A Short KJV Detour (Part 3)
January 22nd, 2007
This is a continuation (from last week) of our evaluation of the arguments used to support the King James Only position:
ARGUMENT 4
Statement:
The age of a manuscript does not determine its value. The oldest manuscripts survived only because they were faulty and did not wear out through use.
Response:
It is true that the value of a manuscript is not determined by its age. A late manuscript could be a copy of a very ancient one, whereas an older manuscript might be a copy of one not much removed from it in time. All things being equal, however, the oldest manuscripts are closer in time to the autographs. The shorter time interval implies fewer copies and fewer chances for error. This is a principle of all literary textual criticism, not just textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. Also, the assertion that the oldest manuscripts survived only because they were faulty is disproved by the scribal corrections evident on these manuscripts. Logic demands that faulty manuscripts would have been destroyed or corrected rather than shelved for future use or discovery.
ARGUMENT 5
Statement:
The Greek manuscripts upon which all modern versions of the New Testament are based come from Alexandria, Egypt. The Alexandrian manuscripts, touted by Westcott and Hort as the best manuscripts, cannot be the most reliable because they have been in the possession of gnostics and other heretics, such as Marcion, Origen, and the Roman Catholic Church, and have been altered to teach doctrines which differ from those found in the TR. These errors include justification by works, Arianism, and the belief that the Apocrypha is part of the text.
Response:
There is no factual substantiation to the claim that Aleph, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or any other of the earliest Greek manuscripts in existence today were of gnostic origin and altered to conform to their heresies. Marcion is an example of a gnostic who mutilated the Bible text; however, he did not limit himself to texts, but he published a canon of the New Testament which included only eleven books. An avowed anti semite, Marcion included only the gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul in his version of the New Testament. He deleted Paul’s pastoral epistles.
Several passages of Scripture are commonly cited as examples of the way heretics have removed key doctrines from the text of manuscripts other than those of the TR. These passages are noted below:
1. The phrase “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever” is deleted from Matthew 6:13 in modern versions but is included in the KJV. If this was the work of heretics, why did they leave the phrase intact in 1 Chronicles 29:11, the Old Testament attestation of this great truth?
2. Matthew 18:11, “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost,” is deleted in some manuscripts but the same phrase is present in Luke 19:10. The fact that the text has apparently been added to or subtracted from does not demand that it was necessarily in the original text.
3. Mark 16:9-20 has evoked no end of critical discussion. Many believe that this questionable passage should be deleted since it is used to back up the claims of charismatics; others, Grace Church included, believe that it should be considered part of the authorative text and rightly interpreted.
4. Some claim that the word “father” is added to Luke 2:33 to discredit the virgin birth of our Lord, yet the quotation from the Old Testament in Matthew 1:23 is a powerful affirmation of the fact of the virgin birth.
5. In John 3:15, the idea of perishing is not included in some manuscripts, yet the same idea is present in verse 16. This obviously cannot be the work of one trying to delete the idea of eternal punishment.
6. In Acts 2:30, the idea of Christ being raised up is deleted, and some have concluded that those who removed it were trying to deny the resurrection; however, the term “resurrection” is present in the very next verse.
7. In Ephesians 3:9, the name “Christ” is omitted from a phrase that would give Him credit for creation. Why, then, is the same idea left in the parallel passage, Colossians 1:16?
8. Perhaps the biggest error of fact is the claim that 1 John 5:7-8 is a part of the autographa and should be included in all versions of Scripture. To say that to delete the phrase in verse 7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One” is to deny the tri unity of God is not true. The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these four contain the passage of what appears to be a translation from a late edition of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are dated very, very late.
The passage is quoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, if they had known it, would certainly have used it in the trinitarian controversies of the early centuries. The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions. It is quoted first in time not in a Bible text but in a Latin treatise about the Bible in the fourth century A.D. Its inclusion in the TR seems to have come through the pen of Erasmus, a humanistic Roman church scholar. When charged by Stunica, Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, but that if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained it, he would include it in a future edition. The one manuscript that was later presented to Erasmus to substantiate inclusion of that verse has now been identified as a Greek manuscript written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar who took the words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus inserted the passage in his third edition of 1522 but indicated in a lengthy footnote his own personal suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared in order to refute him. These are the facts.
