The Reliability of Translations of the Bible

Tyndale and Coverdale Bible.  Image from WikiMedia Commons

Today we are going to be talking about the reliability of God’s word in terms of translations.  Obviously, if you don’t speak or read Hebrew and Greek, you are going to need a translation for the Bible to have an impact upon you.  It turns out that very early on, the church understood this, and the Bible began to be translated into many different languages, such as Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Armenian.  There are actually over 10,000 Latin MSS, as opposed to around 5800 Greek MSS of the Bible.

English also has a great history for Bible translations.  Before the King James Version of 1611, there were Wycliffe’s Bible (1388), translated from the Latin to English, Tyndale’s Bible (1534), the Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568).  But the King James Version was such a great translation that it swept the field of all competitors, and remained the sole occupant of it for almost 400 years.  It was not until the late 19th century that another major English translation was made, the Revised Version of 1880, which did not compare with the KJV in terms of the beauty of its language and did not supplant it in terms of popular use.  

But by the middle of the 20th century, due in part to differences in the English language from that used in the early 17th century, new versions eventually did supplant the KJV: the New Revised Version, the New International Version, and the New American Standard Bible, among others.  

However, the KJV had been around for so long that it’s not surprising that many have resisted even to this day the use of any other version.  Unfortunately, the camp of KJV-onlyism has arisen which claims that it is not only preferable to use the KJV, but that it is actually sinful to use any other version of the Bible in English.  Claims are made that the newer versions are altering God’s word, that they are corrupting the Bible: “new age versions,” they call them.

So we’re going to talk about all this.  And just to lay my cards on the table, my contention is going to be that many of these modern English versions are reliable and faithful translations of the Bible and that we shouldn’t hesitate to use them.  Along the way, therefore, we are going to have to address some of the concerns of the KJV-only movement.

Now, the fact of the matter is that not a lot is at stake here.  A lot of hyperventilating is done by KJV-only advocates when it comes to other versions.  But we need not hyperventilate or worry that if we use the NASB or ESV that our theology is going to change or that we are somehow going to become new agers.  It is a fact that whichever version you use is not going to determine your theology, as a moment’s reflection ought to show you.  Think about it: there are a lot of Arminian fundamentalists who are also dispensationalists who love the KJV and won’t use any other version.  And yet most of you also use the KJV and yet you’re none of those things!  The Mormons and Muslims prefer the KJV when it comes to English versions of the Bible, but that doesn’t mean the KJV is theologically suspect.  On the other hand, when I switched almost 25 years ago from reading the KJV as my devotional reading each morning to the ESV, my theology stayed the same.  I can prove every doctrine that I believe from the KJV, the ESV, the NASB, the NKJV, or the NIV.  These are all faithful and good translations of God’s word (yes, even the NIV).

But this doesn’t mean that they are all the same and we need to talk about some of their differences, and in particular the difference between the KJV and most modern translations of the Bible.

Two Types of Differences between Versions of the Bible

There are two basic types of differences between Bible versions: translational differences and textual differences.  When we talk about a translational difference at a particular verse, we mean that at that point the difference between two versions is only in the way the text is translated.  On the other hand, when we speak about textual differences we mean that the underlying Greek or Hebrew text is different and that this is what leads to the difference in translation.  

Translational Differences

1. Differences in Translation Philosophy

Versions differ partly based on translation philosophy.  Some versions are translated according to a literal equivalence philosophy, where the translators try to translate word for word as much as they can.  The KJV is literal equivalence.  On the other end of the spectrum is dynamical or functional equivalence, where the translators try to faithfully translate meaning for meaning.  An example here is the NIV.  The ESV is somewhere in between the two, described by its translators as essentially literal.

Now the fact of the matter is that any good version, even if it is literal equivalence, is going to have to use dynamical equivalence at points.  This is particularly true when it comes to idioms in the original language.  I will never forget the first time I was translating John 10:24 as a new Greek student.  The Greek literally says, “Until when do you take away our soul?”  I remember puzzling over that thinking that I had got something wrong.  It didn’t make any sense!  I ended up having to look it up, and discovered that it means something along the lines of, “How long do you hold us in suspense?”  My translation didn’t make any sense because I was giving a literal translation of an idiomatic turn of phrase.  In cases like that, you have to use dynamic equivalence.  

