

word conversation. The objection is that today conversation means talk, but

the verses in question refer to lifestyle or behavior. The Authorized Version

translates the Greek word anastrephw (or anastrophe) as conversation fifteen

times in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 1:12; Galatians 1:13;

Ephesians 2:3; 4:22; 1 Timothy 4:12; Hebrews 13:7; James 3:13; 1 Peter

1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16; 2 Peter 2:7; 3:11).

The majority of good quality English dictionaries will note that the

word conversation means the life style or character of an individual in addi-

tion to its common context of conversing. The English word conversation

comes from the Latin conversatio which concerns social conduct in public

life, which is exactly how the word is used in the context of the Authorized

Version. The Greek word anastrephw is also translated as “behave” (1

Timothy 3:15) and “live” (Hebrews 10:33; 2 Peter 2:18) within the text of

the KJV, revealing that the word has to do with how one behaves or lives

their life before others. Even today we speak of those who have been

changed in both word and deed (Romans 15:17-19) as converts. One may

accuse the word of being somewhat antiquated, but to call it a mistransla-

tion only reveals the limited awareness of the accuser.

2 Peter 1:1

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have

obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our

Saviour Jesus Christ:”

The Authorized Version has been accused of inconsistency in its trans-

lation of 2 Peter 1:1 when compared with its translation of 2 Peter 1:11.

In the later passage we read, “For so an entrance shall be ministered unto

you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour

Jesus Christ.” In making such an accusation, some have provided the fol-

lowing comparison between 2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:11.

1:1: tou theou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou

1:11: tou kuriou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou

It is then noted that the only difference between the two verses is the

substitution of kuriou (Lord) in verse eleven instead of theou (God) as

found in verse one. Therefore, according to the Greek, verse one must be

translated as “our God and Savior” in order to be consistent.291 Since the

KJV does not do this, it is looked upon as mistranslating this passage.

The point is well taken, and would be correct if the Greek text that

underlies the KJV read as presented. However, it does not. The Greek text

used by the King James translators was Beza’s text of 1589 and 1598.

There we find an additional emon (our) at 2 Peter 1:1 that is not provided

by those who call this a mistranslation. The two are compared below with

Beza’s text presented first.

Tou theou emon kai soteros emon Iesou Christou

Tou theou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou

The translation of Beza’s text is correct in the Authorized Version, and

is consistent since the additional emon appears in 2 Peter 1:1 and not 2

Peter 1:11.

The question exists why Beza provided the additional emon at 2 Peter

1:1 that is not found in other Greek texts. Dr. Bruce Metzger may supply

the answer. Although not discussing this passage, Dr. Metzger does note

the following concerning Beza:

Accompanied by annotations and his own Latin version, as

well as Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, these editions [of Beza’s text

from 1565, 1582, 1589, and 1598] contained a certain

amount of textual information drawn from several Greek

manuscripts which Beza had collated himself, as well as the

Greek manuscripts collated by Henry Stephanus, son of

Robert Stephanus.292

Since the Greek text of Robert Stephanus did not contain the addition,

and the Greek text of Beza does, it is logical to assume that Beza added the

emon at 2 Peter 1:1 based on the various manuscripts that he possessed (or

the ones possessed by Henry Stephanus). We would be mistaken to pre-

sume that all existing manuscripts used in the sixteenth century are still in

existence today. Some have undoubtedly passed away over time.

Regardless, the inclusion of the extra emon in this passage provides evi-

dence of its preservation. It is certainly not a mistranslation on the part of

the KJV.

We have seen in these few examples how some express a certain amount

of disdain for the Authorized Version with meaningless objections. They

do not like this or that reading and therefore seek to find a flaw in this lit-

erary masterpiece. It is easy to find fault, especially if one does not like a

certain rendering. However, upon closer examination it usually can be

shown that the difference has more to do with the manner of how words

or phrases are understood and not the correctness of the translation itself.

To disparage the word translated is to disparage the word. We would do

well to take note and exercise caution when seeking to correct what we

perceive is a mistranslation. It just may be that the one in error is the one

passing judgment.

Chapter 10

Deliberating The Arguments

“Except the Word of God beareth witness in this matter,

other testimony is of no value.”

-John Bunyan: Pilgrim’s Progress (1678)

When there are differences in the Greek manuscripts, textual scholars usu-

ally depend on two basic principles to determine the perceived original

reading. First, they consider the external evidence. This means they regard

the age of a manuscript, its geographical distribution, and its relationship

with other textual families. Second, they will observe the internal evidence.

This means they consider the textual variant in light of what the original

writer would most likely have written. It takes into account style and

vocabulary, the context, and how the variant harmonizes with other pas-

sages written by the same writer. These evidences are logical and certainly

are of great value. Nevertheless, we should also embrace the biblical prom-

ises from God concerning preservation, thereby approaching the issue

both scripturally and scholastically.293

There are basically two arguments against the Traditional Text, with an

additional one as it concerns the Authorized Version. First, there are those

who reject the Traditional Text at a certain reading based on manuscripts

that are considered older. Second, the Critical Text is embraced because

the manuscripts it is based on are characterized as better. One does not

have to look long to find this older/better argument employed. Both argu-

ments sound authoritative and certainly deserve our consideration. To this

a third argument is added to support modern versions of the Bible. It con-

cerns the need for simplicity.

Older Manuscripts

Textual scholars will point to the age of a manuscript, as in the case of very

old papyri, as supporting their argument for a given reading. On the surface

such patronage seems sound. After all, the older manuscript would be closer

in age to the original autographs. It is therefore assumed, quite logically, that

this manuscript would most likely contain the original reading. The earliest

Greek manuscripts are the papyri discovered in Egypt, south of the Delta

region. They were unearthed in the “rubbish heaps” of such places as

Oxyrhynchos, Atfih (Aphroditopolis), and Heracleopolis.

Although most of these papyri are fragmentary, others contain large

sections of Scripture and have been given very early dates by paleogra-

phers. P75 (containing part of Luke and John) dates from 175 to 225 AD.

P66 (containing part of John) and P46 (containing part of Romans and

the Pauline epistles) dates to about 200 AD or before. P52, a small frag-

ment containing only John 18:31-33 and 37-38, had been considered the

oldest manuscript, dating to 125 AD. However, papyrologist and textual

scholar Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede has redated P64 (the Magdalen papyrus)

from the early third century to 66 AD.295 P64 consists of three small frag-

ments containing Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31. Thiede has

likewise redated P67 from the third century to around 70 AD. This man-

uscript contains Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28. If his position is cor-

rect, these would be the oldest existing manuscripts.

The papyri manuscripts mentioned above are very old indeed. The fact

that these manuscripts seem to have originated in Egypt, or at least sur-

vived there, and were not used by the majority of believers throughout the

existence of the church does not carry much weight with textual scholars.

But it is something we should consider. After all, why should we think

that the majority of believers in church history were deprived of God’s

pure word? And, if we make such limitations, what does this say about

preservation at any given time in history?

It does not seem to bother most textual critics that these manuscripts

do not generally agree with later Alexandrian texts. The early papyri,

although considered Alexandrian in nature, reflect a mixed text with many

Byzantine readings in them. Consequently, Kurt Aland has labeled P46

and P66 as “free” while Bruce Metzger simply calls P66 “mixed.” In

his introduction to the Chester Beatty Papryi, Sir Frederic Kenyon like-

wise observes the mixed nature of these early manuscripts.

There are many places where the oldest manuscripts support the read-

ings of the Traditional Text. Yet, these readings are mostly rejected in light

of the later Alexandrian readings. For example, in John 4:1 Codex

Sinaiticus (fourth century), Codex D05 (sixth century) and Codex 0

(ninth century) have the reading Iesous (Jesus). The Traditional Text reads

kurios (Lord). This is also the reading in Codex Vaticanus (fourth cen-

tury), Alexandrinus (fifth century), Codex C (fifth century), and the

majority of uncial manuscripts and cursive manuscripts. Both P66 and

P75 have the reading kurios, agreeing with the Traditional Text.

Nevertheless, this reading is rejected by the Critical Text in favor of the

reading found in Sinaiticus. Consequently, modern translations such as

the NIV and NRSV forsake the early manuscripts in favor of Sinaiticus.

There are many other examples of this sort. There are also many places

where P66 and P75 differ with each other. In such cases, P66 is sometimes

chosen, while at other times P75 is cited.

Dr. Gordon D. Fee, a noted and respected textual scholar, produced a

comparison study of early manuscripts with various text types.299 It yielded

some very interesting results. In his study, Dr. Fee notes several passages in

the Gospel of John where Codex Sinaiticus agrees or disagrees with P66,

P75, the Texus Receptus, and some other witnesses. In John chapter four,

Fee notes that out of sixty-one possible textual variations P66 produced

the following statistics:

Texus Receptus=thirty-seven times or 60.6% in agreement with P66.

Sinaiticus=twenty-one times or 34.4% in agreement with P66.

Likewise, P75 showed a stronger relationship with the Traditional Text

than it did with Codex Sinaiticus; however, its strongest relationship is

clearly with Codex Vaticanus. The agreement with P75 among these texts

is as follows:

Texus Receptus=thirty-two times or 52.5% in agreement with P75.

Sinaiticus=nineteen times or 31.5% in agreement with P75.

Vaticanus=fifty-two times or 85.2% in agreement with P75.300

Dr. Fee then broadened the study to cover John 1-8, with a total of

three hundred twenty possible textual variations. The statistics show a

strong relation between the Traditional Text and P66, agreeing 50.9% of

the time when there are textual variations. P66 and Sinaiticus agreed only

43.7% of the time.301 Although Dr. Fee maintains that the pro-

Traditional Text readings are “of little consequence,” he does concede that

the early papyrus have produced evidence away from the Alexandrian tex-

tual line.302 Further, the point is not that the earliest existing manuscripts

are Byzantine in nature, just that they are mixed and are not pure

Alexandrian. Therefore, the modern Critical Text does not always follow

the oldest existing manuscripts.

We should also consider the recent evidence produced by Dr. Carsten

Thiede regarding P64. If he is correct in redating this manuscript to 66

AD, we not only have the earliest known manuscript of the New

Testament, we have one that supports the textual reading found in the

Traditional Text. In Matthew 26:22 the Critical Text reads, legein auto eis

ekastos while the Traditional Text reads, legein auto ekastos auton. The dif-

ference is reflected in the Revised Standard Version when compared with

the King James Version. “And they were very sorrowful, and began to say

to him one after another, ‘Is it I, Lord?’” (RSV). “And they were exceeding

sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?”

(KJV). While the difference is minor and does not affect doctrine, this is

still a reflection of the type of textual variants common between the

Alexandrian and Byzantine textual lines. If the oldest manuscript is to be

considered more original, a change must occur in the Critical Text because

P64 has the same reading found in the Traditional Text and the King

James Version. Although the papyrus fragment is worn, Dr. Thiede was

able to determine the original reading using an extremely powerful device

known as an epifluorescent confocal laser scanning microscope.303 Here is

another example where the oldest reading that agrees with the Traditional

Text is rejected in favor of the later Alexandrian reading.

However, the argument over the oldest manuscripts and their textual

variants with later manuscripts may be moot. According to textual schol-

ars such as George D. Kilpatrick and H. Vogels, the great majority of tex-

tual variants in the New Testament text occurred before the start of the

third century.304 If this is true the debate over the age of a manuscript is

not as important as the age of the textual variant. Additionally, Dr. Kurt

Aland has noted the tenacity of a textual variant in that once injected into

the text it can reappear centuries later in later manuscripts without any

subsequent existing manuscripts between.305 If this is true of textual vari-

ants, it is likewise true of the original reading. Therefore, the original read-

ing may just as likely be found in later manuscripts as it is in the older

ones. This being the case, more is needed than the age of a manuscript

when making a textual decision.

Better Manuscripts

Dr. Frederik Wisse has correctly noted that the majority of all existing

manuscripts have a striking bias against them as far as modern textual

scholarship is concerned. In an attempt to provide a working profile of the

majority of Greek manuscripts, Wisse has observed that scholars such as

Kurt Aland are not interested in the Byzantine text, but only in texts that

“significantly diverge from the Byzantine text.” The majority of textual

scholars today consider the Alexandrian family of manuscripts closer to

the original and therefore better. The Byzantine or Traditional Text has

been considered a conflation (a mixing or joining) of the Alexandrian and

Western texts in the fourth century by Lucian at Antioch in Syria.

Therefore, the latter text is considered inferior.

Some nineteenth century scholars strongly promoted the Lucian

Recension theory. This particular theory stated that Lucian of Antioch,

Syria, who died in 311 AD, was the leader of a group of scholars who

edited and conflated the various existing texts to produce what became

the Traditional Text. Since Lucian was from Syria, and the work was said

to have occurred there, this text is sometimes called the Syrian Text. The

basic problem with this theory, established by Fenton John Anthony

Hort, is that there is no evidence of any such event ever having occurred.

Sir Frederic Kenyon correctly noted that we have the names of several of

the revisers of both the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate and it

would be notably unusual for history and church authorities to have

omitted any record of such a major revision of the New Testament.307

Further, as has been noted, the majority of all textual variants had already

come into existence before the third century. Therefore, the Byzantine

Text is more than likely to have been established long before the existing

manuscripts that reflect it.

Apart from the promise of Scripture, we simply do not know which

text is original and which one is corrupt. It is valid to argue that despite

the absence of early Byzantine manuscripts, the traditional textual line

reflects the original autographs better than the Alexandrian line. Since the

Scriptures are to be used and read we would expect these texts to wear

sooner than texts that were considered corrupt and therefore not used by

the majority of Christians during the first three hundred years of the

church. This would explain the absence of Byzantine manuscripts until

later in the church’s history. However, the Byzantine textual line has early

witnesses. We have Byzantine readings in the oldest existing manuscripts;

we also have Byzantine readings in ancient versions and the citations of

the church fathers. What scholars classify as better manuscripts may there-

fore rest more on subjectivity than is usually admitted.

The Need For Simplicity

The argument against the King James Version now turns from one of

textual criticism to one of translation. Apart from the textual issues, the

most common plea for contemporary revisions of Scripture is that of sim-

plicity. Time and again we are informed that the King James Version is too

difficult to read and should be simplified. This objection is so well estab-

lished that it is hardly even questioned.

To illustrate the need for simplicity, several examples of difficult read-

ings are sometimes offered.308 The following are a few instances. “And Mt.

Sinai was altogether on a smoke” (Exodus 19:18). “Thou shalt destroy

them that speak leasing” (Psalm 5:6). “Nevertheless even him did out-

landish women cause to sin” (Nehemiah 13:26). “Solomon loved many

strange women” (1 Kings 11:1). “The ships ofTarshish did sing of thee in

thy market” (Ezekiel 27:25). “We do you to wit of the grace of God” (2

Corinthians 8:1).

These are good examples and do illustrate changes and difficulties in our

English language. Each case could easily be resolved with footnotes or an

English dictionary. Regardless, one can make similar arguments against many

modern versions. Consider the following from the New International

Version. “Waheb in Suphah and the ravines” (Numbers 21:14). “The

Nephilim were on the earth in those days” (Genesis 6:4). “Fearing that they

would run aground on the sandbars of Syrtis” (Acts 27:17). “The meeting of

the Areopagus” (Acts 17:22). “Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into

the Praetorium” (Matthew 27:27). “He agreed to pay them a denarius”

(Matthew 20:2).

It is also popular to compile lists of difficult words contained in the

KJV as reason for simplicity. However, just because something is difficult

does not mean it should be abolished. The following examples are words

that may be considered difficult for the average reader:

Soliloquized, onslaught, ferule, cruelly, gesticulation, filial,

geniality, titter, garret, haunches, forlorn, fetched, dismalest,

well-nigh, reckon, unkempt, serape, palpable, gunwale, auspi-

cious, procured, oaken, labyrinth, tallow, and stalwart.

The above list did not come from the Elizabethan English of the

Authorized Version, but from four chapters of the narrative of Mark

Twain’s children’s classic, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. One can point to

difficulties in anything, but our growth as humans is to seek to understand

what we do not know. Some words that are difficult in the KJV include

the following:

Amiable, anon, begat, centurion, chode, churlish, corban,

espied, fain, forthwith, fray, gat, hardness, knob, ligure, leas-

ing, mammon, pate, perdition, pityful, sod, suffer, trode, ver-

ily, wanton, waxed, wench, wot, wont.

