A Controvérsia Bíblica sobre a Versão King James - John MacArthur

8/13/2019 A Controvrsia Bblica sobre a Verso King James - John MacArthur

1/15

The following article comes from a booklet titled "The Biblical Position on The KJVControversy." It was written by the Elders of Grace Community Church in PanoramaCity, California. A copy of the booklet and other materials can be obtained by writing,Grace Community Church, 13248 Roscoe Blvd., Sun Valley, CA 91352.

This booklet was transcribed into an electronic file by Bible Bulletin Board (www.biblebb.com ). It is our intent and prayer that the Holy Spirit will use this copy ofthe booklet to strengthen and encourage the true Church of Jesus Christ.

The Biblical Position

on

The KJV Controversy

PREFACE

Recognizing that the Bible is the very Word of the Living God to man, andunderstanding the priority of knowing and obeying its truths, the elders at GraceCommunity Church are deeply committed to study and teach with diligence andauthority.

Thus, the central ministry of Grace Church is the continuous imparting of the Scriptureto the people of God that they may know God and serve Him in worship and ministry.

Through their years of study, training and teaching, the elders have come to convictionsregarding the major theological truths of the Bible. This little booklet presents one ofthese truths which reflects the heart of the teaching here at Grace.

John MacArthur, Jr.

We regularly receive letters from our Grace To You listeners who react to statementsthat, "The better and older texts say. . ." Our listeners conclude that the Greekmanuscripts behind the KJV are not accurate. Often they send literature defending theKJV.

Here is a typical letter:

Dear Pastor MacArthur:

I regard you as one of the best ministers around and your interpretation as tops. Wehave many of your tapes, notes, etc. So you can see that in this household you are highlyregarded.

However, there is one area where I, personally, am becoming extremely confused andfrustrated. This is when you, as well as a few other ministers, state that certainScriptures (usually from KJV) are not accurate according to the best manuscripts. And,today, during the broadcast I thought I understood you to say that the KJV is not reallythe most accurate translation. Yet, I have heard and read from equally godly sources that
http://www.biblebb.com/http://www.biblebb.com/http://www.biblebb.com/


2/15

the KJV is the most accurate, and they give source material for this conclusion thatsounds most convincing.

So, I would very much appreciate a clarification. When you refer to a KJV Scripture as"not according to the best manuscripts" just exactly what do you mean and what exactly

are the best manuscripts? If KJV is not the most accurate translation, then whichtranslation is and why do you regard it so?

I'm sure you will agree that in this day and time we all need to be able to point to God'sWord and say to the ungodly, et. al., that it is accurate and why. It is most important thatwe all know and be sure of what we are talking about, in order to be witnesses of thetrue Word of God.

Thank you very much for your response.

In His Name,

In response to these letters, we have developed this statement:

Thank you for your recent letter and encouragement concerning our tape ministry. Thequestion you raised concerning various Bible versions is a very complex issue thatcannot be adequately discussed in a letter. Often times it is filled with more emotion andheat than it is knowledge and light. Let me share with you my own conclusions afterstudying these issues. Bible versions, such as the New International Version and the

New American Standard Bible, have been translated by godly men of demonstratedacademic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today. May Iadd, the manuscript evidence that is now available is far superior to that which wasavailable to the King James Version's translators in 1611. I would have no reservation inrecommending these versions, yet I myself choose to continue using the ScofieldReference Bible because it is the text with which I am most familiar.

Let me recommend a recent book which very carefully discusses the issues. I think youmight find it helpful. The author is Donald A. Carson, "The King James VersionDebate," published by Baker Book House. I have also enclosed a well-written pamphlet

by the president of one of America's leading seminaries, a Greek scholar in his ownright, which presents a very balanced view of the King James Version.

Just a final word, keep in mind that the supporters of "God wrote only one Bible"

theology have mistakenly equated the 1611 King James Bible with the originalmanuscripts written in the first century. It is true that God wrote only one Bible, but it isalso true that it was not the King James translation.

These are detailed issues, especially for those who are not trained in the field of theGreek language and New Testament textual studies. But I trust that these briefcomments will prove helpful.

Yours In His service,

John MacArthurPastor-Teacher

The Background


3/15

Why do these people write? Where do they get their information? There is a growingliterature crusade which claims that "God wrote only one Bible." By one Bible, theymean the King James Version Bible written in 1611. They conclude that the King JamesVersion is the only English version which faithfully preserves the original writings. It isoften supported with claims illustrated by the title of this article, "My Stand on the

Inerrancy of the King James Version."

They build their case upon such doctrines as the preservation of Scripture, the inerrancyof Scripture and one's continued commitment to God.I have one letter in my file whoseletterhead reads, "Good News Baptist Church, Home of 'King James Bible Schools.'"The letter was written to promote the "King James Bible Preachers Fellowship." Thisgroup of pastors is characterized as, "Men who are unashamed to proclaim the KingJames Bible, A.D. 1611, as God's holy, perfect word. God still has a few men who havenot bowed the knee to the Baal of scholarship."

The Circumstances

Some basic facts about the existing manuscripts of the New Testament will help us tounderstand the historical background of this issue.

1. The Old and New Testaments were not originally written in the English language.They were first written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

2. We do not have the originals of any of the books of the Bible.

3. God never promised the perfect preservation of the originals, but He did promise topreserve their content. They are preserved within the body of currently existingmanuscripts.

4. There are differences among the original language manuscripts that have come downto us in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is the chief cause of the

problem.

5. These textual variations are almost always incidental and do not significantly affectthe sense of what Scripture is saying. As a matter of fact, once the easily solved variantsare removed, 99.9 percent of what is in our Bible can be confirmed without question.

6. It is usually easy to identify the cause behind a textual variant because the Greek New

Testament has been preserved in far more existing manuscripts than any other piece ofancient literature. We are faced with, "an embarrassment of riches."

7. Many textual problems have already been resolved satisfactorily and are no longer inquestion.

8. No doctrine in Orthodox Christianity is dependent on the solution to any one variant.

The Controversy


4/15

The heart of the issue involves several questions, "Is one version inherently superior toanother?" "Is one family of manuscripts superior to another and if so, which one?" Andthen, "How do we know?"

There is a host of background materials which we really need at this point to discuss the

issue adequately. Neither space nor time permits, but let me suggest several volumeswhich you will find informative reading if you wish to pursue the issue.

J. Harold Greenlee. "Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism." Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.

Bruce M. Metzger. "The Text of the New Testament." Second Edition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1968.

Various Approaches

How do we choose between these textual variations? Several solutions have beenoffered to determine which manuscripts are most accurate in deciding which variant wasin the original manuscript. They include:

1. "King James only"

2. "Majority-Text only"

3. "Thorough-going eclectic"

4. "Westcott-Hort"

5. "Balanced eclectic"

The "King James only" approach suggests that the English translation of 1611 isinspired of God. It equates the Word of God, in the very real sense of the autographs,with the King James Version Bible.

In the October, 1978 issue of "Bible Believers Bulletin," Peter Ruckman makes thisstatement: ". . . the Holy Ghost, who honored the English text above any Greek orHebrew text. . ." By this he meant that the KJV translators were guided more accuratelyin their translation by the Holy Spirit than were those men who copied the originalmanuscripts.

The Bible Truth Mission in Millersburg, Pennsylvania has made a $10,000 offer onBible versions. Their challenge is this, "We have decided to have a standing offer of$10,000 for anyone who can disprove, to our satisfaction, the authenticity andhistoricity of the facts surrounding the King James Bible as compared to other versions,

paraphrases, translations, etc. We are making this offer to permanently silence the smallgroup of biased news journalists, self-appointed scholars, Bible book stores and

publishing companies, who question why the vast majority of born again Christians usethe King James only."

A second approach is the "Majority-Text only" school. This reasonable approach also

promotes the King James Bible. Zane Hodges, professor at Dallas TheologicalSeminary, would be the most qualified supporter. The Dean Burgon Society was


5/15

recently formed to promote this position. Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville issuedthe New King James Version under the academic leadership of Dr. Arthur Farstad withthis position in mind.

The "Majority-Text only" position advocates that God preserved His Word in the text

which is found the largest number of manuscripts. Because the largest number ofmanuscripts are found in the Byzantine family, this family should then be consideredthe primary and favored external witness.

Next is the "thorough-going eclectic" school. Basically, these folks are liberals whoreject any consideration of external evidence such as manuscript families, date ofmanuscript and so on. They concentrate all of their energies on internal considerationfor a literary analysis of the text. They hold little sway among conservatives.

Fourth, the "Westcott-Hort" approach has long been publicized as the approach whichmodern conservatives hold. Westcott and Hort suggested that the Alexandrian family ofmanuscripts are the oldest and thus preferred. They also concluded that external

evidence, that is, manuscript families, outweighs internal evidence and that theAlexandrian variant, all other factors being equal, is the one preferred. You can readtheir explanation in the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (pp. 1541-583).

There is a fifth approach, and it is actually the one that many conservatives currentlyespouse. This "balanced" position holds that each text type is to be evaluatedindependently without premeditated bias. It also posits that internal and externalevidences are to be considered equally. It basically suggests that each textual variant isto be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.

Support for KJV

Now, let's look at the major arguments normally used by those who support either the"King James only" or the "Majority Text only." These six summaries accurately portraytheir frequently used arguments.

1. The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible necessitates not only that the originalmanuscripts were without error, but also that there must be extant copies without errorto preserve its inerrancy. Otherwise, even liberals can believe in the inerrancy of the

originals but deny the inerrancy of the Bible we have today if all extant copies havetextual errors. In the Greek, the inerrant manuscripts are the "textus receptus" (TR)which underlies the King James Authorized Version of the Bible.

2. Although God has allowed textual errors to occur in all of the Greek copies of theoriginal New Testament manuscripts, He has preserved the best text in the vast majorityof these copies. The best text is found by looking through all of the extant Greekmanuscripts and choosing the wording of the majority of those manuscripts. With 80-95

percent of the manuscripts of almost identical readings for any given passage, it shouldbe obvious that the majority text is God's providentially preserved text.

3. The Greek manuscripts underlying all the modern versions of the New Testamentcome from Alexandria, Egypt. They cannot be the best manuscripts because they have


6/15

been in the possession of heretics such as Origen or the Roman Catholic church. Godwould not use such people to transmit the best text since they would alter the text to suittheir own teachings.

Furthermore, the Alexandrian text was not in general use from the 8th to the 19th

centuries. God would not allow the true text to be hidden from public view for such along time. Finally, God would not use liberals, such as Westcott and Hort, to rediscoverand resurrect the true text.

4. The TR manuscripts are the best manuscripts because they properly exalt the personof the Lord Jesus Christ, while the Alexandrian manuscripts do not. When theAlexandrian manuscripts are compared with the TR, many places are found where thewords, "Lord" and "Christ" are missing in reference to Jesus. This shows that the peoplewho copied the Alexandrian manuscripts did not want to believe Jesus as both "Lord"and "Christ."

5. The Alexandrian manuscripts could not be the true text because they teach doctrines

different from those found in the TR. These errors include justification by works,Arianism and belief that the Apocrypha is part of the text.

6. The King James Version and the Greek TR text underlying it must be the best textbecause God has so blessed its use since the time of the reformation. In every majormodern revival men have preached from these texts. God has not used and will not usethe Alexandrian text to do such great works among men.

An Example

Recently we received a tape by a well-known pastor on this subject. It is impossible tosummarize the tape in this limited paper, but the letter response which we wrote isincluded here.

Dear_____________:

Recently, one of my flock dropped off several of your tapes entitled, "The Foundationof the Word." Because I am deeply committed to the inerrancy of the Bible, I listenedwith interest to your presentation.

I was somewhat surprised as you got into the subject. Weekly we receive letters through

our own tape ministry asking the question, "Did God write only one Bible?" By this,they mean the Authorized Version.

As I listened, I noted numerous factual errors and illogical conclusions. I am taking timeto write not to prove you wrong or me right, but rather to ensure that whateverconclusions we reach, they are reached with correct data and right thinking.

We would agree that Satan often misuses Scripture (Matthew 4:6) and delights indistorting or denying God's Word. We agree that any addition or deletion to God's Wordas given in the original writings is a serious matter and incurs strict judgment(Revelation 22:18-19). We agree that we can believe the Bible in its entirety and nevergo wrong. We agree that the Bible is the

final authority of faith and practice. It's a delight to share that common ground.