However, I will say that since we believe in verbal, plenary inspiration – that is, that inspiration doesn’t just lie in the meaning of the text but in the very words themselves, it seems reasonable to me that we should gravitate towards those translations that are more literal equivalence as a rule, rather than those that are dynamical equivalence as a rule.

2. Differences between old and new language

Of course there is the difference between older versions and modern versions.  Modern versions are good because they translate the Bible into the actual language that we speak.  I’ll never forget when I first read through the book of Proverbs in the ESV: several passages made sense to me that I had never been able to understand before, at least partly because of the modernization of the language in the translation.  

You also have to be careful with older versions, because they use words that we still use but which don’t mean the same thing anymore.  For example, I remember one time hearing a pastor tell me that he thought “setting light by” as in Deut. 27:16 (“Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.”) literally meant to set a light, as in something that illuminates an area like a candle.  I had to explain to him that it meant to despise or dishonor someone!  

Another example is the word “conversation.”  Today, this word means to have a talk with someone, but in the early 17th century, apparently it meant conduct, or course of life.  To have “your conversation honest among the Gentiles” doesn’t just mean to tell the truth – it means to live honorably.  So one of the benefits of modern translations is that we don’t have to wonder if a word’s meaning has changed.  

3.  Differences resulting from gains in scholarship

Now there are also other differences.  The translators of the older versions, including the KJV, were tremendous scholars, but we have to remember that they were working at a time when there was limited access to Greek and Hebrew MSS, and the scholarship in the areas of those languages was still developing.  The fact of the matter is that there are things we now know about Biblical Greek syntax and grammar that they didn’t.  

One such example is a rule called Granville Sharp’s Rule. James White explains: “Basically, Granville Sharp’s rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word ‘and,’ and the first noun has the article (‘the’) while the second does not, ‘both nouns are referring to the same person’.” [See here.]  This does affect several texts in the NT, in particular, Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1.  

In the KJV, we read, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13).  In this rendering, God and Savior refer to two different persons – God to the Father, and Savior to the Son who is Jesus.  But in the ESV, it reads this way:  “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”  Here you see that God and Savior refer to the same person: Jesus Christ.  This is the correct reading, grammatically.  And you have a direct reference to the divinity of the Lord Jesus in versions like the ESV that is missing in the KJV.

I mention this on purpose because one of the claims of the KJV-only crowd is to say that modern versions are infected by liberal theology that undermines the claims, for example, of the deity of Christ.  But we can see that’s not the case!  Otherwise, why wouldn’t they have left this passage reading the same way the KJV did?

By the way, another example to show that the modern versions aren’t trying to undermine confidence in the deity of Christ is to compare how the KJV and the NIV translate Rom. 9:5.  

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.  (KJV)

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (NIV)

I’m not saying one translation of Rom. 9:5 is better than the other; I just want to point out that in the KJV, it is ambiguous as to whether or not God refers to Christ, but in the NIV it is an unambiguous reference to Christ.  If it was true that modern versions were trying to replace orthodox Christianity with something different, they are doing a bad job of it.  

Textual Differences

This is where the most significant differences lie.  Here we are talking about a difference in the underlying Greek or Hebrew text that affects the difference in translation.  (For the sake of argument, I will be primarily limiting myself to the New Testament Greek text in terms of illustrations and explanations of differences.)

Do you remember what we said last time?  We talked about the Greek NT MSS – there are approximately 5800 of these hand-written copies that date from the second century all the way to the sixteenth.  We noted that because they are hand-copied, there are scribal errors that have crept in, lots of them.  We noted that there are around 400,000 variants.  A variant is a place in a manuscript where its reading differs from at least one other manuscript at that point.  However, we also noted that less than 1% of these variants are meaningful and viable.  That still leaves around 3000 places that we have to make a decision about which variant is the best.  But that’s a much more manageable number.  And we also pointed out that none of these meaningful and viable variants affect a single doctrine of orthodox Christianity.