These words, standing on their own, may be difficult or misunder-

stood. Yet, each of these words have found their way into contemporary

literature. The word wont is a wonderful example of this. It means custom-

ary and is used nine times in the King James Version. A recent Star Trek

novel reads: “The next morning, Commander Riker arrived at the ready

room fifteen minutes early, as was his wont; he was surprised to see Wesley

Crusher already waiting.”309 The need for a comprehensive vocabulary

may be an argument favoring the Authorized Version.

In his booklet, All About Bibles, Dr. John R. Kohlenberger III has listed

the reading level of several English translations as provided by Dr. Linda

H. Parrish and Dr. Donna Norton of Texas A & M University. They list

Today’s English Version (TEV) with a 7.29 reading grade level. The NIV

received a 7.80 reading grade level, while the New American Standard

Version (NASV) received an 11.55 reading grade level. The highest read-

ing grade level was 12.00 and given to the KJV.310 This would mean that

anyone who graduated from high school should be able to read this “out-

dated” version. Additionally, its reading level is not that much higher than

the NASV.

Once we begin an argument against any translation that is based on

simplicity, where do we stop? Do we reject the readability of the KJV and

embrace the NASV as easier to read because it is a half-grade lower?

Should we reject the NASV and accept the NIV because it is even easier to

read? Do we then stop with the NIV? What if someone cannot read at the

seventh grade level? Do we lower the standard even more? Do we take the

approach that some modern educators have and “dumb-down” our lan-

guage? Or do we seek to raise the standard higher and educate our people?

These are important questions when it comes to readability. After all, his-

torically the church has always sought to raise the educational level of the

masses, not lower it.

There is also a scriptural principle here. We must consider that it is not

so much the words as the concepts of Scripture that are difficult to under-

stand. As Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us, our thoughts are not God’s thoughts;

the same passage admonishes us that our ways are different than those

of the Lord. When Christ came and preached He spoke in parables, not

to make the message easier to understand but to make it harder

(Matthew 13:10-16). We are under the command to search the

Scriptures daily and to study to show ourselves approved (Acts 17:11; 2

Timothy 2:15). This is not to say that simplicity does not have its place;

that is an individual choice. We should not disparage something

because it is more difficult. We may end up finding that the more diffi-

cult is the more profitable. Since we are to love the Lord with all our

heart, soul, strength, and mind (Mark 12:30), it may be that God

wishes to enrich more than just our spirits.

These three arguments, therefore, are not as weighty as some would

have us believe. Older manuscripts are not always better, nor are they

always used. When older manuscripts support the Byzantine reading, that

reading is usually rejected. What scholars may consider the better manu-

script is really a matter of opinion that usually omits the providential hand

of God. There are usually at least two sides to most textual arguments and

we would do well to view things from alternate perspectives. Ultimately,

our final conclusions must be biblical. Finally, what is considered difficult

may be for our own good and edification. After all, the wisest man who

ever lived, King Solomon, reminds us, “It is the glory of God to conceal a

thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2).

A Plea For Preservation

There are several verses that furnish the basis for biblical preservation (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). Of these, perhaps the most cited and questioned is

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.” This is also the

reading of the American Standard Version and the New King James

Version. The passage provides a scriptural basis for the belief that God

keeps and preserves his words.

The passage has also been understood as a reference to persons and not

Scripture. The New International Version reads, “And the words of the

LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven

times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people

forever.” The Revised Standard Version agrees with this reading. The New

American Standard Version changes “us” to “him,” yet the focus is still on

a person and not the preservation of God’s words. The question then arises

as to which translation is correct. That is a debate that has been persisting

for centuries.311

The great reformer, John Calvin, noted that this passage could be under-

stood to refer to either the words of God or God’s people. Calvin himself

thought the context had reference to the preservation of God’s people.312

Other great theologians of the past believed the passage referred to God’s

words. John Wesley, scholar and founder of the Methodist Church, writes

that Psalm 12:6-7 concern the “words or promises (of God): these thou wilt

observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.”313 Dr. G.

Campbell Morgan, while using the American Standard Version, claimed

this passage was a promise for biblical preservation:

The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words,

and declares that Jehovah will “keep them,” and “preserve

them.” The “them” here refers to the words. There is no prom-

ise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of

a remnant and the preservation of His own words which

Jehovah promises.314

The Hebrew can be understood to refer to either “them” or “him.” The

Greek LXX uses the word hemas (us), yet the Greek versions of Aquila and

Theodotian use the word autous (them). The argument as to the meaning

of this passage, therefore, is open for discussion. Nevertheless, the first half

of this passage is without question as to its meaning. The words of the

Lord are pure, and the whole of Scripture testifies to this truth. It some-

what lacks consistency to think that God’s words would be pure in their

inception and yet lost in their transmission. If the Almighty takes time to

purify his words, it would seem he would take just as much care to pre-

serve them. Otherwise, why purify them at all? Of course, the truth of

biblical preservation is not confined to this one biblical passage, as has

already been noted.

The Fullness Of Time

In addition to the promise of preservation, it should also be noted that

God does things in accordance with his own schedule. Concerning Jesus

Christ, we are told when “the fullness of the time was come, God sent

forth his Son, made of a woman” (Galatians 4:4). We are also told that all

things will be accomplished by Christ “in the dispensation of the fullness

of times” (Ephesians 1:10). There are no coincidences in regard to Christ.

He fulfills things according to his purpose and in his timing. What is true

of the Living Word is reflected in the written word. The Authorized

Version came into being at just the right time. If we accept the Sovereignty

of God, we must also believe his hand was in producing the world’s most

loved translation of the Bible.

Before the late sixteenth century and the early seventeenth century, the

church in power was the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism at that

time prohibited the reading of the Bible in any language but Latin.

However, by the late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century the

Protestant Church became the major religious force in the English-speak-

ing world. At this time, when the KJV was translated, the printing press

was being refined. England was on the threshold of becoming a world

empire, and the Protestant Reformation was in full swing.

Approximately one hundred fifty years before the KJV was printed,

Bibles were all handwritten. One can begin to imagine the impossible

task of reaching the world when all Scripture had to be copied in this

fashion. By the seventeenth century printed books were common, and

the desire of Christians to have their own copy of Scripture was rapidly

growing. This is one of the reasons the Geneva Bible was so popular.

Although the Puritans loved the Geneva Bible and brought it with them

to the New World, by 1637 the King James Bible had replaced it

throughout the Massachusetts Bay Colony.315 In fact, the KJV was univer-

sally accepted in the New World “as the word of God and no question

was raised as to its infallibility.”316

The English language is divided into three periods. Old English, (700

to 1100 AD); Middle English, (1100 to 1500 AD); and Modern English

(1500 to the present). As a pioneer work of the Modern English era, the

KJV has helped in the shaping and developing of the English language,

and is the only modern translation of which this can be said. Dr. William

Rosenau has correctly observed that the KJV has “molded new forms and

phrases, which, while foreign to the English, became with it flesh and

bone.” Many great literary works that followed have been greatly influ-

enced by the Authorized Version. This speaks of the importance of this

great version in regard to the English language.

Although its beauty has been compared to the writings of Shakespeare,

it is vastly easier read than Shakespeare, with equal influence upon our

native tongue. Contemporary scholars of the English language have

observed that:

The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare

began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the

Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial differ-

ence between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon,

the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teach-

ing in homely English for everyman. From that day to this, the

Shakespearian cornucopia and the biblical iron rations represent,

as it were, the North and South Poles of the language, reference

points for writers and speakers throughout the world, from the

Shakespearian splendor of a Joyce or a Dickens to the biblical

rigor of a Bunyan, or a Hemingway..319

The history and effect the KJV has had on our language not only

speaks of its great literary value, but of the divine hand upon it that shaped

our language, our culture, our history, and our thought.

The Testimony Of The Translators

Although the testimony of the King’s translators is often ignored, it

stands as a unique tribute to their enterprise. In their second and third

paragraphs of the original preface, titled The Translators To The Reader, the

KJV translators make some very interesting comparisons. They liken their

work to David delivering the ark of the Lord to Jerusalem, to Solomon

building the temple of God, and even to Moses receiving the Law.320

The preface makes a case for providing individuals with Holy

Scriptures in their native tongues. The translators listed the objections

raised by the Catholic Church of that day: “Was their [i.e., Protestant]

translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good?

Why then was it obtruded to the people?” Responding to such ques-

tions, the translators wrote:

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same

time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if

we building upon their foundation that went before us, and

being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that bet-

ter which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to

mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive,

would thank us…And this is the word of God, which we

translate…For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatso-

ever is sound already, (and all is sound for substance in one or

other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than

their authentick Vulgar) the same will shine as gold more

brightly, being rubbed and polished;.322

The translators saw their work as a completion of the earlier English

translations. To them, the Authorized Version was the perfecting of these

earlier works, hence the phrase “nothing is begun and perfected at the

same time.” Additionally, they believed that what they translated was the

very “word of God.” Finally, they state that even the worst of their early

English versions (King James I considered the Geneva Bible a poor trans-

lation because of its marginal notes, which he saw as subversive) was far

better than the Latin Catholic Bible. To the translators, theirs was the

work of polishing what their forerunners produced, and thus the perfect-

ing of the word of God. The translators also state:

Now to the latter we answer, That 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, (for we have seen

none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word

of God, nay, is the word of God.323

Why did the KJV translators alter these early works if they considered

them the word of God? The translators write:

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objec-

tion of theirs against us, for altering and amending our

Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly and

strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a

fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had

done, and to amend it where he saw cause?…If we will be

sons of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and

trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s

too, if either be any way an hinderance to it.

As sons of Truth, they were more concerned with presenting the pure

word of God than establishing their own theological beliefs.

Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the

beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor

yet to make of a bad one a good one; (for then the imputation

of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been

fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of

milk;) but to make a good one better, or out of many good

ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted

against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.325

The translators’ goal was to produce from the early English versions

based on the Traditional Text one principal English translation. The para-

graph ends with praise because “the good hand of the Lord upon us,

brought the work to that pass that you see.”326

Their final paragraph expresses their concern for the reader, and thank-

fulness to God for his help in producing this beloved version.

Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle

Reader, if we had not exceeded the measure of a preface

already. It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to

the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further than we

can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the

vail from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand

his word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections,

that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love

it to the end…It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the

living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to ever-

lasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to

hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when

he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I,

here we are to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and

conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be

acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord JESUS

CHRIST, to whom with the Holy Ghost, be all praise and

thanksgiving. Amen.327

A Jewish Book

The Bible is a Jewish book. The Apostle Paul states of the Jews that,

“unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). Every

writer in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, with the possible

exception of Luke, was Jewish. The central person of the New Testament,

the Lord Jesus Christ, was born a Jew.

The Bible, therefore, uses Jewish terms and expressions called Hebraisms.

Any correct translation of the Bible must reflect its Jewish heritage. English

translations that weaken or remove these Jewish Hebraisms weaken our

understanding of the people of God and the meaning of Scripture.

The KJV retains these Hebraisms. In fact, because of the popularity of

the KJV, many of these Jewish expressions have become our expressions.

As mentioned before, Dr. William Rosenau, a biblical scholar who made a

study of the Hebraisms, writes:

[The King James Bible has] molded new forms and phrases,

which, while foreign to the English, became with it flesh and

bone. The origin of most of these forms and phrases is not dif-

ficult to trace. They are like the equivalents of which they were

translations—Hebrew in character.

Thus we have many common expressions taken from the Authorized

Version that have their basis in Hebraisms. The following are a few examples:

Hebraism

Reference

In the sweat of thy face

Genesis 3:19

Am I my brother’s keeper

Genesis 4:9

Unstable as water

Genesis 49:4

A stranger in a strange land

Exodus 2:22

A land flowing with milk and honey

Exodus 3:8

Sheep which have no shepherd

Numbers 27:17

Man doth not live by bread alone

Deuteronomy 8:3

Whatsoever is right in his own eyes

Deuteronomy 12:8

The apple of his eye

Deuteronomy 32:10

The people arose as one man

Judges 20:8

A man after his own heart

1 Samuel 13:14

How are the mighty fallen

2 Samuel 1:25

Thou art the man

2 Samuel 12:7

From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head

2 Samuel 14:25

Steal the heart

2 Samuel 15:6

Horn of my salvation

2 Samuel 22:3

The sweet psalmist of Israel

2 Samuel 23:1

How long halt ye between two opinions?

1 Kings 18:21

A still small voice

1 Kings 19:2

The shadow of death

Job 10:21

With the skin of my teeth

Job 19:20

The land of the living

Job 28:13

My cup runneth over

Psalm 23:5

The pen of a ready writer

Psalm 45:1

Wings like a dove

Psalm 55:6

From strength to strength

Psalm 84:7

As a tale that is told

Psalm 90:9

At their wit’s end

Psalm 107:27

To dwell together in unity

Psalm 133:1

The way of the transgressor is hard

Proverbs 13:15

Heap coals of fire upon his head

Proverbs 25:22

Answer a fool according to his folly

Proverbs 26:5

Boast not thyself of to-morrow

Proverbs 27:1

Iron sharpeneth iron

Proverbs 27:17

There is no new thing under the sun

Ecclesiastes 1:9

To every thing there is a season

Ecclesiastes 3:1

The race is not to the swift

Ecclesiastes 9:11

A weariness of the flesh

Ecclesiastes 12:12

Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die

Isaiah 22:13

As a drop of a bucket

Isaiah 40:15

Many of these have found their way into modern versions simply

because they have become common English expressions. We owe this to

the Jewish flavor of the KJV. There are also certain expressions that are cer-

tainly Jewish but fail to be reproduced in modern versions. The following

are a few examples among the thousands of Jewish Hebraisms noted by

Dr. Rosenau;329 for purposes of comparison I have added the equivalent

translations from one of the most widely used modern versions, the NIV.

Reference

Jewish Hebraisms

English Expression

1 Kings 5:10

According to all his desire

He wanted

Exodus 8:10

According to thy word

It will be as you say

Leviticus 11:16

After his kind

Any kind

Genesis 45:23

After this manner

This is what

Exodus 14:13

Again no more forever

Will never see again

Exodus 2:23

And it came to pass

During that long period

2 Samuel 1:9

Anguish is come upon me

I am in the throes of death

Proverbs 14:14

Backslider in heart

The faithless

Psalm 90:17

Beauty of the LORD

Favor of the Lord

2 Samuel 12:12

Before the sun

In broad daylight

Exodus 32:18

Being overcome

Defeat

Genesis 43:33

Birthright

Ages

2 Kings 25:26

Both small and great

Least to the greatest

Proverbs 2:7

Buckler to them

A shield to those

Numbers 9:23

By the hand of Moses

Through Moses

Jeremiah 7:10

Called by my name

Bears my Name

Genesis 6:4

Came in unto

Went to

1 Samuel 2:26

Child Samuel

Boy Samuel

Ezra 6:16

Children of the captivity

The rest of the exiles

2 Samuel 7:10

Children of wickedness

Wicked people

Haggai 1:7

Consider your ways

Give careful thought

Psalm 2:2

Counsel together

Gather together

Psalm 30:2

Cried

Called

Jonah 1:2

Cry against

Preached against

Exodus 23:23

Cut them off

Wipe them out

Even Jewish expressions from Psalm 23, such as “I shall not want,” “the

valley of the shadow of death,” and “I will dwell in the house of the Lord

for ever” are changed in many modern versions. Today’s English Version

alters these beloved Hebrew expressions; they become “I have everything I

need,” “if I go through the deepest darkness,” and “your house will be my

home as long as I live.” English expressions such as those found in the

NIV and TEV may be easier for some to understand. However, they have

lost the influence of their Jewish heritage.

