Translations and Versions
by Dave Brown
Click here for other articles on "Understanding the Bible"
ABSTRACT
This is a long article and we expect that only those who have a burning interest in this subject will have the time to go over it all in depth. For those who do not, we offer this short summary of the article, which is illustrated below with slides. The article demonstrates that those criticizing the Bible because it has been "revised thousands of times" are either ignorant of the truth or are outright lying. The following is a summary of the conclusions that are supported by this article and its accompanying slides:
INTRODUCTION
Much has been said about translations and versions by those who wish to discredit the Bible. And these lies are often repeated over and over again by the enemies of Christ who are under the influence of the father of lies, Satan. When critics are not constrained to tell the truth it is easy to generate all kinds of ridicule. It is the goal of this article to present the truth with regard to translations and versions so that this deception can be countered.
First of all, most of the "translations" that are being pushed by the bookstores are not translations at all -- they are paraphrases. A paraphrase is usually done by one person who reads one or more translations in his/her native language and then rewords the verses as s/he sees fit. S/he might be trying to express what translation says in a better way, but then again, s/he might just be trying to push false doctrines, and will slip them in every chance that s/he gets. Paraphrases are NOT the word of God and should never be used to determine doctrine or argue doctrinal issues.
A translation is the restating of a copy of an original Hebrew and/or Greek manuscript into a language that can be understood in their native language. Translations vary in their quality and dedication to the original manuscript. A scholarly translation is a translation done by a team of objective scholars (not just one person). Such a translation team will have no particular doctrine or religious affiliation, or if they do they will not allow it to bias their translation. (Personally, I would much prefer that the team of scholars were atheists and that their only goal was to be perfectly true to the copy of the original manuscript(s) that they have access to.)
Tools are available today by which most of us can find the original Hebrew or Greek word in an interlinear version and look it up in a Greek or Hebrew lexicon. This will give us the meaning of any Hebrew or Greek word in our native languages. However, scholarly translators go beyond just a literal one-for-one word-for-word translation. True Greek scholars, for example, will know of slang terms, Hebraisms, idioms and cultural expressions that will assist them in creating a translation that truly reflects the intent of the original meaning. In other words, they can improve over the word-for-word literal substitution by turning an expression that was unique in the first century culture into a expression in our language that reflects the meaning. This is where true scholarship and teams of scholars are especially essential to obtaining a translation today that is the word of God. An example of an idiom that we use quite often is "keep our eyes peeled" when the idea is to look out for some object or event. Converting this idiom word for word into another language could produce laughable results.
It is clear from the inconsistencies between translations that God does not inspire translations. Only the original manuscripts were inspired, and today we only have copies of those manuscripts; we have none of the originals. Lest you think this is a major problem recognize that Jesus accepted and used the common Septuagint translation from the Hebrew to the Greek, and quoted it as authoritative. We are to follow his example in all things, and therefore we should strive to find the best commonly accepted translation for ourselves today.
Also we have a promise of Jesus from Matt 24:34-35: 34: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." This promise is couched in Jesus' prophecy that the temple would be destroyed (read Mt. 24 carefully from the very beginning). This prophecy was most assuredly fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, thus validating the promise in verse 35, that his words will never pass away. Thus, all those who truly seek after God will have access too his words. But do not just trust everything that calls itself a Bible -- surely we all know better than that. One purpose of this article is to help us find a good scholarly translation that truly contains the word of God so that we have a firm and reliable base for our spiritual lives.
Translations and Versions
The remainder of this article will be illustrated and referenced to the slides that are available by clicking the following (it will come up in a separate window -- please be patient, it is a large file; if it does not come up the first time, please try again):
Open Article Slides in Separate Window
Move your cursor over a slide and its number will appear at the top of the frame. The remainder of the article will be referenced to these slide numbers.
1 -- Title Slide: New Testament Greek Manuscripts and Modern Versions
2 -- Why the New Testament?
Why is the slide presentation and this article going to concentrate on the Greek manuscripts for the New Testament as opposed to the Hebrew for the Old Testament? There are a number of reasons:
3 -- The Good News
There are no major doctrinal issues today caused by translations with the exception of those who contend that a particular translation is the sole translation that should be used. The only ones that we know that contend about this are the "King James only" advocates. They are not arguing about any particular point of doctrine within the various competing translations, only that the KJV should be the one and only translation used. That particular issue is not what this article is about, and we will not get sidetracked on it. We believe the KJV is a good scholarly translation and can certainly be used, but binding the use of it as a doctrine goes beyond what the Bible requires, and thus, it is sinful within itself.