But here’s the thing I want to point out now.  When the ESV has a different reading from the KJV, and the reason is because the Greek or Hebrew text that it is using has a different variant from the one the KJV uses, this is not an attempt to change God’s word, but a different decision as to what is the original text of God’s word.  No one is changing anything.  There are Greek or Hebrew texts that may read differently at a point, and different translators may come to different decisions as to which reading is original.

Let me give you an example.  In the  KJV the first part of 1 John 3:1 reads: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.”  But in the ESV it reads, “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are.”  You will note that the phrase “and so we are” is added in the ESV but missing in the KJV.  Did the ESV translators add to God’s word?  No, they did not.  There are good reasons for believing that this phrase is original.  One writer summarizes:

1. Very Early and diverse witnesses unanimously agree that 1 John 3:1 originally contained the clause “and so we are.”

2. We have a clear example of a writer accidentally omitting “and so we are” when his copy of 1 John contained the words. [Augustine]

3. There is a perfectly good explanation for exactly why a scribe might do so. [homeoteleuton]

This is what C. H. Spurgeon said about this in his only sermon from the RV:

That the addition is correct I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend—those manuscripts which are best worthy of notice—have these words; and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian, and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration. So far as doctrine is concerned, it does not matter much whether they are or are not in the original text, because we get the same words farther on. “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if He shall be manifested, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him even as He is.” [See here for the full sermon.]

By the way, it’s not as if these words had been “lost” for centuries.  Actually, for centuries Christians in the West read them in the Latin Vulgate.  And this is the way Wycliffe’s Bible (1388) read: “See ye what manner charity the Father gave to us, that we be named the sons of God, and be his sons.”  The fact of the matter is that the KJV dropped them when it shouldn’t have.

My point is this: you can’t accuse the translators of any version that includes the words “and so we are” that they are changing God’s word.  Where do we get God’s word?  We get it from the MSS.  Some MSS read one way and others read another.  Making a different decision as to which MSS got it right is not an attempt to change God’s word but to disagree about what it said in the first place.

Now some people don’t like the idea of the presence of variants, because they don’t like the uncertainty that can come with that, and frankly I think this is one reason psychologically that many KJV-onlyers don’t like others versions that disagree with the KJV because now you’ve got to deal with them.  But here’s the thing: even the KJV translators thought that the presence of variants wasn’t a problem, and that God in his providence has allowed them to exist for good reasons.  They included variant readings in the margin of the KJV, which we saw, for example, with Romans 7:6.  Here’s their reasons why God allowed variants to exist [see here]: 

Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment . . . .

They point out that God in his providence has done this in order to (1) sharpen our minds, (2) give the intellectually curious something to think about (!), (3) to stir our devotion to seek God’s assistance in prayer, and (4) to seek the aid of our brethren so that we are not so self-sufficient in ourselves.

Now that brings us to the question of which variant is the best?  Variants exist and we have to decide either for ourselves or know how others are deciding for us.  This is an important question and understanding it will help us to understand why a particular version makes the decisions it makes with respect to disputed readings.

The Help that Textual Criticism gives us

Textual criticism is not a negative or unorthodox attitude towards the word of God.  It is simply the art and science of determining among the variant readings in the manuscript tradition of an ancient text which one is the most likely to be original.  So when a textual critic comes upon variant readings for a particular verse, there are several considerations to be had.

Internal Considerations

When we talk about internal considerations, we are talking about looking at the text itself for clues as to what is the correct reading.  First of all, there are considerations of context and the style of the author.  In other words, the question is, which variant reading fits the context and the style of the author best?  Another type of internal consideration has to do with the types of errors scribes were likely to make (whether unintentional or intentional) and to see if that can help us to eliminate some of the options.  

External Considerations

These have to do with things like text-type, geographical distribution, age of the manuscript, how many manuscripts support a certain reading, patristic quotations, and so on.  If a reading is found in a good text-type, is represented in a wide geographical range of MSS, is older, and has a sufficient number of MSS supporting it, it is likely to be the original reading.