As can be seen from the discussion of these verses, it is unlikely that doctrines were manipulated by heretics since truths were not consistently deleted.
Another interesting fact surrounding the translation of the KJV is that a portion of the manuscript used to translate the book of Revelation came from Erasmus. He translated the last six verses of chapter 22 from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek because his Greek manuscripts lacked these verses.
One final note. The King James translators originally included the apocrypha as part of the King James Bible. This certainly is no evidence of their orthodoxy.
ARGUMENT 6
Statement:
The Alexandrian Text was not in general use from the eighth to the nineteenth centuries. This is evidence that God’s providence has kept the TR as the authoritative text. God would not allow the church to have the “wrong text” while keeping the “true text” hidden from public view for such a long time.
Response:
The TR was not the text of the early church in Egypt, Palestine, or the West. God’s providence has preserved all text types, and the Christian message is intact in each of them. Also, God’s providence has allowed the church to lose things of much more importance than differences between competing text types, for example, the doctrine of justification by faith. In addition, as was discussed in the response to Argument #1, the TR manuscripts differ even among themselves. If God had preserved His Word inerrantly in the TR manuscripts only, then there should be no variation whatsoever in all of the manuscripts that make up the “textus receptus”.
ARGUMENT 7
Statement:
The TR manuscripts are the only manuscripts that properly exalt the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Alexandrian manuscripts are compared with the TR, many places are found where the words “Lord” and “Christ” are missing in reference to Jesus, showing that the Alexandrian writers tried to deny or play down the deity of Christ.
Response:
Throughout church history there have been heretics who mutilated the Bible to conform with their errors. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a classic modern example. In their New World Translation, they have stripped the text of all support for the deity of Jesus Christ. Note carefully, however, that they did it consistently and completely; it was not a half hearted, random attempt. We should expect this kind of thoroughness when any cult or heretic tries to denude God’s precious Word of vital truth. It is highly unlikely that one would be so inconsistently selective as to leave obvious references to the deity of Christ in a manuscript if his purpose was to remove it.
(To be concluded tomorrow)
On the KJV containing the Apocrypha: The AV (in the UK we prefer to call it the Authorised version) is an Anglican translation. The 39 articles of the Church of England, which predate the AV, state that (article 6) ‘The other Books [Apocrypha] (as Hierome [Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”
The AV translators would all have had to agree to this statement at ordination, so of course they translated the Apocrypha. But they did not consider them on a par with the Old and New Testaments. I have a Bible bound up with the 1920s ‘Church Hymnary’ and have seen Bibles bound up with the Book of Common Prayer. Neither indicates that the hymn-book or the BCP were considered as on a par with Scripture.
Personally I think there is one easy answer to the ‘Alexandria=heretics’ argument. Athanasius.
Addendum. The question of Athanasius does not show that the Alexandrian Manuscripts are therefore to be seen as the best. Rather it only nullifies the argument that BECAUSE they are Alexandrian they are to be regarded as suspect.
As regards to your response to argument 4, it’s known that some of the critical manuscripts found at a monastery were originally copies that Origen’s students made, and he thought were so bad that they were supposed to be destroyed. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen, so now we have the liberal, Christ & Blood denying critical texts.
Biblical textual criticism was foisted on us by those seeking to water down the Word of God, like the heretics Wescott & Hort.
Good post to study.
1 John 5:7-8 is the one portion that truly makes my brother hot. (He is a KJV only guy.)
Thanks for explaining that for me. Though I imagine he won’t believe what you have written is the truth.
He will most likely condemn you as a liberal, who denies the blood of Christ.
Thanks for putting all this together. It’s very good, and hopefully it will help set my brother free, and perhaps some others who read this.
