Reading The Right Notes
(Ian C. Kurylyk)

Does it matter which Bible version I use? How can I know which is faithful to the revelation God gave us? This article has been written to draw your attention to some facts that help the average person gain an understanding of the issue and make the right choice.

For hundreds of years, English-speaking Bible believers lived by the King James Version. This Bible in the hands of Christians and preachers has been the instrument of amazing works of God. These include great revivals, tremendous mission efforts, extensive edifying literature, and the Independent Church Movement, that has most withstood the departure and apostasy in the West over the past 100+ years.

Every Bible translation ultimately has an underlying text in the original languages, primarily Hebrew in the Old Testament and Koine Greek in the New Testament. This underlying text is the foundation of the translation work and is the most important consideration in evaluating the version that has been translated from it. If the translating scholars start with anything but the pure Word of God, their work is hopelessly flawed from the beginning. This is the concern under consideration as we contrast the King James Version and a great host of modern English versions.

The Greek New Testament text translated to English in the KJV is from an ancient textual tradition acknowledged by true Bible believers for many years and in many locations and cultures. It is a textual tradition that underlies other great translations in other languages besides English that have been clung to as God's true Word by genuine Bible-believing Christians throughout history. In fact, the body of existing ancient Greek manuscripts (with a small minority of exceptions) represents a textual tradition going back to Apostolic days when the New Testament was first written. By comparison of this body of evidence the minor irregularities peculiar to a specific manuscript here or there can be taken care of by careful scholarship in compiling a complete Greek New Testament to be used for translation. That is to say, differences in specific manuscripts from scribal shortcomings tend to be rare, minor, and random and the body of manuscripts as a whole give clear testimony to a well documented Greek text. Other sources such as trusted ancient versions in other languages and quotations of the Bible in ancient writings add their confirmation.

There is a term coined to refer to this common recognition of what the true text is (observable in the high degree of agreement in the vast majority of the evidence). It is the "Received Text" (Latin - "Textus Receptus"). This terminology as it has come to be used highlights the facts of the case. There is a tradition of recognition of what the Bible truly is, particularly among historical Bible-believers, which has carried on from the earliest Christians. This tradition was upheld and perpetuated by the men who gave us our English King James Bible. It continues to be carried on by those who use that Bible today. The Old Testament scriptures were committed to the people of God when they were given (Romans 3:2) and the New Testament faith was delivered to the saints (Judges 3). All Christians share the responsibility to hold fast what God has given to us by standing for, believing, practicing, and living that precious Bible.

In the nineteenth century a fundamental challenge to the underlying Greek text of the King James Version arose - first among certain scholars - and then within the larger Christian world. Two Cambridge professors, Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were the driving force behind a very different Greek text. This new textual approach was influential on a Bible revision committee then in place and on a great flood of modern versions since then.

The chief argument in favour of this new Greek Bible was (and is) its dependence upon a few apparently very old manuscripts being elevated to high regard. The actual quantity of manuscript support is far less than that of the Received Text tradition. In fact, its main support boils down to two manuscripts. (This compares with a total number of existing manuscripts in excess of 5000.) One manuscript was found in the Vatican, and given the name Vaticanus (and also referred to simply as "B"). The other was discovered in a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai, given the name Sinaiticus - and referred to for brevity's sake as "ALEPH". Without the support of these two manuscripts the new Greek text proposed by Wescott and Hort would never have gotten off the ground.

The argument by professors Wescott and Hort that gained acceptance by so many is very simple: Older is better. Now it is a fact, apparently, that the vast majority of ancient manuscripts (which we noted are in the Received Text tradition) are more recently dated than Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. So the rationale for accepting the new textual breed (referred to by some as the Critical Text) is easy to follow. As copies were made of copies, errors increased we are told. Thus, we should believe that the older manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), being closer to the originals in time, are closer also in authenticity. This thinking is the substance of what has convinced multitudes to accept in part or in whole the new Greek text based on these manuscripts. With this comes acceptance of the revised versions of the Bible and a never-ending stream of modern Bibles translated from the new (Critical) text type.

By itself, of course, there is a certain aura of plausibility about the theory. However, the issue at hand is very critical indeed. At issue is the very content of the Bible, that which makes up the Christian faith. Any theory that would change the Bible already in use and which is proven by centuries of use must be absolutely certain. Only a fool would jump into a philosophy embracing such a change without absolutely positive verification. What better tool would be in the hands of the enemies (and the enemy himself - Satan) of God's Word and work than to corrupt and cast doubt on the Bible. The purpose of this article is to conduct a test which anyone can examine and use to form a conclusion. To accept new claims which change what the content of the Bible is, based only on dogmatic assertion of men who claim to be "experts" (and beyond the requirement for verification of their work) is simply priestcraft in the robes of scholarship. It flies in the face of the whole concept of inspiration itself in which God supernaturally moved chosen men to give His perfect word for the good of everyday people.

