The Canon
|
|
|
|
The word
‘canon’ literally means ‘a straight rod’, or ‘a ruler’ and when it is applied
to the Scriptures, it means the list of divinely inspired books which are the
only basis for faith and practice in the life of the Church. |
|
In the
days of Jesus the canon of the Old Testament was already confirmed (Jesus
referred to this collection of inspired writings as ‘the Scripture’ [John
10:35] or ‘the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms’ [Luke 24:44]), but
not so for the New Testament, because the books which form the New Testament
were written one at a time during the course of the first century. The canon
of the New Testament was fixed in 397 after Christ by the Council of Cartage,
which identified the sacred books by name; they were 27 and the list was the
same list we posses now. However, it must be said that that list was just an
official statement of what the universal Church had already accepted as
canonical Scripture. In other words, the Church just declared officially
which books were inspired and which books were not inspired. It is important
to realize that a book did not become inspired by being included in the
canon. Inclusion in the Canon was merely recognition of the authority the
book already possessed. On the other hand, it must be said that the Council
of Carthage added the books of the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Book of Sirach or
Ecclesiasticus, and the Book of Baruch, and some additions to the book of
Esther and to the book of Daniel) to the canon of the Old Testament, even
though those writings (which were written in the intertestamental period) are
not inspired. Therefore, that Council made a mistake in adding those books to
the canon, which books are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church
(which officially included them in the canon in the sixteenth century). However,
the Christians of the first centuries after Christ did not regard the
Apocrypha as inspired books for the following reasons:
1) They contain
contradictions, false doctrines and fanciful stories; 2) Neither Jesus Christ
nor the apostles mentioned them; 3) They were not, and still are not, in the
Hebrew canon. |
|
Since I
have just mentioned the Hebrew Canon, let me say also that it consists of 24
books, but these books are the same as the 39 books we possess in the Old
Testament of our Bible. Therefore the only difference is the way the Jews
count the Old Testament books. Here is how they count them: |
|
● Law
(Torah): 1. Genesis; 2. Exodus; 3.
Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy. |
|
● Prophets
(Nevi'im): 6. Joshua; 7. Judges; 8.
Samuel (1st + 2nd); 9. Kings (1st + 2nd); 10. Isaiah; 11. Jeremiah; 12.
Ezekiel; 13. The 12 ‘Minor’ Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,
Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). |
|
● Writings
(Ketuvim): 14. Psalms; 15. Proverbs;
16. Job; 17. Song of Songs; 18. Ruth; 19. Lamentations; 20. Ecclesiastes; 21.
Esther; 22. Daniel; 23. Ezra + Nehemiah; 24. Chronicles (1st + 2nd). |
|
|
Transmission of the Old Testament
|
|
|
|
The
original books of the Old Testament were written by various men, for instance
the first five books of it (called Pentateuch) were written by the prophet
Moses; many Psalms were written by David, the book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
and the Song of Songs were written by king Solomon, the book of Isaiah by the
prophet Isaiah, and so on. All the writers of these books were Jews by birth,
so they belonged to the people of |
|
The Old
Testament books were written at various times over a period of approximately
1400 years (from around the fourteenth century to the first century before
Christ) and the language in which they were written was Hebrew (except a few
passages which are in the book of Daniel and the book of Ezra, which were
written in Aramaic). They were written on parchments. In the days of the
apostles (the first century after Christ) there were copies of those inspired
books; those copies were written on parchments and they were read in the
synagogues of the Jews who lived in |
|
Those Jews
who had the job of writing copies of those books were called scribes (in Hebrew
‘soferim’) and in writing the holy books they had to observe very strict
rules. By the sixth century after Christ the scribes were succeeded by a
group known as the Masoretes (from the Hebrew massorah which means ‘tradition’), who continued to preserve the
Sacred Scriptures for another five hundred years in a form known as the
Masoretic Text. Babylonian, |
|
Today,
among the Jews, there are still scribes who have the important job to copy
the scroll of the Law. They observe strict rules (which are very old) when
they write the books of Moses. I would like you to know some of these rules. |
|
|
|
1. The
Pentateuch must be written on the skin (parchment) of a clean animal. The
parchment must be prepared specially for use as a scroll, with gallnut and
lime and other chemicals that help to render it durable. |
|
2. The ink
must be black, durable, but not indelible. It is prepared according to a
special recipe. |
|
3. The number
of lines on each column cannot be less than 48 nor more than 60. However, at
the present day the forty-two-lined column is the generally accepted style of
the scroll. Every line should be long enough to contain thirty letters. |
|
4. The
scribe must have before him a correct copy; he cannot write even a single word
from memory; and he must pronounce every word before writing it. This is to
prevent any duplications, or omissions of words. |
|
5. Before
writing the name of God, the scribe must say, ‘I am writing the name of God
for the holiness of His name’. When the scribe has begun to write the name of
God, he must not be interrupted until he has finished it. |
|
6. Strict
rules govern the forms of the letters, the spaces between the letters, the
words, the lines, the portions, and the space between each of the
Pentateutichal books. |
|
7. If an
error is found in the scroll, it must be corrected and re-examined by a
competent person within thirty days; if 3 or 4 errors are found on one page
the scroll must be discarded. A mistake in the writing of any of the names of
God cannot be corrected since the name of God may not be erased, and the whole
sheet must be replaced and the defective sheet discarded. |
|
|
|
The scrupulous
care which the Jewish scribes take in writing the five books of the law leads
us to think that the copies of the original documents have been handed down
with substantial correctness for about 2000 years. Obviously, the copyists
who copied the books of the Law and the other books of the Old Testament made
some mistakes, - only the authors of the original books did not make any mistakes
because they were inspired by God – that’s why the old manuscripts of the Old
Testament sometimes differ from one another; however, it must be said that
the differences don’t affect the doctrines of the Bible. What I have stated
is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947, which are generally
dated from about 200 to 50 before Christ. They include fragments, often
minute, of every book in the Old Testament except Esther, one complete scroll
of Isaiah and another of which approximately half has been lost, and a
commentary on the first two chapters of Habakkuk containing most of their
text. All these agree essentially with the ‘received text’ (the Masoretic
Text) of the Old Testament except for orthographic variations or occasional
variant readings hardly affecting the sense. Fragments, however, of Samuel
and one of Jeremiah have a shortened form of the text like that of the
Septuagint in these books. Since I have just mentioned the Septuagint, let me
say something about it. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old
Testament made in |
|
|
|
|
Transmission of the New Testament
|
|
|
|
The books
of the New Testament were written one at a time within the span of a century
(the first century after Christ). |
|
They were
written in Greek by various men whose names were these: Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews
is unknown; some say it was Paul who wrote it, some others say its author is
Apollos, and others say Barnabas. |
|
As soon as
each book of the New Testament appeared, it started to be read among the
churches, and to be copied by believers. By the end of the first century all
the Gospels and all the epistles and the book of Revelation were written (the
first epistles of Paul, along with perhaps the epistle of James, were written
between 48 and 60 after Christ, and the Gospels and other books between 60
and 100). |
|
Therefore,
the period of transmission of the New Testament covers 1400 years from the
time of composition (1st century) to the invention of the printing
machine (15th century). The history is divided into three periods:
(1) Papyrus period (1st -4th century), (2) Uncial
period (4th-9th century), and (3) Minuscule period (9th
– 15th century). |
|
|
|
|
Papyrus period
|
|
|
|
At the
time of the New Testament, and even long time before, papyrus was used for
writing. It must be said, however, that at the time of the New Testament
parchment also was used for writing, for Paul said to Timothy: “Bring the
cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come – and the books,
especially the parchments” (2 Timothy 4:13 - NKJV). Papyrus was found in
Egypt and it came from a large water plant by that name. The soft
tissue-strips within the stem were used to make papyrus sheets. A papyrus
sheet had two layers consisting of the horizontal and vertical strips.