Lance,
I am not extremely familiar with Wescott and Hort, only that they produced a Greek text based on textual criticism. However, I have never heard anyone accuse them of denying a central tenet of the Christian faith.
You called them heretics. Are you calling them heretics because they weren’t KJV only, or because they have denied or affirmed something that would classify them as non-Christian? If it is because they weren’t KJV only, could you please provide a verse that says a person must be KJV only in order to be saved? If it is because of the latter reason, what did they affirm or deny?
I am glad you are posting this series. Many years ago I was conned into believing the KJVO position. It took me awhile to discover the fallacy of the position, but I began questioning some of the inconsistencies. One of the books that was instrumental in causing me to seriously question some things was James White’s book, “The King James Only Controversy”. Though I initially scoffed at White, I had to grudgingly admit that he did raise some good points. I am certainly glad I kept going back to his book and researching the issues. As a result, I left the KJVO position and now I can’t believe I was drawn into that position to begin with. Christians need to be informed about this and understand why it is wrong, because initially the KJVOnlyists seem to produce compelling evidence. Unfortunatelly, this “evidence” is severely distorted.
Enjoying this Nathan, though I have nothing to comment. Good job!
Here’s a nice example of an edifying text from the deuterocanonicals.
“My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord,
prepare yourself for temptation.
“Set your heart right and be steadfast,
and do not be hasty in time of calamity.
“Cleave to him and do not depart,
that you may be honored at the end of your life.
“Accept whatever is brought upon you,
and in changes that humble you be patient.
“For told is tested in the fire,
and acceptablemen in the furnace of humiliation.”
Sirach 2:1-5
this is in reply to the comment made by Josh about Wescott and Hort.
Josh,
Wescott and Hort were most definitely heretics. Here is a little thing about them from chick.com. now i have personally studied this and the info is correct about Westcott and Hort.
QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?
ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.
EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that “there is no perfect Bible”, they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus’s which he called a “coenobium. ”
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled “The Ghostly Guild.”
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, “Mary”),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God’s Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a “revision” of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
This reads like the typical defense of the MVO (Multiple Versions Only) presentation. First, it isn’t a presuppositional apologetic. It doesn’t start with Scripture for its position.
Second, we get the straw man arguments. For instance, let’s say I was arguing against the “balanced eclectic” position: Argument—Balanced eclectics engender more unity than other groups. Response—This is an unproven assumption. The problem here comes when I make up the argument for the “balanced eclectic” position and then knock it down with my response. If this is not an argument for a “balanced eclectic” position then I am just responding to a straw man. The content and style of arguments 1-7 make them very easy to knock down.
Argument 4 could have been left at: Oldest does not necessarily mean best. We have a Scriptural basis for textual attack in the first century (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:1, 2; etc.). Satan slightly changes the wording of what God said in Genesis 3, so we can expect this to occur. We should assume that some of the oldest manuscripts could be inferior and that it is possible that they were not used because they were considered so.
Argument 5 could be better said: God’s Word will not have doctrinal error or contradictions with the rest of Scripture. The critical text has many doctrinal errors. Perhaps it was humanly unintentional, but since we know Satan will attack God’s Word, then we should be prepared to reject a text with doctrinal error. Your 1 John 5:7, 8 point fails to mention that the patristics quoted 1 John 5:7 and the grammatical argument against removing v. 7.
The response to Argument 6 doesn’t actually answer the argument. In so doing, it also makes some major errors. We don’t actually know what text everyone had and used before the era of the printed edition (after 1517); we can only speculate. We shouldn’t base any view on speculation. We do know, however, that we had the TR and the Ben Chayyim generally accessible from the 16th century to the 19th century. We know that we didn’t have the critical text. Regarding the doctrine of justification, taking the position that it was lost—I am amazed by that. Scripture does not teach a total apostasy. We should assume there were always true churches with that doctrine because of passages against total apostasy.
Argument 7 is very much like argument 5. I would not make a major point of it, but it does bother me that certain clear Deity verses are altered or different than the TR in the critical text. It is no accident that the critical text is the favorite of the JWs and the Islamics, among others.
