The ESV and Genesis 3:16b: Revision or Perversion? Pt 3

The ESV Revision: A Stratagem to Biblically Legitimize 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

        So what was really behind this new ESV rendering, since it lacks strong historical and textual support, and since there are no current linguistic changes in English that require it?  I could be wrong, but I can’t help but suspect that this was a veiled attempt to give what appears to be a more legitimate, biblical ground for the prohibition against women in leadership and ministry found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.   Thus, by this “fixing” of OT and NT Scripture to agree with each other, the anti-egalitarian, male dominance socio-political agenda of Complementarianism would thereby be better legitimized and enabled. As rendered in the ESV, the text of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 reads as follows:

          …the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak

 but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  If there is anything they desire to learn,

let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

                                                                                                    1 Cor. 14:34-35, ESV

              Now, in English Bibles, it has been customary to translate tos nomos in the Greek New Testament either as “the law” or “the Law”—with the former translation (depending on the context) being used to designate references to the OT as a whole; Jewish oral tradition; or Greco-Roman law, while the second form is used to refer to the Mosaic Law in particular.  

      So by translating tos nomos as “the Law,” the ESV intends for us to understand that this prohibition is based on “the Law,” i.e. the Law of Moses.  The only problem with this translation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, as Egalitarians have often pointed out, is that nothing either in the Law of Moses in particular, or in the OT as a whole, constitutes an absolute and universal prohibition from women proclaiming God’s Word or leading God’s people in worship. 

              Moreover, it makes an ambiguous appeal to “the law” for women to be silent—which is strange, in light of the fact that the OT highlights and affirms the leadership and prophetic ministry of Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah.  Though Jeremiah and Nehemiah condemn certain false male and female prophets (cf. Jer. 28:1-17; Neh. 6:11-14), there is no OT text that clearly forbids women from leading the people in worship, nor from proclaiming the “word of the LORD” to the people of Israel. And other than barring them from the temple priesthood, the Law of Moses certainly confirms and approves the fact that Miriam and the other women led Israel in worshiping and praising God for their deliverance out of Egypt (cf. Exodus 15:19-21 with Ps. 68:11-14, NIV 2011).

         So, again we ask, what “law” is being appealed to here?  And why is the reference to this “scriptural” source so vague?   Normally, Paul will quote a specific text when he wants to affirm that a particular teaching or command has OT support, such as he does in 1 Cor. 10:6-8  and 1 Tim. 5:17-18.  Yet he does not follow his common practice here.   If he had actually meant Genesis 3:16b, then we would have expected him to quote it.  Why does he not do so here?  

        Then, as noted by several NT scholars, there is the additional problem of the disjunctive conjunction eta in 1 Cor. 14:36, which the ESV does not translate or footnote at all.^[1] When eta is used as a disjunctive conjunction, it is used “to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other,” and that when used “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted, the other must stand: Mt. xx.15; Rom. iii.29; 1 Cor. ix. 6; x.29; xi.14; xiv. 36; 2 Cor. xi.7.”^[2]  Consider the following translations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36:

 …the women should keep silence the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, 

but should be subordinate, as even the law says.  If there is anything they desire to know, 

let them ask their husbands at home.  For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 

What!  Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

                                                                                           1 Corinthians 14:34-36, RSV

…the women must keep silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak out, but 
also must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says. If they want to learn
anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is inappropriate for a woman 
to speak out in church. Did God's word originate with you? Are you the only people it 
has reached?

                                                                                           1 Corinthians 14:34-36, ISV

                    

                 The RSV translates the disjunctive conjunction eta as “What!,” which indicates that in verse 36, Paul is clearly and firmly repudiating the prohibition given in vv. 34-35; while the ISV translate tos nomos as “the oral law,” making it very clear that the prohibition of vv. 34-35 is based on Jewish oral traditions, and not on the Law of Moses itself. 

                 Indeed, it is the ISV translation which perhaps gives us the best clue as to who might have been the true source of this prohibition—a Judaizing element in Corinth that evidently wanted the Jewish regulations and customs of the synagogue to be enforced, contrary to Paul’s own teaching and practices in all the churches he had previously established.

