George W. Reid, Former Director
Biblical Research Institute
What about the manuscript sources of the various Bible translations?
Is it true that the most faithful
source is the Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus and used as the basis
for the Luther Bible, French Bible, and the King James English Bible?
While at one time this was probably
correct, it is no longer the case. In creating the Textus Receptus, Erasmus,
although a great scholar, had access to only eight manuscripts, all from
the so-called Byzantine family of biblical manuscripts. And the oldest
of Erasmus' documents dated only from the ninth century. This meant that
his oldest manuscript represented at least eight centuries of copying
and re-copying, which allowed substantial opportunity for errors to creep
in through accidental miscopying or scribal additions and omissions. However,
Erasmus' version was superior to anything else at that time.
This situation no longer applies
today. Since the time of Erasmus, Luther, and the King James translators,
we have discovered far older biblical manuscripts that date to the fifth,
fourth, and in fragments even to the second century. Such sources have
at least a 500-year copying advantage over the best manuscript Erasmus
consulted. Therefore they offer much less chance of accidental mistakes.
Two of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, are on display
at the present time in the British Museum. Expert specialists have studied
them carefully and have found no evidence that someone has tampered with
the text.
Based on a huge number of manuscripts,
including the most ancient available texts, in the late 1800s two famed
British scholars, professors Wescott and Hort, prepared a new composite
biblical text, one superior in quality to that of Erasmus. It became the
basis of the English revision of the King James Version published in full
in 1885. Immediately after its publication Ellen White began to consult
it and often incorporated its readings into her books and articles. Clearly
she had no reluctance to use it because of its manuscript base. In 1901
an American version of the 1885 English Revised Version was issued, being
a very similar work. It was called the American Revised Version, and Mrs.
White made use of it as well, although it too was based on the Wescott
and Hort text. A stream of additional translations has followed since
1901, at least 50 in English and many more in other languages, all of
them based on modern texts, either of Wescott and Hort or similar. None
has used Erasmus' Textus Receptus.
Recently a few Adventists have
called for exclusive use of the King James Version (itself last revised
in 1769) on the grounds that modern Greek and Hebrew texts have been subjected
to possible alteration at the hands of Catholic scholars, whereas Erasmus'
Textus Receptus was not. They seem to forget that Erasmus himself was
a Catholic scholar. Moreover, the late manuscripts Erasmus used were all
drawn from Catholic monasteries, where they had been copied and re-copied
over the centuries, so exposing them to very great opportunities to change.
Ironically, the most ancient manuscripts used for today's translations
were in Catholic hands for 500 years less than Erasmus' manuscripts. One
would expect the defenders of the King James Version to take note of this
fact if their concern is about possible corruption of the text. These
people, although undoubtedly sincere, have failed to take all the evidence
into account, and by spreading an alarm about newer versions are doing
the cause of Christ a disservice.
There are in fact problems in
translations, some significant in the looser "dynamic" translations where
translators have taken considerable liberties in departure from a literal
reading of the text in order to convey what they believe it really means.
Such tactics make these translations suspect as sources for doctrinal
belief. Examples of this problem include the New English Bible, Living
Bible (actually a paraphrase rather than translation), and Today's English
Version, widely distributed by the Bible Societies. But problems with
these translations rest not in their Greek and Hebrew base texts, but
with renderings into English that do not follow closely the original
readings.
Better modern translations include
the English and American Revised Versions, Revised Standard Version, New
International Version, and New American Standard Bible (itself a revision
of the 1901 American Revised Version). The newly-published New King James
Version has adopted numerous improvements that occur in other modern translations,
but in doing so has departed from sole reliance on Erasmus' Textus Receptus.
Bible readers should select a version based on the most ancient manuscript
sources, whose translators are committed to a quite literal translation
of the text.