Now, if this theory of Wescott and Hort (OLDER IS BETTER - PERIOD) is true, there will follow an absolutely necessary logical consequence. If gradual deterioration (by copyists' error etc.) over time has made later manuscripts inferior to the earlier Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, we should be able to observe the results. The supposed greater corruption of the later manuscripts must show itself (or it didn't happen), and the supposed greater purity of the two favourite manuscripts of Wescott and Hort also must appear (or it isn't there). Yes, the new theory requires, necessitates, demands that later manuscripts have more changes and corruptions - and the earlier ones less. After all, this is exactly what is being insisted upon.

Now how can we know this without the actual original manuscripts (the autographs) in our hands? The answer is simple. Compare the existing manuscripts to each other. The later manuscripts, when studied, should manifest the tendency to random scribal errors by a great diversity among themselves. Earlier manuscripts, being subjected to fewer generations of copying (and copyists), should demonstrate much more similarity to each other. Who could argue against that?

Good news (for Bible lovers). This necessary logical conclusion HAS been checked by some who are capable in these areas of scholarship. AND THE FINDINGS ARE THAT THE FACTS ARE CONTRARY TO THE THEORY'S EXPECTATION. The later manuscripts, the majority (in the Received Text tradition), are remarkable not for their variety but for their amazing agreement one with the other. This is proof in itself of their faithfulness to the original Bible. On the other hand, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are very different from the majority of manuscript evidence (which is of course why they introduce so many changes). And not only are they different from the rest, THEY ARE DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. Dean John William Burgon who wrote very definitive papers on the whole Bible revision process (at the time) gives the following information in The Revision Revised about those two manuscripts: "Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received text". And again in the same page 12, "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree" (Italics his). How can this be if they are closer to the originals and have experienced fewer changes? Well it can't be. But it is - the facts absolutely refute the theory.

The disagreement between ALEPH and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) in their testimonies is proof of their own unfaithfulness and untrustworthiness as witnesses. We have a striking parallel to this in the discord between the false witnesses against Jesus Christ (Mark 14:57-59). The law in fact required two witnesses for this very reason - so their stories can be examined and compared (Deu19:15). The laws of evidence work the same way today. The witnesses used by Wescott and Hort cannot stand up to this simple (and Biblical) test. It is true that the proponents of the new Critical Text have made some efforts to make up for this fundamental problem by adding other elements to their theories for those who become suspicious. However these arguments in themselves could never carry the day for them and they lean upon the "older is better" ideas for popular support. These other patches they have concocted are unconvincing, weak, subjective, and speculative. They are totally unable to make up for the clear evidence against them.

To put the whole issue in clear perspective we could consider a parallel to illustrate the problem. Consider the total collection of old busts of Ludwig Van Beethoven. Like the Bible is a witness to Christ, and His Truth, these busts witness to the physical appearance of Beethoven. Let us then imagine music-lovers worldwide gathered all these busts known to exist so they could reconstruct Beethoven's likeness. Now suppose also that the vast majority of these old busts are relatively modern (we would probably expect that), and apart from a few chips or nicks or stains that they exhibit a remarkable agreement as to his looks. And assume further that this is true despite the fact that they are all independent witnesses with their own unknown "pedigree" of copyists - like is true of the manuscripts of the Bible.

Next, suppose two men appear claiming they believe Beethoven looked very different and base it largely upon two apparently very old busts they have recently found. Since these two busts look different from the hundreds of others, they conclude the rest are unreliable and these older ones are to be trusted. One would (or should) be suspicious. Why would the vast majority of later copies from many unrelated sources look essentially the same but these look so different? Suppose further then, that one of these two busts looked like Mick Jagger, and the other like Mr. Dressup. If they were so much more reliable why wouldn't they at least look like each other? The conclusion is obvious. Something is wrong with the witnesses, even if they are old. We would go on with our old conviction of what Beethoven looked like and put aside the two spurious witnesses. For when they stand side by side they testify against each other.

This is exactly what Christians need to do. Keep your old King James Version. If you have a little difficulty with a few archaic word forms you can easily learn the modern equivalent and deal with such problems. People read Shakespeare with great pleasure which is much much harder to read than KJV English. We must not err in such a basic issue as the very content of the Word of God. And we must not be sidetracked by unrelated issues put forth by those who try to obscure this essential issue. Some feel if they can come up with some little criticism of the KJV that it excuses the acceptance of thousands and thousands of changes that come out of this text problem. If we really believe in God's work of Revelation we will not think lightly of such wholesale corruption. This issue of the influence of Wescott and Hort is the single most important one in the modern day Bible question. And we certainly should not fall for the shallow arguments that say things like, "Every major Bible doctrine is found in such and such a version." Didn't Jesus say that man shall live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4)? We are not at liberty to judge any witness God has appointed to His truth as nonessential. May God's church turn back to the preserved Word of God that is so badly needed in these days of departure.

Ian Kurylyk

For those interested in further reading on this subject I would recommend the following books especially:

• Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 1883. Reprint, Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society, 2000
• Fuller, David Otis. Which Bible. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications,1975