How We Got Our Bible part 2		10-4-2002

The Dead Sea Scrolls 

In 1947 a shepherd inadvertently made the greatest manuscript find of our century – caves that contained scrolls and literally tens of thousands of scroll fragments dating from the third century B.C. to 68 A.D.  Those fragments are from a collection of about 1000 works, some written in Greek, some in Hebrew and some in Aramaic. 

Most likely the Qumran community that kept this vast library were the Essenes, a group of separatist Jews at the time of Jesus.

Among the manuscripts are portions of the OT, including sections from every book but Esther, Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works, sectarian works that related to their community, and other contemporary Jewish writings. 
 
The Apocrypha 

The definitive work on the Apocrypha is The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (by Roger Beckwith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986)

We accept a 66-book canon.  Catholics accept all those books plus the OT Apocrypha.  The apocryphal books are: 1 & 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremiah), the Song of the Three Holy children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 & 2 Maccabees.

The writers of the Apocrypha do not claim the same kind of authority as the OT writings, and while NT authors quote parts of the OT as being divinely authoritative 295 times, not once is anything from the Apocrypha quoted.  (Grudem 57). (There are some non-biblical sources that are cited by way of illustration, but never with any statement about divine authority, such as, “God said…”).

 No apocryphal books appear in the Hebrew OT (although they do show up in the Greek translation).

The Jews never accepted them as Scripture, and the earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Support for the Apocrypha increased only later in Church history, but never enjoyed widespread acceptance by the Church.

There is no hint of Jesus or the Apostles disagreeing with the Jewish position on the OT Canon not including the Apocrypha.    

And finally, the Apocrypha does not bear the marks of divine authorship.  There are significant doctrinal and historical errors.

E.J. Young notes: 
There are no marks in these books which would attest a divine origin…both Judith and Tobit contain historical, Chronological and geographical errors.  The books justify falsehood and deception and make salvation to depend upon works of merit…Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon inculcate a morality based upon expediency.  Wisdom teaches the creation of the world out of pre-existent matter.  Ecclesiasticus teaches that the giving of alms makes atonement for sin.  In Baruch it is said that God hears the prayers of the dead, and in 1 Maccabees there are historical and geographical errors.  (E.J.Young “The Canon of the Old Testament” in Revelation and the Bible pp.167-68)  

The fact that Jesus regarded the Jewish OT as God’s Word should settle the issue of the OT canon.

History of the English Bible (continued) 

We left off last time in 1611 with the KJV
King James Onlyism

The KJV is often called the AV (Authorized Version), and many people have misunderstood that to mean divinely authorized.  If it was authorized by anyone it was by a secular, unbelieving human government.  

Mistaking that for divine authorization is a 15th Century Catholic kind of error that we should be well beyond by now.

There are a variety of positions in the KJV only movement.  Some just say the KJV is the best translation.  On the other extreme of the movement are men who insist the KJV is inspired and superior to the original Greek texts!

The people in this movement really do qualify for the label “kook.”  I listened to a tape this week of one who was demonstrating that the NIV was an occultic, new age version, because in Mt.6:33 the modern translations go with the older, shorter reading: 
seek first his kingdom 

And the KJV goes with a reading that shows up for the first time in the 9th century: 
seek ye first the kingdom of God 

Les Garrett: “Spurgeon preached a whole sermon on the kingdom of God based on Matthew 6:33 and emphasizing God, a beautiful sermon.  Couldn’t do it today, because it’s no longer in the Scripture.”

If Spurgeon lived today he wouldn’t be able to preach on the kingdom of God, emphasizing God, because the text tells us to seek “his” kingdom.  He went on to make a point about how the NIV translators were trying to eliminate God from the Bible (evidently they overlooked the other 4506 occurances).

The problem is, if we follow that logic, Spurgeon couldn’t preach about God if he lived today, nor could he have if he lived prior to the 9th century!

The writers of the original Greek and Hebrew claimed divine inspiration for their work.  The KJV translators did not.  In fact, even against many protests that it would weaken people’s confidence in the text, they included variant readings in the margins.

In response to criticism over that, they explained that where there are textual problems, by alerting the reader to that, it would cause the reader to investigate further in the Greek and Hebrew.

In the Preface they said “Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time” as they explained that this translation was not perfect.  It was just another step in the progress of developing better and better translations.

