Labels

Problems With KJV-Onlyism: (3) The KJV is Based on Inferior Manuscripts

Most KJV-Onlyists argue that the Greek text behind the translation is itself inspired, or is the most accurate Greek text available.  This is not true.

The KJV-Only debate started on May 17, 1881.  The New Testament of the KJV is based on the Greek Textus Receptus (TR), by Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch scholar, published in 1516.  This was the first printed (not hand-copied) edition of the Greek NT.  Erasmus is to be highly regarded for his work.  Martin Luther, a priest in Germany, was saved while studying Erasmus’ Greek NT, and then inspired to spark the Protestant Reformation in 1517.

However, there were weaknesses in the Textus Receptus because Erasmus based it on only six manuscripts, all of them dating from the twelfth century AD, and none of them containing the entire NT.

From 1611 to the mid-19th century, many more manuscripts of the NT were discovered, and many of them were much, much older than the manuscripts used by Erasmus.  Obviously, the older and closer in age that a copy is to the original, the more reliable.

So, the Church of England decided to make a revision of the KJV, called the Revised Version, that would follow the language and style of the KJV, but it would update some of the archaic words, and it would rely upon the most ancient Greek texts (a Greek text published by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort).  Published in 1881, the Revised Version differed in hundreds of places based on the more ancient Greek manuscripts.  .

Even though none of the changes resulted in doctrinal differences, the Revised Version was hotly resisted by some.  Since then, new English Bible translations have been criticized and rejected by KJV-Onlyists.

One of the main criticisms of the modern translations is that they are different from the KJV.  But the KJV is not the standard.  The original autographs (original documents) are the standard.  The question is not What does the KJV say? but What did Paul write?  What did Luke write?  To get that answer, we must use the most ancient, the most reliable manuscripts.  This is the advantage of the modern translations over the KJV.

Most KJV-Onlyists argue that the Greek text behind the KJV is itself inspired and inerrant, and the KJV is the only version that accurately translates it.  But an interesting fact to point out is that the KJV is not even based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus (TR).  After the TR was published, other scholars revised it.  Robert Estienne printed four editions, and then Theodore Beza published four more editions.  The KJV is based not on Erasmus’ TR, but primarily (not totally) on a combination of Beza’s third edition of 1598, and Estienne’s 1550 edition, and these two do not fully agree!  111 times the KJV translators went with Beza, 59 times they went with Estienne, and 67 times went with some other text!  In other words, the Greek text behind the KJV was not perfect but was revised multiple times.  

Then, in 1881, a scholar by the name of Scrivener produced another Textus Receptus in an attempt to reconstruct the Greek text underlying the KJV of 1611, since the KJV was not based on only one text.  This TR became known as Scrivener’s.  Scrivener’s Greek text is now used in all KJV-Only Bible colleges and seminaries where they study and teach Greek.  The funny thing is that Scrivener himself was not a KJV-Only advocate.  He was one of the translators of the Revised Version of 1881, and he found many faults with Greek behind the KJV.  His purpose was not to produce the perfect Greek text, but to produce the Greek behind the KJV so it could be shown where the Revised Version departed from the decisions made by the translators of the KJV!

Now, I don’t want to alarm you by causing you think that the Bible is unreliable, that we don’t really know what the originals say.  That is not true.  Of the many variants in the manuscripts, the vast majority are insignificant, and none of them affect a Christian doctrine.

The central argument in this debate is this:  Should Bible translators only us the Textus Receptus, which is based on late manuscripts, or should it rely on all of the existing Greek manuscripts, giving weight to the oldest ones? Whether you are studying the works of Plato, or Aristotle, or the Bible, the vast majority of scholars agree (along with common sense) that earlier manuscripts should be given more weight.

Again, KJV-Onlyists criticize modern translations because they “cut out” verses.  But they don’t.  There are places where they omit certain verses and words that are found in the KJV, but that’s only because they are not found in the earliest, most reliable Greek texts.  And in the end, that’s what matters.  The modern translations don't "cut out" verses, but rather the KJV "added in" words and sentences that are not found in the earliest manuscripts.

Sources:
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts