Do you remember playing the telephone game, sometimes called "Whisper down the lane"? Did anybody at the end ever have the exact same message that started at the beginning? Maybe once in a while someone would get it right, but usually it ended up being very different. Now imagine you have no computer, no internet, no typewriter, nothing but a pen, some paper, and some ink. You have a very important message you need to copy and pass along, but it has to be perfect. You finish very carefully, and compare the two documents very carefully to make sure there are no mistakes. Satisfied that it's good, you roll up the copy and send it on its way, and keep the original in a safe place so you can go back and study it, or check it if someone had any questions about it.
This is how the Bible we know today came to be, as dozens of authors over hundreds of years penned the words that God gave them, and scribes carefully copied them so His valuable message would never be lost. Over the coming weeks, I'm going to share some of the history of where the Bible came from, particularly the New Testament down through the ages. As we learn this history, my hope is that it will explain why we have different versions in English today, and why it's important to not rely on any one without going back to the original Greek and Hebrew.
Old Testament
The Old Testament is often referred to in Scripture as the Law and the Prophets. Sometimes the books of history and poetry from Joshua through Song of Solomon are included in this, and sometimes they are referenced separately as the Writings. They key question when looking at the Bible is how did these particular books become canon and not others. Ultimately we can say that God decided, which is of course true; but we need to know how we know.
Some Bible scholars say that the first five books weren't actually written until after the Babylonian exile. However, these same scholars typically deny the sovereignty of God and ignore many of the details found within Scripture itself. The reading of the Law appears many times throughout the history of Israel. It was the responsibility of the Levites, in particular the priests of Aaron's line, to preserve the text that was given to them.
Their choices were validated by Jesus in the texts that He, and later Paul and the other apostles, directly quoted or alluded to in the New Testament (an analysis of direct quotes is here: http://www.knowableword.com/2013/03/27/11-old-testament-books-never-quo…). The Dead Sea Scrolls (http://www.gotquestions.org/dead-sea-scrolls.html) include every Old Testament book except Esther, and many other books besides. Some time after the exile, the Old Testament was translated into Greek as many Jews were now living scattered around the Middle East in the Greek Empire. This translation is known as the Septuagint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint), and is the one used most often by Paul. Modern Bible translations use a document called the Masoretic Text, compiled during the Middle Ages, as the primary source when translating the Old Testament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text). There are differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic Text, which we will discuss in broader context later.
The Gospels
When one first reads the New Testament, one of the first questions that comes to mind is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar, and why John is so different. Most Biblical scholars today believe that Mark was written first, taking most of his work from another collection of Jesus' quotes that no longer exists. They then follow that the other three Gospels used Mark as a source and added additional material suitable to their different audiences. But if this is true, why is there no mention of a book of quotations in early church writings, and why is Mark placed second instead of first in the New Testament?
Professor David Black, in his book "Why Four Gospels?" (http://www.amazon.com/Four-Gospels-David-Alan-Black/dp/1893729877), suggests another history that seems to be more in line with what the early church believed. The word gospel simply means "good news," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel) and is not exclusive to Christian writing. Many philosopies of the time called themselves gospels, and was a term that simply referred to a specific genre of literature. According to Black, Matthew was the first one written, as a record for the church in Jerusalem. Luke, recognizing that Matthew's gospel contained too many Jewish culture references for his Greek audience to fully understand, penned his own account based on Matthew's. However, because Luke was not an apostle, there was some resistance to his book. Peter, possibly teaching in Rome at the time, took advantage of the two tomes to tell his story to an eager audience, with Mark transcribing. Black's book contains a diagram that maps equivalent passages in the three Gospels, showing how Mark starts with Matthew, jumps to Luke, jumps back, and so on. When Luke's account was copied and distributed, Mark's transcription was sent along with the understanding that it was actually Peter's account.
Black suggests that the Gospel of John was actually written after the Apostle of John was released from the island of Patmos and after his Revelation was widely distributed. If this is correct, Jerusalem was already destroyed, most of the original eyewitnesses were dead, and the church that remained was dealing with a lot of false teachings. John, being one of the last eyewitnesses alive, penned his Gospel to assure Jesus' followers that the things they had heard about Jesus were in fact true. John wanted to assure his readers of both the deity and humanity of Christ.