The Preeminence Of Christ

Some have proclaimed that modern versions or their Greek texts deny

the deity of Jesus Christ. Certainly there are some, such as the New World

Translation, that seek to diminish Christ’s deity. It is also true that some

versions are stronger regarding Christ’s deity than others. While most

translations clearly and strongly proclaim this basic biblical truth, the

Traditional Text does present a stronger Christology regarding His deity

(Matthew 19:16-17; Romans 14:10, 12; Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 3:16;

1 John 5:7; and Revelation 1:8, 11).

Additionally, other aspects of Christology are more strongly pre-

sented in the Traditional Text. For example, in Luke 2:33, 43 the

Traditional Text calls the stepfather of Christ by his name and separates

him from the person of Mary. We read, “Joseph and his mother mar-

velled” and “Joseph and his mother knew not of it.” However, the

Critical Text changes “Joseph” to “father,” making the texts read “his

father and mother marveled” and “his father and mother knew not of

it.” Such readings do not in themselves deny the virgin birth of Christ;

still the reading found in the Traditional Text upholds this doctrine and

removes any possible confusion in this regard.

The same may be said of Christ’s redemption. Again, the truth of salva-

tion is found in all Greek texts and English translations. Yet, certain

aspects are presented more forcefully in the Traditional Text and the KJV

in certain places. We are told that we have redemption “through his

blood” in Colossians 1:14. The Critical Text does not contain this

phrase at this place, though it does appear in all texts in Ephesians 1:7.

This raises two questions. First, why would the phrase be found in Paul’s

letter to the Ephesians and not in his letter to the Colossians? Second,

how is it possible to have redemption without divine payment for that

redemption? Clearly the phrase should remain in regard to this doctrine.

The Greek manuscripts are evenly divided as to its inclusion or omis-

sion. This can be demonstrated with the two editions of the Majority

330

Text. The internal evidence, based on Ephesians 1:7, would argue for

its inclusion in that the phrase is used by Paul elsewhere and is consis-

tent with what he would have written. Overall, when we consider other

textual sources, the reading must remain because it is biblical and in

character with Paul’s other writings.

An additional example concerns 1 Peter 2:2. We are told in the

Traditional Text that as newborn babies in Christ we should “desire the

sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby.” The Greek phrase

found in the Traditional Text reads ina en auto auxethete (that ye may

grow). The Critical Text adds eis soterian (to salvation) at the end of the

phrase, suggesting that salvation is something we grow to. This is why the

NRSV renders the phrase as “that by it you may grow into salvation.”

Certainly the reading of the Traditional Text omits the confusion and pro-

vides a stronger Christology here regarding redemption.

In regard to Christ, Paul reminds us that “in all things he might have

the preeminence” (Colossians 1:18). If Christ is to have the preeminence

in all things, this would include Bible translations. Just as one can use a

modern version to prove the deity of Christ, so modern versions proclaim

the person of Jesus Christ. Though this may not be in question, divine

names are not always as strongly proclaimed in the Critical Text. Instead

of phrases such as “Lord Jesus Christ” we might find “Jesus Christ” or

“Jesus.” In fact, there are about two hundred such examples found in the

New Testament where the expanded title is found in the Traditional Text.

Sometimes a simple omission has profound impact. 1 John 1:7 is a

good illustration of this. The Traditional Text reads, “But if we walk in the

light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the

blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Modern versions

based on the Alexandrian textual line read “Jesus” instead of “Jesus

Christ.” The difference seems small on the surface, but we must remem-

ber that John wrote this epistle to confront the heresy of Gnosticism. The

Gnostics taught that Jesus and Christ were two separate entities. Jesus, they

said, was born of Joseph and Mary and was physical. At his baptism the

Christ, who was spiritual, was said to have entered into him. At this point,

according to the Gnostics, Jesus became Jesus Christ. At his crucifixion,

the Gnostics claimed that the Christ left, leaving only Jesus to die. At the

resurrection, the disciples saw the spirit Christ, but the mortal Jesus

remained dead. Once we understand the heresy John was confronting, the

differences between the two readings becomes abundantly clear. If John

had written “the blood of Jesus” he would have been making a statement

that the Gnostics would have been in agreement with. After all, they

believed that it was Jesus who shed his blood. But by writing “the blood of

Jesus Christ,” John was making a direct assault on this Gnostic heresy.

The Nature Of God

The Bible proclaims that God is truth (John 4:24). Without this fact,

the whole Bible is a lie as well as all of Christianity. So, we must look for a

Bible that reflects what God is since the Bible is his word. There are several

places where the KJV and its underlining texts are more truthful in their

proclamation of the word of truth. For example, in 2 Samuel 21:19 we

read: “And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where

Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of

Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

This is a truthful statement supported by 1 Chronicles 20:5.

Unfortunately, modern versions omit the phrase “the brother of,” suggest-

ing that Elhanan killed Goliath. Such a suggestion is biblically untrue, for

the Scriptures are clear that David killed Goliath (1 Samuel 17).

The only place where the name Lucifer is given is Isaiah 14:12, “How

art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The verse is

changed by some to read, “O morning star” instead of “O Lucifer.” Is the

one who fell from heaven Lucifer or morning star? The problem is com-

pounded when we read in the New Testament that Jesus Christ is the

morning star (Revelation 22:16). One may wish to argue the Latin deriv-

ative of the name Lucifer; however, the one who fell was not Jesus Christ.

In Matthew 5:22 the Traditional Text states, “But I say unto you, That

whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of

the judgment.” The Critical Text does not contain the phrase “without a

cause.” Therefore, if one is angry he is sinning. Since Christ was angry and

chased the moneychangers out of the temple, he would be guilty of sin-

ning. But we know that Christ did not sin, so the more truthful statement

is found in the Traditional Text.

These arguments are not presented to defame, discredit, or disparage

anyone’s translation. As the King’s translators reminded us, even the

meanest translation of the Bible contains the word of God. When anyone

sits down with his or her translation and reads what God has given, all

Christians rejoice. Nevertheless, one’s personal choice in translation does

not negate the promise of preservation. Nor should it cause any to speak

ill of what has so wonderfully and beautifully been given. When we con-

sider these things with respect to the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts

and the English Authorized Version, we may find that God has truly

crowned them with glory.

Scriptura est vitae magistra

About the Author

For over twenty years, Dr. Thomas Holland has been a pastor and

scholar. He earned his B.A. from Cedarville College and later his Th.M

and Th.D from Immanuel Baptist Theological Seminary. He has

taught courses on the subject of biblical textual criticism and preserva-

tion, theology, and Christian apologetics at various Bible Institutes.

Several of his courses are on numerous web sites. In 1996, A Critique of

The King James Only Controversy by Dr. Holland was published

through Bible Believers Press in Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Holland is an

ordained minister with the American Baptist Churches (ABC-USA)

where he and his wife, Amy, continue to labor for the Lord in the min-

istry to which they have been called.

E-mail address:

DrTHolland@aol.com

Appendix A

KJV Translators And Governing Rules

Westminster Group

Old Testament (Genesis-Kings)

Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster.

Mr. William Bedwell, St. John’s College, Cambridge.

Dr. Francis Burleigh, Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.

Dr. Richard Clarke, Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge.

Mr. Jeffrey King, Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge.

Dr. John Layfield, Fellow of Trinity College.

Dr. John Overall, Dean of St. Paul’s.

Dr. Hadrian Saravia, Canon of Canterbury.

Dr. Robert Tigue, Archdeacon of Middlesex.

Mr. Richard Thomson, Clare Hall, Cambridge.

New Testament (Romans-Jude)

Dr. William Barlow, Dean of Chester.

Mr. William Dakins, Fellow ofTrinity College, Cambridge.

Dr. Roger Fenton, Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.

Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, Archbishop of St. Alban’s.

Mr. Michael Rabbett, Trinity College, Cambridge.

Dr. Thomas Sanderson, Balliol College, Oxford.

Dr. John Spenser, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Oxford Group

Old Testament (Isaiah-Malachi)

Dr. Richard Brett, Fellow of Lincoln College.

Dr. Daniel Featley (also know as Daniel Fairclough), Fellow of New

College.

Dr. John Harding, President of Magdalen College.

Dr. Thomas Holland (no known relation to present author), Rector of

Exeter College.

Mr. Richard Kilby, Rector of Lincoln College.

Dr. John Rainolds, President of Corpus Christi College.

Dr. Miles Smith, Canon of Hereford.

New Testament (Matthew-Acts and Revelation)

Dr. George Abbot, Dean of Winchester.

Dr. John Aglionby, Rector of Blechindon.

Dr. John Harmer, Fellow of New College.

Dr. Leonard Hutton, Bishop of Gloucester.

Dr. John Perin, Fellow of St. John’s College.

Dr. Thomas Ravis, Fellow of St. John’s College.

Sir Henry Savile, Provost of Eaton.

Dr. Giles Thomson, Dean of Windsor.

Cambridge Group

Old Testament (1 Chronicles-Ecclesiastes)

Mr. Roger Andrews, Master of Jesus College.

Mr. Andrew Bing, Fellow of St. Peter’s College.

Mr. Laurence Chaderton, Master of Emmanuel College.

Mr. Francis Dillingham, Fellow of Christ’s College.

Mr. Thomas Harrison, Vice-Master of Trinity College.

Mr. Edward Lively, Fellow of Trinity College.

Mr. John Richardson, Master of Trinity College.

Mr. Robert Spalding, Fellow of St. John’s College.

Apocrypha

Dr. John Bois, Fellow of St. John’s College (later edited Romans-Revelation).

Dr. William Branthwaite, Master of Caius College.

Mr. Andrew Downes, Fellow of St. John’s College.

Dr. John Duport, Master of Jesus College.

Dr. Jeremy Radcliffe, Fellow of Trinity College.

Dr. Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney College.

Mr. Robert Ward, Fellow of King’s College.

The Rules Framed By The KJV Translators

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the

Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the

original will admit.

2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other

names of the text, to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they

were vulgarly used.

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz., the word church not to

be translated congregation, &c.

4. When a word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath

been most commonly used by the most of the ancient fathers, being

agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogy of the faith.

5. The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little

as may be, if necessity so require.

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of

the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot, without some circumlocu-

tion, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for

the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or

chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself

where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have

done, and agree for their parts what shall stand.

9.

9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner,

they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judi-

ciously, for his Majesty is very careful in this point.

10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, doubt or dif-

fer upon any place, to send them word thereof, note the place, and

withal send the reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to

be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief per-

sons of each company at the end of the work.

11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be

directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his

judgment of such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admon-

ishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as

many as being skillful in the tongues, and having taken pains in the

kind, to send his particular observations to the company either at

Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The director in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and

Chester for that place, and the king’s professors in the Hebrew or Greek

in either university.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than

the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.

15. Besides the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the

most ancient and grave divines in either of the universities, not

employed in translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor upon

conference with the rest of the Heads to be overseers of the translations,

as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule

above specified.

Appendix B

Internal Evidence for Mark 16:9-20

The external evidence for the so-called longer ending of Mark (Mark

16:9-20) is substantial and overwhelming. It is the reading of the vast

majority of the existing Greek manuscripts and lectionaries. It has

ancient support from church fathers dating to the middle of the second

century, and is also contained in a number of ancient versions includ-

ing the Old Latin manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, and part

of the Coptic versions.

More importantly, those who reject the longer reading do not, for the

most part, replace it with any viable textual variant. Instead, it is the conclu-

sion of most textual scholars that either Mark did not finish his Gospel or

that the original ending was lost in the process of transmission. Neither view

agrees with the doctrine of biblical inspiration, or the character of the New

Testament as a whole. Sadly, the dominant position among textual critics is

that the original ending was lost. This, of course, would nullify biblical

preservation and would logically require us to ask if other sections have like-

wise been lost. It would also cause us to approach the Bible as we would any

other book of antiquity without regard to its divine significance. In so doing,

higher criticism gives way to lower criticism and questions the very founda-

tions of biblical inspiration, infallibility, and preservation.

With the inexorable external evidence for the passage coupled with a

high regard for biblical inspiration and preservation, what is the basis for

considering the longer ending anything but original? The answer provided

by some scholars concerns the internal evidence. To them the words and

style do not correlate with what John Mark had already written. Dr. Bruce

Metzger notes some of the internal evidence that causes the majority of

scholars to reject this passage as genuine. Metzger writes:

The long ending, though present in a variety of witnesses,

some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evi-

dence to be secondary. For example, the presence of seven-

teen non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan

sense; the lack of a smooth juncture between verses 8 and 9

(the subject in vs. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the pre-

sumed subject in vs. 9); and the way in which Mary is iden-

tified in verse 9 even though she has been mentioned

previously (vs. 1)—all these features indicate that the sec-

tion was added by someone who knew a form of Mark

which ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to pro-

vide a more appropriate conclusion.332

Let us first consider these points more closely and then establish the

internal evidence that speaks in favor of the longer ending. The first point

raised by Metzger sounds, on the surface, solid and convincing. The sec-

ond two points are minor because they do not establish a pattern that is

non-biblical in nature or one that could not be applied to other writers as

well. For example, it is true that Mary is identified twice as “Mary

Magdalene” in Mark chapter sixteen. However, since another Mary is

identified in verse one with her, Mary the mother of James, then it would

be logical to once again identify which Mary is spoken of in verse nine.

Further, the connection of “Magdalene” with Mary is found elsewhere in

the New Testament (Matthew 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; Luke 8:2;

24:10; John 19:25; 20:1, 18). It is not abnormal to identify her as the one

of whom Christ had cast out seven devils. Luke likewise identifies her in

this fashion (Luke 8:2), the significance of which will be emphasized later.

Additionally, the “lack of a smooth juncture” between verses eight and

nine plays little significance. Verse nine focuses on the witness of Mary

after seeing the empty tomb, understandable in light of the previous com-

ments in verses one through eight. The Gospels are presented in a narra-

tive providing a historical record of events occurring within the life of

Christ. When such a record is supplied it is to be expected to find several

junctures that are not smooth in transition; in fact, this is exactly what we

find within all of the Gospels. For example, the Gospels present the raising

of Jairus’ daughter from death. Yet in the midst of the story the subject is

changed to the healing of the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:22-

43). Another example concerns Peter’s denials. In the first three Gospels

his denials are presented in one discourse (Matthew 26:60-75; Mark

14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62). Yet there is a change of subject in both

Matthew and Mark regarding Peter following the crowd that arrested Jesus

in that they present this fact earlier (Matthew 26:58; Mark 14:54).

Further, John presents the event and then continues through Peter’s first

denial, only later to record the other two times he denies Christ (John

18:15-18, 25-27). These are all junctures that lack a smooth transition,

yet are faithful to the historical events that occurred. Regardless, the final

two points raised by Metzger are minor.

What is of much more significance is Metzger’s first point, the non-

Marcan words found in the longer ending. Depending on which text

one uses, there are about one hundred eighty-three words found in the

longer ending of Mark. Of these there are fifty-three words used that do

not appear elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel (at least in the form presented in

the longer ending). Of these, all but twenty-one are found elsewhere in

the New Testament in the exact form as presented by Mark. To find

such a high number of unique words within twelve verses may on the

surface seem to be strong evidence that Mark did not author this sec-

tion. However, if this is true how does one explain the fact that the

same thing occurs elsewhere in the New Testament? For example, in the

first twelve verses of Luke there are twenty words used by Luke that are

not found in the same form anywhere else in the New Testament. The

following charts present the words unique to Mark 16:9-20 and those

unique to Luke 1:1-12.

Reference In Mark

Greek Word^333

Mark 16:9

Mapia Tn May8aXnvn

Mark 16:9

EKPeP^nKei

Mark 16:10

nopeuSeiaa

Mark 16:10

nevSouai

Mark 16:11

eSeaSn

Mark 16:11

nniaTnaav

Mark 16:12

rcopeuo^evoig

Mark 16:14

a>vei8iae

Mark 16:14

Qeaaa^evoig

Mark 16:16

aniaTnaag

Mark 16:16

KaTaKTCiSn aeTai

Mark 16:17

napaKoXouSnaei

Mark 16:17

eKPaXouaiv

Mark 16:17

Kaivaig

Mark 16:18

Qavaai^ov

Mark 16:18

rciroaiv

Mark 16:18

pXa^n or pXa^ei in the TR

Mark 16:18

erciQnaouaiv

Mark 16:20

auvep^ouvTog

Mark 16:20

PePaiouvTog

Mark 16:20

enaKoXouSouvTrov

Reference In Luke

Greek “^^ord

Luke 1

1

EneiSnnep

Luke 1

1

avaTa^aaflai

Luke 1

1

Sinynaiv

Luke 1

1

nenXn po^opn |ev rov

Luke 1

2

napeSoaav

Luke 1

2

auTonTai

Luke 1

3

napn KoXouSn KOTI

Luke 1

4

emyvro?