Writing was done on the smoother side where the grain was horizontal. The
length of a papyrus scroll depended on the length of the book of the New
Testament written on it. However, it was impossible on papyrus to have a
complete scroll of the New Testament (it would have taken a 60 meters - about
200 feet - scroll to contain the entire New Testament). Besides scroll-type
papyrus manuscripts, there are also codices which are book-type papyrus
manuscripts. There are a total of about one hundred papyri. |
|
|
Uncial period
|
|
|
|
Uncial
manuscripts are Greek manuscripts written in capital (majuscule) letters on
vellum or parchment. There are about 300 extant uncial manuscripts. The more
well-known ones are these: |
|
|
|
1. Codex Sinaiticus. It was discovered by
Tiscendorf in St Catherine’s monastery (which is at the foot of Mount Sinai)
in 1844. There are 4 columns per page. Contains the complete New Testament
(but it doesn’t contain passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11) and
has much of the Old Testament in Greek. It also contains the Epistle of
Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Ermas (early Christian writings which
were widely used in teaching). Dated to about 350 after Christ. |
|
|
|
2. Codex Alexandrinus. It is stored in
the British Museum and is dated to about 400-450 after Christ. It is the
longest and best known uncial manuscript. It contains the whole New Testament
except for most of Matthew (from 1:1 through 25:6) and some parts of John (from
6:50 through 8:52) and 2 Corinthians (from 4:13 through 12:6). At the end are
added some early Christian writings which were commonly used in teaching: the
first Epistle of Clement, and the second Epistle of Clement up to 12:4. There
are two columns per page. |
|
|
|
3. Codex Vaticanus. It is kept in the
Vatican library. It was found in 1481 and is dated to about 350 after Christ.
There are 3 columns per page. Contains both Old Testament and New Testament,
and Apocrypha. But almost the whole of Genesis, many Psalms (105:27-137:6),
some passages of the Gospels (such as Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:43; 23:34; John
7:53-8:11), Hebrews 9:14 to the end, the Pastoral Epistles, the epistle to
Philemon and the Book of Revelation are missing. |
|
|
|
4. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. ‘Rescriptus’
means ‘to write again’. It was a biblical manuscript which had been erased
and Ephraem – one of the so called Church Fathers who lived during the 4th
century – wrote a sermon on the recycled parchment. It contains parts of the
New Testament except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John which are missing. It is
dated to about 450 after Christ. |
|
|
|
5. Codex Bezae. It is located in the
Cambridge University Library. It is dated to the 6th century. It
contains the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, with some gaps from loss
and mutilation of its pages. The Greek text is quite peculiar, with many
interpolations found nowhere else, a few remarkable omissions and a
capricious tendency to rephrase sentences. |
|
|
Minuscule Period
|
|
|
|
The
minuscules appeared a little later than the uncials. The letters are smaller,
and in formal running hand. |
|
|
|
|
The Greek Text of the New Testament
|
|
|
|
As far as
the New Testament is concerned, it is a well known fact that there are many
differences between the New Testament of the King James Version and the New
Testament of the New International Version, which are two of the most popular
Bible Translations in the English-speaking countries. |
|
Obviously,
the first difference that can be clearly seen is the language, for the
English of the King James Version is an archaic English since the translation
was made several centuries ago. But there are other differences, such as
omissions of words and phrases, word order, and tense. I will dwell a little
upon the reason of these last differences I have just mentioned. |
|
They exist
because the King James Version is based on the ‘Received Text’ while the New
International Version is based on the ‘Critical Text’ (which are two
different Greek Texts of the New Testament since they are based on different
manuscripts). These things can be said also about the New Testament
differences existing between the Italian Bible Diodati Version, which dates
back to the seventeenth century like the King James Version, and the Riveduta
Version. |
|
|
The Received Text or Textus
Receptus
|
|
|
|
As I said
before, during the first century (after Christ) God inspired some men to
write the books of the New Testament, and they wrote exactly what the Holy
Spirit moved them to write. So those books were free from error of any kind. However,
it came to pass, during the centuries that followed, that scribes and
printers made both unintentional changes (from faulty eyesight or by careless
inspection of the original, from likeness of pronunciation or by incorrect
spelling, from errors of memory or anticipation, by incorporations of
marginal notes wrongly taken as corrections) and intentional changes (to make
the meaning more plain, to harmonize related passages, to remove
difficulties, to emphasize or safeguard important teachings) in the Greek
text as they copied it. As a result, the manuscript copies of the New
Testament we possess nowadays differ among themselves in numerous details. |
|
Many
attempts have been made to sort through the manuscripts of the New Testament
and weed out the errors and mistakes of copyists, in order to restore the
text to its original apostolic form. Those who have made such attempts have
differed one from another in the resources at their disposal, their own
personal abilities as text editors, and the principles followed in trying to
restore the original text of the New Testament. |
|
The two
most famous attempts at restoring the original text of the New Testament are
the Textus Receptus or Received Text, dating from the Reformation and
post-Reformation era, and the Greek Text of B.F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort,
called ‘Critical Text’, first published in 1881. These two texts were based
on differing collections of manuscripts, following different textual
principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the discovery and
evaluation of surviving New Testament manuscripts, and, not surprisingly,
with often differing results. |
|
The
‘Received Text’ is not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts
published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500’s
and early 1600’s. It includes the editions of Erasmus (5 editions: 1516,
1519, 1522, 1527, 1535) who was a Roman Catholic priest who opposed Luther
and the Reformation; Robert Estienne - called also Stephens or Stephanus - (4
editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551); Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565
and 1604); and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624, 1633, 1641). All these Greek
texts show a close general uniformity because they are more or less reprints
of the text (s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations. All these
Received Text editions are based upon a small number of late medieval
manuscripts. The King James Version (and the Italian Bible Diodati Version as
well) is based upon the Received Text. |
|
At this
point, I need to speak about the Majority Text (also known as the Byzantine
or Syriac text), which is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek
manuscripts; since most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts,
there is family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text.