7/15

We do, however, disagree when it comes to Bible versions. If I understood your tapescorrectly, you were saying that the King James Version is the only English translationwhich has faithfully transmitted the truth of God in its entirety from the originalwritings of the 1st Century. I still use the Scofield Reference Bible which is basically aKing James Version, but I do not believe it's the only good version.

This entire matter is the most complex discipline in all of Biblical studies because of theintricacy and volume of the data. I do not pretend to be a polished textual critic, but Ihave thought through the data. Let me suggest that whether the position I take or the

position you take is the correct one, the substantiation that you provided on the tapesmakes a very inadequate case for the conclusion that you reached. I want to list these

just for your help.

1. You say that Satan misquoted God by taking away a few words in Genesis 3:1. Youquote Satan as having said, "Hath God said that you can eat of all the trees that are inthe garden?" You yourself have misquoted Scripture at that point for the question reads

like this, "Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"2. You asserted that the textual critics and the scholars who say that you cannot acceptall of the King James Version are the same scholars who say that you can't accept thestories of the Bible as genuine. They are the ones, you say, that call Old Testamentmiracles Hebrew myths. And they are the ones who deny the virgin birth of our Lord,the resurrection of our Lord and His deity. Come now, that is guilt by association in its

pure form. You tried to lead your audience to conclude, "Because they agree on onepoint, they agree on all points." That's like saying that because the Mormons are for thefamily but deny the deity of Christ, then we ought to deny the family. I know you wouldnot draw those conclusions there. It is simply not true that godly men have denied thevery orthodox foundations of the Christian faith when they investigate all of themanuscript data. By the way, few people today, believers or unbelievers, embrace all ofthe Westcott & Hort theory of textual criticism. Whatever the solution is to this issue, itwill not be solved by using the tactic of guilt by association.

3. You say that 2 Peter 2:1-2 refers to these kinds of people. "False prophets who denythe Lord that bought them." That is a highly inflammatory statement and much unlikeyour normal well-reasoned, well-presented teaching.

It is again simply untrue and logically unnecessary to conclude that those who look to aBible version other than a King James are the same ones that Peter references in thissecond chapter.

4. In your tape you say there are two major textual families. The Textus Receptus andthe Alexandrian family are those that you identify. That is a very unfactual statement.There are at least four manuscript families that are widely recognized. They include theAlexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text and the Byzantine or theMajority Text. Note carefully that the TR, or the Textus Receptus, compromises just a

portion of the Byzantine Text and is not the entire family. Also, Westcott & Hort did notdevelop the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. They merely attempted to recognizecertain similarities within a group of manuscripts and account for their existence.

5. You said that Westcott & Hort worked on the Bible version of 1881. Let's be specific.

Westcott & Hort worked on the English Revised Version of 1885.


8/15

6. You went to great lengths to suggest that gnosticism prevailed in the 2nd Century anddrew the conclusion that because gnosticism prevailed, gnostics altered the older text;therefore, you reason the earliest manuscripts are not reliable. Those assertions will nothold up under investigation. There have been apostates and heretics throughout all ofchurch history. Quite frankly, there is no factual substantiation that Aleph, Vaticanus,

Alexandrinus or any of the early papyrii which, by the way, you never mentioned inyour tape and are really the earliest Greek manuscripts we have, were of gnostic originsand doctored to conform to their heresies.

7. You use Marcion as an example of a gnostic who mutilated the Bible text. Let me tellyou, Marcion did not limit himself to texts, but he published a canon of the NewTestament which included only 11 books. He was anti-semitic in his thinking andincluded only the gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul. He deleted Paul's pastoralepistles. You also criticize Irenaeus.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle. Church

history has not recognized him as a heretic and neither should we.8. You listed anumber of men in early church history who were gnostic in background and therefore tobe disbelieved in whatever they did with the text. You suggested that anyone that camefrom Alexandria was immediately suspect. You focus on the Nicene debate where Ariuswas attempting to demonstrate that Christ was something less than identical in nature toGod.

Do you remember who opposed him? His name was Athanasius. Do you know what histitle was? He was the Bishop of Alexandria. You also suggested in that portion thatConstantine, then emperor of the Roman empire, hired Jerome to translate the LatinVulgate. That's simply not true. Pope Damascus hired Jerome to do the Vulgate in A.D.382.