                 But neither of these translations supports the widespread Complementarian idea that Paul himself was the originator of this prohibition in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, nor do they support the idea that he clearly made an appeal to Genesis 3:16b as its basis.  Moreover, as Kirk R. MacGregor so brilliantly argues in his article, both on the basis of the disjunctive conjunction and grammar of this text, 1 Cor. 14:33b-38 is a quotation-refutation device Paul uses to rebuke this Judaizing element:  "Far from attempting to silence women, therefore, Paul is rebuking the Corinthian men for prohibiting women from speaking in the assemblies, for he regards such a restriction as tantamount to alleging that the word of God belongs properly to the men and derivatively to any woman married to one of them. Paul summarily exposes the absurdity of this allegation with each part of this rhetorical question, whose form, (not to mention the context) requires a negative answer to each part." [3]  

Conclusion

                 So, considering all these things we have discussed, I suspect that this new ESV revision of Genesis 3:16b is nothing more than a very clever and subtle stratagem, designed to give Complementarianism a more clear and firm biblical foundation in both Moses and in Paul than it really has a claim to.  If this is indeed the reason behind this rendering of Genesis 3:16b, I am amazed that Crossway Publishers and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee have not considered the warning of Jeremiah 8:8-9:

                                 How can you say, ‘We are wise because we have the 

                                                               word of the LORD,’

                                                when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?

                                  “These wise teachers will fall into the trap of their

                                                               own foolishness,

                                            for they have rejected the word of the LORD.

                                                    Are they so wise after all?”                            
                                                                                                       Jeremiah 8:8-9, NLT

                Therefore, a more clear and convincing case as to the necessity of this change to the ESV text needs to be made to persuade me, and many others as well, that this was a genuine attempt to faithfully preserve God’s Word as originally handed on to us—and not a veiled attempt to enforce a strict patriarchal ideology upon the people of God that, in fact, has no true biblical warrant at all.

---

[1]  Dennis J. Preato, “Did Paul Really Say, ‘Let Your Women Keep Silent in the Churches?” www.godswordtowomen.org. An excellent article on this Pauline text, brought to my attention during an online group discussion at the BCE site on Facebook, 09/16/16.

[2] Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, 3^rd Edition (Zondervan, 1970), p. 275.
[3] Kirk R. MacGregor, "1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device," Priscilla Papers, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2018.

The ESV and Genesis 3:16b: Revision or Perversion? Pt 2

The ESV Revision of Gen. 3:16b and Its Theological Bias

       What we must understand is that, behind this new ESV rendering, there is a theological precommitment or bias: A theological bias which both assumes and asserts the idea that a) man ruled over or dominated woman before the Fall; b) that as a result of the Fall, instead of submitting to male rule, woman would now have a strong urge to achieve dominance over man and would attempt to do so; and c) that God has decreed, instead, that male rule or dominance of the woman should prevail.

       However, Genesis 1 and 2 do not support this theological bias and its assumptions. Let us look again at Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, to be like us.  Let them 
 be masters over the fish in the ocean, the birds that fly, the livestock, everything
 that crawls on the earth, and over the earth itself!" So God created mankind in 
 his own image; in his own image God created them; he created them male 
 and female. God blessed these humans by saying to them, "Be fruitful, multiply,
 fill the earth, and subdue it! Be masters over the fish in the ocean, the birds that fly,
 and every living thing that crawls on the earth!"

                                                                                      Genesis 1:26-28, ISV

       These verses clearly teach that both the man and woman were originally created in God’s image; that they were both equally authorized to share the mastery and management of the earth, its resources, and animal life; and that they were expected to do so as equal partners and coworkers under God. And the fact that, in the ISV, the terms “mankind” and “these humans” are used synonymously certainly makes clear that being “male” or “female” neither diminishes Adam and Eve’s common “human essence,” nor does it obviously give one gender intrinsic priority or authority over the other. Therefore, there is no basis in these verses for our assuming any hierarchical authority/submission structure had ever been put in place prior to the Fall, and which was to eternally define the relationship between men and women. 

       Then in Genesis 2, after God has placed the man in the Garden of Eden to govern and manage it for him, he decides that it is “not good” for the man to be alone. There we read:

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him 
a companion that is a suitable match for him." After the LORD God formed from
the ground every wild animal and every bird that flies, he brought each of them to
the man to see what he would call it. Whatever the man called each living creature 

became its name. The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds that fly, and

to each of the earth's animals, but there was not found for the man any companion

corresponding to him, so the LORD God caused a deep sleep to overshadow the man. 

When the man was asleep, he removed one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh 

where it had been. Then the LORD God formed the rib that he had taken from the man 
into a woman and brought her to the man. So the man exclaimed, "At last! This is bone
from my bones and flesh from my flesh. This one will be called 'Woman' because she
was taken from Man." (Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and cling to
his wife, and they will become one flesh.)    
                                                                                                Genesis 2:18-24, ISV

       The fact that God created woman as “a companion” who is “a suitable match” for the man (v. 18); that she alone was created as a “companion corresponding to him” (v.20); and that the man, with great joy, acknowledged her alone as the companion who corresponded to himself and was the best match (v. 23)—all this clearly conveys that God’s original intent was that men and women would have a relationship that not only involved shared authority and responsibility for the governance and management of the earth and its creatures, but also true companionship, mutuality, and intimacy. 