Therefore they are not the same thing. I say this because I know that the
terms Textus Receptus and Majority Text are frequently used as though they
were synonymous. Some scholars have estimated that the Majority Text differs
from the Textus Receptus in over 1000 places. Therefore if we add this fact
to the fact that the various editions of the Received Text differ from one
another, we must recognize that the matter is quite difficult and
complicated, it is not so simple as many depict it. |
|
|
The Critical Text
|
|
|
|
In 1881
was published the Greek New Testament edited by Brooke Foss Westcott
(1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), which is probably the
most famous of the so-called critical texts. Their Greek New Testament
deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus on the basis
of manuscript evidence. Even though the Westcott-Hort text was the ‘standard’
critical text for a generation or two, it is no longer considered such by
anyone, and has not been for many years. Today, the ‘standard’ text or texts
are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th
edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies.
However, it must be said that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage
of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts – which are called ‘new textus
receptus’ - for they do not differ a whole lot from the text produced by
Westcott-Hort in 1881; as a result many modern versions are still influenced
one way or another, much or less, by the Westcott-Hort critical text. One of
these Bible versions is the New International Version (in the preface of this
Bible we read that ‘the Greek text used in translating the New Testament was
an eclectic one ….’, but Kenneth Barker, General editor of the NIV, said that
the eclectic text is the UBSGNT and NA). |
|
Westcott
and Hort compiled their text by employing the two oldest then-known
manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base. For according to
them, the concurrence of these two manuscripts are very strong, and cannot be
far from the original text. These two manuscripts are called ‘the earliest
and most reliable manuscripts’ or ‘the oldest and best manuscripts’ (even
though some important passages are missing, such as John 7:53-8:11 and Mark
16:9-20, and many mistakes are in them). Since their day, a good number of
manuscripts as old and in some cases a century or more older than these two
manuscripts have been discovered. With a general uniformity, these early
manuscripts have supported the text type known as the Alexandrian text
(because of its origin in Egypt) which the Westcott-Hort text presents. Of
the early versions, the Westcott-Hort text has strong support in the various
Coptic versions of the third and later centuries, plus frequent support in
the Old Latin versions and the oldest forms of the Syriac, in particular the
Sinaitic and Curetonian manuscripts whose text form dates to the second or
third century. Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made about 400
after Christ, also gives frequent support to the Alexandrian text. |
|
|
Which text shall we choose as
superior?
|
|
|
|
To answer
this question I quote some words written by Douglas Kutilek in one of his
articles titled ‘Westcott & Hort vs. Textus receptus: Which is
Superior?’, taken from http://www.bible-researcher.com/, because I agree with
them. |
|
|
|
‘What
shall we say then? Which text shall we choose as superior? We shall choose
neither the Westcott-Hort text (or its modern kinsmen) nor the textus
receptus (or the majority text) as our standard text, our text of last
appeal. All these printed texts are compiled or edited texts, formed on the
basis of the informed (or not-so-well-informed) opinions of fallible editors.
Neither Erasmus nor Westcott and Hort (nor, need we say, any other text
editor or group of editors) is omniscient or perfect in reasoning and
judgment. Therefore, we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism
opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other
scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or
anyone else. Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the
Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis, that is, in those places
where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the
evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully
examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought
considered, and only then a judgment made. We do, or should do, this very
thing in reading commentaries and theology books. We hear the evidence,
consider the arguments, weigh the options, and then arrive at what we believe
to be the honest truth. Can one be faulted for doing the same regarding the
variants in the Greek New Testament? Our aim is to know precisely what the
Apostles originally did write, this and nothing more, this and nothing else.
And, frankly, just as there are times when we must honestly say, "I
simply do not know for certain what this Bible verse or passage means,"
there will be (and are) places in the Greek New Testament where the evidence
is not clear cut,(1) and the arguments of the various schools of thought do
not distinctly favor one reading over another. This means there will at times
be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the
Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific
verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the
theology of the New Testament. Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated
the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament.
Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of
the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought
to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know
that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but
one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production
of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the
preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to
answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and
accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence
which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and
remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found
in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to
determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment
of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular.
So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute
differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the
fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve,
practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general
correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line
of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the
path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to
stray (2). To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the
pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the
twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and
the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation
of His word, he writes, We may indeed believe that He would not allow His
Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's
salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types
of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a
disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed
in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus (3). |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
|
|
1. Even
following rigidly the textual theory that "the majority rules"
leaves a fair measure of doubt in a number of passages (especially in
Revelation) where there is no numerical majority reading, the manuscripts
exhibiting three or more variants, with none represented by 50% plus one (or
more) of surviving witnesses. See the apparatus of Hodges & Farstad. And
fleeing to the position, "I'll just stick to the textus receptus,"
doesn't settle the matter, since the various t.r. editions differ widely
among themselves — the Complutensian text — the first printed Greek New
Testament — differing from the first Elzevir edition in 2,777 places, by
Scrivener's count (A Plain Introduction
to the Criticism of the New Testament, first edition, p. 293), and in
more than 2,300 from Stephanus' 1550 edition (p. 300); Stephanus' 1550
edition in turn differs from the Elzevir 1633 edition (these two have long
been considered the standard textus receptus editions) in 286 places (p. 304). |
|
2. J. L.
Dagg, A Manual of Theology
(Harrisonburg, Va.: Gano, 1982 reprint of 1857 edition), pp. 24, 25. |
|
3.
Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
(London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p. 271. |
|
|
The King James–New International
Version controversy
|
|
|
|
The King
James Version was published in 1611 in England, under the reign of King James
I. The work of translation began in 1607 and was completed in 1610. It was
made by 54 scholars, of whom only 48 were recorded since some passed away
before the completion of the project. The Old Testament was based on the same
Masoretic text as the previous versions, while the New Testament was based on
the received text. However, it must be said that the translators of the King
James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the
New Testament in Greek; the edition most closely followed by them was Beza’s
edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some
other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the
King James version translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions
of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading
in the Latin Vulgate Version. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the
original KJV of 1611 contained the Apocrypha, which are not inspired books,
and that the KJV of 1611 was revised several times; the last revision was
made in 1769 (the KJV used today is the 1769 edition). |
|
After the
King James Version many other English Bibles have appeared. One of the most popular
and used English Bibles today is the New International Version, which was published
in 1978. It was made by over a hundred scholars. For the Old Testament the
standard Hebrew Text, the Masoretic text as published in the latest editions
of Biblia Hebraica, was used
throughout. The translators consulted the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and the more important early versions – the Septuagint, Symmachus
and Theodotion; the Vulgate, The Syriach Peshitta, the Targums, and for the
Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of
Jerome. As far as the New Testament is concerned, as I said before, the Greek
text used was an eclectic one, which is the UBSGNT and NA. Therefore, since
the Greek Text of the New Testament on which the translators of the NIV based
their translation is not the Received Text, there are many differences
between the New Testament of the KJV and the one of the NIV. |
|
Now, there
are some supporters-defenders of the King James Version who criticize very
harshly those who use the New International Version (as well as those who use
other modern Bible versions) because - according to them – the readers of the
NIV use a Bible which is not the Word of God since it is not based on the
Received Text. To these King James Version supporters, the New International
Version is a Bible that must be avoided, because it is not a true Bible, is a
false Bible, and thus it is not the Word of God; the NIV is so much corrupt –
because the Greek Text of the New Testament from which it has been translated
into English is corrupt and thus a untrustworthy text - that those believers
who read and study it are part of the apostate Church! Some call it even ‘A
New Age Bible Version’ because according to them it upholds and confirms the
doctrines of the New Age movement! In other words, the NIV is a Bible used by
the devil to deceive believers into believing many heresies!! Therefore, the
aim of these King James Version supporters is to turn as many believers as
possible to the use of the King James Version, which is the ONLY Word of God! |
|
I have
examined carefully the position of ‘the King James only’ people and the
position of those who use the New International Version (as well as the
position of those who use other Bible Versions); I have studied the matters
concerning this controversy, and these are the conclusions I have come to. |
|
|
|
Omissions or additions? |
|
|
|
Are we so
sure that all the passages and words which are missing in the Critical Text
were in the original text? I think that this is an important question that
must be answered before going on. My answer is this: in my opinion, some of
the passages and words which are not in the Critical Text but are in the
Received Text actually were in the original documents, while there are some
passages which are in the Received Text which were added to the original
documents. However, there are other passages and words about which - I have
to admit - I am not sure whether they were in the original documents or not. |
|
|
|
The differences don’t affect the doctrines of
Christianity |
|
|
|
I am
persuaded that all the differences existing in the New International Version,
are not able to deceive those believers who read the NIV and to cause them to
fall away, that is, to stray from the truth and deny the Lord Jesus Christ.
Why? Because they don’t affect the doctrines of the Bible. The Trinity, the
divinity of Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His blameless life, His atoning death
and His resurrection, and His ascension to heaven, and His return from
heaven; the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit; salvation by grace
only through faith in Jesus Christ, the purpose of God according to election,
the possibility of falling away, repentance and faith, the doctrine of
baptisms, of laying on of hands, of life after death, of resurrection of the
dead, of eternal judgement, and many other doctrines, are not set aside by
the numerous differences. For all these doctrines are plainly taught by the
New international Version and every believer who knows the Holy Scriptures
and rightly divide them can prove these doctrines through the NIV. Therefore
the Gospel of the grace of God can be preached using the New International
Version as well, and not only using the King James Version, and people can be
saved through that preaching. And the sound doctrine can be taught to the
believers through the New International Version as well, and not only through
the King James Version. So, if I had only the New International Version, I
would preach and teach the same things I preach and teach using both the King
James Version and the New King James Version (However, I urge those believers
who use the NIV to consult the King James Version and the NKJV). |
|
These
things cannot be said about the Bible Versions of certain sects, such as the
Bible of the Jehovah Witnesses, or the so called Inspired Version made by
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, which is used by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and some other Bibles, which
contain many serious errors which affect many doctrines of Christianity; with
regard to these Bibles, therefore, we must say that they have been twisted
and manipulated by perverse people who deliberately decided to twist them in
order to support and confirm their heresies. These kinds of Bibles are to be
rejected. |
|
But the
NIV has been made by people who did not want to twist the Holy Scriptures to
support heresies. The NIV has, of course, some defects, I recognize this, but
it is trustworthy because it is doctrinally orthodox like the King James
Version. The differences are due to the different Greek manuscripts on which
the translators based their translation; however, both the Received Text (s)
and the Critical Text (s) are doctrinally sound. Please, let us bear in mind
that according to most Bible scholars the New Testament text is 99% pure
whether we use the Received Text or the Critical text. Therefore, we can
affirm that the great bulk of the New Testament has been transmitted to us
almost without any variations, and so the sacred text is exact and valid and
no article of faith and no moral precept in it has been distorted or lost.
That’s amazing to me. And we must thank and glorify God for this. Not only
this, we should emphasize the very many points of agreement between the Two
Greek Texts rather than emphasize the differences. We can and should, of
course, speak about the various differences, but in speaking about them we
must be wise and impartial. |
|
|
|
Both the KJV and the NIV have defects |
|
|
|
Both the
KJV and the NIV are not perfect translations, here are some of their defects. |
|
|
|
KING JAMES
VERSION |
|
|
|
●
The following passages were mistranslated by the translators of the KJV. |
|
1. “And
the Lord added to the church daily such
as should be saved” (Acts 2:47); the correct translation is this: “And
the Lord added to the church daily those
who were being saved” (NKJV). Even though the Scripture teaches that
salvation depends of the will of God, it must be said that this passage was
mistranslated in the KJV. |
|
2. “Repent
ye therefore, and be converted,
that your sins may be blotted out, when
the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts
3:19); the correct translation is this: “Repent therefore, and turn to God, that your sins may be
blotted out, so that times of
refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord”. Even though, according to
the Scriptures, man is converted by the Lord, in this passage Peter exhorted
the Jews to turn to God. Furthermore, sins are blotted out at once, they will
not be blotted out when the times of refreshing come from the presence of the
Lord. This mistranslated passage of the KJV is quoted by the Mormons to
support their false doctrine about remission of sins, according to which
repentance and faith in Jesus are not always followed immediately by
forgiveness, for the forgiveness of certain sins will be received when Jesus
comes back!! |
|
3. “For as
Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40); the correct translation is
this: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of
Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (NKJV). The Greek
does not say that the fish in whose belly Jonah was for three days and three
nights was a whale. |
|
4. “For then
must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26); the
right translation is: “He then would have had to suffer often since the
foundation of the world; but now, once at
the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of
Himself” (NKJV). The end of the world has not yet come (for Peter says that
“the end of all things is at hand” 1 Peter 4:7 – NKJV) while the end of the
ages has already come. |
|
5. “Now
the just shall live by faith: but if any
man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him” (Hebrews 10:38);
the correct translation is this: “But my righteous one [or But the righteous]
will live by faith. And if he
shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him” (NIV). Both in the first part
of the verse and in the second part, God is speaking about the righteous,
that is, the man who has been justified by his faith in Jesus Christ. |
|
6. “The
Spirit itself beareth witness with
our spirit, that we are the children of God …. Likewise the Spirit also
helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought:
but the Spirit itself maketh
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Romans 8:16,26).