Imperfections of the KJV

Typos

Those who say the KJV is the standard even for today need to decide which KJV?  The 1611 versions that had all kinds of typos and didn’t even agree with each other?  (For example instead of Jesus praying in the Garden in Mt.26:36 it’s Judas who goes off to pray).

In a 1631 printing the 7th commandment was “Thou shalt commit adultery,” and in 1795 instead of Jesus saying “Let the children be filled” it says “Let the children be killed.”

Another one says it is the unrighteous who inherit the earth.

There are other places where those originals had it right, but today’s KJV has typos that have now become so standard that they printers are afraid to correct them, so they are left in.  (For example, the original KJV versions correctly have Jesus in Mt.23:24 accusing the Pharisees of straining out a gnat.  But a later version had a typo that changed it to straining at a gnat.  And that remains to this day.)
  
William Kilburne examined just 6 different editions from the 1950s and pointed out 20,000 errors. 

And to this day, there are differences in the KJV texts of the various publishers.

Textual errors

More important than the typographical errors are the textual errors.  The KJV translators worked from about a dozen different Greek MSS, none of which were ancient.  They just used essentially contemporary MSS.

The result is entire verses eliminated from the text, many verses and phrases and even paragraphs added to the text, 

Many of those actually change the meaning of the text.  
•	In Heb.11:13 it says Abraham considered his body as good as dead.  In the KJV text it inserts the word “not” reversing the entire statement – “He did not consider his body as good as dead.”  (The same thing occurs in Col.2:18)
•	In 1 Jn.4:19 the word “Him” is added, which changes the meaning of the v.
•	In Rev.22:19 “tree of life” is changed to “Book of life.”

Very often the critics of newer, more accurate translations are criticized for having hidden motives of wanting to introduce heresy.  Almost every new translation that comes along, the translators are accused of trying to diminish the deity of Christ, salvation by grace, etc.

That’s easy to accuse them of, because most scribal errors are additions of what they considered to be clarifying phrases.  They thought a passages wasn’t clear enough about something, so they added a few words.

Then when the more accurate translations see that those changes were not in the earlier MSS, and so they drop them, and they are accused of trying to obscure Scripture.

But if that were the case, why do they leave so many other clear statements of Christ’s deity in tact? 

The fact is, the KJV has some significant omissions as well.

•	Acts 4:25 says that David spoke prophetically, “by the Holy Spirit.”  The KJV drops that phrase.
•	Acts 16:7 the word “Jesus” is removed.
•	In Ro.8:28, instead of God working all things together for good, all things just work together for good by themselves.

In 1 Co.11:24 the KJV has Jesus saying, “This is My body which is broken…”  (That would be in tension with Jn.19:36).

The KJV adds the long ending of Mark which is where some groups get the idea of snake handling.  It also adds the story of the woman caught in adultery, which has become so loved by people that even the modern translations include it, even though it is not in the best MSS.

Translation Errors

There are also many examples where the KJV translators simply mistranslated the text they did have, because of a lack of understanding of the Greek or Hebrew, lack of archeological information, or because of a political issue of their day.  I read pages and pages of examples.

Another weakness is the division of every verse into a new paragraph.  That’s great for Bible drills, but it can lead people to the conclusion that the Bible is a collection of disconnected maxims, and it makes it more difficult to follow the flow of thought.

It also fails to indicate Biblical poetry, which they didn’t yet understand in 1611.

Archaic Language

One of the errors of the KJV only people today is the same error that the KJV was designed to correct – the old Roman Catholic error of keeping the Scriptures out of the reach of the common, untrained people.

The Bible was written in common, everyday vernacular.  But you can hardly say that the KJV is still in common language.

Gn.25:29 Jacob sod pottage  (sod means boiled)

Could the average guy on the street make sense of Job 36:33?  The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour.  (NIV -  His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.)  

In Luke 17:9 Jesus says I trow not.
2 Cor.6:12  Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
2 Cor.8:1  Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed 

20 times in the KJV we read the word “gat.”  

People might wonder about the men in Dan.3:21 who were wearing their coats…their hats and their hosen

Ps.7:16 his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate.

Isa.3:22 judges the women over the issue of their wimples.   The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,

Ex.28:11  With the work of an engraver…shalt thou engrave the two stones …thou shalt make them to be set in ouches of gold.