9. You suggest that the New Testament manuscripts that came out of Antioch areknown as the TR or Textus Receptus. That is simply untrue. The term "TR" as it appliesto the text of the New Testament, originated in an expression used by the Elzevir

brothers in the preface to their second edition of the Greek New Testament in 1633.That introduction reads in English, "Therefore, you now have the text received by all inwhich we have nothing changed or corrupted." In the Latin, it reads, "Textum . . .receptum. . ." The King James Version was first published in 1611 and did not use, in itsentirety, the manuscripts that were used to produce what the publishers called the TR.The TR is simply a subfamily of a much larger family called the Byzantine text or themajority text.

10. You associate Augustine with the Church of England. That must have been a slip ofthe tongue because there is absolutely no association. Augustine would be associatedwith the Roman church.

11. You suggest that the church of Rome tried to wipe out the doctrine of the deity ofChrist, but that would be rather silly since the Roman church does embrace the deity ofJesus Christ. It's in other areas that they have severe problems.

12. You suggested that the Syriac Peshitta was translated in 165 A.D. and conformed inall parts to the King James Version. No, that's not true. The Syriac Peshitta is a 5th

century translation and it does not agree at every point with the King James Version. Letme illustrate from one of the texts that you'll list later in your tape. You suggested that


9/15

in Matthew 25:13 the phrase, "in which the Son of Man is coming" was deleted by theheretics to avoid mention of the second coming of Jesus Christ. The reading that deletesthat phrase is supported and included in the Syriac Peshitta.

13. You make a great deal to do about the true fact that 80-90 percent of the extant

manuscripts generally conform to what's called the Byzantine or Majority Text. Whilethis family might be the best family, it is not because the majority of texts availabletoday come from it. Quite honestly, we do not know how many manuscripts have beendestroyed and what family they represented. The logic that "the most demands the best"is "non sequitor." If you will read about the discipline of textual criticism in literatureother than the Bible where evidence is abundantly available, you will discover that withthe greater numbers of copies and the greater passage of time, the more errors therewere in the later writings. It is much like passing a message verbally and watching it

become distorted as it passes through the greater number of people and over the longerperiod of time.

14. It was at this point that you began to point to a number of examples where the KingJames Version differed from other Bibles. That's a true statement, but let me make thesegeneral observations, and then I want to deal with several of the texts.

a. There is no doctrine in all of orthodox historic Christianity, which you and I hold todearly, that is removed from the Bible because of any of the textual variants.

b. You have assumed your case for the King James Version when you demand that adeletion to the King James or an addition to the King James is a perversion. Quitefrankly, it is just as possible for the opposite to be true, that is, that the King Jamestranslators, or those who copied the manuscripts that they used, added to or deleted fromthe original text. You really need to prove your point before you claim it.

c. Did you know that the King James translators translated and included the Apocryphaoriginally as part of the King James Version? That certainly does not speak to theirorthodoxy.

d. Did you know that a portion of the manuscripts that they used to translate the Book ofRevelation came from Erasmus, himself a very humanistic Roman church scholar. Hetranslated a portion of his Revelation manuscript from Latin back into Greek becausehis Greek manuscripts lacked those pieces.

e. There have been heretics who mutilated the Bible to conform with their errors.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a classic modern example. In their New World Translation, theyhave stripped the text of all direct mention of Christ's deity. But note carefully, they didit consistently and completely; it was not a half-hearted random attempt. We shouldexpect this kind of thoroughness when any cult or heretic tries to denude God's preciousWord of vital truth.

Well, let's look at several specific texts which bothered you.

You pointed out how certain key doctrines were removed from these texts by heretics.You point to Matthew 6:13 and the deletion of the phrase in the disciples' prayer, "Forthine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever." Answer me this, why didthey leave it in 1 Chronicles 29:11 which is the Old Testament attestation of this great

truth?


10/15

You note the deletion in Matthew 18:11 of the phrase, "For the Son of Man has come tosave that which was lost." But why did they leave it in Luke 19:10?

With many of your examples, the fact that a text has apparently either been added to orsubtracted from does not demand that it was necessarily the original text.