The pronoun ‘Itself’, referring to the Holy Spirit, may induce the readers to
believe that the Spirit is something (a force, an energy etc.) and not
somebody (the third Divine Person of the Trinity), therefore ‘itself’ must be
replaced by ‘Himself. Therefore the NKJV and the NIV are correct since they
have “the Spirit himself”. |
|
7. “For
the love of money is the root of
all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and
pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Timothy 6:10); it is not
true that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil because there
are other roots of all kinds of evil, therefore the right translation is as
follows: “For the love of money is a
root of all kinds of evil ….” (NKJV and NIV). |
|
8.
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ” (Titus 2:13). According to this translation, we are looking for
the appearing of both the Father and the Son, while the truth is that we are
looking for the appearing of only one person, that is, Jesus Christ the Son
of the Father (furthermore, according to this translation Jesus Christ is our
Saviour but not our great God, so it obscures the deity of Jesus Christ). The
NKJV reads: “Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”,
and the NIV: “While we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ”. The same mistake is found in 2 Peter 1:1. |
|
9. “Let us
hold fast the profession of our faith
without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)” – Hebrews 10:23. The
right translation is this: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who
promised is faithful” (NKJV). |
|
10. In the
following passages Romans 3:4,6,31; 6:2, 15, the expression “God forbid!” is a mistranslation
since in the Greek there is not the word ‘God’. The correct meaning of that Greek
expression used by Paul is ‘may it never be’ or ‘certainly not’ or
‘absolutely not’. The NKJV has corrected these mistakes, for in all these
passages we read “Certainly not!”. |
|
11. “The
God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom
ye slew and hanged on a tree” (Acts 5:30; see also Acts 10:39). That’s
not correct, because according to the original Greek language that passage
must be translated: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree”
(NKJV). This mistranslated passage in the KJV makes the Bible say that Jesus
was killed first and then his dead body was hung on a cross, while Jesus,
according to the Bible, was killed by crucifixion, that is to say, He was
hung on a cross and while on the cross He died. |
|
12. “For
in many things we offend all” (James
3:2). The correct translation is “For we all
stumble in many things” (NKJV). |
|
13.
“Charity …. Is not easily
provoked” (1 Corinthians 13:5). The correct translation is this: “Love …. Is
not provoked” (NKJV). |
|
14. The
expression “the angel of the Lord”
in Matthew 1:20; 28:2; Luke 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7,23 is a mistranslation, for
the correct translation is “an
angel of the Lord” (NKJV). |
|
15. In
Matthew 10:8, Mark 16:17, Luke 8:2, 1 Corinthians 10:20, 1 Timothy 4:1 and
other places, the KJV speaks of demons as “devils”. However, the underlying Greek word is not diabolos, the term for the devil
(Satan), but daimonion which is
rightly rendered as “demons” in the NKJV and NIV. I realize that ‘devils’ in
the KJV means ‘demons’, however the Greek daimonion
should be translated as ‘demons’, for this is the proper word. |
|
16. The
KJV translates both Hades and Gehenna, which are two different Greek
words which refer to two different places of torment for the wicked, as ‘hell’ [for instance in Luke 16:23 (Hades) and Matthew 10:28 (Gehenna)]. This translation creates
confusion, for Hades is the
temporary place of torment for the departed wicked (prior to the resurrection
of Christ, Hades consisted of two compartments:
one – called “Abraham’s bosom” was a place of comfort and rest for the souls
of the departed righteous, which has been vacant since Jesus led the righteous
within it to heaven after His resurrection, the other was – and still is - a
place of torment for the souls of the departed wicked), while Gehenna is the eternal place of
torment (called also “the lake of fire” Revelation 20:15) into which the
wicked will be cast after their resurrection in their resurrected bodies
(thus with their body and soul) and where they will remain in torment for all
eternity (it is presently uninhabited). There is no doubt that Hades can be translated as ‘hell’ (when
Hades refers to the temporary place
of torment where the souls of sinners go after death), just as Gehenna also can be translated as
‘hell,’ if by the term ‘hell’ is meant the eternal place of torment for the
wicked, but in order not to create confusion in the minds of the readers the
best thing to do is to leave these two Greek words in their untranslated
Greek form. Another solution is to leave Hades
in its untranslated Greek form and to translate Gehenna as ‘everlasting fire’ or ‘hell’. For instance the NKJV in
Luke 16:23 leaves Hades in its
untranslated Greek form, and in Matthew 10:28 it translates Gehenna as ‘hell’. Still another
solution is to translate Hades as
‘hell’ and Gehenna as ‘everlasting
fire.’ |
|
●
Since the King James Version was made several centuries ago, its English is
archaic and there are certain words and expressions which are a big problem
since through the years they have become ambiguous or misleading, so that
today we can’t understand them without help. So I recommend the use of modern
Bible Versions, such as the NKJV and the NIV, in order to understand those
words and those expressions since in these modern Bible Versions those words
and those expressions are updated. |
|
●
There are certain passages in the King James Version which seem to have been
added to the original Greek documents. |
|
|
|
NEW
INTERNATIONAL VERSION |
|
|
|
● These
passages were mistranslated. |
|
1. John
1:14: “The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his
glory, the glory of the one and only
Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth”. The correct
translation is this: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and
we beheld his glory, the glory as of the
only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (KJV). |
|
2. John
2:4: “Dear woman, why do you
involve me?’ Jesus replied”. Jesus, according to the original Greek, on that
occasion did not call her mother ‘dear woman’ but simply “woman” (KJV). |
|
3. John
3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life”. The correct translation is this: “For God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life” (KJV). |
|
4. Acts
13:33: “You are my Son; today I have become
your Father”. The correct translation is this: “Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee” (KJV). |
|
5. Acts
19:2: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when
you believed?” The correct translation is: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” (KJV). |
|
6. Ephesians
1:13: “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.
Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy
Spirit”. According to this translation, we were included in Christ when we
heard the Gospel, but that’s not true because we were included in Christ when
we believed. In other words, we heard the Gospel first and then by faith in
the Gospel we were included in Christ; there is a great difference between
hearing the Gospel and believing the Gospel. The KJV reads: “In whom ye also
trusted, after that ye heard the
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed,
ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”, that’s the correct
translation. |
|
7. Romans
1:17: “For in the Gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a
righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is
written: The righteous will live by faith”. The correct translation is this:
“For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by
faith” (NKJV). |
|
8. 1
Corinthians 13:7: “It [love] always
protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres”. That’s not
correct because the original Greek says: “Beareth all things, believeth
all things, hopeth all things,
endureth all things” (KJV). |
|
9. 2
Thessalonians 2:1-2: “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our
being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled
or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us,
saying that the day of the Lord has
already come”. The correct translation is this: “Now we beseech you,
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering
together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of
Christ is at hand.” |
|
10. In the
Old Testament the word Sheol is
translated as ‘grave’ in Psalm
9:17 and Isaiah 14:9. Sheol in
these two passages refers to the place of torment where the souls of the
wicked go after death, and not to the grave. So the KJV and the NKJV are
correct, for they both have ‘hell’. |
|
As for the
New Testament, the word Hades (the
Greek word equivalent to Sheol) is
translated ‘the depths’ in Matthew
11:23 and Luke 10:15. In these two passages Hades refers to the place of torment for the departed wicked, so
if it is translated it should be translated as ‘hell’, as in the KJV. |
|
●
There are words and passages not included in it which were in the original
documents. |
|
●
There are some passages that have been watered down because they were not
translated literally as in the KJV and the NKJV. |
|
|
|
The so called attacks on vital doctrines of the
Christian faith are not systematic attacks |
|
|
|
Now, the
King James supporters claim that some ‘omissions’ of passages and some
renderings of passages in the NIV attack some vital doctrines of the
Christian faith. Bear in mind that the differences I’m about to mention
depend on the Greek Text of the New Testament used by the translators of the
NIV; they just translated what they found in that Text, which differs – as we
have seen - from the Received Text used by the translators of the KJV. |
|
First of
all, let’s take the passage of 1 Timothy 3:16, which in the King James
Version reads: “God was manifest in the flesh” while in the NIV: “He appeared
in a body,” and which could be rendered: ‘He who was manifested in the flesh’
according to the ‘Critical Text’. Let us assume that the King James Version
passage is correct and the passage in the NIV is wrong, do you think that
this passage will make a believer reject the divinity of Jesus Christ just
because in the NIV we read ‘He appeared in a body’? No, because there are
many other passages in the NIV that plainly confirm the divinity of Jesus,
such as John 1:1,14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9. Therefore, even if this
passage were wrong, the NIV would lead you to believe that Jesus is God.
Furthermore, it is evident that the authors of the Greek Text on which the
NIV is based did not want to attack the divinity of Jesus Christ because they
did not alter all the passages in the whole Bible that confirm the divinity
of Christ. If they had wished to attack the deity of Christ and nullify it,
they would have had to twist or to remove many passages of the Scriptures.
For instance, since the translators of the New World Translation of the Jehovah
Witnesses had decided to nullify the deity of Jesus, they twisted almost all
the passages which state one way or another that Jesus Christ is God. That
was a systematic attack on the deity of Christ. Furthermore, it is evident
that since the ‘Critical Text’ has ‘He who was manifested in the flesh’ that
means that the One who was manifested in the flesh had to be a superhuman
being before, don’t you think so? Could he be an angel? Of course not, so He
had to be God. Besides, remember that the Scripture says that the “Word was
made flesh” (John 1:14) and the Word was God. One more thing, the fact that
Jesus is called by Paul ‘He who was manifested in the flesh’ should not
surprise us, for Paul calls Jesus “Him who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21 -
NKJV), and John calls Jesus: “Him who is from the beginning” (1 John 2:14 -
NKJV). |
|
Second,
let’s look at the so called attack on the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. In
the KJV we read: “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which
were spoken of him” (Luke 2:33), while the NIV reads: “The child’s father and
mother marvelled at what was said about him”. Now, let us assume that the KJV
is correct and the NIV wrong, how can we say that the authors of the Greek
Text of the New Testament on which the NIV is based attacked the virgin birth
of Jesus when the accounts of His birth according to Matthew and to Luke are
substantially the same as those written in the Received Text? Don’t you think
that if they had wished to attack the virgin birth of Jesus they would have
had to twist many more passages? Anyway, I would like you to notice that if
it is true that the NIV has ‘the child’s father’ it is true also that the KJV
also calls Joseph ‘the father of Jesus’. Here are the words that Mary, the
mother of Jesus, said to Jesus in the temple when He was about twelve years
old: “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing” (Luke 2:48). Please,
could you explain to me why Mary called her husband ‘the father of Jesus’
even though she knew that Joseph had not begotten Jesus? I ask you another
question: ‘Why does the Scripture call Joseph and Mary ‘the parents of
Jesus’? What does the expression ”his parents” (Luke 2:41) mean? It means
that Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus, doesn’t it? Therefore, the
fact that Joseph is called the father of Jesus doesn’t attack the virgin
birth of Jesus. The reason why Joseph is called the father of Jesus is found
in this passage of the Gospel according to Luke: “And Jesus himself began to
be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). |
|
Third,
let’s examine the so called attack on the atonement. The supporters of the
King James Version point out that in the NIV the following words “through his
blood” (Colossians 1:14) are missing. Can you see an attack against the
atonement made by Jesus Christ? As far as I am concerned, I don’t see it. The
Critical Text on which is based the NIV is full of passages which confirm the
atonement made by Jesus through His blood. I will quote just two of them.