This author has been a member of Bible-based local churches for over a half century, during which time dozens of doctrinal issues have come up for discussion, some of which have divided local churches. Absolutely none of these had anything to do with differences in translations or versions. We have heard from a number of older Christians who have made the same statement. The reason is that all of the various commonly accepted translations essentially say the same things as far as the resolution of various doctrinal interpretations are concerned. The problem has not been that there are differences in translations.
Some that we have discussed this with recently have confused translations/versions with interpretations. They reason that (1) because there are hundreds if not thousands of differences in the various denominations and cults that identify themselves as "Christians" and purport to use the bible as their guides, (2) this must be caused by differences in the respective bibles used. This is a gross misunderstanding of the difference between interpretation and translation. In most cases the different interpretations are being based upon the identical set of translations. This being the case, these issues could not possibly have anything to do with translation. It has everything to do with the hermaneutics applied and the reliance on traditional denominational church fathers as opposed to the extent to which various groups depend upon the bible alone.
Another reason that translations have little effect on doctrinal differences is that the Bible is quite redundant when it comes to key doctrinal issues. The Jehovah's Witnesses thought that by changing John 1:1 that they could defeat the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ. However, it is possible to show clearly from their own Bible that Jesus is divine. The number of changes that they would have to make would so mar their version that it would be a joke. This is just an example of how Jesus' promise in Matthew 24:35 -- that his words would never pass away -- are being kept. There is sufficient redundancy in the Bible on all key doctrines that it is virtually impossible to obscure them with a few subtle changes.
4 -- The Bad News
The bad news is what this article is all about. There are enough differences that some have questioned the credibility of the Bible per se -- all of the versions. Declaring the entire body of translations to be a total mish-mash that have been edited and re-edited so many times and by so many people that no one really knows what the original manuscripts intended. Other than a few cults, we do know of not cases where translations were intentionally skewed toward one doctrine or another. However, it is clear that the differences do exist, and they need to be addressed and not just swept under the rug. That is the purpose of the remainder of this article.
Examples of things appearing, or not appearing, in various versions that might cause some to think that our commonly accepted translations are not the reliable word of God include the following:
5 -- The Approach of the Remainder of the Article
We will start by presenting issues that need to be addressed. This will be followed by the scriptures that relate to Bible accuracy and completeness. Finally some alternatives will be presented and evaluated.
6 -- Two Major Alternative Texts
There are two alternative Greek texts that have been used as the basis for most current New Testament translations. The first is the Textus Receptus, which we will henceforth reference by the English translation of that Latin term: the Received Text. It was compiled in early 1500s by Erasmus, and it formed the basis for the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.
The second is the Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, which we will reference as the Critical Greek Text. It was compiled in late 1800s by Hort and Wescott. It is believed that the Critical Greek Text manuscripts are older than those of the Received Text. For this reason it has become the basis for most “modern” versions. The term "modern versions" is ambiguous at best, and we do NOT want to infer that it includes many of what are called modern versions today, which are, in fact, not translations at all but merely one-person, or limited team paraphrases. We will discuss how to determine a good translation from a paraphrase as we continue.
7 -- Where did my version come from?
This slide gives an idea of how the various translations were based on the two basic Greek texts and in many cases each other as some used others as a base to improve upon. All of these are what we have been calling scholarly translations, and the basic plan of salvation can be obtained from any of them. We are particularly favorable to the ASV, NASB and the RSV in that they were based on both of the Greek manuscripts and compared with other versions. (Authorship of this display is unknown -- please Contact Us if you have information as to the source.)
8 -- Justification for the Critical Greek Text
Some scholars have determined that there were inconsistencies among the Received Text manuscripts. It is stated that Erasmus had relatively few manuscript copies to base his translation on. Further, some have determined that there were copyist errors among them. There is little dispute that the Critical Greek Text were the older manuscripts. This being the case, why not just go with the Critical Greek Text?
9 -- Critical Greek Text (CGT) Issues
The reason is that the CGT is not without its issues. Variations have been found between the Vatican and the Sinai, names of two source texts used to create the CGT. Also there are variations between the CGT and the Received Text. The following are examples of some omissions in the CGT:
10 -- Critical Greek Text Issues
We recommend that you do an Internet search of "Critical Greek Text Issues" if you are interested in pursuing this subject further. Basically it is alleged that there is a general doctrinal weakening of passages that support the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, Christ's atonement and Christ's ascension. The "weakening" of a passage here and there, however, does not eliminate the doctrine altogether. There is sufficient redundancy on these doctrines as well as all other critical doctrines to make it almost impossible to change these basic doctrines provided that a comprehensive approach it taken in studying and resolving them. The comprehensive approach in this case should include the use of several translations so that differences in translation cannot possibly be an issue.
11 -- The Issue: Since the Received Text (RT) and the Critical Greek Text (CGT) are Different ...
Can we not conclude that one of these must be better than the other? If this is true, then versions derived using the better manuscript will also be better. Can we resolve this issue by applying scriptural principles? For example, Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing (unto him); for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and (that) he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." Is not finding the best possible manuscript and thus version part of seeking after God? Let us look at some other passages that might relate to this endeavor. [Comments in brackets.]
12 -- Revelation 22:18
“For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ..."
[The point here is that God has condemned those who would add something to the Bible that He has not inspired by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Some will say that this only applies to the book of Revelation; but if it applies to the book of Revelation, can you think of any reason it would not also apply to any other book in the Bible. Are the critics saying we are free to add whatever we want to the other books? Surely not. Surely what is being given here is a principle that applies to the book of Revelation, but it also applies in principle to all of the other books in the Bible. Adding to it or taking away from what God has given usurps the authority of God.]
13 -- Revelation 22:19
“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, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
[The comments made above apply equally well here.]
14 -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"Every scripture inspired of God (is) also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."
[The passage teaches the sufficiency of the Bible as God had it revealed to mankind through the Holy Spirit. It seems quite reasonable that if parts of it are tampered with that might leave us with a deficient set of scriptures.]
15 -- Ephesians 3:1-5
3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles, --
2 if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward;
3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words,
4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;
5 which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
[The Bible is sufficient and it can be understood as delivered to mankind by God. We need to respect the fact that God made the very sublime spiritual concepts understandable to us mortals.]
16 -- 2 Peter 1:19-21
19 And we have the word of prophecy (made) more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts:
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
[This states that no man, priesthood or organization has a lock on God's word -- it is not of private interpretation to be hidden and parsed out to us by some clergy. No, it is for public interpretation -- each person who can read can determine what it says and study it with their fellow Christians to arrive at the truth. This is the responsibility of everyone.]
17 -- Psalms 12:6-7
6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou wilt keep them, O LORD, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.
[This is one of many promises of God that He will be instrumental in their preservation. While some words might be in dispute, the overall message will remain as He has determined it.]
18 -- 1 Peter 1:22-25
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently:
23 having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which lives and abides.
24 For, All flesh is as grass, And all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls:
25 But the word of the Lord abides for ever. And this is the word of good tidings which was preached unto you.
[Another promise of God that we will have access to His word.]
19 -- 2 Peter 3:15-18
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
16 as also in all (his) epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as (they do) also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, knowing (these things) beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own steadfastness.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him (be) the glory both now and for ever. Amen.
[Peter was urging them to depend on the writings of Paul and similarly, all other inspired men, as they went forward to serve the Lord.]
20 -- Col 4:15-16
15 Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house.
16 And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.
[This passage shows the value of the epistles and the fact that they were to be shared with other churches.]
21 -- Original Autographs -- Where Are They?
They do not exist -- they deteriorated long ago. The best that we have is copies of copies. But this is not necessarily bad. For example, even though the KJV was first published in 1611, we still have copies of it that we know are quite reliable. Let us consider how copies might be verified. This slide shows a model of an original manuscript getting copied and then the copies being copied. Each link in the model is a copy that is made. Now at some point someone designated "?" wants to determine if the copy that he has is valid. But, of course, there is no original to compare it against. He compares his copy against 1 and finds out to his dismay that there are variations. But then he checks his copy against 2 and 3, and all three of these copies totally agree to the letter. What is the probability that someone made a mistake in copying and that the exact same mistake was made in all three of them? The answer is as close to zero as is possible to get. The reason that it is so low is that the three ?, 2 and 3 are on completely different chains. This is because they are geographically removed from each other. If they were right next to each other, then an error could be made immediately up the line and they would both have the same error. Obviously comparing copies from two that are on the same chain is fruitless. However, when two or more copies over a widely diverse geographical area occur (i.e., completely different chains), then the validation is almost as good as comparing it to the original.
22 -- Arguments for the SV = Sinaiticus & Vaticanus = Critical Greek Text
The argument is that the manuscripts for the SV dated back to an earlier point in time than those of the received text. While the Critical Greek Text was not assembled until 1881 the claim is that its source manuscripts go back to the 4th century. No such ancient claim can be made for the Received Text even though it was assembled several hundred years earlier. Does this mean that we should abandon versions based on the Received Text and just go with those that are based on the Critical Greek Text?
23 -- An Analogy
To answer this question, consider an analogy about a man in the 1500s – way before the xerox machine was invented ... who had five sons. The man wrote his will – handwritten of necessity – leaving his five sons each an even share of his estate; and then at the end of the will he put in a paragraph with a very healthy inheritance for his faithful servant – to some extent diluting the sons' inheritances. Each of the four younger sons made a hand-written copy of the will, while the oldest son kept the original. At the reading of the will the oldest son insisted that ONLY the original should be used as the official will. In fact, when the other four copies were compared, they were found to be inconsistent with each other because of the various copying errors in them, and so it was agreed to use the “original” that was obviously the oldest version of the will.