Luke 1

4

KaTn^nen?

Luke 1

4

aa^aXeiav

Luke 1

5

e^niepia?

Luke 1

5

QuyaTeprov

Luke 1

6

SiKairoiaaiv

Luke 1

7

npoPePnKoTe?

Luke 1

8

iepaTeueiv

Luke 1

8

Ta£,ei

Luke 1

9

ienaTeia?

Luke 1

9

eXaxe

Luke 1

9

0u|iaaai

Luke 1

10

0u|ia|aTo?

The fact that Mark has a number of words that appear only in this form

in Mark 16:9-20 is not as unique as one would think; in Luke we have vir-

tually the same number of words that appear only in this form, and are

only found in Luke 1:1-12.Of the twenty-one words unique to Mark, none of them are unique

words in and of themselves. Instead, they are forms of words found else-

where in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 16:9 we have the

word eKPePXnKei (he had cast out) which is simply the third person sin-

gular pluperfect aorist of the word eKPaXXro, a word found throughout

the New Testament. Likewise, the word nopeuQeioa (went) found in

Mark 16:10 is a form of the word nopeuo|ai that appears about a dozen

times elsewhere in Scripture. Another form of this very word,

nopeuo|ievoi?, appears in Mark 16:12, 15. So also the word wneidise

(upbraided) of Mark 16:14, which is the aorist of oveiSi^ro that appears

about ten times in the New Testament including Mark 15:32 where it

appears as roveiSi^ov (reviled).

Additionally, even if these unique words were found only in Mark

16:9-20 (in both form and occurrence), that would not establish that

someone else wrote the conclusion of this Gospel. Excluding the longer

ending, there are no less than one hundred two words that are unique to

Mark. Likewise, the same can be said of the other New Testament writers.

Matthew has one hundred thirty-seven words that are unique to that

Gospel, Luke has three hundred twelve in his Gospel, and John has one

hundred fourteen words unique to his Gospel. Therefore, unique words

(or even forms of words) do not establish that Mark did not write the last

twelve verses of his Gospel. Instead, we find this to be commonplace

within the New Testament.

Having presented this evidence, the question then must be asked: “Is

there any internal evidence that substantiate Mark as the writer of the

longer ending?” The answer is yes. However, before we consider the evi-

dence we must recall something about John Mark. The New Testament

reveals that Mark was related to Barnabas and traveled with him and the

Apostle Paul early in the ministry of Paul (Acts 12:25). Mark, a young

man at the time, returned from the mission voyage. Later, when

Barnabas wanted to take Mark with him on the next trip, Paul refused,

causing a rift between Barnabas and Paul (Acts 15:37-39). This occurs

around 46 AD. Paul then travels on with Silas and Luke. Later in life,

Paul asks for Mark to rejoin him, with Luke still at his side (2 Timothy

4:11). We see from Scripture that Mark was a traveling companion of

Paul’s, and later a friend and fellow minister with this mission minded

apostle and the beloved physician, Luke. Mark writes his Gospel

(between 57 and 63 AD) before Luke writes either his Gospel or the

book of Acts (both written between 63 and 68 AD). When Paul asks

Timothy to bring Mark with him it is around 66 AD and the context

indicates that Mark had been with them for sometime. It is reasonable

to conclude that Mark had first hand information from Luke and Paul

regarding events in their lives that are later revealed in the book of Acts.

With this in mind, it comes as no surprise to find in Mark 16:9-20 an

association with Luke and Paul. To begin with, the sign gifts found in the

longer ending are all fulfilled in Luke’s record of Acts with the exception of

the one conditional sign gift (“if they drink any deadly thing”). The gifts

of casting out devils, speaking with new tongues, healing the sick, and tak-

ing up serpents are all fulfilled in Acts (16:18; 2:4; 9:32-35; 28:3-6). The

account of the two on the road to Emmaus is not only recorded in Mark

16:12 but is also found in Luke 24:13-35. As noted earlier in this thesis,

Mark identifies Mary Magdalene as the one of whom Christ cast out seven

devils, an event that is noted again only in Luke (8:2). The ascension of

Christ is found in Mark 16:19-20 as well as Luke’s two books (Luke

24:50-53; Acts 1:6-11). Just as the book of Matthew expands the con-

densed events in the Gospel of Mark, so the longer ending of Mark is a

condensed presentation of what Luke later expands. This indicates that

the writer of the longer ending was associated with Luke and knew him

personally, highlighting some of the very events Luke later emphasizes

under his inspiration. John Mark would certainly fit this position.

We have those unique words found in Mark 16:9-20. Many of these

have a very strong association with Luke and Paul, both of whom were

associates of John Mark. For example, in Mark 16:10 we find the word

aphggeilen (reported/told) that appears nowhere else in Mark’s Gospel in

that form. The same word in the same form appears nine other times in

the New Testament, all in Luke’s writings (Luke 8:47; 14:21; Acts 5:25;

11:13; 12:14; 16:36; 22:26; 23:16; 28:21). The word pisteusaV (believ-

ing) appears in this form only twice in the New Testament, once in Mark

16:16 and then again by Luke in Acts 11:21. The Critical Text uses the

word blayh in Mark 16:18 while the Textus Receptus uses the form blayei

(shall it hurt). Both are a form of the word blayan (hurt) which is found

only once in the New Testament and that by Luke in his Gospel (4:35). In

Mark 16:11 we have the word hpisthsan (believed it not) which is a form

of the Greek word apistew that is found only five times in the New

Testament, all either by Luke (24:11, 41; Acts 28:24) or Paul (Romans

3:3; 2 Timothy 2:13). The word nopeuo|ievoi? (went) of Mark 16:12 is

a form of the word nopeuo|ai that is used eighty-six times by Luke in

his Gospel and the book of Acts.

Below are some additional examples of words that are used by Mark

only in the longer ending and yet appear in the same form heavily in the

writings of both Luke and Paul.

Greek Word

Only Occurrence In Same Form

KaKeivoi

Mark 16:11, 13; John 17:24; Acts 15:11; Romans 11:23; 1 Corinthians

10:6; Hebrews 4:2

Zn

Mark 16:11; John 4:50, 51; Romans 6:10; 7:1; 14:7; 1 Corinthians 7:39;

2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 2:20; Hebrews 7:8; 9:17

eTena

Mark 16:12; Acts 20:15; 27:3; James 2:25

Xoinoi?

Mark 16:13; Luke 8:10; 24:9; Romans 1:13; 1 Corinthians 7:12; 2

Corinthians 13:2; Philippians 1:13; Revelation 2:24

evSeKa

Mark 16:14; Matthew 28:16; Luke 24:9, 33; Acts 1:26; 2:14

naan

Mark 16:15; Matthew 6:29; Luke 7:17; 12:27; John 16:13; Acts 1:8;

2:43; 5:23; 7:22; 23:1 Romans 1:29; 9:17; 1 Corinthians 1:5; 4:17; 2

Corinthians 1:4; 7:4; 8:7; 12:12; Ephesians 1:3, 8; 4:31; 5:9; 6:18;

Philippians 1:3, 4, 9, 20; Colossians 1:9, 11, 23, 28; 3:16; 1

Thessalonians 3:7, 9; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; 3:17; 1 Timothy 2:2, 11;

5:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 1:15; 2:13; Revelation 11:6

niaTeuaaciv

Mark 16:17; Acts 11:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:10

yXroaaaia

Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6; Romans 3:13; 1 Corinthians

12:30; 13:1; 14:5, 6, 18, 23, 39; Revelation 10:11

aveXni^Sn

Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2, 22; 10:16; 1 Timothy 3:16

None of these establish that Mark wrote the longer ending. However,

when we consider all of this in light of the contextual evidence within the

longer ending, we can certainly see that whoever wrote the longer ending

had a unique awareness of the events and vocabulary of both Luke and

Paul. As we have seen, this would certainly be consistent with what we his-

torically know of John Mark. It is enough to say that there is nothing in

the longer ending to dispel it from the Gospel of Mark, and everything in

it that would call for its inclusion. It certainly should not be rejected

because of the faulty witnesses of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And, as can be

seen, it should not be rejected because of the internal evidence. Instead,

both the external and internal evidence reveals that the longer ending was

penned by John Mark and is part of the divine record.

Appendix C

Textual Evidence

The following information is provided to allow the reader a quick glance

at some of the manuscripts used as textual support. It is not an in-depth

listing of all material.

Some Biblical Manuscripts Among The Dead Sea Scrolls

Cave 1

1QGen., 1QExod., 1QDeut.a, 1QDeut.b, 1QJudg., 1QSam., 1QPs.a,

1QPs.b, 1QPs.c, 1QIsa.a, 1QIsa.b, 1QEzek., 1QDan.b

Cave 2

2QGen., 2QExod.a, 2QExod.b, 2QExod.c, 2QNumb.a, 2QNumb.b,

2QNumb.c, 2QNumb.d, 2QDeut.a, 2QDeut.b, 2QDeut.c, 2QRuth.a,

2QRuth.b, 2QJob, 2QPs., 2QJer.

Cave 3

3QEzek., 3QPs., 3QLam.

Cave 4

4QGen-Exod.a, 4QGen.b, 4QGen.c, 4QGen.d, 4QGen.e, 4QGen.f

4QExod.b, 4QExod.c, 4QExod.d, 4QExod.e, 4QExod-Lev./ 4Qlev-

Num.a, 4QLev.b, 4QLev.c, 4QLev.d, 4QLev.e, 4QLev.g, 4QNumb.b,

4QDeut.a, 4QDeut.b, 4QDeut.c, 4QDeut.d

Cave 5

5QDeut, 5QKings, 5QPs., 5QIsa., 5QLam.a, 5QLam.b, 5QAmos

Cave 6

6QpalaeoGen., 6QpalaeoLev, 6QDeut (?), 6QKgs., 6QDan.

Cave 7 (all in Greek)

7QLXXExod, 7Q4 (?), 7Q5 (?)

Cave 8

8QGen., 8QPs.

Cave 11

11QpalaeoLev.a, 11QpalaeoLev.b, 11QDeut., 11QEzek, 11QPs.a,

11QPs.b, 11QPs.c, 11QPs.d, 11QPs.e, 11QPs.

Some Old Testament Masoretic Manuscripts

4445

Cairo Codex

Petersburg Codex

Aleppo Codex

Leningrad Codex

(820-850 AD)

(895 AD)

(916 AD)

(900-950 AD)

(1008 AD)

Some Greek Manuscripts Of The New Testament334

Papyrus

Approximate Number: 100

First century

P4, P46, P64, P67

Second century

P52, P66, P90, P98

Third century

P1, P5, P9, P12, P15, P20, P22, P23, P27, P28, P29, P30, P32, P38,

P39, P40, P45, P47, P48, P49, P53, P65, P69, P70, P75, P77, P80,

P87, P91, P95

Fourth century

P6, P7, P8, P10, P13, P16, P17, P18, P24, P25, P35, P37, P51, P62,

P71, P72, P78, P81, P83, P84, P86, P88, P89, P92

Fifth century

P14, P19, P21, P50, P51, P57, P63, P82, P85, P93

Sixth century

P2, P26, P33, P36, P54, P56, P58, P63, P68, P76, P83, P84, P94, P96

Seventh century

P3, P11, P31, P34, P43, P44, P55, P59, P60, P61, P68, P73, P74,

P79, P97

Eighth century

P41, P42, P61

Uncials

Approximate Number: 300

Third century

0189, 0212, 0220

Fourth century

01, 03, 058, 0162, 0169, 0171, 0185, 0188, 0206, 0207, 0221, 0228,

0230, 0231, 0242, 0258

Fifth century

02, 04, 05, 016, 026, 029, 032, 048, 057, 059, 061, 062, 068, 069, 077,

0113, 0125, 0139, 0160, 0163, 0165, 0166, 0172, 0173, 0174, 0175,

0176, 0181, 0182, 0201, 0214, 0215, 0216, 0217, 0218, 0219, 0226,

0227, 0236, 0240, 0244, 0252, 0254, 0261, 0264, 0267, 0270, 0274,

0301

Sixth century

06, 08, 022, 023, 024, 027, 035, 040, 042, 043, 060, 064, 065, 066,

067, 070, 071, 072, 073, 074, 076, 078, 079, 080, 081, 082, 084, 085,

086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, 092a, 092b, 093, 094, 0110, 0124, 0143,

0147, 0158, 0159, 0170, 0178, 0179, 0180, 0184, 0186, 0187, 0190,

0191, 0193, 0198, 0202, 0208, 0213, 0222, 0223, 0224, 0225, 0232,

0237, 0241, 0245, 0246, 0247, 0251, 0253, 0260, 0263, 0265, 0266,

0282, 0285, 0292, 0293, 0296,

Seventh century

083, 096, 097, 098, 099, 0103, 0104, 0106, 0107, 0108, 0109, 0111,

0112, 0119, 0138, 0144, 0145, 0164, 0167, 0183, 0199, 0200, 0204,

0209, 0210, 0211, 0235, 0239, 0259, 0262, 0268, 0275, 0289, 0294,

0300

Eighth century

07, 019, 047, 054, 095, 0101, 0102, 0116, 0118, 0123, 0126, 0127,

0134, 0146, 0148, 0156, 0157, 0161, 0168, 0205, 0229, 0233, 0234,

0238, 0250, 0256, 0277, 0281, 0291

Ninth century

09, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 017, 018, 020, 025, 030, 031, 034,

037, 038, 039, 041, 049, 050, 053, 063, 0117, 0120, 0122, 0128, 0130,

0131, 0132, 0133, 0135, 0136, 0137, 0150, 0151, 0154, 0155, 0196,

0197, 0248, 0255, 0257, 0269, 0271, 0272, 0273, 0278, 0279, 0298

Tenth century

021, 028, 033, 036, 044, 045, 046, 051, 052, 056, 075, 0105, 0115,

0121, 0121b, 0140, 0141, 0142, 0177, 0243, 0249

Eleventh century

0299

Minuscule

Approximate Number: 2,800

Ninth century

33, 461, 565, 892, 1080, 1295, 1862, 1895,2142, 2464, 2500

Tenth century

14, 29, 34, 36e, 27, 63, 82, 100, 115, 135, 144, 151, 161, 175, 221,

237, 262, 274, 278b, 307, 314, 326, 344, 364, 371, 398, 399, 405,

411, 436, 450, 454, 456, 457, 478, 481, 564, 568, 584, 602, 605,

619, 626, 627, 669, 832, 920, 1055, 1066, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079,

1203, 1220, 1223, 1225, 1347, 1351, 1357, 1392, 1417, 1424,

1452, 1458, 1582, 1611, 1662, 1720, 1735, 1739, 1756, 1760,

1829, 1836, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 1905,

1912, 1920, 1927, 1954, 1997, 2110, 2125, 2193, 2324, 2329,

2351, 2373, 2414, 2424, 2545, 2722 2768, 2789, 2790, 2811, 2812

Eleventh century

7p, 8, 12, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 50, 65, 68, 72, 75,

77, 81, 83, 89, 98, 104, 108, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 133,

137, 142, 143, 148, 150, 158, 174, 177, 186, 194, 195, 197, 200,

207, 208, 210, 213, 212, 215, 230, 236, 237, 238, 241, 250, 259,

272, 276, 277, 300, 301, 302, 314, 323, 325, 331, 343, 348, 350,

352, 354, 357, 360, 375, 376, 422, 424, 451, 458, 459, 465, 466,

470, 473, 474, 475, 476, 490, 491, 497, 504, 506, 507, 516, 526,

527, 528, 530, 532, 547, 548, 549, 559, 560, 569, 583, 585, 596,

607, 623, 624, 625, 638, 639, 640, 651, 672, 699, 700, 707, 708,

711, 717, 746, 754, 756, 773, 785, 788, 809, 831, 870, 884, 887,

894, 901,910, 919, 937, 942, 943, 944, 945, 964, 965, 991, 994,

1006, 1012, 1014, 1028, 1045, 1054, 1056, 1073, 1074, 1110,

1123, 1168, 1174, 1175, 1187, 1192, 1194, 1207, 1209, 1210,

1211, 1212, 1214, 1216, 1219, 1221, 1222, 1243, 1244, 1277,

1300, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1317, 1320, 1324, 1340, 1343, 1346,

1373, 1384, 1438, 1443, 1444, 1448, 1449, 1470, 1493, 1505,

1510, 1513, 1514, 1517, 1520, 1521, 1545, 1556, 1570, 1579,

1607, 1668, 1672, 1691, 1693, 1701, 1730, 1734, 1738, 1770,

1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1878, 1879,

1888, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1916, 1919, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1925,

1932, 1933, 1934, 1946, 1955, 1980, 1981, 1982, 2001, 2007,

2081, 2098, 2132, 2133, 2138, 2144, 2172, 2176, 2181, 2183,

2199, 2275, 2277, 2281, 2396, 2295, 2307, 2344, 2346, 2381,

2386, 2387, 2430, 2442, 2447, 2451, 2458, 2468, 2475, 2539,

2547, 2559, 2563, 2567, 2571, 2587, 2596, 2613, 2637, 2649,

2661, 2723, 2746, 2760, 2782, 2787

Twelfth century

1r, 1, 2e, 2ap, 3, 9, 11, 15, 21, 22, 32, 36, 44, 46, 57, 64, 71, 73, 76,

80, 84, 88, 95, 97, 98, 103, 105, 110, 111, 116, 119, 120, 122, 129,

132, 134, 138, 139, 140, 156, 157, 159, 162, 179, 183, 187, 193,

196, 199, 202, 203, 217, 224, 225, 226, 229, 231, 240, 242, 244,

245, 247, 251, 261, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 275, 280, 281,

282, 297, 304, 321, 306, 319, 320, 329, 330, 334, 337, 346, 347,

351, 353, 355, 356, 365, 366, 374, 378, 387, 392, 395, 396, 401,

407, 408, 419, 431, 438, 439, 440, 443, 452, 462, 471, 485, 499,

502, 505, 509, 510, 514, 517, 518, 520, 524, 529, 531, 535, 538,

543, 550, 551, 556, 570, 571, 580, 587, 610, 618, 620, 622, 637,

650, 655, 657, 660, 662, 673, 674, 688, 692, 713, 720, 736, 748,

750, 760, 765, 768, 770, 774, 777, 778, 779, 782, 787, 793, 799,

808, 826, 828, 843, 857, 860, 877, 896, 902, 911, 916, 917, 922,

936, 950, 967, 971, 973, 975, 980, 983, 987, 993, 998, 1007, 1010,

1013, 1046, 1071, 1081, 1083, 1085, 1088, 1112, 1169, 1176, 1186,

1190, 1191, 1193, 1195, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1217, 1218, 1224,

1230, 1231, 1240, 1241, 1301, 1309, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1319, 1323,

1329, 1338, 1344, 1350a, 1355, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1364, 1365,

1375, 1385, 1437, 1539, 1540, 1542b, 1566, 1583, 1646, 1673,

1683, 1709, 1714, 1718, 1737, 1752, 1754, 1755a, 1755b, 1800,

1821, 1826, 1828, 1872, 1889, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1926, 1942,

1951, 1962, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1986, 1988, 2013, 2030, 2050, 2096,

2126, 2127, 2135, 2139, 2143, 2145, 2147, 2173, 2177, 2189, 2191,

2289, 2298, 2382, 2389, 2412, 2415, 2426, 2437, 2445, 2459, 2490,

2507, 2536, 2541, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2562, 2639, 2650, 2657, 2671,

2700, 2712, 2725, 2727, 2744, 2781, 2784, 2785, 2791, 2792, 2794,

2814, 2815, 2818

Thirteenth century

4, 6, 13, 51, 52, 55, 60, 65, 74, 94, 107, 118, 121, 128, 136, 141,

147, 167, 170, 180, 192, 198, 204, 206, 218, 219, 220, 227, 248,

260, 263, 283, 284, 291, 292, 293, 303, 305, 309, 327, 328, 342,

359, 361, 362, 384, 388, 390, 410, 435, 441, 442, 449, 460, 469,

472, 473, 477, 479, 482, 483, 484, 496, 500, 501, 511, 519, 533,

534, 544, 546, 553, 554, 558, 573, 574, 579, 592, 593, 597, 601,

614, 663, 666, 677, 684, 685, 689, 691, 696, 705, 714, 715, 725,

726, 729, 737, 757, 759, 775, 811, 820, 825, 827, 830, 835, 840,

897, 898, 900, 905, 906, 912, 914, 915, 966, 969, 970, 981, 995,

997, 999, 1000, 1004, 1008, 1009, 1011, 1015, 1016, 1031, 1050,

1052, 1053, 1057, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1087, 1089, 1094, 1103, 1107,

1129, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1161, 1177, 1201, 1205, 1206, 1208, 1213,

1215, 1226, 1229, 1238, 1242, 1251, 1255, 1285, 1310, 1339, 1341,

1352a, 1398, 1400, 1542a, 1546, 1555, 1563, 1573, 1594, 1597,

1604, 1622, 1642, 1685, 1689, 1717,1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1740,

1742, 1758, 1772, 1827, 1852, 1855, 1858, 1887, 1922, 1938, 1941,

1956, 1972, 1992, 2027, 2053, 2062, 2111, 2119, 2140, 2141, 2236,

2311, 2322, 2353, 2372, 2374, 2376, 2380, 2390, 2400, 2409, 2420,

2423, 2457, 2479, 2483, 2502, 2516, 2534, 2540, 2542, 2558, 2568,

2600, 2624, 2627, 2633, 2643, 2645, 2658, 2660, 2665, 2696, 2699,

2718, 2724, 2757, 2766, 2761, 2788, 2796, 2804, 2805, 2807

Fourteenth century

5, 16, 18, 45, 53, 54, 66, 76, 109, 131, 155, 171, 172, 182, 185,

189, 190, 201, 214, 223, 232, 235, 243, 246, 254, 255, 257, 266,

290, 308, 316, 324, 349, 358, 367, 369, 381, 386, 393, 394, 402,

404, 409, 412, 413, 414, 415, 417, 425, 426, 453, 480, 489, 492,

494, 512, 521, 523, 540, 577, 578, 586, 588, 594, 600, 603, 604,

621, 628, 629, 630, 633, 634, 642, 644, 645, 648, 649, 656, 668,

680, 686, 690, 698, 716, 718, 727, 730, 731, 734, 741, 758, 761,

762, 763, 764, 769, 781, 783, 784, 786, 789, 790, 794, 797, 798,

802, 806, 818, 819, 824, 833, 834, 836, 839, 845, 846, 848, 858,

864, 866a, 867, 889, 890, 903, 904, 921, 928, 938, 951, 952, 953,

959, 960, 977, 978, 1005, 1020, 1023, 1032, 1033, 1036, 1038,

1061, 1062, 1067, 1075, 1093, 1099, 1100, 1119, 1121, 1185,

1189, 1196, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1248, 1249, 1252, 1254, 1283,

1328, 1330, 1331, 1334, 1342, 1345, 1350b, 1356, 1377, 1395,

1409, 1445, 1447, 1476, 1492, 1503, 1504, 1506, 1518, 1523,

1524, 1543, 1547, 1548, 1572, 1574, 1577, 1605, 1613, 1614,

1619, 1630, 1637, 1654, 1675, 1678, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732,

1733, 1741, 1746, 1747, 1761, 1762, 1771, 1831, 1832, 1842,

1856, 1859, 1877, 1881, 1899, 1902, 1918, 1928, 1929, 1952,

1975, 1984, 2005, 2036, 2042, 2060, 2073, 2080, 2085, 2148,

2160, 2161, 2174, 2200, 2266, 2273, 2303, 2309, 2310, 2355,

2356, 2377, 2399, 2407, 2427, 2431, 2432, 2441, 2454, 2466,

2584, 2492, 2499, 2503, 2578, 2593, 2626, 2629, 2634, 2651,

2653, 2666, 2668, 2679, 2698, 2716, 2765, 2767, 2773, 2774,

2775, 2780, 2783, 2786, 2793, 2803, 2808, 2809

Fifteenth century

4ap, 17, 30, 47, 56, 58, 69, 70, 117, 149, 181, 205, 209, 285, 268,

287, 288, 313, 322, 368, 375, 379, 380, 385, 418, 429, 432, 446,

448, 467, 493, 525, 541, 575, 616, 636, 664, 694, 739, 801, 841,

844, 853, 880, 954, 955, 958, 961, 962, 1003, 1017, 1018, 1024,

1026, 1059, 1060, 1105, 1202, 1232, 1233, 1247, 1250, 1253,

1260, 1264, 1482, 1508, 1617, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656,

1729, 1745, 1450, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1844, 1876, 1882,

1948, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1964, 1978, 2003, 2014, 2015, 2016,

2020, 2028, 2065, 2067, 2069, 2175, 2178, 2221, 2352, 2418,

2452, 2455, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2675, 2691, 2729, 2816

Sixteenth century

61, 90, 99, 335, 372, 445, 522, 724, 755, 867, 918, 957, 1019,

1030, 1065, 1088, 1239, 1362, 1367, 1370, 1374, 1618, 1704,

1749, 1768, 1861, 1883, 1884, 1911, 1930, 1931, 1936, 1937,

1979, 1985, 2009, 2218, 2378, 2422, 2496, 2501, 2555, 2572,

2573, 2579, 2635, 2636, 2690, 2711, 2721, 2779, 2806, 2810

Seventeenth century

849, 2544

Eighteenth century

1325, 2318

Greek Lectionaries

Approximate Number: 2,200

Eighth century

L563, L1602

Ninth century

L292, L249, L490, L514, L672, L844, L846, L965, L1575, 1599

Tenth century

L1, L2, L5, L150, L156, L309, L597, L770, L813, L847, L1231,

L1356, L1552, L2211

Eleventh century

L3, L4, L32, L48, L60, L165, L185, L253, L381, L384, L590,

L591, L598, L599, L603, L617, L751, L755, L853, L859, L883,

L963, L991, L995, L1178, L1298, L1443, L1627, L1750

Twelfth century

L44, L59, L68, L69, L70, L76, L80, L147, L211, L303, L384,

L513, L524, L596, L673, L809, L852, L854, L858, L866, L867,

L921, L961, L1016, L1021, L1127, L1154, L1364, L1365, L1439,

L1634, L1780, L1977

Thirteenth century

L10, L12, L299, L333, L547, L680, L884, L895, L1223, L1590,

L950, L1056, L1074, L1084, L1642

Fourteenth century

L170, L184, L185, L313, L422, L1153, L1156, L1159, L1579,

L1663

Dates And Contents Of Some Early Manuscripts335

Manuscript

Date

Contents

P4 (Paris Papyrus)

Before 66 AD

Luke 3:23, 5:36

P64 (Magdalen Papyrus)

Before 66 AD

Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15,

22-23, 31

P67 (Barcelona Papyrus)

Before 66 AD

Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-

28

7Q4 (Dead Sea Scrolls)

Before 68 AD

1 Timothy 3:16-4:3

7Q5 (Dead Sea Scrolls)

Before 68 AD

Mark 6:52-53

P46 (Pauline Codex)

Around 85 AD

Paul’s Epistles

P52 (John Rylands Papyrus)

Around 100-125 AD

John 18:31-33, 37-38

P66 (Bodmer Papyrus II)

Around 125 AD

Almost all of the Gospel of

John

Some Latin Manuscripts Important In Textual Criticism

Fourth century

a, m

Fifth century

a2, b, e, ff2, h, k, n, ^

Sixth century

d, f, i, j, s, t, w, gue

Seventh century

aur, P, o, n, I, q, r1, r, t, v, gat, u

Eighth century

ffl, p, s, z, r2, p,

Ninth century

g1, X, ar

Tenth century

8, ro, sin, g2, mon, comp

Twelfth century

ph, div

Thirteenth century

c, gig, sa, dem

Some Early Latin Vulgate Manuscripts

Fifth century

N, £

Sixth century

M, P, san, U

Seventh century

durmach, A, I, J, O, S, X, Z

Eighth century

A, Ep, L, Ma, Q, R, theo, Y

Glossary

Aeons—A created god or gods of the Gnostic heresy.

Alexandrian Text—The family of Greek manuscripts upon which

most modern version are based. The three main manuscripts of the

Alexandrian line are Alexandrinus (except in the Gospels), Sinaiticus, and

Vaticanus. The name is derived from Alexandria, Egypt.

Allegoricalism—To interpret Scripture spiritually and not literally.

Ancient Versions—Used as a source for establishing a Greek text or to

support a reading in a Greek manuscript. Such versions include Jerome’s

Latin Vulgate, the Old Latin, Old Syrian, Coptic, Gothic and other versions.

Apocrypha—Religious books of the Old Testament written between

the Testaments which are not considered canonical.

Apostolic Constitutions—The largest liturgical collection of writings

from Antioch, Syria dating to around 380 AD.

Autographs—The written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments.

The term “original autographs” would refer to the manuscript in its original

form written by the inspired writer.

Brevior Lectio Potior—The maxim of modern textual critics which

means, “the shorter reading is preferred.”

Byzantine Text—Also called the Traditional Text, the Syrian Text, and

sometimes the Majority Text. The largest family of Greek manuscripts

draws its name from the Byzantine monks who copied the text. The Greek

Textus Receptus, the text on which the Authorized Version is based, is

from the Byzantine line of manuscripts.

Caesarean Text—A mixture of the Western and Alexandrian line of

Greek manuscripts. It is thought to have originated in Egypt and was

transported to Caesarea by Origen. Later, it was taken to Jerusalem. While

at Caesarea it is thought to have been further developed.

Canonicity—The character that allows certain Old Testament and

New Testament books to be part of the Biblical canon. This characteristic

is divine inspiration.

Cappadocian Fathers—Early church fathers consisting of Basil of

Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Cappadocian

fathers were strong theologians who supported the doctrine of the Trinity

and whose manuscripts reflect the Traditional Text line.

Codex—A written manuscript with sheets bound together to form a

book, as opposed to a scroll.

Conflation—The mixing of two textual lines to form one reading.

Conjectural Emendation—The classical method of textual criticism in

which the editor of a Greek text attempts to restore what is considered the

original reading based on the information at hand. This is applied when a

reading in the Greek text is either missing or limited and the editor feels

the need to supply what is lacking based on other information.

Critical Apparatus—A devise found in many modern Greek texts

explaining the reason for various readings as well as supplying textual

information for or against a certain reading. It usually lists what Greek

manuscripts were consulted, what early translations were used, and which

of the Church Fathers quoted the questioned reading in its various form.

Critical Text—One of several Greek texts based on the Alexandrian

textual line, usually containing a critical apparatus within its contents.

Dead Sea Scrolls—Manuscripts found in the caves at Qumran near the

Dead Sea that contain Biblical and non-Biblical writings.

Diatessaron—A harmony of the Gospels compiled by Tatian in the

second century.

Didache—Known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, this ancient

catechism dating to the early second century contains a form of the Lord’s

Prayer that supports the reading found in the Textus Receptus.

Dittography—A scribal error involving the repetition of a letter, sylla-

ble, word, or phrase.

Docetism—A form of Gnosticism which taught that Christ’s body was

a phantom and not physical.

Dynamic Equivalent—A thought for thought translation to provide

overall meaning. The New International Version, New Revised Standard

Version, and Today’s English Version are all examples of dynamic equiva-

lent translations.

Essenes—A strict Jewish sect, which lived in piety and isolation, and

is considered by many scholars to have been responsible for the Dead

Sea Scrolls.

External Evidence—The approach to textual criticism that considers

the age of a manuscript, its geographical distribution, and its relationship

with other textual families.

Formal Equivalent—A word for word translation, also known as a lit-

eral translation. The King James Version, New American Standard

Version, and Revised Standard Version are all examples of formal equiva-

lent translations.

Geniza—A type of storage room for worn or faulty manuscripts.

Gnosticism—A heretical teaching that everything physical was evil and

everything spiritual was good. The Gnostics taught that God, who was

spiritual, could not have created the physical world, which was evil.

Therefore, the Gnostic god created other beings known as “aeons” that in

turn created the physical world. Some Christian Gnostics taught that

Christ was one of these created aeons.