Of all the Gospels, John's ends up being the most controversial in terms of which passages are authentic. The oldest fragment of John dates from around 125AD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Textual_history_and_manusc…), which would make it possibly one of the first copies of John's original text. We'll discuss more about the reasons for the controversy later, but modern translations disagree greatly about whether certain passages in John were in his original Gospel, even going so far as to leave them out of the translation altogether.
The Epistles
The early church readily accepted the Gospels as the written record of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In this context, Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles would also have been accepted as a gospel writing. But very quickly, questions began to arise within the church, especially as it became evident that Gentiles were included in Christ's gift of salvation. Jesus had told the apostles before He went to the cross that the Holy Spirit would have additional instruction for them (John 16:12-15).
As the church wrestled with the application of Jesus' teachings, and sought clarification on the many issues they had questions about, the apostles began to write letters to address these questions. As the churches received these epistles, they recognized the inspiration of God, and treasured them alongside the Gospels. They copied them and shared them with neighboring churches, so the guidance and wisdom could spread (Colossians 4:16). Unlike the Gospels, there is little dispute about the content of most of the epistles. As they were passed around from church to church, they began to be copied as entire collections, with some as old as the late second century remaining today. There is some argument among scholars, however, on whether certain of the letters were in fact authored by the apostle they claim to be by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles). Some of this debate began as early as 220 A.D. with the early church writer Tertullian.
The New Testament Canon
As gospels and epistles continued to be written and passed around from church to church, and as false teaching continued to invade the church from many different directions, it became increasingly difficult for the average Christian to separate truth from falsehood. Church leaders realized they needed to take a stand and declare through prayer, study, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which documents and which versions of those documents were the true Words of God.
By 180 A.D., and perhaps even earlier, church leaders had selected the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authoritative in a collection known as the Tetramorph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon). There are references in the third century from leaders such as Origen that the 27 books we have today in the New Testament were generally accepted as Scripture, but several of them were still being questioned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena).
The questions and disputes continued well into the fourth century, when Eusebius set an agenda for declaring an official Canon of New Testament Scripture at an upcoming council meeting. Pope Damasus I convened the meeting in 382 A.D., where the list of Scriptural books would be firmly decided. In addition, he comissioned Jerome to translate the Canon into Latin, which would become the official version of the Bible known as the Vulgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate). The Eastern branch of the Church, accepted this Canon later in the 5th century.
The Vulgate was not the first Latin translation, but was a reflection of the changes in the Latin language that had taken place between the time of earlier translations and the end of the 4th century. It was also the first translation completed after the formalization of the New Testament Canon. It included translation of both the Old and New Testaments from the best available manuscripts he had access to at the time, including a parallel version (a type of Bible with the different versions written side by side for comparison) of the Old Testament compiled by Origen two centuries earlier. For many centuries, this was the only version of Scripture literate Christians had access to. Modern scholars confirm that the translation is as accurate to the original writings as could have been made with the source material available. Since the 1500s, there have been several revisions to the Vulgate to improve it where moderns scholars have found better (and theoretially, more accurate) source material.
While even ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament contain some form of division to make for easy reading in a group setting, the chapter and verse divisions we are familiar with did not become common until the 16th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible). It was not uncommon at that point, and even still found today, that translations in different languages have different divisions of chapter and verse.
Majority text vs. ancient text
Let's take a brief pause in the history of the Bible, and take a look at two of the biggest issues that come up when a team of scholars creates a new translation or version. The first question is often called majority text vs. ancient text. When there are differences in manuscripts that are supposed to be direct copies, or copies of copies, of the original gospel or epistle, how do we decide which is correct? Do we say that whichever is the oldest is most likely to be correct, or whichever choice has the most number of manuscripts in agreement is correct?
Some of the more popular English translations used in Baptist churches, such as the King James, New King James, and English Standard Versions choose to use the majority method of deciding which is correct. Other popular translations, such as the New Internation Version and Revised Standard Version, use the oldest text as the deciding factor. However, it's important to note that when you compare the differences in these versions, and the differences in the majority vs. ancient texts, an overwhelming number of the differences are incredibly minor, such as a spelling difference or the omission of the word "the" (though how minor that difference is is a whole other debate).