       But there is no clear and unambiguous indication, in this passage from Genesis 2, that it ever involved male dominance and female subjugation. In fact, this idea is reading back into Genesis 1-3 a questionable interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:12-15, which is beset with interpretative problems of its own, as Jamin Hubner has recently demonstrated.^[1] 

---

[1] Jamin Hubner.  “Revisiting the Clarity of Scripture in 1 Tim. 2:12,” Priscilla Papers, Vol. 30, No. 3, Summer 2016, pp. 18-25.

The ESV and Gen. 3:16b: Revision or Perversion? Pt 1

The Story behind This Critique

        On September 14, 2016, Crossway Publishers and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee announced that they would be making 52 permanent word changes in 29 verses of the ESV text, and no others.[1]  They also announced that not only would these changes remain for as long as the new ESV remained in print and was used, but no further revision was to be permitted or done in the future. 

        Of the several changes to the ESV that had been proposed, the one to be made in Genesis 3:16b was of the greatest importance for biblical and systematic theology. The new rendering of Genesis 3:16b, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you,” certainly made clear the Complementarian view that the woman’s “desire” (teshuqa) for her husband is a negative one—a “desire” that is against or contrary to submitting to male dominance, and to dominate man, instead.  And the main preposition (‘el), normally translated either as “for” or “towards,” was now rendered “contrary to,” so as to strengthen this viewpoint.    
        Consequently, there appeared a flurry of critical articles protesting this erroneous and dangerous rendering to Genesis 3:16b.  At first, it appeared that Crossway was reconsidering a reversal of its plan to change this text.  Unfortunately, in the 2017 edition of the ESV, this rendition of the text was incorporated despite its general criticism. Still, three questions remain:  Was the proposed revision of Genesis 3:16b justified?  Was it the best way to translate the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:16b?  And was it some socio-political agenda, rather than any major linguistic issue, that lay behind this intended change of the ESV text?  

                         How Should Teshuqa and ‘El Be Best Translated in Gen. 3:16b?

        At the turn of the 20th century, Katherine C. Bushnell—medical doctor, Bible scholar, and social reformer—first raised questions about how the Hebrew word teshuqa (“desire”) in Gen. 3:16b is best translated.  In her book, God’s Word to Women (first printed in 1921), Bushnell (fluent in biblical Hebrew and Greek), carefully examines and analyzes a number of ancient translations, along with several lexical sources.  As she carries out this careful examination and analysis, she demonstrates, on the basis of the resources available to her, that through both Jewish rabbinical traditions and poor translation practices by certain early Christian translators, who were influenced by these Jewish oral traditions, teshuqa came to have the negative connotations of “lust, craving, urge”—false meanings and connotations taken up and promoted by later Bible commentators and translators influenced by their work.^[2] 

       Then, after going on to demonstrate from the Hebrew OT, the Septuagint, the Old Syriac, and the Peshitta that in 3:16 teshuqa has to do with the woman’s “turning away” from reliance on God to reliance on the man, concludes with a final argument that the best translation of Gen. 3:16b is “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee.” ^[3]   In this way, Bushnell confirms that God is giving Eve a word that is both a prediction and a warning, not a legal decree or mandate:  By her turning away from himself and turning to her husband, she will experience, not a loving and selfless partner, but a man now inclined to be selfish and domineering towards her.
        So the emphasis of teshuqa here appears to be more on Eve’s turning away from God and turning to her husband, with some ambiguity as to the nature of the turning itself—which could be her trust, her devotion, as well as a longing for mutual affection and intimacy, such as the word has in the context of Song of Solomon 7:10.  Therefore, it is context, and not merely semantic range, which determines whether teshuqa should be translated “desire, longing, devotion.”

        But there is further, more recent evidence that teshuqa can mean something other than “desire” or “longing.”   In a recent comparison I made of several modern English translations, I discovered that they confirmed Bushnell’s proposal for providing an alternate translation of Genesis 3:16b that made clearer the true nature and direction of the woman’s desire, which had, in the past, been wrongly understood and interpreted either as “sensual lust” or as a “desire to dominate” the man.  So let us look at three modern English translations of this verse, and see what we can glean from them:

“But you will still desire your husband, and he will rule over you.”  Gen. 3:16b, CEV  

“Your trust turns toward your husband, yet he will dominate you.”  Gen. 3:16b, ISV

“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”   Gen. 3:16b, TNIV

         None of the above translations agrees with the new ESV rendering that the woman’s “desire” was one of “being contrary to” her husband, or of one of seeking what we might call “reverse domination” of the man.  Rather, they indicate that she will have a strong desire to experience the comradery, mutuality, and intimacy that existed prior to the Fall; a desire, as indicated by the CEV rendering, which had not changed even though her relationship with Adam had.  Yet the woman, to her great sorrow, will find—as all three of these translations indicate—that, instead, her husband tending to take advantage of this desire, treating her like a master would treat an inferior. 