I have not found the textual critics to have a developed Bibliology on preservation because they haven’t themselve believed in perfect preservation. In many cases, this is because they don’t have a belief in inspiration either. Many if not most of the replies in support of these three articles do nothing more than ad hominem.
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”. Acts 4:12 KJV
“Jesus is the only One who can save people. His name is the only power in the world that has been given to save people. And we must be saved through him!” Acts 4:12 New Century Version
“Then Jesus cried out, ‘He who believes in me is really believing in the One who sent me. He who sees me sees the One who sent me.” John 12:44-45 NCV
“Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” John 12:44-45 KJV
Seems to me the New Century Version is keeping the meaning of the truth our Lord sets forth here. And the King James does as well, however the KJV does so in this old English language, and it can be a hinderance to those hearing the truth in our time, though not always.
Isn’t this the wole objective of those who are translating the Holy Scriptures. Though I agree that some versions may be tampered with too much, and that is very serious. Satan surely has his ministers hard at work.
Here’s one more version: “Y dara a luz un hijo, y llamaras su hombre Jesus, porque el salvara a su pueblo de sus pecados.” San Mateo 1:21
I hope I didn’t go too far of course here. Forgive me if I did.
Kent,
Please provide an example of a doctrine (or doctrines) that can be learned from the KJV that cannot be learned using a modern translation (say, the ESV if you need a specific version for the example). Alternatively you could provide an example of a false doctrine that could be learned from a modern translation that cannot be found in the KJV.
Thanks.
Thanks Denis. Are you from Pulpit Live? First, I never said anything about missing doctrines. The most I said in that vein was that the critical text was the favorite of the JWs, Islamics, and more because of the altered verses on the Deity of Christ. However, I do think that some doctrine does change. I’ll give you at least one example, but isn’t this an interesting new standard. Passages don’t need to be perfect, not even have correct doctrine—we just need to be able to find the right doctrine somewhere in the Bible—that’s the new standard, it seems. In Matthew 5:22 the TR says “angry without a cause” and in the CT “without a cause” is missing. In Matthew 18:15, it is “trespass against thee” in the TR, and “sins” in the CT. Both of those change the teaching of those passages that have teaching unique in Scripture. I can give more like that.
I don’t believe there is any false doctrine in the TR and Ben Chayyim. However, Romans 5:1 would be one. The TR has echomen, present-indicative, and the CT has echwmen, present-subjunctive. The first says “we are having peace” and the second says “we may have peace.” The church of Christ can have a hay day with “we may have peace.” There are many more of those.
Big Jimmy’s comment is typical of what many King James Only people genuinely believe about Westcott and Hort. In the interest of fairness I give a couple of links to articles on the subject. Follow them. The second link has several rather long articles. They are however stuffed full of Westcott’s actual words.
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2006/05/were-b.html
http://www.kjvonly.org/james/index_james.html
To say that Westcott and Hort were ‘non-Christians when it is well documented that Westcott at least (I cannot speak for Hort) believed in the deity and resurrection of Christ, and in the truth and inspiration of Scripture. Take this example from Westcott’s ‘Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles’: “The narratives of the Gospels admit of the most manifold combinations, not because they are constructed artificially, but because they are true records of the Truth. Everything tends to show that the intricate relations which exist between them were not the result of any conscious purpose, but of that Inspiration which led the Evangelists to preserve only such details as have a lasting and representative interest. This they did from different points of sight; and each special aspect of truth admits of a perfect combination with the others both in its parts and as a whole.”
‘True records of the truth’.
Or this: “The assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized.”
The suggestion that Westcott was an occultist is surely blown out of the water by the facts of history. The ‘Ghostly Guild’ was a university society founded to invesigate claims of the supernatural, NOT a spiritistic club. Of it Westcott wrote in 1893: “Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope.”
