XVIII. Some Further Arguments Against Our Bible

One does not need to “come down from the wall” of service to Christ and answer every criticism a person may raise against our Bible (Nehemiah 6:3).  This is especially true if they are not prepared to do a little study on their own.  Here are several common criticisms made against the Traditional Text and AV.  Fuller answers are available in other books and also on the Net.

1. Erasmus, the first editor of the printed Received Text, was a Roman Catholic and a humanist.

Erasmus (1466-1536) was of course Catholic as was nearly everyone else at that time.  But, at his monastery, he was far more of a continual student with a voracious appetite for knowledge than a priest in the normal sense.  Also, it is in this respect rather than in the modern atheistic sense that he was a humanist.  Many of his writings were scathing against the Catholic Church.  He died among his Protestant friends and was buried in a Protestant cemetery.  He had embraced much of the teaching of the Reformation, but had not come out openly in its support by formally leaving the Catholic Church.

Erasmus was acclaimed the greatest intellect of Europe, and became the man of the hour to initiate the transfer of the Traditional Text from manuscript to printed form. His Greek editions provided the base for the great Reformation Bibles, and lit the fire for the Reformation itself.  Many, would like us to concentrate instead on his deficiencies, and have us jump from Erasmus and his 1516 edition directly to the AV of 1611.  By this they seek to attach any deficiency in the man and his work to the AV itself.  (For a fuller account see Edward Hills, The Kings James Version Defended, and also The Bible Version Question/Answer Database by David Cloud). 

2. Erasmus’ first edition was published in haste and with many errors.

Much has been made of the publisher Froben’s haste in printing Erasmus’ first edition (1516) before the Spanish Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot Bible went to press (which also contained the Received Text).  But, as it would turn out, in the following year the Reformation was to begin at Wittenberg, and this first printing of the Greek NT was to become a (in fact, the!) major impetus of the Reformation.  This is a powerful demonstration of God’s providence in the timing of the publication.  Most of the errors were corrected in his later editions.  (See Hills). 

3. Erasmus’ edition was based on only a half dozen late manuscripts.

This criticism ignores that Erasmus was conversant with many manuscripts in his searches across Europe.  Those that he did have before him at Basel for the 1516 edition can be demonstrated to have been good representatives. (See Hills, p.198). David Cloud in his The Bible Version Question/Answer Database has gathered a number of important citations on this question, including the following two:

For the first edition Erasmus had before him ten manuscripts, four of which he found in England, and five at Basle…The last codex was lent him by John Reuchlin…(and) ‘appeared so old to Erasmus that it might have come from the apostolic age’.  (Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History, 1923).

“If  I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.”  He had collated many Greek manuscripts of the N.T. and was surrounded by all the commentaries and translations.  (D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, vol. 5, p. 157).

4. Erasmus’ manuscript of Revelation was lacking in the last six verses (22:16-21), and was supplied by referring to the Latin Vulgate.

Herman Hoskier in his massive, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, has shown that Erasmus may have had Greek manuscript 2049 (Hoskiers’ 141) covering these verses (I 474-77; II 454, 635).  But whatever the case, if indeed Erasmus used the Vulgate, in his later editions it was corrected by direct reference to the Greek.                                         

One notable exception is claimed to be 22:19 where the AV/TR reads: …shall take away his part out of the book of life.  This has fairly substantial support in other sources, but is found in only three Greek manuscripts (296 2049 2067mg.).  The variant reading, though supported by the Greek, can hardly be said to make sense: shall take away his part out of the tree of life.   In When the KJV Departs from the

So-called Majority Text, and using Hoskier, I have listed support from the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers for eight passages in Revelation 22:15-21.

5. I John 5:7 should not be in the Bible. Erasmus said he would insert it only if someone could show him a Greek manuscript containing the passage, to which a manuscript was hastily prepared for that purpose.

A letter from the Erasmian scholar H. J. de Jonge to Michael Maynard in 1995 puts the matter in a different light.  Quoting Erasmus in his dispute with Edward Lee, de Jonge says:

Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the manuscripts of I John.  Erasmus (according to Lee) had consulted only one manuscript.  Erasmus replies that he had “certainly not used only one manuscript, but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally in Basle.  He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety.”

“Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were not within my reach?  I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble.  Let Lee produce a Greek MS which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach.  Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.”

From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc.  What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS. if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum.  He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.
(Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over I John 5:7,8, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo points out:

Yale professor Roland Bainton…. agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of I John 5:7 was not due to a so-called “promise” but the fact that he believed “the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.”  (Kept Pure in all Ages, p.88; cited from D.W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database, p.343).  See also And These Three are One by Jesse Boyd, Wake Forest, 1999.

