|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Bible
Translations: Has the Word of God Been Changed?
By Jason Dulle As
the last two issues have delved into the different stances in the translation
of the Holy Bible, I find it important that we critically evaluate the arguments
being used in favor of preferring the Majority Text and King James Version (KJV)
over the Minority Text and modern translations.
Such an evaluation is a prerequisite for the formation of any
well-informed position on such an important issue. This article is an evaluation
of the arguments used in favor of the Majority Text and KJV, not a proper
defense of any opposing position.
Last week, P.E. Huffman noted that the new versions “change the Bible in ways other than modernizing the language,” and then went on to speak of Satan’s desire to pervert the word of God. I took this later statement as an implication that at least some of the modern versions are perverted. While it is true that there are more differences in the translations than language style, to say that the differences have been a perversion or change to the word of God is a judgment call based on certain presuppositions. To say that something has been changed assumes a standard by which all else is to be judged for variation. It appears to have been assumed that the KJV is the unperverted word of God because it is based on the Majority Text, and therefore is the standard by which all other versions are to be judged for accuracy. The real question is, What constitutes the word of God? All translations, including the KJV, are based on Greek manuscripts discovered over the centuries and are copies of the original autographs penned by the apostles. It is these originals that are the true word of God. Therefore, any translation considered to be the word of God must accurately reflect the originals. The ~5500 manuscripts of the New Testament which we currently possess do differ in several places, as is to be expected with the written transmission of any historical document.1 This is not to say that we have no certainty as to the original wording of the New Testament. Textual critics have ascertained the certainty of 98.33% of the text.2 Less than two percent of the text is subject to question, making the New Testament the best-preserved ancient text known to man. It is the remaining 1.67 %, however, which affects the different translations of the New Testament available today. The two broadest categories/families of texts (although there are more) are known as the Majority Text (a.k.a. Byzantine text) and Minority Text (a.k.a. Critical text). The latter text dates older than the former, but is also more limited in count. The real issue boils down to determining which text more accurately preserves the original readings penned by the apostles. The
various discrepancies in the ~5500 Greek manuscripts are not always cut along
Majority vs. Minority Text lines. Not
all Minority Texts read one way, and all Majority Texts another. Each
text-family has variant readings within its own corpus of manuscripts.
The Minority Text type, for example, may have four or five different
readings at the same juncture among the various manuscripts.
Each variant must be examined individually among all the manuscript
evidence (both Majority and Minority texts combined) to determine the original
reading. If each text-family
evidences variation even among itself, we must conclude that all existing
manuscripts, whether they be of the Majority or Minority Text-family, corrupt
the original words of the apostles in some places, and preserve them in others.
What must be determined is which of the variant readings found in both
the Majority and Minority Texts preserves the inspired text.
It is a matter of weighing each variant, not counting
manuscripts. When it comes to translations, then, it is not a matter of one translation changing the word of God. It is a matter of the different translation committees making different choices among all the variants as to the original wording of the text, and then translating their choices as to the original wording into English.3 The newer translations are translating accurately from the manuscript copies of the Greek text they believe best preserve the original Word of God penned by the apostles. Many of these manuscripts are much closer in time to the original autographs of the apostles than those used by Erasmus to formulate his Greek text (from which the KJV was translated), and therefore could be more accurate than the later texts. Whether or not they are more accurate or more corrupt is too detailed a question to pursue in the space allowed here. Erasmus compiled a text of the Greek New Testament in AD 1516 which, after subsequent minor changes by two other men, was used as the basis for the translation of the 1611 KJV. Concerning whether or not the text used by the KJV translators is the best choice as to the original wording is open to question. Erasmus had a mere six Greek manuscripts at his disposal to form his version of the New Testament Greek, the earliest of which dated back to the tenth century.4 Determining the original reading on such a small selection of manuscripts, so separated in time from the originals, should cause us to take a second look at this text. It may be argued that although Erasmus only had six Greek texts to base his text off of at the time, the thousands of manuscripts discovered since then confirm that his Greek version did reflect the majority of all readings. It should be pointed out in response that Erasmus’ Greek text is not identical to the Majority Text. Erasmus’ text (which came to be known as the Textus Receptus after subsequent editions) is not identical to the Majority Text. Although the two texts are more similar than are the Minority Text and the Textus Receptus,5 the Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in over 1,838 places, thus the reading of the KJV does not always reflect the reading of the Majority Text.6 In fact, there are some places in the Textus Receptus where Erasmus’ rendition of the Greek was not found in any of his manuscripts, and which have yet to be found in any Greek manuscript. One such example is Acts 9:6 where it is said of Paul, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what will thou have me to do?” This reading was interpolated from the Latin Vulgate into Erasmus’ text, without any textual evidence for its conclusion. Sadly, this reading made it into the KJV.7 In the argument over the Majority/Minority Text, many
assume that the Minority Text is incorrect simply because it is in the minority
count of all existing manuscripts. This is not a logical evaluation of the
evidence. Likewise, determining the correct reading of the text does not come by counting manuscripts, but by evaluating the different readings to determine how they came to be, and work backwards to determine the actual reading from which all the variant readings were based on. The labels of “Majority Text” and “Minority Text” also need evaluation. These labels are modern labels attached to the various textual families based on the perspective of our own era. Looking at all ~5500 manuscripts in our day, the majority of all readings reflect what we call the Majority Text. But the readings found in the Minority Text at one time constituted the majority of all Greek texts. The readings found in the Minority Text predominated the early centuries of the church, while the readings of the Majority Text were virtually unknown.8 The earliest manuscript reflecting the Majority Text readings comes from the late Fourth Century.9 In the thousands of scripture quotations from the church fathers (before AD 325), not one quote is distinctly of the Majority Text type.10 The early translations also bear the same evidence. There are nearly 8,000 manuscript translations of the scripture in the early Latin Vulgate, all of which more clearly reflect the Minority Text rather than the Majority Text.11 The readings of the Majority Text were at one time in the minority. They did not actually become the majority until the tenth century, when these copies finally began to multiply. From that time the readings found in the text-family we now call the Majority Text began to predominate over the Minority Text readings. What the minority and majority text is depends upon the century from which one is viewing the evidence. Time was the difference. The readings of the Majority Text continued to be copied in the regions of the Eastern Roman Empire long after the copying of the Greek manuscripts had practically ceased in Western and Southern Europe. In these regions the spoken and written language shifted from Greek to Latin, and thus the scriptures were predominately translated and copied into Latin. It is not difficult to see how multiplication had much to do with the fact that the readings of the Majority Text type (which were the minority until around the tenth century) became the majority of all manuscripts. This does not prove that
the Majority Text does not contain the most accurate readings of the original
autographs, but does argue against the idea that the majority of all readings must
be the most accurate. If the text
which was repeatedly copied to form the majority during the Middle Ages was not
as accurate as earlier manuscripts, then all those texts which followed from it
would also be inaccurate (Majority Text). The
task is not over number counting, but on reconstructing the most reasonable
original autograph based on the variant readings we possess today.