When the will was read, the part about the servant's inheritance was not found. The four younger sons, being just and fair men, questioned the reading, and they all brought their copies of the will to a hearing on the issue. All four of the copies contained the provision for the servant. If you were the judge in this case would you accept the oldest document? or would you accept, in essence, the obvious and clear meaning of the four other documents even with their "inconsistencies and inaccuracies" that were only copyist mistakes and did not change the obvious intent of the father?
Can we see the difference between trivial inconsistencies and meaningful doctrinal consistencies? For example, the conditions that Jesus placed on salvation are critical to the integrity of a given version, and all objective scholarly versions are totally consistent in this regard.
24 -- Byzantine Majority Text
This Greek manuscript was created by accepting the majority of all available manuscripts. It dates back before 1500 and was Used in Greek Byzantine Empire, and it was adopted by Greek Orthodox Church. It is also the basis for the New King James Version (NKJV).
25 -- Did Jesus keep his promise of Matthew 24:35? Do we still have his words?
"There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text
differs from the Textus Receptus [Received Text] in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. And, the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text [CGT] in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity."
-- Daniel B. Wallace (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=677)
26 -- Conclusions:
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2015/07/16/why-some-verses-are-cut-from-the-bible-and-thats-ok/37481
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
Click here for other articles on "Can We Understanding the Bible"
ABSTRACT
This is a long article and we expect that only those who have a burning interest in this subject will have the time to go over it all in depth. For those who do not, we offer this short summary of the article, which is illustrated below with slides. The article demonstrates that those criticizing the Bible because it has been "revised thousands of times" are either ignorant of the truth or are outright lying. The following is a summary of the conclusions that are supported by this article and its accompanying slides:
- Many new translations and paraphrases are generated for no other reason than to make money and to make names for the authors. Just because a book is called a Bible does not mean that it is a good representation of the original manuscripts.
- Use a translation for your study that has the full weight of objective scholarship made by linguistic experts who had no other motivation but to represent the original meaning in the best possible way so readers can understand it in their native language. We will refer to such as good translations.
- Avoid all paraphrases. Paraphrases are written by one or a few persons who are of religious zealots as opposed to linguistic scholars, and who often have predefined prejudices toward false doctrines. They can be extremely subtle in getting their ideas into your head. See this by comparing some of their key passages with one or more of the reliable scholarly (good) versions mentioned in the detailed article. Or, better yet, stay away from paraphrases altogether.
- From their quotations, we know that Jesus and the New Testament writers most often used the commonly accepted version of their day that translated the Old Testament into Greek (Septuagint). As opposed to the Hebrew, this translation would take God's OT word to the Gentiles. The word Septuagint itself means "group of seventy," which refers to the the number of Jewish scholars who were involved in the translation, making it a good translation. We can follow their examples today by using a translation and a version that is commonly accepted to be reliable, objective and scholarly. A little web searching on the Internet can be quite useful in eliminating counterfeits. We give examples in the article but do not feel it is our place to recommend any single version.
- There is absolutely no reason that everyone in a given local church has to be constrained to the use same version. In fact, in Bible studies a comparison of the words and phrases between versions often brings out things that no single version can. Every effort should be made, however, to assure that all of the versions being used are good scholarly translations. Paraphrases should be given little, if any, credibility.
- The detailed study shows that differences in good translations and versions are not an issue, and they should not create contention within a local congregation. We have never seen, nor have we heard of, differences in translations causing any issues whatsoever, since it is well understood that versions and translations are not inspired. Since they all generally say the same things and present the same principles, we can understand that it is those principles that are inspired -- this is what God wants us to understand. This is not to say that the Holy Spirit did not validate every word written by those who penned the documents. This is borne out in 1 Corinthians 2:13: "which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit,..." (NASB).
- While translation differences have not caused any controversies, Christians need to be aware that this subject is being exploited by Muslim recruiters to attack the reliability of the Bible. 1 Peter 3:15: "... but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: (being) ready always to give answer to every man that asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: ..." We need to be ready to confront those who are saying that there are thousands of revisions that have been made to the bible -- this is a blatantly false statement. Translations are not revisions. The intent of a translation or a version update is not to change the meaning but to better express the meaning in a given target language.
- Even though translations are not a point of contention, we should strive to use the best possible translation and version to which we have access. This is a personal, not a church decision. No one in any local congregation has been given the authority to mandate a particular translation or version. Of course, elders should exercise due diligence in selecting pew bibles.