Now I’m going to talk about text-type for a minute because this comes up a lot in the KJV-only controversy.  A text-type refers to a family of manuscripts among the available the Greek NT MSS that shows a recognizable pattern of specific variants.  It seems that scholars are basically agreed (though this is still debated) that there are four basic text-types:

1. The Alexandrian: represented by the earliest papyrus MSS, as well as the 4th century uncials Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א).  It is also very well represented in the early patristic writings.

2. The Western: characterized “by paraphrases, amplifications, transpositions, and ‘corrections’” (Andrew Messmer, in his paper “Critical vs. Majority Text”).  It is found in the 5th century Codex Bezae (D), in Tatian’s Diatessaron, and in early church fathers like Irenaeus.  

3. The Caesarean:  found in the writings of Origin.

4. The Byzantine: found in most of the Greek uncials and minuscules, and represents 80-90% of all known manuscripts, though almost all of these are 9th century and later.

We need to remember that though we talk about text-types, the fact of the matter is that they are still substantially the same text, no matter which one you pick.  None of the differences in the patterns of variants affects a single doctrine of the Christian faith, or changes the overall meaning of the text itself.

Now that brings us to modern critical editions.  What do I mean by this?  I mean the creation of a printed Greek text in which an editor or editors have made decisions about the variants based on their analysis of the MSS evidence.  And that brings us to the first such critical text, which is . . .

The Textus Receptus

The Textus Receptus (TR) is Latin for “Received Text.”  It gets its name from the preface to the 1633 Elzevir Greek NT text.  In it, they say, “What you have here, is the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.”  This is an English translation of the Latin preface, and the words “the text which is . . . received” is textum . . . receptum.  It was essentially an advertising blurb for their edition of the Greek NT text.

The TR is not a single text, but a family of printed critical editions of the Greek NT.  The first was edited by Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch scholar who was the first to publish the Greek NT in print with a new Latin translation in 1516.  This was followed by four more editions.  Robert Stephanus, a French printer, also produced several editions of the Greek NT, his most famous being his third edition in 1550.  Then Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s successor in Geneva, also produced a Greek NT, and his edition in 1598 was highly influential in the translation of the King James Version.

All these texts belong to the Textus Receptus tradition.  They are not all the same, but there are only a few hundred differences between them, and so by and large they are the same.  But it’s important to know where it came from.  The TR is not the verbatim reproduction of a single text which has been handed down through the centuries.  Rather, each edition of the TR is a critical edition of the Greek NT which represented the readings of a relatively few Greek manuscripts, never much more than a dozen or so at a time, and all of these relatively late, certainly no earlier than the 9th or 10th centuries.  However, each of these texts were members of the Byzantine text-type, so that means that for the most part the TR agrees with the majority of Greek NT MSS.

But modern versions are not based on the TR in the NT.  (In the OT, you don’t have much choice but to use the Hebrew Masoretic Text, so the debate on the textual level resides mostly in the NT.). Why was there this change?  

Modern Critical Editions of the Greek NT

In 16th and 17th Century Europe, access to Greek MSS was very limited and most of those that they did have were late in terms of their composition.  But over time, more and more MSS became available.  One of the benefits of this was that a more complete and scientific study of them could be executed and a greater understanding of the different text-types emerged as well as their relative value.  

The fact of the matter is that most scholars today who study these things agree that the Alexandrian text-type is a better representative of the original text than the Byzantine text-type.  Why?  D. A. Carson explains: 

There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century. This point may be established by: (1) determining if there are any Greek manuscripts of pre-A.D. 350 date which reflect the Byzantine text-type; (2) examining pre-A.D. 350 versions for the same information; (3) reading the New Testament quotations found in the writings of the pre-A.D. 350 church fathers to discover if the biblical passages they quote approximate any particular text-type. In each case the evidence is uniform: the mature Byzantine text-type appears nowhere before the fourth century. [Carson, D. A.. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (p. 44). (Function). Kindle Edition.]

However, the Alexandrian text-type is well established to have existed then.  This is the reason why modern versions, and modern critical Greek NT texts, are more Alexandrian in nature than Byzantine.  It is not because they are wanting to corrupt the NT!  It is because they want to reproduce the original as closely as possible.