        Of the three translations, the ISV most clearly indicates that the nature of the woman’s teshuqa can also be understood in terms of “trust, devotion,” and not simply as “desire, longing.” In addition, these translations do not support the new ESV rendering of the Hebrew preposition ‘el (which modifies teshuqa) as being properly translated as “contrary to.”  Nor, in fact, do most biblical scholars regard this a legitimate rendering of ‘el.  

        Sam Powell (himself a Complementarian), in a critique of the ESV revision of Genesis 3:16b, after surveying several authoritative Hebrew lexical aids, demonstrates that ‘el can only be translated as “against” or “contrary to” if the context and verb used show hostility between two parties.  Therefore he concludes his article, saying, “To summarize this rather complicated survey, the basic meaning of the word is to or towards.  Sometimes, if the context and the verb used are hostile, ‘against’ would be a proper meaning.  But this does not mean that we can pick and choose whatever meaning we want.  ‘Contrary to,’ in the context of Genesis 3:16 or 4:7 cannot be justified.  Only if we make the assumption that the word ‘longing’ indicates hostility can we make the phrase mean ‘against her husband’.”^[4] (Italics mine)

        And as Scott McKnight points out in another recent article on the ESV changes, the assumption that Eve’s “longing” is hostile leads to some undesirable consequences:

The ‘desire’ of the woman in Genesis 3:16 is understood, as the result of the fall and God’s curse on them, to be a desire to rule or dominate. They want to usurp the man’s authority. The man’s task—as part of God’s prescriptive design—is to rule, guide, and lead the woman. I do hear at times softer versions: women desire to be with men and it is the man’s job to mentor and rule women.  Either in the harder or softer form, this is God’s design for women and men during at least the Fall period of history. Hierarchy of some sort and patriarchy of some sort are designed by God for fallen human beings. This translation turns women and men into contrarians by divine design. The fall means women are to submit to men and men are to rule women, but women will resist the rule. This has moved from subordinationism to female resistance to subordinationism.^[5]   

          Therefore, there is no good historical textual and lexical evidence that justifies this understanding and translation of Genesis 3:16b, and so the new ESV rendering now is completely unjustified.  And to accept it will have negative consequences. 

---

[1] Announcement made on 09/14/16 by representatives of the ESV Translation Committee and Crossway Publishers.

[2] Katherine C. Bushnell. Cf. “Lesson 17: Ancient Renderings of Teshuqa” and “Lesson 18:  History of the Translation of Teshuqa,” God’s Word to Women, pp. 57-66.  Though some might disagree with her, based on the sources available to her, I think Bushnell proves that teshuqa should never be understood or translated as a lust or craving to possess or dominate the male.

[3] “Lesson 16: God’s Warning to Eve,” God’s Word to Women, pp. 56-57.

[4]Sam. Powell.  “Genesis 3:16,” article at www.myonlycomfort..com,. (Italics are mine)

[5] Scott McKnight. "The New Stealth Translation," www.patheos.com. 

Textual Criticism and the Preservation of the NT, Part 2

As a result of this complex process of analysis, comparison, and critical editing of the 5,800 Greek manuscripts, early translations, and citations by the Early Christian writers of the first four centuries, which are the true sources from which the original NT text is reconstructed, textual critics have identified the following four major text-types:

1. The Western Text. This text type came into existence late in the second century, and had a wide geographical spread. Though it certainly contains readings from the original NT, it has a tendency to expand on and paraphrase the text, especially in the Gospels and Acts, which is less true of the other text types. An example of this tendency may be seen in Codex D where in Luke 6, between verses 5 and 6, the following words have been inserted: "That same day, seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath, he said, 'Man, if indeed you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But if you do not know what you are doing, you are accursed and a transgressor of the law.'" This text is represented by several Greek manuscripts, of which Codex D (Fifth century), is the best representative; by the Old Latin versions, which first appeared around 258 A.D.; and in the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian (mid-second to early third century A.D.). Moreover, the evidence also seems to indicate that this text-type had two branches, one associated with Rome and North Africa, the other with Antioch and the East.

