02A.04. The Greek Text of the KJV

IV. The Greek Text of the KJV

Champions of recent versions have tried to disparage the Greek text from which the KJV was made. These men are usually theological liberals, or trained under them, such as Clarence T. Craig who was on the translation committee of the RSV. He says on page 15 of the Introduction to the Revised Standard Version (a book published by the RSV translation committee), "The King James Version....was based on late and corrupt medieval manuscripts." And thus, he attacks the foundation of the KJV, supposing the RSV by using the "two most ancient" MSS and the Dead Sea Scrolls have a superior text. The Greek text that formed the basis for the King James Version has since been given the name Textus Receptus. This is a Greek edition based on the Byzantine family of MSS. Some in attacking this particular edition point out that it is partially based upon the work of Desiderius Erasmus of 1516, who had no MSS older than the X century, and who had only one XII century MS on Revelation. We know from Erasmus that the last six verses of his Revelation MS were missing and that he translated it from a Latin Bible into Greek and incorporated it into his Greek edition. But one must realize that the Textus Receptus had undergone other revisions. The text from Erasmus was his 5th edition of 1535, not his first of 1516. It had also been revised and as a result is also called Stephen’s "royal edition" of 1550 with marginal reading from 15 MSS.

Even Robertson after saying some disparaging things about it, says, "It should be stated at once that the Textus Receptus is not a bad text. It is not a heretical text. It is substantially correct." (Miller, p. 364)

We have in this century seen a lot of liberties taken with the Bible text. Men who have no reverence for God or his word do not blink about changing it to fit their pet theories. No example serves any better than the very first verse of the Bible. The KJV and the ASV translate it "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." But the slow, deliberate, tactic of liberals can be easily traced as they work to alter the scripture. First, see the RSV footnote. After suggesting that it could be "When God began to create," the tactic is to let a few years go by while the public gets use to the change and then the liberals put the footnote into the text. See C.H. Dodd’s translation of the New English Bible (NEB). (Many of Thayer’s radical footnotes in the ASV get into the text of the RSV.) But how did the liberals arrive at this change in Genesis 1:1? The KJV and the ASV translators treat Genesis 1:1 as it appears in the Hebrew, an independent clause. The liberal radicals would change it to a dependent clause wherein "the doctrine of absolute creation is then not taught in the first chapter of Genesis." (Young, p. 2) How can they do so? By stating they believe the Hebrew verb construction (a construct) is incorrect and taking the liberty to "emend," or correct, the Hebrew to what they believe is right, and without any MS support. Edward J. Young points out conclusively that "It is not necessary, however, to emend the word, because the construct followed by a finite verb is a genuine Semitic usage." He then proceeds to point out several other identical Hebrew verb constructions in the Old Testament. (Young, p. 3). In speaking of new translations taking liberties with the text, Foy E. Wallace says of "the Revised Standard Version... its text is full of interpolations with added words and phrases unknown to any Scripture text." (Wallace, p.xxvii). The vast majority of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts agree together very closely. So closely, in fact, that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament text. This majority text is usually called the Byzantine text by modern textual critics. This is because all modern critics acknowledge that this was the Greek New Testament in general use throughout the greater part of the Byzantine Period (AD 312 - AD 1453). For many centuries before the protestant reformation this Byzantine text was the text of the entire Greek Church and for more than three centuries after the reformation it was the text of the entire protestant church. Even today it is the text which most protestants know best, since the King James Version and other early protestant translations were made from it. (Burgon, p. 20).

We believe that the Bible teaches providential preservation of the scriptures (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). Where and how has it been preserved?

John Burgon was an ardent defender of the Byzantine text. He believed that Christ had fulfilled His promise of preserving His word for His people by handing down the Byzantine text (the Majority-Text) generation after generation without fail from the days of the apostles. In attacks on the KJV by way of its Greek text, many have made the point that the KJV was made before the discovery of the three present oldest manuscripts. These three being: A, or Alexandrinus, a fourth or fifth century manuscript; B, Vaticanus, of the fourth century; and Aleph ( ), Sinaiticus, of the fourth or fifth century. B and Aleph are not of the Byzantine family, however, but are of a class referred to as the Alexandrian or Egyptian text.

Thus, many recent translations footnote some verses, "Some ancient authorities say ..." and attempt to alter the Majority-Text reading in favor of B and Aleph. But what support are these "ancient" manuscripts for changing the scriptures?

Burgon regarded the exceptional age of B and Aleph as a proof not of their goodness but of their badness. Arguing if they had been good manuscripts they would have been read to pieces long ago. "We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation solely to their ascertained evil character." (Burgon, p. 23). Thus, the fact that B and Aleph are so old is a point against them, not something in their favor. It shows that the church rejected them and did not read or copy them.

Even the liberal Kirsopp Lake admitted that the scribes "usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books." If Lake could believe this, why can’t he believe that the most "ancient" Byzantine texts were worn out with much reading and copying? Is it not odd that these ancient manuscripts B and Aleph are not forms which are preserved in a multitude of copies?

Also note that Egypt alone has a climate favorable to the preservation of most ancient texts, and indeed, even the oldest extant Byzantine text A, Alexandrinus, was discovered at Alexandria.

Foy E. Wallace documents on p. 637 that Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaitic Manuscript (Aleph) has testified that B and Aleph bear evidence of having been prepared by the same hand, and in various portions the Aleph represents imperfect copying of B, and is therefore not an independent manuscript.

Note the basis of the RSV and the TEV for leaving off the last twelve verses of Mark and the weight of their evidences, or lack of it.

It is good to note that in the last few years more Greek scholars are coming back to recognize the superiority of the Majority-Text over these "ancient" but heretical texts. For example, in John there are no less than thirteen places where the new American Bible Society’s Text (c. 1966) has changed the reading of the Nestle text back to the reading of the Textus Receptus. Also, another leading textual scholar, G.D. Kilpatrick, has recently been defending a surprising number of Majority-text reading. (Hodges, p. 14).

Though the Textus Receptus reflects the Majority-Text better than any other kind of printed text, it is not perfect. Our present edition, especially in the book of Revelation, needs to be revised using all the Byzantine MSS now available.