You mention Mark 16. That text has evoked no end of critical discussion. For many,they delete it because it simply solves some of their theological hangups. I know wediffer on the charismatic issue and quite honestly, it would be easy for me to hide

behind the cloak of textual criticism and conclude that because it's not in some of themanuscripts, that therefore, verses 9 ff. are to be deleted. The evidence is not conclusivefor either side, but a good case can be made for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 and Imyself believe that it should be included and then rightly interpreted.

Next, you say that the term "father" is added to Luke 2:33 to discredit the virgin birth ofour Lord. But why, if they were trying to do that in Luke 2:33, did they leave in theexact quotation and substantiation from the Old Testament in Matthew 1:23?

In John 3:15 you note that the idea of perishing is not included in verse 15 of somemanuscripts. You conclude that they were trying to delete the idea of eternal

punishment. But why, then, would they have allowed the same idea to remain in verse16?

You note that in Acts 2:30 the idea of Christ being raised up is deleted, and then youconclude that those who deleted it were trying to deny the resurrection. But why didthey leave the term "resurrection" in the very next verse?

You note in Ephesians 3:9 that the name "Christ" has been deleted from the phrase that

would give him credit for creation. But why did they leave this same idea in Colossians1:16?

Perhaps the biggest error of fact that you report concerns 1 John 5:7-8. You claim that itwas a part of the original manuscript and should, therefore, be included in any Bible.You and I both cling lovingly and tightly to the tri-unity of God. It is taught innumerous places in both testaments. To say that the deletion of the phrase in verse 7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit,and these three are One" is to deny the tri-unity of God is not true.

Have you really read the textual history of that particular manuscript? Let me give you asummary. The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, andthese four contain the passage of what appears to be a translation from a late translationof the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are dated very, very late. The passage isquoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, if they had known it, would certainly haveused it in the trinitarian controversies of the early centuries. The passage is absent fromthe manuscripts of all ancient versions. It is quoted first in time not in a Bible text but ina Latin treatise about the Bible in the 4th Century A.D.

Its inclusion in the TR seems to have come through the pen of Erasmus. When chargedby Stunica, Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containingthese words, but that if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained it, hewould include it in a future edition.


11/15

The one manuscript that was later presented to Erasmus in substantiation of theinclusion of that verse has now been identified as a Greek manuscript written in Oxfordabout 1520 by a Franciscan friar who took the words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmusthen inserted the passage in his third edition of 1522 but indicated in a lengthy footnotehis own personal suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared in order to refute

him. These are the facts.

15. You speak very highly of the New King James Version recently published byThomas Nelson. Did you know that they footnote I John 5:7 and suggest that it has verylittle manuscript evidence? By the way, I personally know several of the translators whoworked on that project and while the original intent was to do new translations from themajority text, what ultimately happened in the midst of the commercial endeavor was tomerely change the English text by modernizing a number of archaic words which makesit little more than a Scofield without notes.

Well, I have continued on at some length. Let me affirm again that my comments are

not directed to you as a person. My pursuit is merely for truth. I deal with this issueweekly when I receive letters from people from all over the country. The questionappears in my own congregation. I felt it was necessary that I share these thoughts withyou.

There is a man who has done some significant and very sane and scholarly investigationinto these matters. He champions the Byzantine or Majority Text as the family ofmanuscripts which most accurately represent the autographs. His name is Zane Hodgesand he teaches New Testament and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. As yousincerely pursue this matter, let me suggest that you contact him and let him send youthe materials that he has written. He's also in the process of preparing the Greek NewTestament from the Byzantine text. I know you will want to use this in preparation foryour messages.

Hopefully, you can see that I have not written to say that one family of manuscripts isbetter than another family of manuscripts, but rather to say we need to factually andlogically substantiate our positions and not rush prematurely into conclusions whichhave wide ramifications.

Thank you for taking time to read through this material. There is no need to respond. Ipray that this has been a learning opportunity for both of us and that we will draw closerand dig deeper into the pure well of God's Word which will provide refreshment first forus, and then for our flock.

Yours in His service,

John MacArthurPastor-Teacher

What Is The TR?

One great problem with this whole issue is that the term, "textus receptus" is oftenmisunderstood and misused.