2. The Alexandrian Text. This is the second oldest text-type, also dating back to the late second century. It was produced by professional scribes connected with the Christian academy there, who were trained in the textual criticism that was applied to all classic Greek literature by the scribes and scholars of the great Alexandrian Library. "Functioning as the most ancient of the New Testament textual critics, the Alexandrian scribes selected the best manuscripts and then produced a text that reflected what they considered to be the original text." So because of its age and general high quality, it is easy to see why Westcott and Hort favored this text-type over the Byzantine. However, while still regarded as one of the better edited and more reliable ancient text-types, many NT scholars today believe that, on the basis of current principles of textual criticism, some original readings were not included in the Alexandrian Text, and so give preference to the Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine text-types in these few instances. The Alexandrian Text is represented, in part, by P5 (John 1, 16, and 20, 3rd century), P47 (Rev. 9-17, 3rd century), P66 (John, 2nd century), P67 (Luke, 2nd century), P72 (1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 3rd century),P75 (Luke and John, c. 200 A.D.), Codex Sinaticus (4th Century), Codex Alexandrius (5th century), Codex Vaticanius (4th century); the Coptic and Sahidic translations (3rd-4th centuries); and the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 313-371 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 180-240 A.D.), and Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.).

3. The Caesarean Text. This is the third oldest text-type, and though it arose in Egypt, early in the third century it became associated with Caesarea. It was marked by the scribal practices current in both Egypt and Palestine, and was a mixed text that combined what the ancient scribes considered the best readings of both the Antiochian/Western Text and the Alexandrian Text. Some scholars, because of affinities with the Alexandrian Text, classify it as a subgroup of that text-type, while others argue that it has enough distinguishing characteristics to set it apart as a separate text-type. The primary witnesses to this text-type are the Chester Beatty Papyri (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts, c. 150 A.D.), Codex W (5th century), Codex Theta (9th century), Miniscules 565 and 700 (6th century), the Old Syriac Version (6th century), and the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 348-387 A.D.).

4. The Byzantine Text. This is the fourth oldest text-type, and is characterized by conflation, or combination of divergent readings, from the earlier text-types, as well as a deliberate harmonization of parallel passages. Though disputed by some, many NT scholars believe the Byzantine Text had its roots in a recension (i.e. a deliberate correcting and editing of a document) of the Antiochian/Western Text by Lucian, the Bishop of Antioch, which he brought to Constantinople prior to the Docletian Persecution (303-313 A.D.). These facts, plus the consideration that the Byzantine Text is not represented in Bible translations or citations by Christian writers of the first three centuries A.D., demonstrate the Byzantine Text to be a late and secondary witness to the original text of the NT. John Chrysostrom (c. 347-407 A.D.) is the first Greek Christian writer whose NT citations have definite Byzantine character. The primary witnesses for the Byzantine Text are Codices A, E, F, G, H, K, L, S (4th-6th centuries) most Miniscules (9th-11th centuries), and the Later Church Fathers (4th-6th centuries).

A Word of Clarification and Assurance

Now, for some who may find what we have said about the copying, distribution, and reconstruction of the original NT text disturbing, we need to make some clarification and give a word of assurance. 99% of the variants that exist between these four text-types are minor in nature, since they are misspellings of words, reversed word order, or words that were confused because they looked or sounded alike to the scribes who made the copies. So there is really only 1% or something in the order of 1,400 words that are in doubt as regards these variants. And none of them adversely affect the truthfulness of any Christian doctrine essential to salvation or godly living. F.F. Bruce states the situation very well:

Something more ought to be said, and said with much emphasis. We
have been discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims
 to be regarded as the best representatives of the original New Testament text.
But there are not wide divergences between these types, of a kind that could make
any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness and guardian of Holy Writ.
The Authorized Version of 1611, by and large, the Byzantine text. The Revised Version
of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901, which were produced under the
influence of Westcott and Hort’s textual theory and work , represent in the main
the Alexandrian text. The Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, and New
International Version reflect the views of contemporary textual scholars, who have traced
the various early lines of textual transmission back to the second century, and represent an
eclectic text, each variant reading of the second-century textual types being considered on
its own merits, without marked preference being given to any single one of these types. But
the words of one of the editors of the R.S.V. are perfectly true of it and of the later versions:
“It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946, as in 1881 and 1901, no doctrine
of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a
revision of Christian doctrine.”  (F.F. Bruce.  "The Text of the New Testament," The Books
and the Parchments, 2nd Edition, pp.124-125.)