James 3:2 For in many things we offend all (should say we all stumble).

Jeremiah thundered against a lot of evils, but what about his vision in Jer.24:2 where he sees two baskets:  One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs 

And Ex.19:18 is easy enough to understand but I through it in just because it’s funny: “And Mount Sinai was althogether on a smoke.”  

Or 1 Ki.11:1 And Solomon loved many strange women.
Neh.13:26 Nevertheless even he did many outlandish women cause to sin.

That last one illustrates another problem.  Aside from having so many words that don’t have any meaning in our day, there are words that have different meanings. “Outlandish” used to mean “from another land,” now it means “bizarre.” 

“Naughty” used to just mean “bad,” not it refers only to evil behavior.

Many times in Proverbs the KJV talks about “mean men.”  The unsuspecting reader will take that to refer to men who are not nice.  But it’s more like an arithmetic mean – the idea is common, ordinary men.

The “meat offering” is the grain offering (“meat” used to just mean “food”).

The word “peculiar” in the KJV means “uniquely belonging to one person,” but now it means strange.

Isn’t there a possibility of confusion when instead of saying that Goliath carried a bronze javelin over his shoulder, the KJV says he had a target of brass between his shoulders? (1 Sam 17:6)

Do most people understand that when David made a road in 1 Sam.27:10 it means he made a raid?

“Cherish” meant “to keep warm”
“Passengers” meant “passers by.”

If you wonder how the Psalmist could possibly prevent the dawn, you need to know that “prevent” meant “to come before.”

It doesn’t mean “prevent.”  What does mean “prevent” is the KJV word “let,” which now meant the opposite of “prevent.”  

1 Co.10:24 commands us all to seeks another man’s wealth (wealth meant welfare). 

“Wealthy” meant “happy.”
“Forward” meant “ready.”
“Advertise” meant “Advise”
“Apparently” meant “clearly”
“Comprehended” meant “overcome”
“Shamefacedly” meant “modest”
“Carriage” referred to that which was carried 
“Fetching a compass” meant “to turn”
“Debate” refers to violent actions
“Being careful” meant “worry”
“Pitiful” meant “full of compassion” 

“Conversation” meant “lifestyle”  That really gets confusing for women in 2 Pe. who are told to win their husbands, without talk, by means of their conversation.

The sheet Peter saw was let down by its 4 corners, but the KJV says it was it knit at the corners.

The wrong prepositions completely changes the meaning of many passages, such as 1 Co.4:4 which says, I know nothing by myself (should be against myself).

And 1 Ti.6:5 is just dead wrong when it says that gain is godliness.  It should say Godliness is gain.

The English Bible From KJV to NIV by Jack Lewis has page after page of examples of all of the above (a few of his complaints are unfair, but there are hundreds and hundreds of valid ones).  If I had KJV I would go through and make all those corrections.  

Another very helpful book is From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations by David Ewert.

Revisions & Translations

Around the mid 1800s, it was becoming painfully obvious that there was a need to revise the KJV in light of the tremendous discoveries of new MSS.   The result in England was the English Revised Version (a revision of the KJV that was informed by the more reliable Greek MSS).  

It never caught on, because while it was based on better MSS, it wasn’t very good English.

The United States version was more readable, and it was called the American Standard Version (1901).  

50 years later a group of 32 scholars worked on revising the ERV to update the terminology a little bit.  That was called the Revised Standard Version.

This also received extreme criticism.  One pastor burned it in the pulpit with a blowtorch and sent the ashes to the translators (better than what they did to Tyndale), tracts were handed out condemning the “New Blasphemous Bible,” and an editor of a Sunday School publication wrote and said, “Who is this Thomas Nelson.  I don’t want Thomas Nelson’s Bible.  I want the Bible just the way the Apostle James wrote it (He thought King James was an Apostle who wrote the Bible).

In 1952 the Catholics finally came out with a new translation called the Jerusalem Bible in England.  It has notes which are decidedly Roman Catholic, but the translation itself is very good.

In 1966 the American Bible Society published a NT called “Good News for Modern Man: the New Testament in Today’s English Version”  (TEV).  It’s very readable and very accurate.

In 1971 the Lockman Foundation was concerned that the ASV was fading from the scene, and so they came out with a revision – the NASB.
The same year Kenneth Taylor published a paraphrase of the ASV called the Living Bible.  