12/15

The Trinitarian Bible Society exists for the purpose of circulating uncorrupted versionsof the Word of God (namely KJV). Terrence H. Brown, the TBS secretary, makes thishonest admission, "One problem is that many people use the term 'textus receptus'without defining it, and give the impression that this received text is availablesomewhere in a single manuscript or printed copy, but this is not the case. No copy,

written or printed, was called the 'textus receptus' until the Elzevirs used this descriptionin the preface to their addition in 1633. It should therefore be understood that the KingJames Version translators, who published their work in 1611, did not use an addition ofthe Greek text actually known by this name."

It is very interesting to note that there are about 290 differences between the "textusreceptus" and the King James Version. Let me illustrate.

1. Note in Romans 12:11 where the TR has "serving in season" but KJV, along with allmodern versions, has "serving the Lord."

2. In I Thessalonians 2:15, the TR has the pronoun "you" while the KJV, along with all

other modern versions, has the pronoun "us."

3. The King James Version in Revelation 11:1 has the reading, "And the angels stood."The TR, along with all modern versions, does not include this phrase.

4. If you read 1 John 2:23 in the KJV, you note that the translators included in italics thephrase, "But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." It is omitted in the TRbut included as a part of the text in most modern versions.

5. Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; and one shall be taken, the other left" isincluded in the King James Version but it is omitted in the TR and all other modern

versions.

6. Matthew 23:24 is a humorous example of a printing error, not a translation error. TheKing James Version reads, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow acamel." It's obvious to everyone that the word "at" should be "out."

7. The problem of 1 John 5:7-8 was discussed in the lengthy letter earlier so we won'tdiscuss it here.

8. In Revelation 22:1 9, both the TR and the King James Version have the phrase,"Book of Life." That phrase is not found in any Greek manuscript, rather "tree of life" isthe only text. Erasmus translated the last six verses from the Latin Vulgate because his

Greek manuscript lacked these verses. Just a final note. Even the KJV translators did notclaim for their work what modern promoters insist. The original translators at timeswere uncertain of the correct variant and made marginal notes to indicate other

possibilities. In the preface to the original KJV, the editors acknowledged the profitfrom other versions. Here is what they wrote:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for thefinding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in themargine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as weare perswaded."


13/15

Evaluation of TR Arguments Against W-H TR advocates have argued forcibly againstWestcott-Hort. Let's look at some of the arguments used by TR supporters against theirtheory and our response from a "balanced" approach.

1. The oldest manuscripts all come from Egypt, but this does not prove that the same

text type existed in the rest of the world. Response: True, but it doesn't prove theopposite either. And the Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest we presently possess.We would expect that if there were other early families, they would have circulated toEgypt and thus would have been preserved there also.

2. The age of a manuscript does not guarantee its value. Response: True. A latemanuscript could be a copy of a very ancient one, whereas an older manuscript might bea copy of one not much removed from it in time. All things being equal, however, theoldest manuscripts are closer in time to the autographs. The shorter time interval meansfewer copies and fewer chances of error. This principle is used in all literary textualcriticism, not just the Greek New Testament.

3. There is no evidence that the TR resulted from a revision and is thus a secondary texttype. This had been the supposition on the part of Westcott and Hort to account for theByzantine text. Response: True. This revision is discounted by most today. It is the mostobvious error in the entire Westcott-Hort theory.

4. Manuscripts tend to multiply in more or less regular fashion. The text type with themost descendants must have existed the longest, hence, the TR must represent the oldesttext type. Response: This is historically naive in that no evidence exists to demonstrateit. It assumes the uniformitarian approach to the transmission of manuscripts. Thishistory of literature just does not support it.

5. God's providence has kept the TR as the authoritative text. He would not haveallowed the church to have the "wrong text" for so long. Response: God's providencehas preserved all text types and the Christian message is preserved in all text types. TheTR was not "the" text of the early church in Egypt, Palestine or the West. God's

providence has allowed the church to lose things of much more importance thandifferences between these competing text types such as the doctrine of justification byfaith. Also, as we discovered earlier, the TR manuscripts differ even among themselves.If God had preserved His Word inerrantly in the TR manuscripts, then there should beno variation whatsoever in all of the various manuscripts.