Nevertheless, despite what Bruce and others have said, there are those who, in defending the KJV and the Textus Receptus, insist on making the charge that modern translations, based on any text other than the Byzantine Text, either deny or water-down references to the deity of Jesus Christ. But this is not true, as the following chart on five key NT verses reveals, which compares the KJV (1611), based on the Byzantine Text; the English Revised Version (1881), based on the Alexandrian Text; and the NIV (1984), based on an Eclectic Text (a critical text that incorporates the best readings of all four text-types). And for an additional comparison, the New World Translation used by Jehovah Witnesses has been included in the chart:

Key NT Verses on Christ’s Deity (Y=Yes; X=No)

Translation:  John 1:1    John 1:18    Titus 2:13    Hebrews 1:8    2 Peter 1:1  

      KJV               Y                  X                  X                   Y                     X

      ERV              Y                  X                  Y                   Y                     Y

      NIV               Y                  Y                  Y                   Y                     Y

      NWT             X                  X                  X                   X                     X

Except for the NWT, which reflects the heretical teaching of the Jehovah Witnesses, all the other translations affirm the deity of Jesus Christ.  However, as can be plainly seen from the chart, it is the NIV and not the KJV, that consistently affirms Christ’s deity. So, at least on this key point of doctrine, I trust no one will glibly tell me or anyone else that the KJV is “a superior witness” to modern translations as regards the deity of Christ.  Clearly, the evidence shows otherwise.

I don’t have space to go into the pros and cons for the quality and use of every modern translation of the Bible into English.  Yet for those who are interested in this matter, I would recommend Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht’s So Many Versions?: Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975). As for myself, I prefer to use Bible translations written in modern English, produced by scholars who believe in the full inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the original NT, and that are based on an eclectic Greek New Testament text: The New American Standard Version, the New International Version, the New Living Translation, and the God's Word Translation. Still, I would encourage you to read Kubo and Specht's book and decide for yourself which Bible translations are best for you.

Now, A Final Word

I must briefly address issues brought up by a small group of ultra-conservative agitators who are opposed to the use of all modern Bible translations not based on the Textus Receptus, which underlies the KJV.  For this shift from the Textus Receptus and the KJV to modern translations based on the "corrupt" Alexandrian text, they primarily blame Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, whom they often portray in a very sinister and diabolical manner.  And so I will now say something about Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort.

The first thing to be said is that it is true that Westcott and Hort may have not been as conservative in some of their views as are some modern conservative Evangelical Christians. However, that does not, in and of itself, invalidate their NT textual critical theory and work. For there were conservative, orthodox scholars, such as J. A. Bengel and Samuel P. Tregelles whose work anticipated that of Westcott and Hort and which, indeed, was the foundation that Westcott and Hort built upon. And later conservative, orthodox scholars, such as Benjamin B. Warfield, F.F. Bruce, J. Gresham Machen, and Gordon D. Fee have confirmed that the Alexandrian Text is both earlier than the Byzantine Text and is, at many points, a more reliable witness to the original N.T. text. And this is true, regardless of anyone’s negative or positive opinions about these men.

Furthermore, Brooke F. Westcott was an excellent NT expositor and wrote a first-rate commentary on John's Gospel that was both conservative in viewpoint and unsurpassed in its explanation of John's message. Though in some respects more liberal in his opinions than Westcott, it should be noted that Fenton J. A. Hort wrote a short treatise defending "God the Only Son" as the original reading of John 1:18. And please remember that both men were Anglican clergymen, which means that some of their views on baptism and church membership, for instance, would be different from those of Baptists. Can we not recognize the positive contributions of these men without totally writing them off? We talk about unity in essentials, liberty in disputable matters, and love towards all; should we not give them the benefit of the doubt?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying we should overlook genuine errors on their part. But the charges made by some KJVO defenders, for instance, that they denied the deity of Christ, or denied the propitiatory nature of Christ's sacrifice, or were even active members in an occult "Ghost Society," are absolutely false!  On the basis of research I was able to do on the Internet, I found that these charges proved to be, for the most part, distortions of comments in certain of Westcott's letters and written works that were made by a rabid "King-James-Version-Only" writer, Gail Riplinger, in her book New Age Versions. Arguments that other KJVO defenders, I must say, have taken up and used without taking the trouble to research and verify their validity. Moreover, a number of scholars have revealed how Riplinger’s book is just full of distorted information, fallacious arguments, and flat out lies.

Christians who, above all others, profess both to love the truth and to love their Christian brothers and sisters, should never engage in arguments that attempt to draw conclusions from a prejudicial selection of evidence available, or from a slanted use of terms, or a slurring appeal to guilt by association, or repeated appeal to false evidence. If anyone does not agree with Westcott and Hort’s textual theory and work, then give us well-reasoned arguments squarely based on the NT textual evidence we possess, and not on Riplinger and her followers misrepresentations, distortions, and falsehoods.

Textual Criticism and the Preservation of the NT, Part 1

In discussions about the NT record of Jesus' life and ministry, especially with atheists and Muslims, one often hears the charge that the NT documents have been corrupted and so are not reliable witnesses to what Jesus actually said and did.  More often than not, those making these charges are unaware that NT textual criticism confirms that of all ancient texts, the NT text is the most well preserved and reliable of them all.  So in this article we will consider the nature and practice of NT textual criticism; what it tells us about the preservation and reliability of the NT text; and how that affects the trustworthiness and usefulness of the various Bible translations Christians use today.