Granville Sharp Rule—A Greek grammatical rule stating that two

nouns of the same case that are personal descriptions which are separated

by the Greek word kai (and) refer to the same person if the first noun has

a definite article preceding it and the second noun does not have the defi-

nite article before it.

Greek Manuscripts—Manuscripts existing in the form of papyrus, vel-

lum, or paper written in Greek. They are classified into one of four textual

types: Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean.

Greek Texts—Books that are formed from various Greek manu-

scripts that mostly represent a certain textual line. The Textus Receptus

and Majority Text are Greek texts that represent the Byzantine line of

manuscripts. The United Bible Societies’ Greek Text and the Nestle-

Aland Greek Text are Greek texts that represent the Alexandrian line of

manuscripts.

Haplography—A scribal error consisting of the omission of a pair of

letters or group of letters.

Hebraism—Jewish expressions or phrases translated into English that

retain their original Jewish character.

Hexapla—A version of the Old Testament containing six translations

in parallel form, including the Greek Septuagint.

Higher Criticism—The process of establishing or denying the authen-

ticity of a certain book based on its authorship, date of writing, and gen-

eral information. Higher criticism, as it relates to Biblical studies, often

denies the inspiration, historical statements, or doctrinal teaching of vari-

ous canonical books.

Homoeoteleution—A scribal error resulting when two phrases in a

given text are alike and the scribe skips over the portion between the two

phrases, omitting what is between two like phrases.

Internal Evidence—The approach to textual criticism which consid-

ers a textual variant in light of the original writer’s style and vocabulary,

the context, and how the variant harmonies with other passages by the

same writer.

Johannine Comma—The passage from 1 John 5:7 that supports the

Trinity. The verse reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven,

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Lectionaries—Books used by the early church that contained lessons,

hymns, and citations from passages of Scripture.

Lower Criticism—The same as textual criticism.

Lucian Recension—The theory that Lucian of Antioch, Syria, led a

group of scholars to edit texts to produce what became the Byzantine text.

Marcionism—The teaching that proclaimed Jehovah as an evil god

who created the world, and that all created flesh is therefore evil.

Majority Text—A consensus text reflecting a majority of the existing

Greek manuscripts that have been cataloged and collated.

Middle English—Period of English language dating from 1100 to

1500 AD.

Miniscules—Also known as “cursives.” A style of writing that consists

of small letters with spacing between the words.

Minority Text—A text from the Alexandrian line based on a few early

manuscripts.

Modern English—Period of English language dating from 1500 to

the present.

Old English—Period of English language dating from 700 to 1100 AD.

Paleography—The science of dating manuscripts by the shape and

style of the letters used in writings.

Paper—The writing surface used since the fourteenth century.

Papyrus—A plant from which the bark was cut into thin strips and

dried to produce a writing surface. This form of paper was used for manu-

scripts until about the seventh century.

Patristic Citations—Quotations of the early church fathers.

Pericope De Adultera—The passage from John 7:53-8:11 referring to

the woman caught in the act of adultery.

Peshers—Commentaries or interpretations on Biblical writings, usu-

ally associated only with the Hebrew Old Testament.

Peshitta—The standard Syriac version. The word means “clear” or “simple.”

Proto-Masoretic Text—Manuscripts that agree with the Masoretic

text, yet date before the Masoretic text became the official Hebrew Bible

as recognized by scholarship.

Proto-Samaritan Text—Manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the

five books of Moses, where the Hebrew text is often the same as the

Masoretic text with differences in spelling rather than textual variants.

Proto-Septuagint Text—Manuscripts written in Hebrew that reflect

a reading more like the Greek Septuagint than the Masoretic or

Traditional Text.

Pseudepigraphal Books—Religious books that are not considered

canonical by Protestants, Catholics, or Jews.

Qumran—Ruins located in the northwest corner of the Dead Sea. In

1947, the first of what became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were dis-

covered there.

Septuagint—Most noted Old Testament translated into Greek. The

name literally means seventy and is sometimes signified as LXX. It is

thought to have been translated in Alexandria, Egypt, around 250 BC.

Some, however, suggest that it was translated much later.

Scroll—A manuscript written on sheets bound side by side and then

rolled together as opposed to a codex.

Talmud—A body of Jewish civil and religious laws that also provided

commentary on the Hebrew Old Testament.

Tenacity—The persistency of textual variants that appear in early man-

uscripts and reappear in later manuscripts.

Textual Criticism—Sometimes called “lower criticism.” The science

that seeks to reconstruct the original text of Scripture based on the existing

manuscripts and Biblical citations within the patriarchs of Church history.

Textus Receptus—The Greek text used by Protestant translators dur-

ing the Reformation. Desiderius Erasmus first produced this text in 1516

based on Greek manuscripts available to him. It was later revised by

Robert Estienne (Stephanus), the royal printer of Paris, who issued various

editions from 1546 to 1557. In his last edition, Stephanus proclaimed his

conversion to Protestantism. Theodore de Beza, the successor of John

Calvin, later revised the Testus Receptus based on additional manuscripts

he possessed or to which he had access. Beza also included his own Latin

translation that was placed between the Greek text and Jerome’s Latin

Vulgate. It also encluded various notes on every page, providing some

additional textual information and insight. His last two editions, 1589

and 1598, were used by the translators of the King James Version as the

basis for their translation. Finally, Bonaventure Elzevir and his nephew

Abraham produced a very popular edition in 1624 that contained the fol-

lowing Latin phrase in its preface: “ Textum ergo habes, nunc ab ominibus

receptum; in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus.” The name

“Textus Receptus” comes from this phrase, “ Textum…receptum…” (the

text received by all). The Textus Receptus was the standard Greek text for

almost 400 years.

Textual Variant—A difference between two manuscripts.

Uncials—A style of writing which consists of all capital letters written

without accent marks, punctuation, or separation of words or sentences.

Vellum—Dried animal skins used as a writing surface. This period

lasted from the end of the third century to the fifteenth century.

Western Text—A text longer than the Alexandrian text and close to the

Byzantine textual line. Codex Bezae in the Gospels and Acts, and Codex

Claromontarus in the Epistles reflect the Western text, as do the Old Latin

manuscripts. It derives its name from the western Church and is thought

to have originated in Syria.

Bibliography

Books

Aland, Kurt and Aland, Barbara. The Text of the New Testament. 2nd

edition. Translated by Erroll F. Rodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1989.

Aland, Kurt, Benduhn-Mertz, Annette and Mink, Gerd. Text und

Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die

Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987.

Alexander, David and Alexander, Pat, editors. Eerdmans’ Handbook to

the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

Anderson, Marjorie and Williams, Blanche C. Old English Handbook.

New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935.

Barker, Kenneth. The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

Bates, Ernest Sutherland. The Bible: Designed to be Read as Living

Literature. 1936; reprint, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965.

Bauer, Walter. A (Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other

Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bingham, Caroline. The Making of a King. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday, 1969.

Bois, John. Translating For King James. Translated by Ward Allen.

Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.

Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies. New York: Doubleday & Company,

Inc., 1984.

Bruce, F. F. The English Bible: A History ofTranslation. New York: University

Press, 1961.

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise, PA: Conservative

Classics, 1883.

Burrows, Millar. The Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking Press, 1955.

Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. 1954; reprint,

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Carson, Donald A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism.

Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Carty, Charles M. and Rumble, L. Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher.

Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1976.

Chitwood, Oliver Perry. A History of Colonial America. New York:

Harper and Brothers, 1961.

Clifton, Chas S. Encyclopedia Of Heresies And Heretics. New York:

Barnes & Noble, 1992.

Dana, H. E. and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek

New Testament. Toronto: Macmillan, 1927.

Dore, John R. Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English

Bible. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1888.

Durant, Will and Durant, Ariel. Caesar and Christ. The Story Of

Civilization. 6 vols. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944.

Ehrman, Bart. The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1993.

Ehrman, Bart and Holmes, Michael, editors. The Text Of The New

Testament In Contemporary Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Eisenman, Robert and Wise, Michael. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered.

New York: Barnes & Noble, 1992.

Epp, Eldon J. and Fee, Gordon D. Studies in the Theory and Method of

New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. London:

Heinemann, 1926.

Farstad, Arthur. The New King James Version In The (Great Tradition.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.

Finegan, Jack. Encountering New Testament Manuscripts. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1974.

Foxe, John. Foxe’s Book Of Christian Martyrs. 1559; reprint, Springdale,

PA: Whitaker House, 1981.

Fraser, Lady Antonia. King James VI of Scotland: I of England. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1974.

Fuller, David Otis, editor. Counterfeit or Genuine. Grand Rapids:

Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International

Publication, 1970.

Gaster, Theodor H. The Dead Sea Scriptures: An English Translation.

Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956.

Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. A General Introduction to the

Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Golb, Norman. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? New York: Scribner,

1995.

Graham, Henry G. Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic

Church. Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, 1987.

Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1975.

Greenslade, S. L. The Cambridge History of the Bible. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. 1874; reprint, Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Hatch, Nathan O. and Noll, Mark A., editors. The Bible in America:

Essays in Cultural History. New York: Oxford University Press: 1982.

Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines: The

Christian Research Press, 1956.

Hort, F. J. A. The Apocalypse of St. John 1-3: The Greek Text with

Introduction, Commentary, and Additional Notes. 1908; reprint,

Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing, 1976.

. The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17: The Greek Text with

Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes. 1898; reprint,

Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing, 1976.

Hoskier, H. C. Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse. 2 vols. London:

Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929.

James, M. R., translator. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1924.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus. Translation by William

Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

Jurgens, W. A. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Collegeville: The

Liturgical Press, 1970.

Kenyon, Frederic G. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Fasciculus I.

London: Emory Walker, 1933.

. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1912.

. The Story of the Bible. 1936; reprint, Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1967.

. The Text of the Greek Bible. London: Gerald Duckworth

and Company, 1949.

Kohlenberger, John R. III. All About Bibles. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1985.

Kilpatrick, George D. The Principles and Practice of New Testament

Textual Criticism. Leuven: University Press, 1990.

Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Klein, Ralph W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint

After Qumran. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Knowles, David and Obolensky, Dimitri. The Christian Centuries.

Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1969.

Kohlenberger, John R. All About Bibles. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1985.

Kubo, Sakae, and Specht, Walter. So Many Versions? Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.

Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1961.

Letis, Theodore, editor. The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the

Continuing Debate. Fort Wayne, IN: The Institute for Reformation

Biblical Studies, 1987.

Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible From KJV to NIV. Grand Rapids: Baker

Book House, 1982.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. London: Macmillan, 1891.

Maier, John and Tollers, Vincent, editors. The Bible in its Literary

Milieu. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Mansoor, Menahem. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1964.

Millard, Alan. Discoveries From The Time of Jesus. Oxford: Lion, 1990.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament.

New York: United Bible Societies, 1992.

. The Early Versions of the New Testament. New York:

Clarendon, 1977.

. The Text of the New Testament. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1992.

Metzger, Bruce M. and Coogan, Michael D., editors. The Oxford

Companion To The Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

McCrum, Robert, Cran, William, and MacNeil, Robert. The Story of

English. New York: Viking Penguin Inc, 1986.

Milligan, George. Sections From the Greek Papyri. Cambridge:

University Press, 1912.

Moulton, Harold K. The Analytical Greek Lexicon. 1852; reprint,

Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1978.

Moulton, James H. and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary Of The Greek

Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.

Murdock, James. The Syriac New Testament from the Peshitta Version.

Boston: H. L. Hastings, 1896.

Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators. London: McFarland,

1982.

Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1981.

Paine, Gustavus S. The Men Behind the King James Version. 1959;

reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.

Peter,Edward. Inquistion. The Free Press; 1988.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. and Harrison, Everett F., editors. The Wycliffe Bible

Commentary. Nashville: The Southwestern Company, 1968.

Pickering, Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 1980.

Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The Master Christian Library: Ages Software, Version 7, 1999.

Robinson, James M., editor. The Nag Hammadi Library. San Francisco:

Harper San Francisco, 1988.

Rosenau, William. Hebraisms In The Authorized Version. Baltimore: The

Friedenwald Company, 1903.

Rummel, Erika. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From

Philologist to Theologian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.

Scrivener, F. H. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New

Testament. Edited by E. Miller. 2 vols. London: George Bell and Sons,

1894.

. The New Testament in the Original Greek, together with the

Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1880.

Soden, Hermann F. Von. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols.

Gottingen: Vandenhoech und Ruprecht, 1911.

Souter, Alexander. The Text and Canon of the New Testament. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917.

Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual

Criticism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Thayer, Joseph. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 1901;

reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1977.

Thiede, Carsten Peter and D’Ancona, Matthew. Eyewitness To Jesus.

New York: Doubleday, 1996.

Van Bruggen, Jakob. The Ancient Text of the New Testament. Winnipeg:

Premier, 1976.

VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1994.

Vedder, Henry C. A Short History of the Baptists. 1907; reprint, Valley

Forge: The Judson Press, 1969.

Vermes, Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Middlesex, England:

Penguin Books, 1962.

Westcott, Arthur. The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott. London:

Macmillan, 1903.

Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized

Version with Introduction and Notes. 1881; reprint, Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1975.

. The Historic Faith. London: Macmillan, 1885.

White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the

Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.

. The Forgotten Trinity. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998.

Whyte, Alexander. Lancelot Andrewes and his Private Devotions. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Wisse, Frederik. The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating

Manuscript Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Errol F.

Rhodes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Bible Translation and Greek Texts

American Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901.

Authorized (King James) Version. London: Robert Barker, 1611.

Contempory English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1995.

Douay Rheims Version. Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books And Publishers,

Inc., 1971 reprint of the 1610 edition.

New American Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1971.

New American Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson

Publishers, 1971.

New English Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

The Greek New Testament. Edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black,

Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. New York:

United Bible Societies, 1998.

The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Edited by

Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

The New Testament In The Original Greek. (Westcott and Hort). 2 vols.

London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1881.

The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the

Byzantine/Majority Textform. Edited by Maurice A. Robinson, William G.

Pierpont, and William David McBrayer. Original Word Publishers, 1991.

New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized

Version of 1611. London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, [n.d].

New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers,

1978,

New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.

New Living Translation. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1996.

New Revised Standard Version. Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers, Inc.,

1989.

New World Translation. New York: Watchtower Bible And Tract

Soceity, 1984.

Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland,

Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger.

Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1995.

Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by Alexander Souter. Great Britain,

E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1910.

Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1973.

Revised Version. San Francisco: J. Dewing & Co., 1881.

Today’s English Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1976.

Periodicals

Aland, Kurt. “The Text of the Church,” Trinity Journal, (Fall, 1987).

American Bible Society, Committee on Versions to the Board of

Managers. 1852.

Bonani, George. “Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scrolls Dates.” Biblical

Archaeology Review. (November/December, 1991).

Crim, Keith R. “Translating The Bible Into English: The First Thousand

Years.” The Bible Translator. (April, 1974).

Hodges, Zane. “The Greek Text of the King James Version.”

Bibliotheca Sacra (124 Fall, 1968).

. “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament

Criticism.” Bibliotheca Sacra. (128, January/March, 1971).

Hunger, Herbert. “Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II (P66).”

Anzeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. (1960).

Katzman, Avi. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Update: Chief Dead Sea Scroll

Editor Denounces Judaism, Israel; Claims He’s Seen Four More Scrolls

Found by Bedouin.” Biblical Archaeology Review. (January/February, 1991).

Kim, Youn Kyu. “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First

Century.” Biblica. (lxix, 1988).

Moody, Dale. “God’s Only Son: The Translation Of John 3:16 In The

Revised Standard Version.” Journal Of Biblical Literature. (72, 1973).

Nelson, Wilton. “New Light From An Old Lamp.” Latin American

Evangelist. (January/February, 1970).

O’Callaghan, Jose. Journal of Biblical Literature. (91: 1972).

Ostling, Richard. “Is Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls?” Time. (September

21, 1992).

Shanks, Hershel. “Dead Sea Scrolls Updated: Scholars, Scrolls, Secrets

and ‘Crimes’.” Biblical Archaeology Review. (November/December, 1991).

. “Is the Vatican Suppressing the Dead Sea Scrolls?” Biblical

Archaeology Review. (November/December, 1991).

. “Who Controls the Scrolls?” Biblical Archaeology Review.

(March/April, 1991).

Tov, Emanual. “The Unpublished Qumran Texts From Cave 4 and

11.” Biblical Archaeologist. (June, 1992).

