WHICH BIBLE? - Part Two

 WHICH BIBLE? - AN EXAMINATION OF TRANSLATIONS - Part Two

Previously, I considered the original manuscripts and the subsequent copies as the foundation for the Bible.  This post discusses the biblical text contained in those copies, which then forms the textual tradition from which Bible translations are created.

 THE BIBLICAL TEXT CONTAINED IN THE COPIES 

It is here that there has been considerable debate, but only with respect to the Greek text of the New Testament.  The Old Testament text has generally been agreed on for many centuries.  During the Masoretic Period (c. AD 500-1000), this text was standardized, and the Masoretic text has been the basis of translation from that time onwards. 

Because of the variations between the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, it was and still is necessary to choose the correct one, the one that represents the original.  This process is known as textual criticism, which despite being a recent science in its refined form, was foreshadowed as early as the 3rd century BC when Alexandrian scholars attempted to restore the texts of Greek writers. 

With respect to the New Testament, the first evidence of textual evaluation is in the 3rd century at Alexandria with the comparison and publication of available texts.  During the medieval period little critical revision of the New Testament text occurred.  Then in the Reformation period, a number of attempts were made to revise the existing manuscripts and produce a more accurate text.  Erasmus, Stephanus (Robert Estienne) and Beza produced editions of the New Testament Greek text.  It was in Stephanus’ third edition that a critical apparatus was seen using 15 manuscripts.  From their work, the Textus Receptus came into being and held sway over England, especially through the King James Version.  The dominant principle governing the choice of the best variant was frequency of occurrence, with the most numerous variant being the correct one. 

Sometime later, the principles for evaluating the quality of a manuscript and the weight of its textual data were re-examined and revised, resulting in a major revision of the New Testament Greek text.  This coincided with the availability of more manuscripts that were from earlier periods, such as Codex Alexandrinus (discovered in 1627).  No longer was frequency of occurrence the critical factor, but age of occurrence (earlier manuscripts generally better than later) and geographic diversity (agreement from different locations is generally better than numerous occurrences in one location) were considered more significant. 

Two Cambridge scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) are best known for the modern method of textual criticism.  Additional textual materials have continued to surface allowing a further refinement of both the Textus Receptus into the Majority Text (Zane Hodges) and the Westcott-Hort text into the Nestle-Aland Text.           

As a result, two textual traditions came into existence, which gave rise to the controversy concerning the King James Version.  The issue boils down to the choice of Greek text from which to translate any version of the Bible.  The King James advocates hold that the Received Text was sovereignly provided to the translators of the KJV and accurately represented the original Greek text of the New Testament.  David Fuller writes concerning Erasmus, whose Greek NT was the basis of the KJV, 

Moreover, the text he chose had such an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches, that it constituted an irresistible argument for and proof of God’s providence.  God did not write a hundred Bibles; there is only one Bible, the others at best are only approximations.  In other words, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, known as the Received Text, is none other than the Greek New Testament which successfully met the rage of its pagan and papal enemies.  (Which Bible? Edited by David Otis Fuller, p. 227) 

For King James only advocates this means that any translation not using that textual base is at best only an approximation of God’s Word and at worst a destructive, deceptive imitation.  In addition, on account of the combined spiritual, academic and linguistic qualifications of the original translators who produced the King James Version, that Bible cannot be superseded for the English-speaking world. 

Non-King James advocates are of two types.  First, there are those who retain the textual tradition of the King James Version, but allow for revision of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, the Received Text, into the more recent Majority Text, which does take into account further manuscript evidence.  This revision was used to produce the New King James Version, which many former King James Bible users adopted. 

Second, there are also those who prefer the text proposed by Westcott and Hort, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek.  This text has been continually revised and is now known as the Nestle-Aland text, which has been used to produce the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version and more recently the English Standard Version. 

In reality, the differences between the three options are not extensive, but at points must be considered.  For King James only proponents, any deviation from the Received Text is taking away from or adding to the Word of God, which is a serious spiritual crime.  It is unfortunate that more often than not there is more heat than light generated in this controversy.  Perhaps that is why D A Carson wrote a book entitled, The King James Version Debate – A Plea for Realism, which I highly recommend.  To gain the whole picture we need to take a brief look at English translations, which is the topic of the next instalment.