By this time another major project had been brewing for 20 years.

A group of Evangelical scholars wanted to create a modern English version that would do for our day what the KJV did for its day – serve as a standard Bible that everyone could use, that could by understood by the common man in private study, used in worship in churches, good for memorization, etc.

It came out in 1978, and today it is the only one of the major modern translations that is not a revision of some other versions.  It is a fresh translation from the original languages. 

In 1982 came the New King James, which is a very mild revision of the KJV (mostly just updating some of the most archaic terminology).  It took 119 scholars and 3.5 million dollars.

I’m not sure why it took so much money and so many scholars to change a few “thees” and “thous,” but to me that whole project seems like a colossal waste.

In 1990 came the New Revised Standard Version – the product of 30 scholars working 15 years.  It’s a revision of the RSV, and their goal was to have as much formal equivalency as possible. 

Those are the major ones.  There are probably something like 200 others (or more) since 1900.  

Three that are worth mentioning are the NCV, The Message and the Net Bible.
NCV is great for kids.  It’s very accurate and very easy to read.

The Message is all done by one man – Eugene Peterson (although he did consult with many top scholars).  It’s a paraphrase, but is very helpful for getting a unique perspective on a passage.

Net Bible
If you ever see a difference in translation that gets you wondering, it would be a good idea to check the Net Bible.  It’s a translation by some excellent scholars on the web (you can also get a print version).  This translation has footnotes that give explanations for the translations.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Example of a footnote:

This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (Textual Commentary, 187-89). External evidence is as follows: For the omission of 7:53-8:11, Ì66 Ì75 Í B L N T W X Y D Q Y 053 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 565 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope, because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are: D F G H K M U G 28 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz al. In addition E, S, L, and P include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:24 or 25, 115 after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the gospels A is usually considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the Pauline epistles, where it is Alexandrian), as are E, F, and G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the Pauline epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness. Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. 

But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): 
(1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. 

(2) The chief priests and Pharisees had just mocked Nicodemus for suggesting that Jesus’ claims might possibly be true. In particular they heaped scorn on Jesus’ Galilean origins . But far more than a prophet was to come from Galilee, according to Isa 9:1-2. In view of John’s observed fondness for Isaiah, it seems impossible that he was unaware of this prophecy. But if he was aware of it, he might be expected to work it into the background of the narrative, as he has often done before. And that is exactly what is found: 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” ( [Orqrou, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world mentioned by Isa 9:2. 

(3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Once again, this calls to mind one of the major themes of the Gospel: light and darkness (compare especially 3:19-21). Here the woman “came to the light” (although not at first willingly) while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil. This could be seen as an appropriate setting for Jesus to follow with the statement of 8:12, “I am the light of the world.” 

Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): 
(1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. 

(2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:12 into the narrative is simply that—an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:12 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians.

(3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. 

(4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar. According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lucan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. 

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature.

What Bible is Best For You?

Once you’ve decided on a version, next you want to determine what Bible to get.

Some people like a Bible with no notes at all, or with extra wide margins to write their own notes.  The Kay Arthur study Bible is a good one for that.

But most people appreciate helps.  If that’s the case for you, you need to decide between a reference Bible or a study Bible.  

By far the best reference Bible is the Thomson Chain.
•	Chain Reference   Look up multiple references on a topic without having to keep your thumb in the back.
•	Overviews of each book of the Bible
•	Character studies
•	Harmony of the Gospels
•	List of Jesus’ miracles
•	Archaeological Encyclopedia
•	Maps
•	Concordance 

It also has many other helpful things, such as a summary of the history of the English Bible.

In my opinion the best study Bible is the NIV Study Bible.

Most study Bibles are written by a single person (MacArthur, Ryrie, etc.).  But the NIV Study Bible notes are written by a different scholar for every book.  They are excellent scholars, and for the most part the notes are generally accepted information.

It is an excellent resource for study to keep you from re-inventing the wheel.  Those notes are an great starting place for in-depth study.  

The notes are especially helpful in the OT.

It also has a small topical reference section, concordance and maps in the back. 

The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible
This is an outstanding resource for word definitions and studies.  It also gives Greek grammar information in the text.  I highly recommend it.

The Youth Bible
This is a great translation for kids and teens.  It’s a NCV with lots of great devotionals throughout that do a good job highlighting the main point of the text.