- We need to be aware of the subtle influences of some versions -- being aware of them not only negates their effect, but creates an emphasis away from any false doctrine that is intended. Never be afraid to compare versions, and use software or parallel versions that will enable comparisons. Generally this comparison will prove that the differences in good translations are not significant.
- In all things recognize the Providence of God. It was Jesus who made the promise of Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." The word of God has not passed away, and we have the promise of God that they never will. It is upon this promise that we can rest assured that the canon is valid and complete as well. God would not allow sinful men to make such a critical decision with regard to His word.
- The truth of God required for our salvation (Romans 1:16-17) can be obtained from any objective, scholarly translation.
INTRODUCTION
Much has been said about translations and versions by those who wish to discredit the Bible. And these lies are often repeated over and over again by the enemies of Christ who are under the influence of the father of lies, Satan. When critics are not constrained to tell the truth it is easy to generate all kinds of ridicule. It is the goal of this article to present the truth with regard to translations and versions so that this deception can be countered.
First of all, most of the "translations" that are being pushed by the bookstores are not translations at all -- they are paraphrases. A paraphrase is usually done by one person who reads one or more translations in his/her native language and then rewords the verses as s/he sees fit. S/he might be trying to express what translation says in a better way, but then again, s/he might just be trying to push false doctrines, and will slip them in every chance that s/he gets. Paraphrases are NOT the word of God and should never be used to determine doctrine or argue doctrinal issues.
A translation is the restating of a copy of an original Hebrew and/or Greek manuscript into a language that can be understood in their native language. Translations vary in their quality and dedication to the original manuscript. A scholarly translation is a translation done by a team of objective scholars (not just one person). Such a translation team will have no particular doctrine or religious affiliation, or if they do they will not allow it to bias their translation. (Personally, I would much prefer that the team of scholars were atheists and that their only goal was to be perfectly true to the copy of the original manuscript(s) that they have access to.)
Tools are available today by which most of us can find the original Hebrew or Greek word in an interlinear version and look it up in a Greek or Hebrew lexicon. This will give us the meaning of any Hebrew or Greek word in our native languages. However, scholarly translators go beyond just a literal one-for-one word-for-word translation. True Greek scholars, for example, will know of slang terms, Hebraisms, idioms and cultural expressions that will assist them in creating a translation that truly reflects the intent of the original meaning. In other words, they can improve over the word-for-word literal substitution by turning an expression that was unique in the first century culture into a expression in our language that reflects the meaning. This is where true scholarship and teams of scholars are especially essential to obtaining a translation today that is the word of God. An example of an idiom that we use quite often is "keep our eyes peeled" when the idea is to look out for some object or event. Converting this idiom word for word into another language could produce laughable results.
It is clear from the inconsistencies between translations that God does not inspire translations. Only the original manuscripts were inspired, and today we only have copies of those manuscripts; we have none of the originals. Lest you think this is a major problem recognize that Jesus accepted and used the common Septuagint translation from the Hebrew to the Greek, and quoted it as authoritative. We are to follow his example in all things, and therefore we should strive to find the best commonly accepted translation for ourselves today.
Also we have a promise of Jesus from Matt 24:34-35: 34: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." This promise is couched in Jesus' prophecy that the temple would be destroyed (read Mt. 24 carefully from the very beginning). This prophecy was most assuredly fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, thus validating the promise in verse 35, that his words will never pass away. Thus, all those who truly seek after God will have access too his words. But do not just trust everything that calls itself a Bible -- surely we all know better than that. One purpose of this article is to help us find a good scholarly translation that truly contains the word of God so that we have a firm and reliable base for our spiritual lives.
Translations and Versions
The remainder of this article will be illustrated and referenced to the slides that are available by clicking the following (it will come up in a separate window -- please be patient, it is a large file; if it does not come up the first time, please try again):
Open Article Slides in Separate Window
Move your cursor over a slide and its number will appear at the top of the frame. The remainder of the article will be referenced to these slide numbers.
1 -- Title Slide: New Testament Greek Manuscripts and Modern Versions
2 -- Why the New Testament?
Why is the slide presentation and this article going to concentrate on the Greek manuscripts for the New Testament as opposed to the Hebrew for the Old Testament? There are a number of reasons:
- The Hebrew scribe class was extremely careful with their manuscripts and there were severe penalties to them for losing a word or finding that a word had been inserted. They watched and checked each other very carefully. Such quality assurance was not reflected in the New Testament manuscript copies, although we are not saying that the keepers of the manuscripts were sloppy; the difference involved there being far more Old Testament scribes.
- The Jewish nation itself took on the responsibility of preserving the manuscripts and they took this very seriously.
- There was no independent copying of the manuscripts -- it was all done within the jurisdiction of the scribe class.
