Imperishable Inheritance

From the start, I am not here to evaluate translating philosophies. For instance, the NIV translators wanted a translation that was more thought based than a literal translation that would be favored in the NASV. Think of a modern idiom: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." We understand that as having the meaning that we can help someone, but we ultimately cannot make the action for them. They are responsible for the outcome. From this, this is how the two translating philosophies would differ.

NASV: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

NIV: "You can aid a horse in finding water, but the horse must drink it itself."

That is a synopsis of a translating philosophy, but I will go on as to how we even got the point of deciding which translating philosophy to use. We must first understand how we got the New Testament.

Setting the Context

First, there remain in our possession today no original copies of the letters of the New Testament. Paul's letter to the Romans, Matthew's gospel, and John's Revelation to the persecuted churches are not to be found today in the original format. Through time, the destruction of the letters has occured; but the manuscripts have been faithfully copied and distributed throughout the history of the church. This leads us to some problems.

I was first notified to this situation by the pastor of the church I am attending. He told me one day about his view about the supremacy of the texts behind the King James Version (KJV). He was, in theological parlance, a "KJV Onlyer." The debate is a raging one, and many Christians do not know the extent of the issues involved in the debate. He explained to me that the Greek text behind the KJV, the Textus Receptus (translated "received text"), was in his estimation a far superior text. Through intense study I realized that there were many different Greek texts behind many modern and older translations. Many Christians, as I did for a long time, think of there being 1 Greek text which is translated differently; but that is certainly not the case. This issue strikes our doctrine of the Bible at its very core.

I studied about the Textus Receptus (TR). It was started by a man by the name of Desiridus Erasmus during the time of the Reformation (he was the one who debate Martin Luther on the nature of man's will). He used only a few (around eight) different Greek texts representing different parts of the New Testament into a final version, but that was not the culmination of the TR. Erasmus would undergo two more revisions, and then it would be passed on to Stephanus for two more and then Theodore Beza for a final edition. This text, the now completed TR, was the text underlying King James' commission to translate the Bible into the "vulgar" (common) "tongue" (language). The translation committee used the TR along with the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament for the edition. It should also be noted that the original 1611 version of the KJV also included the Apocrypha (Catholic deuterocanonical works). This was the first edition of the KJV, but the version that you see now in stores is actually the 1789 version of the KJV (with updated language and the removal of the Apocrypha).

Westcott-Hort and the Critical Text

In the late 1800's two men by the names of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort decided to publish a version of the New Testament. Much had changed since the publication of the TR and the KJV. In particular, two major texts had been discovered. Of the four major text types identifications we use today, Westcott and Hort found texts from the Alexandrian, or oldest, text type. They reasoned that if a text was older than it naturally must be more true to the original text. The two texts discovered were the Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א). The latter is the oldest text we have of the New Testament dating around the 400's. Unlike Erasmus who had only eight texts, Westcott and Hort employed over 4,000! This led to a problem of reconciling differences between the texts since they would disagree in areas (due to scribal errors). This is where the process of Textual Criticism was first utilized on such a wide scale, and this explains where it gets the name "critical text" (CT).

Textual Criticism works like this. In the following example I have four made up phrases (let's pretend it's in Greek).

1. The lazy cow jumped over the dark moon.
2. The laziest cow hopped over the dark moon.
3. The lazy cow jumped over the darkened moon.
4. The worthless cow jumped over the star covered moon.

Let us look at the four phrases. Two verses utilize the phrase "The lazy cow jumped" (numbers 1 and 3), 2 and 4 have different readings. We then say, from this, that we have a majority reading. So let's put the first part of our verse together which is: "The lazy cow jumped..."

Now, the second half of the phrase has the majority reading of: "over the dark moon" in readings 1 and 2, 3 and 4 abberate. We thereby give a grade to this reading. The reading of "The lazy cow jumped over the dark moon" has a grade "A" reading. If we had more verses we could go on to give lower grade ("B," "C," and so on) to minority readings.

In using the methodology, Westcott and Hort had a few assumptions. The most important of which is that if there was a debate between readings, the older manuscript always won; and if it disagreed with the Byzantine family, they always took the other reading. So, even though Wescott and Hort utilized the Byzantine family in their textual criticism, if it was down to two readings they assumed the Byzantine was wrong. This assumption has led to much of the debate over the Greek texts. I also believe that Wescott and Hort's assumption on this point was in error, but we must look to see at some of the passages that led them to this assumption.

Variants Between the Texts

I will utilize the KJV (TR) and NASV (CT) to illustrate some variants. There are many different ideas of how many variants between the texts, but I think it's safe to say that there are around 1,000 variants. Some of the variants might be something like one text saying "Christ" and another saying "Christ Jesus," but there are some major variants. These are the three major variants.

The Johannine Comma

For there are three that testify:
(οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες)
1 John 5:7 (NASV with a version of the Critical Text)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν)
1 John 5:7 (KJV with the Textus Receptus)

This is called the Johannine Comma. There is much debate as to how it ended up in the Textus Receptus (to which I've written more about). Basically, the story is that Erasmus didn't find the phrase in the Greek texts he was using, but when he published the first edition of his text the papacy was unhappy because it was in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus then declared that if one Greek text could be shown with the text then he would add it. Somehow, a text showed up with the phrase in it. Erasmus than begrudgingly added it to a revision of the text.

I myself believe that this was kept in for Trinitarian apologetics. The phrase "...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν) lies in contrast to typical Johannine theology. I believe, after much study, that this phrase was not in John's original letter.

The Adulterous Woman

If you turn to John 7:53-8:11 in your modern translation you will see two things. Either it will not be in the translation, or it will be added with brackets around it with a footnote that says something like, "this was not in the earliest manuscripts." What does this footnote say? This is saying that this story was not in the Alexandrian text family which made the Greek text behind that translation.

What is so interesting about this passage, and what makes it so difficult, is because (1) it seems consistent with John's portrayal of Jesus and (2) it seems to be very much a lesson that would have been taught by Jesus in that manner. This passage is a harder one to rub off. The jury is still out for me on this one. Remember in the Passion of the Christ when it appears? Now you can watch it and wonder whether that was an actual event (and I can tell you immediately that the Catholic stations of the cross in the movie were not Biblical).

The End of Mark

Mark 16:9-20 is the largest variant we have. It is a story of Jesus post resurrection in Mark's final chapter. You will again see brackets around this in your modern translation. I read the passage and it has a rather important command in it:

And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."
Mark 16:15

While I can't say this verse is enough to push the inclusion of this reading as the original it seems to be imperative to the message of Christ. This is especially important, because both Matthew and Luke (the other two synoptic gospels) have a similar exhortation to the Great Commission (Mat2 28:19; Luke 24:47). I have a thick book given to me by Dean Burgon is a well known TR proponent over the validity of this passage. We shall see how the study turns out.

Conclusion

There are more textual variants that could be gone over, and trust me when I say that it is cumbersome. It was a worthwhile study, and I exhort all Christians to look into this issue. Our entire understanding of God weighs on the importance and validity of the Bible. Shouldn't we all wonder deeply how we got the text that we are using to run our lives? Jesus thought it was rather important to have steady foundations in the Scriptures. It was one of His largest apologetics.

And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luke 24:25-27

*When I utilize the phrase "modern translation" I am speaking of any translation in the last century such as the ASV, RSV, NASV, ESV, NIV, etc. And the point should be made that paraphrase translations such as The Message, NLT, CEV, etc. are not included, because they are not Bibles.

(I originally wrote this for Abhinav Krishna's blog at his request.)