6. Our oldest manuscripts survived only because they were faulty and hence were not

used and did not wear out. Response: Scribal corrections on these manuscripts disprovethis claim. Logic demands that faulty manuscripts would have been destroyed ratherthan just shelved for future use or discovery.

7. TR readings are earlier than we once thought. Response: True, but this does not makethem necessarily superior to other text types but would just allow for an even treatment.

New papyrii discoveries from the 2nd and 3rd centuries do evidence Byzantine text typevariants. It does demonstrate that they were available, but it does not recognize them assuperior.

8. The critical text or the Westcott-Hort text or any other text besides the "textus

receptus" deletes or plays down the deity of Christ. Response: Not true. It is interestingto note that of all the versions, only one version, the New World Translation done by


14/15

Jehovah's Witnesses, consistently deletes from the text any support for the deity of JesusChrist. We would expect that from JW's because it is not a part of their doctrine. It ishighly unlikely and totally unexpected that one would be so inconsistently selective asto leave so many obvious references to the deity of Christ in a manuscript if their

purpose was to remove it.

9. Textual critics are all rationalists and therefore incapable of desiring God's truth ordetermining to preserve it. Response: Not all textual critics are rationalists nor are theyunbelievers. There have been many godly men such as Westcott, Tregelles,Tischendorf, Robertson and Machen who worked years earlier. Before me is a list ofgodly men who worked on the New International Version. They include such men asLaird Harris, Charles Ryrie, Gleason Archer, Kenneth Barker, John Davis, S. LewisJohnson, Ken Kantzer, Homer Kent, Meredith Klein, Alfred Martin, Leon Morris,Barton Payne, Merrill Tenney and Leon Wood. It is simply not true that the issue of theKing James versus modern translations is equated with the issue of Fundamentalismversus Modernism.

Summing It Up

What approach should be used to determine the variant which accurately representswhat God originally wrote? It is our opinion that the "balanced approach" is best. Itgives equal weight to both internal and external evidence. It gives unbiasedconsideration to the various manuscript families.

The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition, by appealing to the fact that mostmanuscripts in the Greek New Testament attest the Byzantine, is logically and

historically weak. It is not a truism that a majority of manuscripts necessarily preservethe best text.

The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God istheologically false. The determination of the best variant in an individual case is not atheological issue alone, but primarily a textual issue.

Textual arguments that depend on adopting the "textus receptus" and then comparing itto other text types are guilty of bias. To argue that because a modern version does notinclude something that's included in the TR, or adds something which the TR does notadd, is to argue that the modern versions and their translators are guilty of adding to or

subtracting from the true text.It could be equally true that those who translated the TR were the ones who actuallydeleted or added. The charge that the non-Byzantine text types are theologically in erroris wrong. This was evidenced earlier in our lengthy letter.There is no necessaryconnection between the adoption of the Byzantine text/King James Version and theinspiration of Scripture. There are equally godly, scholarly men on both sides of thisissue who all strongly embrace the historic, orthodox understanding of the inerrancy andinfallibility of the Scriptures.

Adoption of the TR or King James Version should never be made a point of theologicalorthodoxy or ecclesiastical fellowship.


15/15

A believer should continue to use an accurate English translation which is personallymost readable and understandable such as KJV, NASB, or NIV.

A Final Note

As a capstone to our discussion, we quote from the helpful brochure published by GraceTheological Seminary and written by its president, Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr. "It needs to

be remembered that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text typesare not nearly as great as might be supposed. If one could remove the old English stylefrom the King James Version so that the comparison would be fairer, the differences

between these text types can be seen by noting the difference between the King JamesVersion and the American Standard Version. The gospel is crystal clear in eitherversion. It is regrettable that an issue is being made over this matter in evangelicalcircles, especially when some extremists are making one's attitude toward the KingJames Version an article of faith, and unwarrantedly raising suspicions against those

who do not. The issue is forcing many Christians to make a choice where they lack thenecessary knowledge and skill to do so. How much better it would be to thank God thatHis Word has been preserved intact for centuries, and that the wealth of manuscriptsassures us that none of the words have been lost. In a few cases, we may not be certainwhich of several variants is the original, but our problem is an embarrassment of riches,not of loss."

Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur's Collection" by:

Tape Doc-1

Documents

A Controvérsia Bíblica sobre a Versão King James - John MacArthur