Endnotes

1 George D. Kilpatrick, The Principles And Practice Of New Testament Textual Criticism

(Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 34. 2 The Revised Standard Version reads: “Saul was…years old when he began to reign;

and he reigned…and two years over Israel.” The footnotes for these omissions informs us

that, “The number is lacking in Heb[rew]” and “Two is not the entire number.

Something has dropped out.”

3 Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New

York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 102-106.

4 There are currently two editions of the Majority Text: The Greek New Testament

According to the Majority Text (Nelson, 1985) by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad,

and The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform

(Original Word Publishers, 1991) by Maurice A. Robinson, William G. Pierpont, and

William David McBrayer.

5 The Textus Receptus used by the translators of the King James Version was that of

Theodore de Beza (1589 and 1598). The basic text of this edition has been reproduced

by The Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) and is entitled, The New Testament: The Greek

Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611. This was based on the work by F.

H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in

the Authorized Version (Cambridge University Press, 1894 and 1902).

6 There are about 100 Greek papyri manuscripts.

7 The Greek word para means beside. The Greek word grafo means writing. Thus,

paragraph.

8 Some scholars believe that a codex (book) may have been used during the time of the

New Testament. The redating of P64 to before 66 AD, if correct, would provide historical

support for this. In passages such as Revelation 5:1, the Greek word biblion (book) is

used of something with writing on both sides. Although most understand this to mean a

scroll, the discovery of an early codex would certainly give weight to a literal interpretation

of this and other passages.

9 There are currently over 300 known Greek uncial manuscripts.

10 There are about 2,800 Greek minuscules manuscripts

11 Codex Alexandrinus is of the Alexandrian textual line except in the four Gospels.

There it reflects the Byzantine textual line.

12 Most scholars today only recognize two text-types: The Alexandrian and the

Byzantine.

13 Frederic Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1912), 356. E. C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a

Limited Critical Apparatus: its Nature and Uses,” in Studies in New Testament and Early

Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 33.

14 Bruce Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1992), 213-214.

15 A “family” is a cluster of manuscripts that reflect the same characteristics and therefore

are grouped together.

16 At the beginning of the twentieth century, Kirsopp Lake expounded the possible

existence of the Caesarean textual line. Others, such as B. H. Streeter, suggested that this

was a new text-type. However, the textual line lacks pure representatives, most demonstrating

a significant mixture with the Byzantine text. Larry W. Hurtado has argued

against the Caesarean text, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W

in the Gospel of Mark (Studies and Documents 43, Eerdmans, 1981).

17 There are about 2,200 Greek lectionary manuscripts.

18 Some have suggested that Polycarp was not citing 1 John 4:3 but instead was citing

2 John 1:7. J. B. Lightfoot and others have listed this citation of Polycarp as coming from

1 John 4:3, and the Greek of Polycarp matches better with the Greek in 1 John 4:3 than

it does with the Greek in 2 John 1:7.

19 Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church,” Trinity Journal, Fall (1987): 131.

20 Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus (New York:

Doubleday, 1996), 125.

21 Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed.

(Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 400.

22 Kenyon, 240.

23 Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion To The

Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 80.

24 Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation (Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 70.

25 A standard text on this subject is Heresies by Dr. Harold O. J. Brown (New York:

Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984 edition).

26 Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3 (New York: Simon and Schuster,

1944), 604.

27 The Gospel of Thomas, perhaps the most famous of the Gnostic writings, has some

very interesting teachings. It consists of the sayings of Jesus, some of which are found in

the New Testament and others clearly in opposition to New Testament teaching. For

example, it concludes with Christ informing Peter that Mary Magdalene (a predominate

figure in Gnostic writings) will be changed into a male in order to gain eternal life:

“Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus

said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living

spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter

the kingdom of heaven’” (114). The Gospel of Thomas also has Christ teaching that the

resurrection and new world have already occurred: “His disciples said to him, ‘When will

the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?’ He said to them,

‘What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it’” (51). The

Gnostic teaching regarding the wickedness of all that is physical is also seen: “Jesus said,

‘Wretched is the body that is dependent upon a body, and wretched is the soul that is

dependent on these two’” (87). Additionally, this Gnostic gospel has Christ advocating

slaying another with a sword (98) which is in direct contrast to the Christ of the New

Testament (Matthew 26:52). It also enforces the Gnostic teaching of divine aeons in a

multiplicity of gods: “Jesus said, ‘Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there

are two or one, I am with him’” (30). The passages cited here were translated by Thomas

O. Lambdin, The Nag Hammadi Library In English, ed. James M. Robinson (San

Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1988), 126-138.

28 Many of the Gnostic Gospels were known only through second hand accounts in

the writings of the church fathers. However, in 1945 an Egyptian named Muhammed Ali

and his brother discovered a buried jar in a cave near the village of Nag Hammadi. Inside

were old leather bound scraps of papyrus containing Gnostic writings and gospels. This

finding would later be known as the Nag Hammadi Library. For the first time in almost

two thousand years scholars were able to view for themselves the writings of the Gnostics

29 Gregory of Nyssa, the fourth century Greek father, confounded the doctrine of the

Gnostics in Dogmatic Treatises. He compares their teaching regarding Christ as a begotten

god to their teaching that God the Father is the Unbegotten God, using the Greek word

agennetos.

30 Many ancient Christian Gnostics, or those influenced by their teachings, use the

textual variant monogenes theos. This is the reading used by Tatian, Arius, and the followers

of Valentinus, thus agreeing with their teaching that Christ was a created or begotten

god. Dr. Allen Wikgren, who served on the committee producing the United Bible

Societies Greek text, rejected the reading monogenes theos and suggests it was introduced

as a primitive transcriptional error (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek

New Testament, 2nd ed., 170). Those who opposed Gnosticism, such as Irenaeus,

Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa, cite John 1:18 as monogenes huios. This is

consistent with other Johannine passages (John 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9).

31 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 58-59.

32 Ibid., 81.

33 New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1996).

34 Chas S. Clifton, Encyclopedia Of Heresies And Heretics (New York: Barnes & Noble,

1992), 118-120.

35 M.R. James (trans.), “Gospel of Peter,” The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1924), 5:18-20.

36 Ibid., 9:34-10:42.

37 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:11:7.

38 Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (1956; reprint, Des Moines: The

Christian Research Press, 1984), 166-167.

39 The Latin text of k reads, “Subito autem ad horam tertiam tenebrae diei factae sunt per

totum orbem terrae, et descenderunt de caelis angeli et surgent in claritate vivi Dei simul

ascenderunt cum eo, et continuo Iux facta est.”

40 Brown, 60-68.

41 Irenaeus, III:11:7. Some translate the phrase as, “But Marcion, mutilating that

according to Luke…”

42 Both Marcion and Codex D05 omit this verse. This verse is also omitted from the

text of the New English Bible (NEB) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

Therefore, we see that Codex D05 and the RSV may reflect some of the tampering done

by Marcion and his followers.

43 Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed.

(Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 425.

44 Irenaeus, I:28.

45 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV:29.

46 Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1917), 81.

47 Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church,” Trinity Journal (Fall, 1987), 139.

48 St. Clement, The Instructor, II:3:2.

49 Ibid., III:1:4.

50 For example, upon reading Matthew 19:12, it is said he castrated himself. The passage

in Matthew reads, “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their

mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and

there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s

sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

51 Durant, 614.

52 St. Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4.

53 Ibid., 1:1:8.

54 Ibid., 2:10:3.

55 Ibid., Preface, 10.

56W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press,

1970), 189.

57 Aland, 139. Further, we can see the influence Origen had on other manuscripts.

One of the subscriptions in Codex Sinaiticus states, “Taken and corrected according to

the Hexapla of Origen. Antonius collated: I, Pamphilus, corrected.” Pamphilus, along

with Eusebius, was a disciple of Origen. Therefore, we see the influence Origen had on

Codex Sinaiticus as stated in a footnote of that codex.

58 Durant, 663.

59 Ibid., 649.

60 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1992), 24.

61 Geisler and Nix, 294. Here the authors have provided a chart listing several of the

church fathers and books they considered canonical or not.

62 Ibid., 181.

63 Souter, 22-23.

64 Jerome was one of the first scholars to be fluent in both biblical languages.

65 Ibid., 23.

66 Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible (1936; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1967), 110.

67 Ibid.

68 Hills, 187.

69 Donald Guthrie, “Text and Versions,” David Alexander and Pat Alexander, eds.,

Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 73.

70 Souter, 102.

71 Kenyon, 57-58.

72 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vols.;

London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1881), II, 280-281.

73 The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, vol. 1 (London: Macmillan), 211.

74 Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville: Thomas

Nelson Publishers, 1977), 37-38.

75 Frederic Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1912) 302.

76 Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1 (London:

Macmillan, 1903), 207.

77 Hort, 400.

78 F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John 1-3: The Greek Text with Introduction,

Commentary, and Additional Notes (1908; reprint, Minneapolis: James and Klock

Publishing, 1976), 36.

79 B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version with

Introduction and Notes (1881; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 297.

80 F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17: The Greek Text with Introductory

Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes (1898; reprint, Minneapolis: James and Klock

Publishing, 1976), 77.

81 B. F. Westcott, The Historic Faith (London: Macmillan, 1885), 77-78. Hort, Life

and Letters, 149.

82 Jose O’Callaghan, a noted textual scholar and Qumran authority, maintains that

7Q5 is that of Mark 6:52-53. More information regarding this can be found in Journal of

Biblical Literature 91 (1972), 1-14.

83 Young Kyu Kim, “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,”

Biblica, lxix (1988), 248-257.

84 Herbert Hunger, “Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II (P66),” Anzeiger der

Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., 1960, Nr. 4, 12-33.

85 Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (The Master

Christian Library: Ages Software, Version 7). It should be noted that there are various

editions and translations of the early church fathers. Another source is that of Archbishop

Wake as presented in The Lost Books of the Bible (World Publishers). The references substantially

differ, but the translation is essentially the same.

86 This is clearly revealed in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans: “From whom we

also derive our being, from his divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard

for the ages, through his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful [followers], whether

among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his Church” (1:2).

87 Alexander Souter, The Text And Canon Of The New Testament (New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1917), 76.

88 Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed.

(Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 100.

89 Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (1954; reprint, Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1976), 79.

90 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, (London: Macmillan, 1891) 171.

91 Wake, The Lost Books of The Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden (1927; reprint,

Word Bible Publishers), 194.

92 Dr. James R. White calls this “expansion of piety.” He suggests that when these

terms are found in the Traditional Text individuals added them over time as a sign of reverence:

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations

(Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 46. However, the evidence from the

early fathers allows us to understand that these extended titles were in common use

shortly after the completion of the New Testament and before the establishment of the

Alexandrian text-type that generally shortens these titles.

93 Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F.

Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 194.

94 Souter, 60.

95 Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (New York: Claredon,

1977), 36.

96 Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (1956; reprint, Des Moines: The

Christian Research Press, 1984), 172-174.

97 Metzger, 59-60.

98 African manuscripts of the Old Latin include k, e, h, and r. European manuscripts

of the Old Latin include a, b, d, ff, q, f, g, m, and gig. Dates of these and other manuscripts

are listed in Appendix C.

99 Metzger, 288.

100 Ibid., 324.

101 Ibid., 324-327.

102 Aland, 210-212.

103 Cairns, 152.

104 Souter, 85.

105 Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, XIX:5.

106 Souter, 9.

107 Souter, 30.

108 Henry C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists (1907; reprint, Valley Forge: The

Judson Press, 1969), 103.

109 Edward Peter, Inquistion (The Free Press; 1988), 50.

110 See Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church,

22nd ed. (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1987) or Charles M. Carty and L.

Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers,

1976).

111 David Knowles and Dimitri Obolensky, The Christian Centuries, vol. 2 (Paulist

Press, 1969), 224, 369.

112 Cairns, 248.

113 Zane Hodges, “The Greek Text of the King James Version,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124

(1968), 335.

114 Bonaventure and Abraham are sometimes falsely called “brothers.” In reality, the

brother of Bonaventure was Matthew. Abraham was Bonaventure’s nephew. Bonaventure

and Matthew had worked together as publishers. Later, Abraham worked with

Bonaventure and helped with the production of their edition of the Textus Receptus.

115 Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through The Centuries (1954; reprint, Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1967), 318.

116 “Remembering Casiodoro De Reina,” Bible Society Record (1969). Wilton Nelson,

“New Light from an Old Lamp,” Latin American Evangelist Jan/Feb (1970), 9.

117 S. L. Greenslade, The Cambridge History of the Bible (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1983), 126.

118 Ibid., 125.

119 Versiones Castellanas De La Biblia (Mexico: Casa De Publicasciones), 38-39.

Translation here and afterwards is the present author’s.

120 Ibid., 19.

121 Ibid., 39. The Spanish reads, “Valera sufiro grande miseria.”

122 Ibid. The Spanish reads, “El Senor recompense a sus siervos, Cipriano de Valera

recibira un muy grande galardon de manos de su Salvador.”

123 John Foxe, Foxe’s Book Of Christian Martyrs (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House,

1981), 136.

124 Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion To The

Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 759.

125 The American Bible Society states, “of the nearly 200 existing manuscripts of this

translation, only some thirty are copies of the Hereford version; the majority were written

within forty years of Purvey’s version.” A Ready Reference History of the English Bible

(New York: American Bible Society, 1979), 9. The Catholic view differs: “Cardinal

Gasquet has proved that the so-called Wyclifite Bibles in existence today are really the old

English Catholic Bibles.” Rev. Bertrand Conway, The Question Box (New York: Deus

Book, 1962), 346. However the evidence seems to contradict this position and supports

the American Bible Society’s claim. The only evidence offered to support the

claim that the Wycliffe Bibles we have are not Wycliffe Bibles but early English

Catholic Bibles comes from a quote from Sir Thomas More. More was a contemporary

of Tyndale and opposed his work. More claimed the Bible had been translated

into English long before Wycliffe by “good and godly” scholars who were “devoted”

to the Catholic Church. (Ibid).

126 Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, 22nd

edition (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, 1987), 123.

127 Foxe, 136.

128 “The Translators To The Reader,” The Holy Bible: King James Version (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press), xxii.

129 In 1539 an edition of Matthew’s Bible was published by Richard Taverner and is

sometimes referred to as the Taverner’s Bible.

130 The Great Bible was also known as the Cranmer Bible, because Archbishop

Thomas Cranmer wrote the preface to the second edition. It is also called the

Whitchurch Bible, so named after Edward Whitchurch who along with Richard Grafton

were the appointed printers, and is referred to as such by the translators of the King

James Version.

131 It is interesting to note that Bishop Tunstall, the same Bishop of London who had

burnt Tyndale’s New Testament, oversaw the third and fifth editions of the Great Bible.

Now, because of Henry VIII, the bishop was forced to endorse a translation of the Bible

that was essentially the same in the New Testament as the version that he had denounced

and burned only a few years earlier

132 The spelling here has been modernized.

133 Gustavus S. Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version (1959; reprint, Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 1. It is also interesting to note that in the original

preface to the Authorized Version the translators made use of the Geneva Bible, the one

James labeled as the worst of all. It would appear that the translators did not share the

king’s assessment.

134 Caroline Bingham, The Making of a King (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969), 40.

135 Lady Antonia Fraser, King James VI of Scotland: I of England (New York: Alfred A.

Knoph, Inc., 1974), 9.

136 Ibid., vii.

137 Ibid., 173.

138 Ibid., 119-120. Miles Smith is considered the translator who authored the original

preface to the 1611 edition: “The Translators To The Reader.”

139 James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern

Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995) 70-71, 88 (note 61).

140 Paine, 43.

141 Marvin W. Anderson, “The Geneva (Tonson/Junius) New Testament Among

Other English Bibles of the Period,” in Gerald T. Sheppard, ed., The Geneva Bible: The

Annotated New Testament, 1602 Edition. (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989), 6.

142 John R. Dore, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, 2nd

ed. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1888), 325.

143 “The Epistle Dedicatory” to the Authorized Version.

144 White, 244.

145 Dore, 345.

146 Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids: Baker Book

House, 1982), 29.

147 Dore, 338-339.

148 Ibid., 339, 346.

149 Geneva Bible, Preface

150 Some examples of textual revisions that corrected obvious errors in printing include

the following: Genesis 19:21 “this thing” was corrected to “this thing also.”