Paul says to the Ephesians: “In him we have redemption through his blood ….” (Ephesians 1:7 - NIV) and to the
Colossians: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and
through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or
things in heaven, by making peace through
his blood, shed on the cross” (Colossians 1:19-10 – NIV). |
|
I think
that I have proved that even if these passages in the NIV were altered (I am
inclined to think that in the original they were like we read them in the
Critical Text rather than in the Received Text), we could prove the deity of
Christ and the virgin birth of Christ and the atonement made by Christ
through His blood even through the NIV. And I could give you many more examples
like these. You see, the Bible is not a book like all the other books, it was
the Holy Spirit who inspired the authors of the books of the Bible to write
and the Holy Spirit is a wise Spirit. Every doctrine of the Christian faith
is confirmed in different ways and in different places of the Bible. If a
passage has been mistranslated or twisted, intentionally or unintentionally,
or even omitted, there will be for sure some other passages that will confirm
the doctrine which has been attacked. I want to make it clear that I don’t
justify intentional mistakes, I just want to demonstrate how the doctrines of
the Christian faith are not nullified by the Critical Text underlying the NIV.
|
|
Therefore,
even though I consider the King James Version a good and accurate version in
most places, I am persuaded that those believers who use the NIV have not strayed
from the truth, and if they stand firm in the faith, pray, live a holy and
godly life, have their delight in the Scriptures and divide rightly the Word
of God, they don’t run the risk of straying from the truth. |
|
|
|
Even by using the King James Version believers can
accept false doctrines |
|
|
|
The King
James Version only people say that by using the NIV believers will accept
strange doctrines, that’s why they don’t recommend this Bible Version. One of
these KJV supporters has stated: ‘The
whole result of a translation based upon the Oldest and Best Manuscripts, is
deceit and departure from the faith ‘as it was once delivered to the saints.
The inevitable result is apostasy’. |
|
However, I
would like to point out that the acceptance of strange doctrines does not
depend on reading the NIV – which is a trustworthy Bible - for there are many
believers who use the King James Version who believe strange doctrines, such
as baptismal regeneration, the so called doctrine ‘once saved always saved’,
the so called soul sleep, to mention only some of the false doctrines which
are not taught by the Holy Scriptures. On the contrary, there are believers
who use the New International Version who don’t accept these false teachings.
What do I mean by that? I mean that you could have the best Bible Translation
in your hands, but if you don’t divide the word of truth rightly you will
accept strange doctrines. Remember that in the days of the apostles, even
though there were the original autographs of their epistles and trustworthy
copies of them, among some churches there were some who did not believe in
the resurrection of the dead, and some others who said that the resurrection
was already past. And what shall we say about the fact that there were some
others who had fallen from grace for they were trying to be justified by the
law of Moses, and many who lived a sinful life, even though they had in their
church the original epistles of the apostles? Is this not the evidence that
even if we had the original epistles written by the hands of the apostles, we
could forsake the Lord and go into perdition? Do you understand what I mean?
Therefore, no matter whether you use the King James Version or not, if you
don’t watch and pray, you will begin to live a sinful life and give heed to
false teachings. And is this not what many of the King James Version movement
do? They praise the KJV and criticize those who use the NIV and in the
meantime they live a life which is not worthy of the Gospel and believe
strange doctrines, which are not taught by the Holy Scriptures, because they
don’t watch and pray. They are like the Pharisees, who had the writings of
Moses and the prophets (and I challenge you to demonstrate that they did not
have a reliable version of the Old Testament!), but they lived a sinful life
(not a holy life as commanded by the law) and therefore they were rebuked by
Jesus. They are like the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection of
the dead, even though in the book of the prophet Daniel as well as in the
book of the prophet Isaiah it was written that one day God will raise the
dead. These people have forgotten that we Christians must defend the sound
doctrine and not a particular Bible Version or Translation, that we must fight against the devil and not against those who don't use the same Bible Version we use. We must hold to the sound
doctrines which are taught by the Bible (and I can assure you that they are
taught also by the NIV), and we must defend them from the attack of the
enemies of the cross. |
|
The most
important thing is to keep the Word of God; on the contrary, some of you who
defend the King James Version and say that it is the ONLY word of God don’t keep
the Word of God because you live a sinful life; holiness is unknown to you. Therefore,
just as Paul rebuked some believing Jews saying to them: “You who make your
boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?” (Romans 2:23
– NKJV), so I rebuke you saying: ‘You who make your boast in the Word of God,
which according to you is the King James Version alone, you dishonor God
through breaking the Word of God?’ You speak evil of those believers who use
the NIV, is this the way to conduct as children of God? Did not Jesus command
us to love one another? Listen, the sectarianism you show is a shame, and a
scandal. Repent, and become humble.’ |
|
|
|
Even Bibles which are based on the Received Text
differ from one another |
|
|
|
Many
believers when they hear about the received text think that there is only one
Received Text, but that’s not true, because as we saw before, there are
various editions of the received text which differ from one another. Therefore,
for example, if the translators of a Bible base their translation of the New Testament
exclusively on the Received Text of Stephen (1550 edition) while the
translators of another Bible base their translation exclusively on the
Received Text of Elzevir (1633 edition) their New Testaments will have many
differences, because Stephen’s 1550 edition differs from the Elzevir 1633
edition in 286 places!! At this point, since there are these differences
between the various editions of the Received Text, which is the preserved and
infallible Text? The Text on which we can rely 100%? My answer is this: I
don’t know, rather I think that no one of them is the infallible text. But
there is another question to be answered. How can the term Received Text be
referred to the pure Greek Text of the New Testament handed down? My answer
is as follows: we can’t apply the word Received Text to the pure Greek New
Testament because even the various editions of the Received Text differ from
one another. |
|
Now, as I
said before, the KJV translators did not follow only one edition of the
Textus Receptus but various editions of the Received Text and in some places
they followed even the Vulgate, therefore the underlying Greek text of the
King James Bible is a Received Text which doesn’t conform exactly to any of
the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively
as the Textus Receptus. Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649) also, who translated the
New Testament in Italian from the Received Text, did not follow exclusively
one particular edition of the Textus Receptus. Now I will show you some of
the differences existing between the New Testament of the King James Version and
the New Testament of the Italian Bible Diodati Version (which was first
published in 1607). |
|
The KJV
has: “And when the days of her
purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished ….” (Luke 2:22), while the Diodati
has: “E quando I giorni della loro purificazione furono compiuti secondo la
legge di Mosè…” (And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were
accomplished). Diodati followed the Stephen’s edition 1550, while the KJV
translators the Beza’s edition of 1598 which has ‘her’ instead of ‘their’. |
|
The KJV
has: “Who by the mouth of thy servant David has said” (Acts 4:25) while the
Diodati has: “Che hai, per lo Spirito Santo, detto per la bocca di Davide,
tuo servitore” (Who spoke by the Holy
Spirit through the mouth of your servant David). All of Beza’s editions
(except 1565) have the words ‘The Holy Spirit’, while the KJV translators
followed Stephen’s 1550 edition in omitting these words. |
|
The KJV
has: “And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation,
which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also
suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation” (2 Corinthians 1:6)
while the Diodati has: “Ora, sia che siamo afflitti, ciò è per la vostra
consolazione e salute; sia che altresì siamo consolati, ciò è per la vostra
consolazione, la quale opera efficacemente nel vostro sostenere le medesime
sofferenze, le quali ancora noi patiamo” (And whether we be afflicted, it is
for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the
same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for
your consolation – ‘and salvation’ is missing). Diodati followed Beza’s
edition 1598 which omits ‘and salvation’. |
|
The KJV
has: “And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon” (Matthew 21:7),
while the Diodati has: “E menarono l’asina, ed il puledro; e misero sopra
quelli le lor veste, e Gesù montò sopra il puledro” (And brought the ass, and
the colt, and put on them their clothes, and Jesus sat on the colt).