Some scholars say that the difference is not so simple, pointing to where the majority of texts came from. Until the 20th century, nearly all the oldest Greek texts were from the area surrounding Alexandria, Egypt. In contrast, Greek manuscripts continued to be copied in the eastern branch of the church long after the western branch had converted exclusively to Latin. The argument against the majority text method often goes something like this: if the person making the 6th copy did a very poor job and made a lot of mistakes, but that version ended up being copied more often and more widely than the other versions, then the majority would be far more wrong than the oldest versions. As pointed out previously, however, the number of differences is really very small, and the significance of most of those differences is also very small.
Here are two additional articles, rather long, that explain this debate in more detail:
http://www.gotquestions.org/majority-text.html
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-iden…
Literal translation vs. meaningful translation
The second question is specific to the translation process from Greek and Latin to the common language of the translation's audience (English for us). When translating a text, should the words be translated exactly as they are written in the original; or should the meaning of the original be interpreted using equivalent phrases in the target language, even though the words are not the same. Consider a phrase in English such as "kick the bucket". Someone not familiar with our language and culture may believe someone using this phrase is talking about a sporting event. The actual meaning, however, is quite different.
We have a special advantage in English in that many of our common idioms were inherited from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and can be just as easily understood in our own language word for word as in the original. Others, such as the terms "walk" and "conversation" used frequently by Paul, are not so straightforward. Some phrases, such as "40 days and 40 nights," could be interpreted either literally or as a figure of speech. How can we tell which it is? Those versions that choose to use word for word translation allow the reader to study for themselves and choose. Those versions interpreting meaning will make the decision for us and replace the phrase with something that does not require the reader to make a choice.
In a similar case, some words can have multiple meanings when translating. For example, the English word "table" can refer to a flat area of ground at the top of a hill, a place for eating, a delay, a chart, and several other things. The Greek word, "koinonia", can mean a gathering, a partnership, communion, or fellowship. It's difficult enough for us to distingush between these terms in English if we don't use them regularly. In contrast, there are four different words in Greek that all translate to "love" in English.
For this reason, it is often helpful to use several different translations of the Bible when doing serious study, so we can see how different lines of thought handled the same phrase differently.
Gutenberg
In the century prior to the Protestant Reformation in 1517, there were two major developments that significantly transformed the way the Bible was copied and delivered to the people. At the end of the 15th century, Jerome's Vulgate was the only known translation of Scripture in most of Europe. The Eastern Orthodox branch of the Church, which still used Greek texts based on Byzantine copies, had formally split from the Roman Catholic church over many issues several hundred years before. Most of Europe was still in a feudal economy, with nearly everybody working in agriculture, providing for the service of the kingdoms, or providing for the service of the Catholic church. There were no other major employers unless one was a mercenary soldier.
In Germany, a craftsman named Johannes Gutenberg began experimenting with more a efficient means of printing in the mid 1400s. Due to several financial battles and failed businesses, Johannes ended up moving to the town of Strasbourg, where he started over in the printing trade. Printing was not a new technology with Gutenberg, but it was very laborious and expensive. Any single page of anything that was printed first needed to be engraved in reverse in either wood or soft metal, then stamped onto the page. The stamps typically would not last for very long, so the number of copies that could be made from each was limited.
Gutenberg's innovation came from the idea of casting reusable letters and symbols in a harder metal, and lining them up on trays. He printed a German poem in 1450 as a prototype of what his invention was capable of. Most people thought of the press as a novelty with little practical application; but the Catholic church had money to burn and was willing to give the press a try. After a few trial runs with some simpler documents, they commissioned Gutenberg to print 180 copies of the Vulgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg#Printing_press). The selling price for each completed Bible was roughly three year's salary, which kept it out of the hands of all but the most wealthy. Yet, this was still significantly cheaper than a hand copied Bible. In addition, the use of set type reduced the chance of errors in any given copy; but if an error was made, it was more widely distributed.
Because of his earlier business failures, Gutenberg was not able to profit personally from the press. His idea of reusable type was quickly copied by other printers in Germany and beyond, spreading through much of Europe by the end of the 15th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_spread_of_the_printing_press). The Catholic church was also increasingly funding missionary journeys, which necessitated a greater availability of the Bible as part of those expeditions.
Tyndale
The second major development came in the person of William Tyndale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale). Encouraged by the boldness of Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus), and a belief that the Holy Bible should be available to every person in their own native language, Tyndale committed himself to crafting an English translation.