- There was little controversy over the legitimacy of the original source copies because of the limitations placed on their location.
- As for the Old Testament, we have the promise of Jesus recorded in Matt 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." Now it is obvious that someone could print a Bible today and change the jots and tittles, but basically Jesus is emphasizing by hyperbole that the spiritual use of the Old Testament will remain intact forever.
- Finally, our concern today with doctrine is not with the Old Testament. Not only does it not apply, but should we go back and bind things based on its authority we will be condemned for it (see Galatians 5). Thus, our concern in terms of the worship and work of the church and the issues of morality of our day have to do with accurate and reliable translations of the New Testament.
3 -- The Good News
There are no major doctrinal issues today caused by translations with the exception of those who contend that a particular translation is the sole translation that should be used. The only ones that we know that contend about this are the "King James only" advocates. They are not arguing about any particular point of doctrine within the various competing translations, only that the KJV should be the one and only translation used. That particular issue is not what this article is about, and we will not get sidetracked on it. We believe the KJV is a good scholarly translation and can certainly be used, but binding the use of it as a doctrine goes beyond what the Bible requires, and thus, it is sinful within itself.
This author has been a member of Bible-based local churches for over a half century, during which time dozens of doctrinal issues have come up for discussion, some of which have divided local churches. Absolutely none of these had anything to do with differences in translations or versions. We have heard from a number of older Christians who have made the same statement. The reason is that all of the various commonly accepted translations essentially say the same things as far as the resolution of various doctrinal interpretations are concerned. The problem has not been that there are differences in translations.
Some that we have discussed this with recently have confused translations/versions with interpretations. They reason that (1) because there are hundreds if not thousands of differences in the various denominations and cults that identify themselves as "Christians" and purport to use the bible as their guides, (2) this must be caused by differences in the respective bibles used. This is a gross misunderstanding of the difference between interpretation and translation. In most cases the different interpretations are being based upon the identical set of translations. This being the case, these issues could not possibly have anything to do with translation. It has everything to do with the hermaneutics applied and the reliance on traditional denominational church fathers as opposed to the extent to which various groups depend upon the bible alone.
Another reason that translations have little effect on doctrinal differences is that the Bible is quite redundant when it comes to key doctrinal issues. The Jehovah's Witnesses thought that by changing John 1:1 that they could defeat the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ. However, it is possible to show clearly from their own Bible that Jesus is divine. The number of changes that they would have to make would so mar their version that it would be a joke. This is just an example of how Jesus' promise in Matthew 24:35 -- that his words would never pass away -- are being kept. There is sufficient redundancy in the Bible on all key doctrines that it is virtually impossible to obscure them with a few subtle changes.
4 -- The Bad News
The bad news is what this article is all about. There are enough differences that some have questioned the credibility of the Bible per se -- all of the versions. Declaring the entire body of translations to be a total mish-mash that have been edited and re-edited so many times and by so many people that no one really knows what the original manuscripts intended. Other than a few cults, we do know of not cases where translations were intentionally skewed toward one doctrine or another. However, it is clear that the differences do exist, and they need to be addressed and not just swept under the rug. That is the purpose of the remainder of this article.
Examples of things appearing, or not appearing, in various versions that might cause some to think that our commonly accepted translations are not the reliable word of God include the following:
- Footnotes that say: "Some ancient manuscripts ... " vary the wording in the particular verse(s) under consideration.
- John 8:1-11, the story of the woman taken in the act of adultery is omitted from some translations.
- Mark 16:9-20 (essentially the entire end of the book) is omitted from some translations.
- Acts 8:37, the confession of the Ethiopian man is omitted from some translations.
5 -- The Approach of the Remainder of the Article
We will start by presenting issues that need to be addressed. This will be followed by the scriptures that relate to Bible accuracy and completeness. Finally some alternatives will be presented and evaluated.
6 -- Two Major Alternative Texts
There are two alternative Greek texts that have been used as the basis for most current New Testament translations. The first is the Textus Receptus, which we will henceforth reference by the English translation of that Latin term: the Received Text. It was compiled in early 1500s by Erasmus, and it formed the basis for the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.
The second is the Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, which we will reference as the Critical Greek Text. It was compiled in late 1800s by Hort and Wescott. It is believed that the Critical Greek Text manuscripts are older than those of the Received Text. For this reason it has become the basis for most “modern” versions. The term "modern versions" is ambiguous at best, and we do NOT want to infer that it includes many of what are called modern versions today, which are, in fact, not translations at all but merely one-person, or limited team paraphrases. We will discuss how to determine a good translation from a paraphrase as we continue.
7 -- Where did my version come from?