Michael Maynard’s monumental work on the disputed passage will, I think, demonstrate that this has not been a debate over “thin air”.  His book chronicles the fact that defence of the faith and defence of this passage frequently went hand in hand.  Beginning from the days of Cyprian of Carthage (died 258), there is indeed substantial evidence for the passage.  Cyprian said:

The Lord saith, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, “And three are one”.  (de Catholicae ecclesiae unitate, c.6).

Critics have argued that Cyprian was merely giving a Trinitarian interpretation to verse 8.  The spirit, and the water, and the blood:  and these three agree in one.

The answer to this is obvious; the figures of verse 8 cannot naturally be interpreted as the Persons of the Holy Trinity.  (See Hills).

Though missing in most Greek manuscripts, it nevertheless leaves in them its footprint! And this, with the mismatched genders that result when the disputed words are removed.  The loose ends do not match up grammatically!  Native Greek speakers find this “glaring”.  Here in London, the printed Apostolos (the lectionary text used in Greek Orthodox services) contains the passage.

6. The marginal notes in the AV reveal that the Translators viewed their work as being to some extent tentative and provisional.                           

They reveal nothing of the kind.  The Tranlslators viewed their work as being principle not provisional.

Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principle good one, not justly to be accepted against. (Translators to the Reader, XV:2)

History has borne this out, as the AV remains the one principle good one after 400 years. 

Regarding the marginal notes, these provided a kind of miniature commentary.  In the comparatively few places where we find them, those translators who trusted in Him that hath the key of David, showed by inclusion in the text what their decision had been, while at the same time giving insight into what the Original was capable of expressing.  In some cases they demonstrate that a strictly literal rendering into English would have been awkward.

In only 104 instances (Scrivener) is a variant reading from different manuscripts given.  Here they show their awareness, but not to the point of distracting the reader, and certainly not to the point as some have claimed that the AV translators would have “welcomed the great manuscript finds that have occurred in the last 150 years”. 

Erasmus knowledge of variant readings in Codex B is well documented.   In an attempt to persuade Erasmus of the superiority of B, 365 variant readings were sent to him in early November 1533 from Rome by the Spaniard Sepulveda (Maynard, pp. 87,88).  Erasmus rejected these for his 1535 edition.  They were rejected by succeeding editors of the Received Text, and by the great Reformation Bibles both in English and other languages.  The men of the AV knew where the dangers lurked in the manuscript record.  For example, Codex D, and the Clementine Vulgate (a much more corrupt 1592 replacement for the Sixtine edition), were at their disposal.  They had the spiritual discernment to reject the corrupt variants that these and other sources presented.

7. Many thousands of changes have been made to the AV over the centuries.

Nearly all of the changes made in the Oxford and Cambridge printings of the AV are updated punctuation and spelling, along with correction of some printing errors.

Dr. D. A. Waite’s thorough research into this question has shown that very little difference can be detected when reading a 1611 edition and the AV of today.  Among the 791,328 words in the AV only 421 showed a change in sound.  Of these there were only 136 changes of substance, such as an added “of” or “and”. (See Defending the King James Bible, pp. 3-5, and also BFT 1294).  

8. There are too many old-fashioned expressions and words in the Authorised Version.

Actually, after 400 years, there are not!  But, we have for example: Suffer little children to come unto me; and, Study to show thyself approved unto God.  These we could replace these with permit and give diligence, but the impact would be lessened.  We could change noised about to reported, but the former gives a better picture of what was actually taking place in Luke 1:65 and Mark 2:1. 

Should we not replace the eth and ith verb endings in the AV?  Known as the historical present they are there for good reason.  They translate a certain usage of the Greek present tense.  At times, though the Greek verb is in the present, the action has actually taken place in the past or has past connotations.  This was a device in that language to give vividness by bringing a past event more into the present.  Therefore if you translate these occurrences with the English present (as the NIV) you will be missing somewhat the sense intended.  Or, if like the NASV you use the English past (with an *), you will also be missing the sense.  The AV uses the historical present (saith, seeth, taketh etc.) as a kind of bridging verb to convey that both the past and present are in view.  Therefore while some view the eth endings as a distraction, they are a necessity to more accurate translation.  (See, The New King James Bible, G. W. and D. E. Anderson, Trinitarian Bible Society, pp. 12,13). 

We could replace the thee’s and thou’s with “you”, but would then remove the means of distinguishing between singular (thee, thou), and plural pronouns (ye, you).  The Ts are singular, the Ys are plural.

Marvel not that I say unto thee (Nicodemus), Ye (everybody) must be born again. John 3:7

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (all the disciples), that he may sift you (all the disciples) as wheat: But I have prayed for thee (Peter), that thy (Peter)  faith fail not: and when thou (Peter) art converted, strengthen thy (Peter) brethren. Luke 22:31,32

Without the distinguishing pronouns, we would think Christ’s address was entirely to Peter and not the other disciples. Further, replacing Thee and Thou removes what has historically been the reverent form of address to God.