Tyndale's was not the first attempt to craft an English version of Scripture. A century and a half earlier, John Wycliffe created an English translation based on the Latin Vulgate, giving his life for his efforts. Tyndale, however, was a very gifted linguist, being fluent in many languages including Greek and Hebrew. When Wycliffe made his translation, very few people knew how to read. But with the printing press making it so easy for books and papers to be published, that was quickly changing during Tyndale's life.
Having spent a number of years in London, teaching, studying, and writing; he became relatively well known among many influential people. During his tenure there, he became convinced that many of the Catholic church's teaching were opposed to the teachings of the Bible. After a particularly bitter confrontation with some Catholic church leaders who declared openly that the world would be better with the Pope's laws than God's, Tyndale set out for Germany to begin working on his translation in earnest.
The New Testament was completed in 1526, and the books of the Law in 1530. Tyndale was executed for his efforts in 1536; but at the time of his death, he prayed that God would open the King of England's eyes. Within four years King Henry celebrated the completion of the Great Bible, most of which was taken from Tyndale's work (http://adam4d.com/tyndale/).
Apparently, Tyndale's arguments against the Catholic church while he was in London had made an impact on King Henry VIII. Between that, and the popularity of his English New Testament and other writings, the King of England decreed that the church in England would no longer be subject to the Pope's rule as of 1534, two years before Tyndale's death. With the Protestant Reformation well under way, people were beginning to realize that God was the authority they needed to devote their hearts to, rather than any institution or person.
King James Version, part 1
The Church of England had already declared its separation from Rome in the 1530s; but the sentement continued to grow and be reinforced throughout the 16th century. In 1601, King James VI of Scotland expressed his concerns with existing English translations containing biases in favor of the Catholic Church. When he became king of England in 1603, one of his top priorities was to convene a council to take up the matter of improving the Bible without the added bias.
King James' concerns weren't the only ones to be had with the existing translations at the time. Due to the Renaissance, and more frequent travel to locations around the former Roman Empire containing ancient scripts, understanding of the nuances of ancient Greek and Hebrew improved drastically. The Puritans were especially intent on applying improved linguistics to the Great Bible and subsequent revisions. In addition to perceived errors in the Great Bible, attempts to improve upon the work in the intervening century had led to fragmentation within the Church of England. This was another of King James' goals, to unify the national church under a single version of the Bible.
In 1604, he convened a council to begin work on these goals, returning to the original manuscripts in much the same way Tyndale did a century earlier. There were a few differences this time around, however. Rather than being the work of one man, this new council joined the talents of over 40 scholars. Where Tyndale only had Wycliff's version to aid him in selecting familiar English expressions, this new council had use of eighty year's worth of Biblical influence.
The council set to work under the comission of these 15 rules (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html).
- The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
- The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
- The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
- When any word hath divers[e] significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
- The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
- No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
- Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
- Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
- As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
- If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
- When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
- Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.
- The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
- These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."
- By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."
Based on these rules, and the methods which governed the existing English translation, the King James (or Authorized) Version of Bible has ended up with some important characteristics.
a. The Textus Receptus, which supported much of Tyndale's translation, was based by nature on the rule of Majority Text.
b. Translations were intended to be as literal to the original language as possible.
c. Because the Bishop's Bible was intended to be read aloud in congregational settings, the King James Version favored lyrical language. This feature is arguably the number one reason it has stood the test of time for more than four hundred years.
d. Because the work was paid for by the English monarchy, the cost to common citizens was well within their living wage, in contrast to the Bishop's Bible, which was only affordable to the most elite.
In modern times, the King James Version is not without controversy. In our next article, we will explore some of these arguments and what makes them valid or not.
King James Version, part 2
The fact that the King James Version of the English Bible stood more or less uncontested for 150 years is a testament to the skill and wisdom with which it was crafted. Many of the common sayings and idiomatic expressions found in the English speaking world come directly from the King James translation of the Bible. Arguably, it has had the most profound impact on culture since the Vulgate became the standard for the thousand years prior.