Diodati followed the reading of Stephen’s 1550 TR reading ‘he sat’, and
rejected the reading of Beza’s 1589 and 1598 editions ‘they set’. |
|
The KJV has:
“This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus
stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not” (John 8:6), while the Diodati has:
“Or dicevano questo, tentandolo, per poterlo accusare. Ma Gesù chinatosi in
giù, scriveva col dito in terra (This they said, tempting him, that they
might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote
on the ground)”. Diodati followed the Beza’s 1589 and 1598 editions, and Stephen’s
of 1550, which omit the words ‘as though he heard them not’, while the KJV
translators followed the Complutensian, and Stephen’s 1546 and 1549. The
words ‘as though he heard them not’ were not placed in italics until 1769. |
|
The KJV
has: “After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but
the Spirit suffered them not” (Acts 16:7), while the Diodati has: “Vennero in
Misia, e tentavano d’andare in Bitinia, ma lo Spirito di Gesù nol permise
loro (After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but
the Spirit of Jesus suffered them
not)”. Diodati followed the Beza’s editions (except 1565) which add ‘of
Jesus’ after ‘the Spirit’, while the KJV followed Erasmus, the Complutensian,
and Stephen in the omission. |
|
The KJV
has: “And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord,
which art, and wast, and shalt be,
because thou hast judged thus” (Revelation 16:5), while the Diodati has: “Ed
io udii l’angelo delle acque, che diceva: Tu sei giusto, o Signore, che sei,
che eri, che sei il Santo, d’aver fatti questi giudicii (And I heard the
angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, who art the Holy One, because thou
hast judged thus). Diodati followed Stephen who has ‘the Holy One’, while the
KJV followed Beza’s last three editions which have ‘and shalt be’. |
|
The reason
why I have made this comparison is to show how even those who translated the
New Testament from the Received Text (in the same period of time) followed
different readings in some places, and as a result the translations are not
the same, they are similar but not identical. Therefore, since the KJV
supporters claim that the King James Version contains the preserved text of
the New Testament, and the New Testament of this Italian Bible does not agree
totally with the King James Version, the conclusion to which they should come
is that even such a New Testament, translated from the Received Text, is not
the preserved Text of the New Testament and as a result it is not the Word of
God!! At this point I ask: why should I prefer the King James Version to the
Diodati? Why shouldn’t I prefer the Received Text underlying the Diodati to
the Received Text underlying the King James Version? Who is able to show me
that the KJV translators were correct in all their decisions while Giovanni
Diodati did some mistakes? I tell you the truth, if I were a fanatic and
blind supporter of the Diodati Version, saying that the Diodati is the best
Bible in the world and the only word of God, I would reject the King James
Version because of the above mentioned differences; but thank God I am not
blind nor devoid of understanding, for God has given me His wisdom; therefore
I accept the Diodati Version as the Word of God, just as I accept the KJV,
even though it differs from the KJV in some places. |
|
I think
this is the conclusion each believer should come to with regard to the NIV
also, even though its New Testament is not based on the Received Text and consequently
contains many more differences (because the differences existing between the
Received Text editions and the Critical Text are many more than the
differences existing between the various editions of the Received Text). I
believe this is a right conclusion. |
|
|
Which Bible Version should we use
then?
|
|
|
|
At this
point, someone may ask: ‘Which Bible Version should I use then?’ Well, in my
opinion, the New King James Version is a good modern-language update of the
KJV. So you may use it. However, I want to make it clear that I don’t regard
it as a perfect translation, for it also has its own defects. |
|
The
following passages in the NKJV contain mistranslated words or phrases. |
|
1. Matthew
7:14: “Because narrow is the gate and difficult
is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it”. The way which
leads to life is not difficult but narrow, as we read in the KJV: “Because
strait is the gate, and narrow is
the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” |
|
2. Matthew
11:3 (Luke 7:19): “Are You the Coming
One, or do we look for another?”. The disciples of John did not ask Jesus
if He was the Coming One, but if He was “He
that should come” (KJV) |
|
3. Matthew
21:32: “For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not
believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw
it, you did not afterward relent
and believe him”. Jesus did not say to the chief priests and the elders of
the people: ‘You did not afterward relent …’ but “ye repented not afterward …” (KJV). |
|
4. Matthew
27:3: “Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty
pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders”. Matthew did not write that
Judas was remorseful, but that he “repented
himself” (KJV). |
|
John 14:16:
“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you
forever”. The Greek word parakletos,
translated as ‘Helper,’ means ‘Comforter’
or ‘Intercessor’, so the KJV is
correct. |
|
5. Acts
11:17: “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus
Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” Peter did not say that, for
God gave the gift of the Spirit to the apostles as well as to the other
disciples of the Lord on the day of Pentecost, that is to say, after they had
believed. The correct translation is this: “Forasmuch then as God gave them
the like gift as he did unto us, who
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?”
(KJV) |
|
6. Acts
17:29: “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think
that the Divine Nature is like
gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising’. The KJV
reads “the Godhead” instead of
‘the Divine Nature’, for that is the meaning of the Greek word theios used by Paul. Theios can translated also as ‘the
Divine’ or ‘the Divinity’, but not as ‘the Divine Nature’. |
|
7. Acts
19:2: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when
you believed?” The baptism with the Holy Spirit is received after one has
believed in the Lord, that’s why Paul could not have asked that question to
those disciples in |
|
8. Romans
11:29: “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”. The correct translation is this: “For the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance”.
|
|
9. 1
Corinthians 6:9: “homosexuals’
should be replaced with “effeminate”
(KJV). |
|
10. 2
Thessalonians 2:2: “… as though the day of Christ had come”. Paul told the Thessalonians another thing, that is,
“…..as that the day of Christ is at
hand”. |
|
11. Hebrews 10:38: “Now the just
shall live by faith; But if anyone
draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him”. The correct translation is this:
“But my righteous one [or But the righteous] will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be
pleased with him” (NIV). The one who may draw back is the just. |