Deuteronomy 4:25 “shalt have remained” was corrected to “ye shall have remained.”

Nahum 3:17 “The crowned” was corrected to “Thy crowned.” Acts 24:24 “which was a

Jew” was corrected to “which was a Jewess.” Jude 1:25 “now and ever” was corrected to

“both now and ever.” It is clear that the translators had originally provided the later readings

that were corrupted in the process of the original publication of the 1611 edition by

the printer. This is clearly seen in 1 Chronicles 5:2 where the 1611 edition mistakenly

prints “chief rulers” and subsequent editions read “chief ruler.” It is certain that the translators

intended the singular and not the plural for the marginal note reads “or, Prince”

establishing the reading as singular.

151 The difference is that there are no uncertain readings in regard to the KJV and

errors produced by some printers. They are clearly known and corrected in later editions.

This is something that cannot be said of errors produced by copyists in the

manuscripts now extant. It is this uncertainty of which reading is original that has

produced the science of textual criticism. This uncertainty does not exist regarding

printing errors and the KJV.

152 The printing errors are as follows: Genesis 10:16, “Emorite” for “Amorite.” Exodus

14:10, three lines repeated. Leviticus 17:14, “ye shall not eat” for “ye shall eat.” Jeremiah

22:3, “deliver the spoiler” for “deliver the spoiled.” Matthew 16:25, “his” is repeated.

153 Dore, 346.

154 Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, 1852 ed., 7.

155 Dore, iii.

156 Ernest Sutherland Bates, The Bible: Designed to be Read as Living Literature (New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1936), 1236.

157 Gerald Hammond, “English Translations Of The Bible,” The Literary Guide To The

Bible, eds. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press, 1987), 656.

158 Ibid., 664.

159 Roland Mushat Frye, “The Bible in English,” The Bible in its Literary Milieu, eds.

John Maier and Vincent Tollers, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 255.

160 The following is an example where the KJV provides insight that the Greek reader

would also have. In Greek one can tell if the personal pronoun is singular or plural by the

ending of the Greek word. The same is true of the English found in the KJV. The words

“thou,” “thee,” “thy,” and “thine” are all singular, allowing the reader to understand that

personal pronouns beginning with “t” are singular. The words “ye,” “you,” and “your”

are all plural, allowing the reader to know that personal pronouns beginning with “y” are

plural. Luke 22:31-32 provides a good illustration: “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon,

behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed

for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

The Greek reader would understand from the words used that Christ is at first speaking

to Peter about the disciples collectively, while in verse thirty-two Christ is speaking to

Peter about him singularly. The same is conveyed in English with the words “you,” “thy,”

and “thee.” This is lost, however, when all these words are changed to a generic “you.”

Thus the reader cannot tell if the “you” is singular or plural.

161 Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll, eds., The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural

History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 27-33.

162 Will and Ariel Durant, The Age Of Louis XIV (New York: Simon and Schuster,

1963), 461.

163 As cited by Jennifer Lowe, “Buy the Book,” Dayton Daily News (Dayton Ohio,

Sept. 16, 1995), 7C.

164 Barna Research Group, Ltd. (www.barna.org) 1997.

165 Goshen Net (http://www.goshen.net) has provided an online Bible poll that establishes

the KJV as the preferred translation. As of July 18, 2000 over ten thousand Internet

users were asked to vote for their favorite English version. Their polling data showed the

KJV at 49%, the NIV at 24%, the NKJV at 14%, the NASV at 5%, the ASV at 2% and

the RSV and NRSV both at 1%. The category marked “Other” received 4%.

166 It is traditionally thought that Rabbi Aqiba (55-137 AD) was responsible either

directly or indirectly for the standardization of the Hebrew text and for the strict rules

associated with the copying of the text. See Bleddyn J. Roberts, “The Old Testament:

Manuscripts, Text and Versions,” The Bible in its Literary Millieu, eds. John Maier and

Vincent Tollers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 213.

167 Or, Yahweh.

168 There are over twenty rules for scribes to follow when copying the sacred text.

These rules are found throughout the Talmud in places such as Tractates Eruvin, Sota,

Megillah, Menachot and many more. Because of such strict rules that have been faithfully

followed throughout the centuries the textual differences are extremely miniscule.

For example, there are 304,805 letters found in the Torah. For hundreds of years, the

Yemenite community was not part of the Jewish global checking system. Yet when compared

there are only nine letter-differences found in the Yemenite Torah with that of the

Jewish global community, and these differences deal only with spelling and not word

meaning. Certainly this system of copying Scripture has been remarkably successful and

helps to illustrate the veracity of biblical preservation.

169 Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1979), 19.

170 Flavius Josephus, “Flavius Josephus Against Apion,” Book 1, The Works of Josephus,

trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 776.

171 Alan Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus (Oxford: Lion, 1990), 35.

172 Homer A. Kent, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, eds. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett

F. Harrison (Nashville: The Southwestern Company, 1968), 937.

173 The traditional order of books in Hebrew Scripture are as follows: The Pentateuch

(the five books of Moses). The Prophets (major and minor). The Writings (Psalms,

Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra,

Nehemiah, and Chronicles).

174 Sometimes spelled as Massoretic.

175 Appendix C supplies the reader with a list of biblical texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls,

as well as some of the oldest Masoretic manuscripts and Greek manuscripts of the New

Testament.

176 Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the

Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 160.

177Wurthwein, 148.

178 Ibid., 31.

179 Ibid., 12-13.

180 Second Rabbinic Bible

181Wurthwein, 37.

182 An example of a textual difference between the Masoretic Text and Kittel’s Biblia

Hebraica can be found in Isaiah 9:3. The Masoretic Text reads, “Thou hast multiplied the

nation, and not increased the joy” (KJV). Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica reads, “You have multiplied

the nation, you have increased its joy” (NRSV).

183 Ralph W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint After

Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).

184 The Letter Of Aristeas covers events which took place during the lifetime of Queen

Arsinoe, who died in 270 BC, and the formation of the LXX. However, the exact date and

authorship of this letter is unknown. Both Josephus [Antiq. 12:2] and Philo [On the Life of

Moses II, 27-40] record the history of the LXX, most probably based on this epistle.

185 The Letter of Aristeas 2:34-35 as presented in The Lost Books of the Bible (World Bible

Publishers, Inc.).

186Wurthwein, 57.

187 Frederic G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible (London: Gerald Duckworth and

Company), 29.

188Wurthwein, 63-64.

189 Ibid.

190 “The Translators To The Reader,” The Holy Bible: King James Version (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press), xiv-xv.

191 This belief conflicts with the modern thought that a plethora of versions in the

same language should be made available, even if they differ in wording and meaning.

192 Ibid., xix-xx.

193 Norman Golb, Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? (New York: Scribner, 1995), 154.

194 As cited by James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1994), 6.

195 Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (New York:

Barnes & Noble, 1992), 1-16.

196 George Bonani, “Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,” Biblical Archaeology

Review, November/December 1991, 72.

197 Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich have recently translated into

English the biblical books among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (San

Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999).

198 VanderKam, 133-134.

199 Ibid., 126.

200 Menahem Mansoor, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 74-75.

201 Ibid., 79.

202 Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1979), 144.

203 VanderKam, 143.

204 Mansoor, 28.

205 Ibid., 31.

206Wurthwein, 31.

207 In Genesis 46:8-26 we have a total of sixty-six children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren

of Jacob. When we add Jacob to this list along with Joseph and his two

sons we have a total of seventy. The number given by Stephen in Acts 7:14 of seventy-five

(which does not include Jacob himself ) could also be correct if Stephen was counting the

wives of Jacob’s children, something the New Testament would do since it is much more

inclusive regarding gender. Both Judah and Simeon were widowers. Therefore, to the

sixty-six persons already mentioned, we add nine wives (not counting Joseph, his wife,

and children because they were already in Egypt). Using this method of counting, the

number seventy-five is correct.

208 Historian Will Durant writes: “The most extreme of the Jewish sects was that of

the Essenes. They derived their piety from the Chasidim, their name probably from the

Chaldaic aschai (bather), their doctrine and practice from the stream of ascetic theory

and regimen circulating through the world of the last century before Christ; possibly they

were influenced by Brahmanic, Buddhist, Paress, Pythagorean, and Cynic ideas that

came to the crossroads of trade at Jerusalem. Numbering some 4000 in Palestine, they

organized themselves into a distinct order, observed both the written and the oral Law

with passionate exactitude, and lived together as almost monastic celibates tilling the soil

in the oasis of Engadi amid the desert west of the Dead Sea.” The Story of Civilization,

vol. 3 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), 537.

209 Philo, Every Good Man is Free, 12-13 [75-91].

210 Dr. Barbara Thiering of Sidney, Australia has developed an extreme interpretation

concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. In her book, Redating the Teacher of Righteousness, Dr.

Thiering believes some of the scrolls speak of Jesus and John the Baptist. In The Manual

of Discipline it speaks of the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest. Thiering’s

view is that John was an Essene and the Teacher of Righteousness. This teacher proclaimed

the coming doom for that wicked generation if they did not repent and turn

again to the God of Israel and a strict interpretation of the Law. His preaching was harsh

and judgmental. The one called the Wicked Priest proclaimed a much easier view that

differed with the staunch legalistic views of the Teacher of Righteousness. For Thiering,

this Wicked Priest was Jesus Christ. Thiering also uses the Dead Sea Scrolls and the

teachings of the Essenes to deny the miracles of Christ, his Virgin Birth, his death on the

cross, and his physical resurrection.

211 Golb, 5.

212 Ibid., 151, 153-154.

213 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 3rd ed. (Oxford: The

Clarendon Press, 1992), 197.

214 Textual scholar F. C. Burkitt argued that the Peshitta did not exist before the fifth

century. Although most scholars no longer hold to Burkitt’s theory, most date the

Peshitta to this time period. Others, such as E. Hills and A. Voobus have placed the origin

of the Peshitta in the second century.

215 James Murdock, The Syriac New Testament (Boston: H. L. Hastings, 1896), 9.

216 John Chrysostom, “Homily XIX,” The Preaching of Chrysostom, ed. Joroslav

Pelikan, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 145.

217 Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 8:1

218 George Milligan, Sections From The Greek Papyri (Cambridge: University Press,

1912), 132-134. Interestingly, Dr. Milligan notes of this papyri that it contains, “a

passage which some may be tempted to quote in support of the A.V. rendering of Mt.

VI.13.” Since the phrase is included in this personal prayer, Dr. Milligan is correct in

both his understanding of the origin of the quote and in its support for the

Authorized Version.

219 In his Bible commentary regarding Matthew 27:9, Matthew Henry notes this saying

of the Jews concerning the spirit of Jeremiah being in Zechariah.

220 Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament (New York:

United Bible Societies, 2nd ed., 1994), 62.

221 George D. Kilpatrick, The Principles And Practice Of New Testament Textual

Criticism (Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 34.

222 The manuscripts reveal four endings to Mark’s Gospel. 1. The longer ending, which is

the reading of almost all existing Greek manuscripts, and is in line with the Traditional Text.

2. The shorter ending, sometimes referred to as the intermedate ending. This ending is

found in ⊄, ¬, 099, 0112, 274, and 579. 3. The expanded ending, which is found in Codex

W. This ending is widely rejected. 4. No ending after verse eight. This is the view held by

most textual scholars and agrees with Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

223 Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F.

Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 232.

224 Revised Standard Version, footnote

225 Metzger, 105. Dr. Metzger footnotes the following regarding the ending of Mark.

“Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place;

or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally

lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription.”

226 Bruce Metzger, Christian History (interview with Dr. Metzger downloaded from

Christian History Magazine, America Online, 9/17/96).

227 John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics,

1883), 422-423. Burgon also supplies additional names of church fathers who support

the reading.

228 The internal evidence supporting Mark 16:9-20 is examined in Appendix B.

229 As one can see, the internal evidence would support the reading of her purification

in Luke 2:22. There is a debate among textual critics regarding eclecticism. Most support

what is commonly called “reasoned eclecticism” which tends to focus on the age and

number of existing Greek manuscripts. However, scholars such as G. D. Kilpatrick and J.

K. Elliot promote “rigorous eclecticism” which focuses on the internal evidence above the

external textual evidence. Therefore, according to this type of eclecticism, any textual

variant regardless of age or number could conceivably be the correct reading if the internal

evidence is sufficient. See Kilpatrick, 33-52.

230 Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (1956; reprint, Des Moines: The

Christian Research Press, 1984), 221.

231 Theodore Beza, Nouum Sive Mouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Personal translation

from the Latin text.

232 The Coptic Version Of The New Testament: In The Northern Dialect, vol. 2 (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1898), 377-379.

233 Murdock, 172.

234 The Writings Of Tertullian 3:2:5.

235 Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 187.

236 See Hills, 150-159. John W. Burgon “Pericope De Adultera,” Counterfeit Or

Genuine, ed. David Otis Fuller, (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International

Publications, 1975) 133-158. Arthur L. Farstad, The New King James Version In The

Great Tradition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989) 113-114.

237 Augustine, De Conjug. Adult., II:6.

238 Metzger, 188.

239 The variants within the manuscripts that maintain this passage are minor. For

example, 88 omits o Philippos (Phillip) and adds o eunouchos (the eunuch) and auto

(very). Thus the verse reads in 88, “And he said, If thou believest with all thine heart,

thou mayest. And the eunuch answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the very

Son of God.” Such variants are common among the vast host of Greek manuscripts. It

should be noted, nevertheless, that such variants do not constitute the removal of the passage

from the text. Nor, are such variants of like significance as those that would remove

the passage from the text.

240 Metzger, 315-316.

241 J. A. Alexander, The Acts Of The Apostle (New York: Scribner, 1967), vol. 1, 349-350.

242 Against Heresies: I 1:433.

243 Treatise 12:3:43.

244 The Latin Vulgate was produced in the fourth century; however the earliest extant

Vulgate manuscript dates from the fifth century.

245 Basil, “Concerning Baptism,” The Fathers Of The Church: Saint Basil Ascetical

Works, trans. M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9 (New York: Fathers Of The Church, Inc.,

1950), 343.

246 The context of Romans 8 teaches that faithful Christians are to walk after the Spirit

and not after the flesh. The Christian is in a constant battle between the Spirit and the

flesh (Galatians 5:16-18). There is no condemnation for the Believer who is following

the Holy Spirit. However, there is condemnation for those who do not follow the leading

of the Spirit, but seek to follow their own flesh.

247 The first and second editions of Erasmus’ Greek text did not contain the Comma.

It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition

if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar

named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from

the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and,

being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition.

However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The

Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist

on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring.

Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer

affirm this report.

248 Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und

Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe

Band 1: Das Material (Berlin:Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

249 Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, “si ab interpretibus fideliter

in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate

in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est

aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum

omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus

sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur.”

250 Treatises 1 5:423.

251 Liber Apologeticus.

252 Varimadum 90:20-21.

253 Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489

AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD),

Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700

AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle’s Creed used by the

Waldenses and Albigenses of the twelfth century

254 Fifth Orientation: The Holy Spirit.

255 Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of “Mr. John Reynolds of

Shrewsbury,” one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry’s commentary, which

was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry’s death in 1714.

256 Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to

Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 93. It is claimed that Erasmus

openly declares in the Annotations of his 1516 edition (page 675) that he “ex nostris

Latinis supplevimus Graeca” (supplied the Greek from the Latin). Thus the claim that

the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two were retranslated from the Vulgate

into Greek. However, the reprint of the 1516 edition of Erasmus does not contain this

phrase on page 675 of his Annotations, which is the conclusion of his notes on the book

of Revelation, nor is such a phrase found elsewhere in that edition.

257 The following are the eighteen textual differences found in these six verses. Because

of the nature of this footnote, I have not transliterated these Greek words.

Reference Textus Receptus Critical Text

Table of Contents

Crowned With Glory

All Rights Reserved © 2000 by Dr. Thomas Holland

Contents

Dedication

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Editorial Method

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

About the Author

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Glossary

Bibliography

Endnotes

Table of Contents

Crowned With Glory

All Rights Reserved © 2000 by Dr. Thomas Holland

Contents

Dedication

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Editorial Method

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

About the Author

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Glossary

Bibliography

Endnotes