But what about the Majority Text?

However, for many years, I was still critical about modern versions because I hung desperately to the idea that if God was going to preserve his word, he would do so in the majority of Greek manuscripts.  But over time I realized this was faulty reasoning.

First, it is based upon an interpretation of God’s providential dealings in the world which is always an iffy thing.  You can justify almost any action by interpreting God’s providence in a certain way.  God alone has the right to interpret his providence, not we.  If it’s not explicit or implicit in his word, then we better be careful.  As Cowper put it,

God is his own interpreter,

And he will make it plain.

Second, it is based upon a failure to appreciate how history affected the decisions of scribes who copied the MSS of the Byzantine text-type.  There were two great events that effected what got copied and how.  First of all, the split of the Roman empire into east and west.  Whereas Greek was spoken in the east, Latin was in the west.  This meant that, over time, the NT stopped being copied in the west in Greek.  Instead they used Latin.  As we’ve pointed out, there are over 10,000 Latin MSS of the NT, and these do not reflect a Byzantine text-type.  It was from the Latin Vulgate that Wycliffe made his early English version of the Bible.  So the first English Bible was not based on a TR text.  Imagine if the West spoke Greek; the Byzantine text would no longer represent the majority of Greek MSS!  But it was from the Latin text, not the Byzantine texts, that western Christians studied the Bible for over a thousand years.  How’s that for God’s providence?

The second thing was the Islamic invasions of the 7th century and later.  It really crippled Christian witness in Northern Africa, and over time it even conquered the Byzantine empire, Constantinople falling in 1453.  This no doubt affected the production of Greek manuscripts from Northern Africa, which, again, were different from the Byzantine text-type.

The point is that we have to take all this into consideration when we say that the majority of MSS are Byzantine text-type.  It’s not the result of the conscious decisions of the majority of scribes to copy what they believed to be the best witnesses to the original text (as Gordon H. Clark argues in Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism).  Rather, it’s the result of historical circumstances.  And coupled with the fact that there is no exemplar of the Byzantine text before the fourth century, and that most of them are no older than the 9th century, it probably means that the Byzantine text-type does not stand as close to the original text as do MSS in the Alexandrian family of texts.

However, let’s not forget what I never tire of saying: in the overall scheme of things, every text type represents the same essential text of the NT, and whichever pattern of variants you choose to follow isn’t going to change a single doctrine of the Christian faith.

The King James Version vs Modern Versions

Now let’s get down the KJV.  It is a version which is translated in the NT from the TR which is largely based on the Byzantine text.  Modern versions are based instead upon a modern critical text which, though it does not rely entirely on the Alexandrian text, it certainly favors it, which seems to me to be the correct approach.  Practically, what this means is that when modern versions differ from the KJV in meaningful ways, it’s the modern version that is most likely correct and accurate at that point. 

This does not mean you shouldn’t read the KJV!  In fact, I still memorize from the KJV rather than from other versions, partly because my entire childhood was immersed in its beautiful language.  Alexander Scourby still rings in my ears!  The KJV is a good and faithful version of the Bible.  So is the NASB.  So is the ESV.  And so are many others.  We are blessed in fact to have such a richness of translations in our language.  In fact, to quote the KJV translators once again:

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

I love the KJV.  However, we need to be careful that we do not mistake our comfort level with the KJV because it’s what we’ve always used as if that were the imprimatur of God.   The fact of the matter is that many modern versions are very good, very faithful, and in many places more accurate versions than the KJV and we should never look askance upon anyone for using them.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter

There is no reason to doubt the goodness of God in giving us multiple versions of the Bible in modern English.  And we can thank God for the great blessing the King James Version has had in its more than 400 years of its history.  We need to remember that this gift came through the sufferings of martyrs.  William Tyndale gave his life for it.  We can take it for granted, but it is a precious, blood-bought gift.

And so let’s not take our Bibles for granted.  Let’s read them, study them, meditate upon them, memorize them, and then never fail to apply them to our lives.  Let’s follow the example of Ezra the scribe: “Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments” (Ezra 7:10).