Nature and Practice of NT Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism is the scientific study of various witnesses to an original text, following certain set principles of analysis, evaluation and categorization. By careful examination of these witnesses, and the consistent use of these set principles, textual critics, as nearly as is possible, reconstruct this original text from all the witnesses available. For the New Testament, the evidence for the original text is not only provided by the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, but also by the earliest ancient translations (e.g. Old Latin, Aramaic and Coptic), from the readings of which the underlying Greek can often be inferred. In addition, there are the quotations from the New Testament in the works of early Christian writers from the second to sixth centuries in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic and Armenian that are also valuable in recovering the original text of the New Testament.

From the 1st century until the 15th century, all religious and secular books were copied by hand. As consequence, there were common copyist errors that led to variants, or differing readings, between manuscripts copied from a single archetype or primary text: Words were misspelled; word order was reversed; words that looked alike, though different in meaning, were confused and copied, etc. Then there are intentional errors, such as harmonization of all parallel passages when the copyist noted differences in the exemplar (i.e. the primary text being copied), correction of what the copyist perceived as poor grammar in the exemplar, or correcting what is perceived therein by the copyist as a theologically novel or unorthodox reading. And the manuscripts in all the Text-types, whether Western, Alexandrian, Caesarean or Byzantine, contain some variants of these kinds.

So in order to eliminate these copyist errors, and reconstruct the original text as much as possible, there is a four-stage process in a NT critic’s work, as F.F. Bruce explains:

There are four principle stages in the work of the textual critic. First,
he makes a study such individual manuscripts as are available to him,
correcting obvious [copyist] slips and taking cognizance of what appear to
be scribal alterations, whether accidental or deliberate. Next, he arranges
these manuscripts in groups. Those which share some peculiar features
of spelling, wording, or some common error, are probably related to one
another and have a common archetype. There are different ways of
grouping manuscripts, according as their evident relation to one another is
more or less close. Those whose mutual relation can be fairly precisely
established are said to constitute a family. But a number of families, while
they are diverse from one another in many respects, may have a sufficient
number of significant features in common to suggest that they all
represent one rather early textual type. In the third place, when the
arranging of the manuscripts in groups leads to the establishment of an
archetype for each of the groups which have been distinguished, these
archetypes themselves are subjected to comparative study in the hope
that it may be possible to reconstruct a provisional archetype from which
the archetypes themselves are descended; if this is achieved, then we
have arrived as closely as we can to the autographic text (F.F. Bruce, The Books
And the Parchments, 2nd Edtion (1981), p. 212).

As they carry out this four stage task, textual critics follow certain criteria that have to do with both the external and internal evidence we possess. And for any manuscript to be considered a trustworthy witness to the original Greek New Testament, it must pass all these criteria, which include the following:

1. Date of the Text-Type. Other things being equal, an older document may be more authoritative than a more recent one. This is not only true as regards the differences of the oldest manuscripts comprising the four text types, but also of the manuscripts comprising each individual text- type as well. Consider the so-called Textus Receptus, which underlies the KJV of 1611. While it is a member of the Byzantine Text-type, it is now regarded as a late and poor witness of that text-type. This edition of the Greek New Testament was produced and published in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536), a Roman Catholic biblical scholar and theologian. It was based on seven Greek manuscripts, none older than the eleventh century, and incomplete ones at that. "For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, and it was lacking the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Therefore Erasmus translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek and published that. Hence in the last six verses of Revelation in Erasmus's Greek New Testament, several words and phrases may be found that are attested in Greek manuscript whatsoever." When older manuscripts were discovered, between 1650 and 1850, study and comparison of the Textus Receptus with these texts soon revealed it as an inferior representative of the Byzantine Text-type. Hence calls for the revision of the KJV, in the light of these new discoveries, began as early as 1660. So for all their notoriety, Westcott and Hort were at the end of a long process that led to both the criticism and replacement of the Textus Receptus as the sole basis for English translations.

2. Geographical Distribution of the Text-Type. Readings found in manuscripts from widely separated geographical areas indicate it is less likely to be the idiosyncratic error of one local from which the manuscript may have come. So though the various text-types may have originated in Egypt, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Italy, they were not restricted to those locations. The evidence we possess indicates that prior to the Diocletian Persecution (303-310 A.D.) and the ascendancy of Byzantium under Constantine (306-337 A.D.), the other three Text Types (i.e. Western, Alexandrian, and Caesarean) were as widely spread geographically, as was the later Byzantine Text, even though fewer numbers of those earlier texts were preserved. The evidence also indicates that during the second century, a certain amount of "cross-pollination" among the text-types occurred as copies of the NT were being circulated and recopied in the various centers of Christianity; it was only in the third century that they became more fixed and identified with certain locals.