This slide gives an idea of how the various translations were based on the two basic Greek texts and in many cases each other as some used others as a base to improve upon. All of these are what we have been calling scholarly translations, and the basic plan of salvation can be obtained from any of them. We are particularly favorable to the ASV, NASB and the RSV in that they were based on both of the Greek manuscripts and compared with other versions. (Authorship of this display is unknown -- please Contact Us if you have information as to the source.)
8 -- Justification for the Critical Greek Text
Some scholars have determined that there were inconsistencies among the Received Text manuscripts. It is stated that Erasmus had relatively few manuscript copies to base his translation on. Further, some have determined that there were copyist errors among them. There is little dispute that the Critical Greek Text were the older manuscripts. This being the case, why not just go with the Critical Greek Text?
9 -- Critical Greek Text (CGT) Issues
The reason is that the CGT is not without its issues. Variations have been found between the Vatican and the Sinai, names of two source texts used to create the CGT. Also there are variations between the CGT and the Received Text. The following are examples of some omissions in the CGT:
- Reference to Virgin Birth in Luke 2:33;
- Reference to Deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16;
- Reference to Deity of Christ: Romans 14:10, 12;
- Reference to Blood of Christ: Colossians 1:14.
10 -- Critical Greek Text Issues
We recommend that you do an Internet search of "Critical Greek Text Issues" if you are interested in pursuing this subject further. Basically it is alleged that there is a general doctrinal weakening of passages that support the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, Christ's atonement and Christ's ascension. The "weakening" of a passage here and there, however, does not eliminate the doctrine altogether. There is sufficient redundancy on these doctrines as well as all other critical doctrines to make it almost impossible to change these basic doctrines provided that a comprehensive approach it taken in studying and resolving them. The comprehensive approach in this case should include the use of several translations so that differences in translation cannot possibly be an issue.
11 -- The Issue: Since the Received Text (RT) and the Critical Greek Text (CGT) are Different ...
Can we not conclude that one of these must be better than the other? If this is true, then versions derived using the better manuscript will also be better. Can we resolve this issue by applying scriptural principles? For example, Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing (unto him); for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and (that) he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." Is not finding the best possible manuscript and thus version part of seeking after God? Let us look at some other passages that might relate to this endeavor. [Comments in brackets.]
12 -- Revelation 22:18
“For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ..."
[The point here is that God has condemned those who would add something to the Bible that He has not inspired by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Some will say that this only applies to the book of Revelation; but if it applies to the book of Revelation, can you think of any reason it would not also apply to any other book in the Bible. Are the critics saying we are free to add whatever we want to the other books? Surely not. Surely what is being given here is a principle that applies to the book of Revelation, but it also applies in principle to all of the other books in the Bible. Adding to it or taking away from what God has given usurps the authority of God.]
13 -- Revelation 22:19
“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, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
[The comments made above apply equally well here.]
14 -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"Every scripture inspired of God (is) also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."
[The passage teaches the sufficiency of the Bible as God had it revealed to mankind through the Holy Spirit. It seems quite reasonable that if parts of it are tampered with that might leave us with a deficient set of scriptures.]
15 -- Ephesians 3:1-5
3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles, --
2 if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward;
3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words,
4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;
5 which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
[The Bible is sufficient and it can be understood as delivered to mankind by God. We need to respect the fact that God made the very sublime spiritual concepts understandable to us mortals.]
16 -- 2 Peter 1:19-21
19 And we have the word of prophecy (made) more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts:
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
[This states that no man, priesthood or organization has a lock on God's word -- it is not of private interpretation to be hidden and parsed out to us by some clergy. No, it is for public interpretation -- each person who can read can determine what it says and study it with their fellow Christians to arrive at the truth. This is the responsibility of everyone.]
17 -- Psalms 12:6-7
6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou wilt keep them, O LORD, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.
[This is one of many promises of God that He will be instrumental in their preservation. While some words might be in dispute, the overall message will remain as He has determined it.]
18 -- 1 Peter 1:22-25
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently:
23 having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which lives and abides.
24 For, All flesh is as grass, And all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls:
25 But the word of the Lord abides for ever. And this is the word of good tidings which was preached unto you.
[Another promise of God that we will have access to His word.]
19 -- 2 Peter 3:15-18
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
16 as also in all (his) epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as (they do) also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, knowing (these things) beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own steadfastness.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him (be) the glory both now and for ever. Amen.
[Peter was urging them to depend on the writings of Paul and similarly, all other inspired men, as they went forward to serve the Lord.]
20 -- Col 4:15-16
15 Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house.
16 And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.
[This passage shows the value of the epistles and the fact that they were to be shared with other churches.]
21 -- Original Autographs -- Where Are They?