But time does not stand still. Living languages change. Knowledge and wisdom grow as more and more windows into the past are opened, and greater understanding of ancient cultures and languages come to light. There are many reasons why the King James Version is still useful and relevant to 21st century readers, not least among them being the vast array of study tools developed over the years which are keyed to the language in the King James Version. The antiquity of the words and phrases that used to be so commonly spoken now have a formality and respect about them. In an age when God is treated so casually, there is benefit in remembering that He is the sovereign ruler of all; and we have only escaped eternal damnation by His grace.
For all the good that a single dominant English translation of the Holy Scriptures has provided us, it has not been without controversy. Especially in this day and age, nobody has a conversation like you would hear in a Shakespearean play. We just don't use the English language the same way anymore. As a result, reading the Bible in the King James Version today goes against one of the reasons it was originally conceived. The whole point of crafting a translation in the common tongue was so nobody would have to learn a foreign language to understand God's Word. King James' English is so different from what we commonly know, it too has become a foreign language to us. Many proponents like to advocate that the King James Version is the closest English translation to the original text. However, the Textus Receptus on which the Tyndale translation was based, and the Bishop's Bible later incorporated, has many instances where it varies even from the Byzantine Greek (http://www.kjvonly.org/other/demystify.htm). Many of the arguments against other sources than the Textus Receptus have to do with doctrines advocated by the early western branch of the church, which became the Roman Catholic church. The problem here is that errors and changes can just as easily be made by copyists practicing proper doctrine as by heretics. There is no proof that other texts have been intentionally corrupted, especially when such a small minority of differences have any significance.
Ultimately, there are many reasons to read and study the Bible; and no single source or method is going to give us a clear understanding of God's message to His people. As we continue looking at translations made since the 17th century, we will also begin looking at some of the tools and techniques that can help us get the most out of our time in the Book.
English Revised Version and American Standard Version
In 1870, a group of Episcopal scholars decided it was time to update the King James Version based on changes in language and scholarship. The common language from the time of Shakespeare was now archaic and unfamiliar to the layman. Besides updating the English to the present dialect, the scholars recognized three additional areas in which they felt the King James should be improved. The King James was exclusively the work of the Church of England. The Revised Version would become the work of many different denominations. The King James was exclusively a product of England. The Revised Version would intentionally be crafted to be an international effort.
Unlike earlier and later English translations, this was not a complete rewrite from original manuscripts. However, each verse was checked for validity against the available manuscripts of the time (http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html). It would be several more decades before the Middle East would be adequately explored to recover the vast repositories of ancient texts available to us today. Besides the changes based on the evaluation of documents discovered since the publication of the King James Version, the committee made two drastic alterations that were less well received. First, they aimed for "Harmony of Expression," using the same English word every time a particular Hebrew or Greek word appeared (http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Ver7.htm). A major example of this is the use of the proper name, Jehovah, in place of the more general term Lord (in smallcaps). While this made the translation extremely valuable for scholars not fluent in the ancient languages, it made the reading of the English somewhat clumsy and stiff. This alone led many preachers and congregants to stick with the King James despite its more archaic language. The other new feature never seen before in an English translation was the use of paragraphs of prose in place of the linear list of verses familiar to the readers of the day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version). While used in other translations, the ERV added a number of footnotes explaining more difficult translation choices.
The collegiate presses released the ERV for general use in 1888 in England, and in 1901 in the United States as the American Standard Version. The ASV differs from the ERV primarily in the way words are used differently West of the Atlantic Ocean. Because of corruption of the ERV text by unauthorized American publishers, the ASV was protected by copyright law held by Thomas Nelson & Sons for many years. The ASV became the basis for a number of later translations, including those favored by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Revised Standard Version and New International Version
As the copyright was expiring for the American Standard Version in the 1930s, a new committee of American scholars was formed to update the text again, especially since the number of available manuscripts of ancient text had grown greatly in the intervening years. In addition to the new manuscripts, the committee wanted to return to the more formal language that respected God, as was commonly used in most churches of the day; and more common language in reference to mankind (http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html).
The RSV likely would have passed by with hardly a thought if not for the controversial protests in 1952 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version). Capturing the irrepressible appetite of the media, North Carolina pastor Luther Hux held a public book burning of the version, calling it one of the "Devil's Greatest Hoaxes". The greatest complaint over this revision revolved around the choice of the term "young woman" in place of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. While the Hebrew word could be interpreted in either way, the choice ignored the New Testament reference, leading many to declare the Old Testament translation committee to be comprised of non-Christians.