Determining this has much to do with one’s philosophy of textual
criticism (the science of determining the original reading). A second reason the Majority Text readings outweigh the Minority Text readings is due to the age and places of the respective texts. The Minority Text readings of Greek manuscripts are found mainly in Western Europe and in Egypt, and were only copied in Greek in early history (because of the language change from Greek to Latin in that geographic area). The Majority Text readings are mainly found in the Eastern Roman Empire, where Constantinople, the capital, continued—as did the use of the Greek language. If indeed the Minority Text
is the more accurate text (which is being assumed only for the sake of
argument), then all claims that the Minority Text adds to or takes away from the
word of God become meaningless, because the Minority Text would be the original
word of God given to the Apostles, and thus would be the standard to judge the
Majority Text by. From this
perspective the Majority Text would be the text that often adds to or takes away
from the word of God. All claims
that the Minority Text tampers with the word of God is contingent upon being
able to prove that the Majority Text alone preserves the original wording of the
apostles—a conclusion which is not always easy to demonstrate. Considering this debate, it must be realized that all translations can only be considered the word of God insofar as they accurately determine the original wording of the texts penned by the apostles, and correctly translate the same into the English language. The KJV is not the standard to use to judge the accuracy of the newer translations, but is rather one translation among many which made a judgment call as to the reading of the original autographs. All translations must be evaluated in light of all the manuscript evidence available to us today, and not the evidence in light of the translation. Too often debates over translations degenerate into the complete discrediting of one, and unconditional acceptance of another, elevating the latter to a near-inspired status. This is an intellectually dishonest stance to take. All translations have their pros and their cons, as well as unique translational errors. No translation is without flaw, or should be accepted without question. Every translation must be evaluated critically and individually based on the available evidence. We should not canonize one particular version because it is old and tested, or new and popular, but must evaluate the evidence behind the translation to see if the translation accurately reflects the word of God given to the apostles and prophets of old. With this sort of evaluation we may come to believe that one particular translation is to be preferred over another, but we will not fall prey to blindly labeling some translations as ‘perversions’ without examining the critical issues. Although
the issue of which textual tradition best preserves the word of God (and which
translation by extension) is extremely important, any conclusions we may come to
are not going to change the message of the Gospel. The passages which are affected by variant readings do not
affect any major doctrine, and do not change the message of the Gospel.
We should instead focus on the amazing similarities between the texts,
and their ability to communicate the Gospel, rather than focusing on their
dissimilarities, which are often trivial. ninetyandnine.com
ã
2000, Jason Dulle -------- Jason Dulle is a graduate of Christian Life College and is currently working on his Master of Arts in Exegetical Theology at Western Seminary. He is also a co-contributor and writer for a web-site dedicated to the presentation and advancement of Oneness Apostolic theology, www.onenesspentecostal.com. When he is finished with all of his studies and paper-writing, Jason’s main focus is trying to maintain consciousness. End Notes 1. James R. White,
The King James Only Controversy
(Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), p. 39. 2. Ibid. 3. It should be
noted that no modern versions base their translation solely on the Majority or
Minority Text.
All use an eclectic text, i.e. choosing the best readings from among all
the existing manuscripts.
The newer versions utilize both the Minority and Majority Texts. 4. Bruce Metzger, The
Text of the New Testament:
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 102. 5. There are
approximately 6,577 differences between the Majority and Minority Texts.
It is often said that the Minority Text has shorter readings than the
Majority Text, and it is then concluded that the Minority Text takes away from
the word of God.
In all reality there are only 1,589 places in which the Majority Text is
longer than the Minority Text, which is less than one-fourth of all occurrences.
There are 657 places where the Majority Text is actually shorter than the
Minority Text.
All claims that the Minority Text takes away from the word of God must be
reconsidered in light of this fact (Daniel B. Wallace, "Some Second
Thoughts on the Majority Text;" available from http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/89c3.htm;
Internet; accessed 24 May 1999).
6. Daniel B.
Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text;" available from http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/89c3.htm;
Internet; accessed 24 May 1999.
7. Metzger, 100. 8. White, 152. 9. Ibid. 10. Daniel B.
Wallace, “The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations;” available from http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/conspire.htm;
Internet; accessed 24 May 1999. 11. Daniel B. Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text;" available from http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/89c3.htm; Internet; accessed 24 May 1999.
|
|
|