3. Genealogical Relationship. The relationship of the various witnesses to the text-types is important, for if a variety witnesses that support a particular reading from one text type, then this is an indication that they are all copies of copies of copies springing from one main, ancestral archetype. Therefore, manuscripts must be weighed, and not merely counted. This means that though 95% of the existing Greek manuscripts are of the Byzantine Text-type, all are copies of copies of copies of an ancestral archetype that cannot be traced beyond 250 A.D., and the majority of these Byzantine manuscripts date from the seventh century or later. And though it is disputed, a number of scholars, beginning with Westcott and Hort, have argued that the Byzantine text itself originated with a form of the Western text, known as Old Antiochian, brought to Constantinople by Lucian, the former Bishop of Antioch, just prior to the outbreak of the Diocletian Persecution. So, for these reasons, the Byzantine Text, though represented by a larger number of manuscripts, is not now regarded as being superior to the other text-types as a preserver of the original readings of the NT.

4. The shorter reading is preferable to the longer reading. If a scribe makes an intentional change in the NT text, he is more likely to add than to omit, such as a note of explanation, adding a phrase from a parallel passage, or conflating (i.e. combining) two or more readings. For example, consider Luke 11:2, where the good doctor gives us his version of "The Lord's Prayer." In Bible versions based on the critical NT text, it reads, "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come," whereas some versions based primarily on the Byzantine text read, "Our Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come." A scribe, familiar with the Lord's Prayer in Matthew, might assume (incorrectly) that the version in Luke left out some words, and so would add words from Matthew to make the two versions more fully agree. The problem with this assumption by the scribe, of course, is that one form of the prayer was given while Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount and the second, as Luke plainly tells us (Luke 11:1), some time later, when Jesus and the disciples were alone for mediation and prayer, and his disciples asked for instruction on how to better pray. It was due to the fact that some scribes did not understand how Jesus could teach two different forms of this prayer, to different audiences on different occasions that tended to lead to their harmonization of these passages. Otherwise, if the longer reading was original, then there does not seem to be any good reason why it should have shortened. Therefore, in Luke 11:2, the shorter reading is preferable to the longer reading.

5. The harder reading is preferable to an easier reading. A scribe is more likely to change a word which is difficult to understand into a word which is easier to understand and is related in meaning. For example, consider John 1:18, for which there are these two readings: a) monogenes huios ("the One and Only Son"); and b) monogenes Theos ("the One and Only God"). The easiest reading is clearly monogenes huios, since it is the form found in John 3:16. Monogenes Theos is the more difficult or harder reading; yet it agrees with John's teaching elsewhere, in which he specifically identifies Jesus the Son as being God (e.g., John1:1). "It may make even surer sense, if we assume that the correct text omits the article before monogenes (as do W-H, Merk, Nestle, BFBS 2nd ed., on good mss. evidence), as the emphasis may then be upon Christ's nature: "No one has seen God...He who himself is deity...has set him forth" (J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 102).  And that is why the NRSV, for example, renders John 1:18 as follows: "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."

6. The reading from which other readings in a variant could most easily have developed is preferable. This principle may overlap with the previous two principles, since either a short reading or a hard reading may give rise to alternate readings. In general, the various types of intentional and unintentional errors suggest the bases on which one reading may give rise to another. Again, consider the example of Luke 11:2 above. If the longer reading were original, there would be no apparent reason for its omission. On the other hand, if the shorter were original, it is more likely that a scribe, in order to harmonize this text with Matthew and with the common liturgy of the Church, would add words to harmonize the two texts.

7. The reading which is characteristic of the NT author is preferable. This principle is usually applied only after the previous principles have been rigorously applied, and there is still some doubt as which reading best reflects the original task. In the case of John 1:18, the principle is applied as follows: John characteristically uses the Greek word monogenes (“one and only, unique”) as a synonym for the Greek word agapetos, “beloved, most beloved” when applied to Jesus in 1:14; 3:16; and 1 John 3. Furthermore, in the other passages where it is used of other persons, the word clearly does not mean “only begotten.” In Hebrews 11:17, for example, Isaac is called Abraham’s “monogenes son.” Isaac was “the beloved son,” the son in whom the Abrahamic Covenant was to be initially realized (it has been fully realized in Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham, and all who are united to him by the Holy Spirit, cf. Gal. 3:15-4:7). But we know Abraham “begat” other sons in addition to Isaac, as Gen. 25:1-2 makes abundantly clear. So the translation of John 1:18 in the NLT, rather than that of the KJV, is a much better translation: “No one has ever seen God. But the Unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.”