Which is not to say Westcott was an orthodox, evangelical believer. He was an Anglican, and did indeed practice High Church or Anglo-Catholic rituals such as prayers for the dead. I hold no brief for any Bishops of Durham (Westcott held the See), past, present, or even future. After all, although such men as Butler the apologist, Lightfoot and Moule (both defenders of Evangelical Truth) have held it, so has Dr. Jenkins the arch-heretic, and N.T. Wright, the present Bisop, is hardly sound (not so sound as once he was).
Let me make one thing clear. I use the Authorised Version. I use the TR by conviction. BUT to circulate falsehoods about any man, such as those that have been circulated about Bishop Westcott, is deplorable. The Bible needs no such defence, no plotting, no misinformation or propaganda. The triumph of the cause of God and Truth is certain and is not doubtful, we have no reason to panic. God is on His throne still, and He is not glorified by our illegitimate and sinful tactics.
Hi Kent,
I’m just a guy interested in the discussion
I guess I read to much into your statement that the critical text suffered “many doctrinal errors”. I had originally assumed that this meant that you would learn doctrine from the CT that did not exists in the TR or vice versa. I have read many passage-by-passage comparisons in the past and in all honesty came back unconvinced that the modern versions distort any classical Christian teaching.
Also, by no means am I suggesting there is some different standard to use in determining the reliability of modern versions – not that I’m in any position to make such a suggestion to begin with
. I was simply trying to get a better understanding of the issue from a practical perspective (i.e., how would this impact my understanding of God’s Word).
I’m not sure of your last point regarding Romans 5:1. Not knowing the original languages I can’t go to the Greek, but all modern translations I checked say “we have peace”, same as the KJV.
Thanks.
The Highland Host,
Thanks for the good article references. The blog had a line in it that I think sums things up well:
“The habit of KJV apologists to simply make up a dissenter’s beliefs if no true guilt can be found is reason enough to read with extreme caution and serious discernment any of their work.”
Big change in NIV:
The word translated “Vanity” in the KJV (in Ecclesiastes) means something like “to shepherd the winds”, denoting a lack of control that we all have in this life, that God is in control, and we aren’t. The NIV uses the word “Meaningless”, which of course is dead wrong, since life is not meaningless, our meaning is to glorify God, and that is the purpose of all life. This is a huge difference in theology, though the christian world tends to accept it today, since a large part of US Christianity is dispensationalist, which is an eschatology of pessimism.
From the the American Heritage Dictionary:
van·i·ty
1. The quality or condition of being vain.
2. Excessive pride in one’s appearance or accomplishments; conceit. See Synonyms at conceit.
3. Lack of usefulness, worth, or effect; worthlessness.
4.
a. Something that is vain, futile, or worthless.
b. Something about which one is vain or conceited.
In other words, not exactly a “big change” – more like a synonym.
If memory serves, Solomon is showing how by man’s reasoning (i.e., without God) life has no purpose.
Lance, I can appreciate your stand, but the example you gave is not very strong. A better one, among several others, and in addition to the Rom. 5:1 example I gave, is Ephesians 4:6, where “in you all” is changed to “in all.” The latter teaches universalism, that God the Father is in everyone.
I still don’t follow your Romans 5:1 objection.
KJV – Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
NIV – Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
ESV – Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
They all say “we have peace” – I don’t see the “we are having peace” / “we may have peace” dichotomy that you area suggesting.
Denis,
The New Testament was written in Greek. As you know, English isn’t the only language in which the Bible is translated. Those modern translations may believe that there is contextual evidence to make it indicative instead of subjunctive. Interesting though, isn’t it, how that you can pick the text to fit your position? That seems dangerous though. That is eclecticism for you. However, the Critical Text has Romans 5:1 as subjunctive. I was showing you how that this changed doctrine. I gave you another example from Ephesians. Earlier, I gave others. How many errors do you need? I can give many more, but as you noticed, no one is really that interested because they don’t care if there are errors in the Bible. Their Bibliology is safe with that.
Kent,thanks for the explanation – I misunderstood the nature of your concern.
I appreciate this conversation & posts on this topic it has helped give me a better understanding of the arguments on both sides.
[...] Original post by Pulpit Magazine [...]