Among the words termed archaic, I would estimate that not many over 35 or 40 (most are used infrequently) would perhaps need a dictionary.  Often, the context indicates the meaning.  A study of the history and distinctive meaning of these words will show that they will often have a greater depth of meaning than their modern replacements.  It is on reflection, truly astounding, that in comparison with every other 400-year-old book, so little in the AV is archaic.  It is a timeless Bible.

9. There are translation errors that need to be strained out of the Authorised Version.

A classic example of a supposed error of translation in the AV is Matthew 23:24.

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

 It should, we are told, be strain out a gnat instead of the AV’s strain at .  Wycliffe (1395) had clensinge a gnatte, but four Reformation Bibles before the AV (Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops) read strayne out a gnat.  As subsequent refinements to the AV text allowed this reading to remain, it is highly unlikely, as some have suggested, that this was a printer’s error.

The AV translators made a decision to go against their predecessors, and this likely for the following reasons: (1) The Greek word for strain (diulizontes) is found only here in the N.T.  It is a present participle (rather than an aorist) and means to strain or filter.  The present participle indicates that an ongoing rather than completed action is taking place.  It points to the effort involved, rather than that they had succeeded and actually got the gnat out.  In 1729, Daniel Mace made a translation of the N.T., and rendered the words, strain for a gnat, which conveys the same meaning as the AV.

(2) Only one gnat is involved.  At first discovery of this tiny, lone, solitary creature all else stopped.  Rather than remove it with a spoon, the entire contents must be filtered; suitable cloths were brought, and with much show and ritual the filtering process began.  Thus they strain at a gnat. That is, at the first sight of only one gnat the filtering ceremony begins.

(3) When “out” is used in the N.T., we expect to see an accompanying Greek preposition, usually ek or apo.  They are not used here.  Commentators as Poole, Henry, and Gill (non revised) do not take issue with the AV reading.  The AV is correct.  The above is based on www.geocities.com/brandplucked/strain.html

This passage opens up a window into the spiritual and intellectual diligence of the AV translators.  It would have been far easier simply to translate the verse as had Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva and the Bishops, and thereby avoid any further controversy.  But they did not, and they translated correctly.

For other passages, see “AV Verses Vindicated” by Ron Smith, waymarks@ntlworld.com  Also, among other sources, see the author’s Conies, Brass and Easter.

It is common today for critics to look for gnats in the AV.  These are often accepted, when a little homework will show that there is a reasonable and genuinely enlightening solution.  The above has been considered one of the strongest proofs of a translation error. We maintain that after 400 years there are no reasonably proven translation errors in our Standard Bible.  Given all that can be said in behalf of the AV, the burden of proof must rest with the one making the charge.  If they feel they have better understanding and spiritual insight at a given point than did the fifty AV translators - and the translators of the seven propitiatory Bibles from Tyndale to the Bishops  - then they must set forth their evidence.

That this is not so easy can be seen from the following incident involving one of the AV translators:

Dr. Richard Kilby, the translator in the Old Testament group at Oxford, heard a young parson complain in an earnest sermon that a certain passage should read in a way he stated.  After the sermon Dr. Kilby took the young man aside and told him that the group had discussed at length not only his proposed reading but thirteen others; only then had they decided on the phrasing as it appeared. (Gustavis S. Paine, The Men Behind the KJV, Baker Book House, pp. 137,8).

A great amount of unnecessary harm has been done by “young parsons” (and older ones!) who do this.  Anyone who approaches a so-called problem passage in an attitude of honour towards God's Word will find the solution equally honouring.  He will find that God's promise of preservation has been vindicated.

10. Great fundamentalist leaders of the past made favourable comments on the Revised Bibles.

Not until the 1960s and 70s when modern versions began to increasingly displace the KJV, did more concerted and general warnings begin to be heard that a Trojan Horse had been brought through the gates.  It was late in coming.  But, better late than never!

The booklet Trusted Voices on Translations (Published by Mount Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina) gathers quotations from many of the great leaders of the past.  Here: C.H. Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, Francis Ridley Havergail, D.L. Moody, Alexander Maclaren, C.I. Scofield, Oswald Chambers, G. Cambell Morgan, Amy Carmichael, H.A. Ironside along with others are heard to make favourable comments on the revised Bibles.  But!  No detailed research is mentioned as coming from these Trusted Voices.  They merely made favourable statements.  No lists by Oswald Chambers are mentioned showing ommissions, alterations, missing names of Christ, doctrinal deviations etc.  Spurgeon, Moody, Francis Ridley Havergail should have demonstrated from their writings that they had investigated at least some of the many thousands of differences between the two kinds of text, but no indication is given in this publication that they did.

All that Trusted Voices can demonstrate is that from Westcott and Hort until more recently many otherwise sound believers did not raise their voices when the Westcott and Hort theory raced across Europe and over to America.  They should have sounded the alarm but did not.  In this their voices could not be trusted.