They do not exist -- they deteriorated long ago. The best that we have is copies of copies. But this is not necessarily bad. For example, even though the KJV was first published in 1611, we still have copies of it that we know are quite reliable. Let us consider how copies might be verified. This slide shows a model of an original manuscript getting copied and then the copies being copied. Each link in the model is a copy that is made. Now at some point someone designated "?" wants to determine if the copy that he has is valid. But, of course, there is no original to compare it against. He compares his copy against 1 and finds out to his dismay that there are variations. But then he checks his copy against 2 and 3, and all three of these copies totally agree to the letter. What is the probability that someone made a mistake in copying and that the exact same mistake was made in all three of them? The answer is as close to zero as is possible to get. The reason that it is so low is that the three ?, 2 and 3 are on completely different chains. This is because they are geographically removed from each other. If they were right next to each other, then an error could be made immediately up the line and they would both have the same error. Obviously comparing copies from two that are on the same chain is fruitless. However, when two or more copies over a widely diverse geographical area occur (i.e., completely different chains), then the validation is almost as good as comparing it to the original.
22 -- Arguments for the SV = Sinaiticus & Vaticanus = Critical Greek Text
The argument is that the manuscripts for the SV dated back to an earlier point in time than those of the received text. While the Critical Greek Text was not assembled until 1881 the claim is that its source manuscripts go back to the 4th century. No such ancient claim can be made for the Received Text even though it was assembled several hundred years earlier. Does this mean that we should abandon versions based on the Received Text and just go with those that are based on the Critical Greek Text?
23 -- An Analogy
To answer this question, consider an analogy about a man in the 1500s – way before the xerox machine was invented ... who had five sons. The man wrote his will – handwritten of necessity – leaving his five sons each an even share of his estate; and then at the end of the will he put in a paragraph with a very healthy inheritance for his faithful servant – to some extent diluting the sons' inheritances. Each of the four younger sons made a hand-written copy of the will, while the oldest son kept the original. At the reading of the will the oldest son insisted that ONLY the original should be used as the official will. In fact, when the other four copies were compared, they were found to be inconsistent with each other because of the various copying errors in them, and so it was agreed to use the “original” that was obviously the oldest version of the will.
When the will was read, the part about the servant's inheritance was not found. The four younger sons, being just and fair men, questioned the reading, and they all brought their copies of the will to a hearing on the issue. All four of the copies contained the provision for the servant. If you were the judge in this case would you accept the oldest document? or would you accept, in essence, the obvious and clear meaning of the four other documents even with their "inconsistencies and inaccuracies" that were only copyist mistakes and did not change the obvious intent of the father?
Can we see the difference between trivial inconsistencies and meaningful doctrinal consistencies? For example, the conditions that Jesus placed on salvation are critical to the integrity of a given version, and all objective scholarly versions are totally consistent in this regard.
24 -- Byzantine Majority Text
This Greek manuscript was created by accepting the majority of all available manuscripts. It dates back before 1500 and was Used in Greek Byzantine Empire, and it was adopted by Greek Orthodox Church. It is also the basis for the New King James Version (NKJV).
25 -- Did Jesus keep his promise of Matthew 24:35? Do we still have his words?
"There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text
differs from the Textus Receptus [Received Text] in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. And, the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text [CGT] in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity."
-- Daniel B. Wallace (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=677)
26 -- Conclusions:
- There had to have been as much controversy over translations and versions in Jesus' time as there is today. Yet, from his quotations we know that Jesus used the commonly accepted version of his day (Septuagint). We can follow his example today by using a translation and a version that is commonly accepted to be reliable, objective and scholarly.
- There is absolutely no reason that everyone in a given local church has to be constrained to the same version. In fact, in Bible studies a comparison of the words and phrases between versions often brings out things that a single version cannot.
- From the study above we can conclude that personal version selection is not an issue to create any contention within a local congregation. We have never seen differences in translations cause any issues whatsoever since it is well understood that versions and translations are not inspired. And, since they all generally say the same things and present the same principles, we can understand that it is those principles that are inspired.
- While this is true, as Christians, we need to be aware of this issue. It is being exploited by Muslim recruiters to question the accuracy of the Bible. 1 Peter 3:15: "... but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: (being) ready always to give answer to every man that asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: ..."
- While it should not be a point of contention, nevertheless, we should strive to use the best possible translation and version that we have access to, and by all means avoid paraphrases.
- We need to be aware of the subtle influences of particular versions -- being aware of them tends to not only negate their effect, but might even create an emphasis toward that which is being skewed one way or the other. Never be afraid to compare versions, and obtain software or parallel versions that will enable this.
- In all things recognize the Providence of God. It was Jesus who made the promise of Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." They have not and they will not, on that we can depend.
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2015/07/16/why-some-verses-are-cut-from-the-bible-and-thats-ok/37481
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
Click here for other articles on "Can We Understanding the Bible"