Here is an article I wrote about a year ago which shows how text editors changed the early manuscripts in order to make them consistent with each other or with their theology. The translators of the AV (King James Version) and similar translations used these changed manuscripts as the basis for their translations.
Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?
What are the criteria for obtaining a New Testament Greek edition which approximates that of the original manuscripts prepared by the hands of the writers? Should we trust the tradition of the many text editors of the middle ages? Or should we search for early manuscripts, even fragments, which have come down to us even as early as the first three centuries? Certainly the complete restoration of the Greek New Testament in the form of its original manuscripts is impossible. Most editors attempt to reconstruct the text as closely as possible. Yet there seems to be two distinct approaches to the task. These two approaches lead to results which categorize modern translations into two distinct groups.
For example, consider the translation of a single word in a single New Testament verse: Revelation 22:19. Does the verse state that if any one takes away from the words of Revelation (the book of this prophecy), that God will take away his share in the book of life? Or is it his share in the tree of life that will be taken away? --- Not that this is a theologically significant distinction. That is not the point. The point is that the source of the two different Greek words found in various Greek editions of the New Testament bears testimony to the approach of the editors and consequently of the two different groups of translators. The following translations, hereafter called “Group A†have “book of lifeâ€Â: AV, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, R Webster, and YLT (which uses the word “scrollâ€Â). The Catholic Douay translation also has “book of lifeâ€Â. But “tree of life†is found in ASV, Darby, ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, Philips, and Rotherham (hereafter called “Group Bâ€Â. But which group is right? Did the apostle John write the Greek word "biblos"? Or did he write the Greek word "xylos"?
Fortunately we have the answer! When Erasmus was preparing his Greek edition of the New Testament, he had only one Greek manuscript of Revelation. Unfortunately the last six verses were missing. So Erasmus consulted the Vulgate and back-translated those verses from Latin to Greek. Thus the first Greek manuscript containing “book of life†came into existence. Erasmus did the best he could with what he had. For he had no complete Greek manuscript of Revelation available to him. But the Greek editors who followed him, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, slavishly followed the translation of Erasmus, rather than consulting the Greek manuscripts which became available. And with the wealth of early Greek manuscripts available in our day, there is no excuse for not rendering the phrase as “tree of life†in the translation. There is no doubt that John had written “tree of lifeâ€Â. So why did Group A translators render the phrase “book of lifeâ€Â? Was not this, evidence of poor scholarship? Or was there a traditional reason for following Erasmus et al. in this? Was there a theological reason, perhaps a theory of inspiration, which required staying with the textual group which later formed the Textus Receptus? This suggestion seems to be supported by what appears to be later textual additions found in group A translations.
In the formation of Textus Receptus, it seems that some person(s) saw the need to “correct†or add to the texts.
We are all familiar with the addition of 1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. NKJV
This is obviously an attempt to get “The Trinity†into the Bible. This verse is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts originate in the 16th century. The earliest of them was from the 10th century, but that one does not include the verse in the text, but in a marginal note. No Greek text prior to the 16th century is known to contain the verse. Yet it found its way into Textus Receptus and in every one of the Group A translations (YLT puts it in italics). How could Group A translators have gone against all evidence? If it had been in early Greek texts, surely the 4th century Greek Fathers would have loved to use it during the Trinity debates as scriptural evidence of the Trinity.
A “correction†was made to Luke 2:33. With reference to Jesus, the words “his father and mother†was changed to “Joseph and his motherâ€Â. Presumably it was felt that the former did not do justice to the virgin birth.
In Mark 1:2,3 we read:
As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’†NRSV
However, in Isaiah we find only the second part (vs3). The first part is found in Malachi. So the introductory words were changed to “As it is written in the prophets†to take care of the omission. This change, found in Textus Receptus, has been so translated in all Group A translations, and omitted in all Group B translations.
In I Corinthians 6:19,20, we read:
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. .
Now wait a minute. Shouldn’t we glorify Go in our spirit as well? No doubt. So “and in your spirit which are God’s†was added and placed into Textus Receptus as well as all Group A translations. No Group B translation has this addition.
In Acts 8 just after Philip explained the Isaiah passage to the Ethiopian eunuch, we read:
As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptised?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptised him. NIV
Hey, a person shouldn’t be allowed to be baptized just because he wants to, should he? Surely Philip must have told him that he had to believe in Jesus first! So the following sentence (vs 37) was added to the text:
“Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." NKJV
Papyrus 45 from the early 3rd century does not contain this passage. But the Textus Receptus has it, and all Group A translations as well as Douay.
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,†and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.†Romans 13:9 ESV
Let’s see. This would be the last five commandments listed in Exodus 20 if it were not for the fact that one of them is left out. Surely Jesus wouldn’t have forgotten the one about bearing false witness! So shouldn't it be added? Apparently certain editors of Textus Receptus thought so. And so it found its way into the Group A translations as follows:
For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."NKJV
Papyrus 46 from the middle of the second century does not contain this addition.
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13, 14 NIV
I think I remember a similar passage in Ephesians 1:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. Ephesians 1:7,8 NIV
Clearly Paul taught that redemption was through the blood of Christ in the Ephesians passage. Why didn’t he do so in the Colossians passage? We’d better make things a little more consistent here:
He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13,14 NKJV
An interesting addition is Luke 17:36 “36 "Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left." Strangely enough this verse is found in Douay and all of Group A translations, but is not found in Textus Receptus. I’m not sure how this one got in.
Even in the Old Testament there is a distinct difference between Group A and Group B’s rendition of some passages. Here is an example from Jeremiah. Yahweh said or thought the following concerning Israel:
I thought: After she has done all these things, she will come back to Me. But she did not come back…Jeremiah 3:7 Jewish Study Bible 1985.
The learned Jewish scholars, experts in Hebrew, who translated The Tanakh, so translated this verse. The NASB, ESV, RSV, and NRSV translations are almost identical to that of the JSB quoted above. Others from group B, the ASV, Darby, and Rotherham translate similarly except they do not contain “thought†but “saidâ€Â. That is okay. The Hebrew word usually means “saidâ€Â. But whether God said Israel would return or thought she would return does not make much difference. The point is that what God said or thought Israel would do did not happen! But for some people, that would indicate that God made a mistake or was not omniscient. So someone came up with a solution to that. It was simply changed to a command. Problem solved.
"And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return… NKJV
And so with all the other Group A translations.
In conclusion, I can say only that it would seem that the editors of Group B translations, though they differ from one another in terms of the degree of translational literalness, appear to be interested in what the authors actually wrote rather than maintaining consistency and orthodoxy.
