The History of our Bible
by Patrick
Collins
Introduction
It is a sad fact that believers in Christ (especially those commonly known as
evangelical, fundamentalist, born again, Charismatic or Pentecostal) can
generally be relied upon to be a fairly ignorant bunch as regards Bible
knowledge. They have a Bible, but few have read it from cover to cover and fewer
still have absorbed its contents. Even more scarce are those who know where the
book they hold so dear comes from or how it reached them in the condition it is
in. They correctly claim that it is inspired by God, but press them on what they
mean by that and you may discover that they are referring to their favourite
translation, thus revealing even greater gullibility. Yes, the Holy Spirit did
inspire prophets and apostles to record his revelation, but that was not in
English, neither the King James Version nor the New International. The
“Authorised” Version does not mean that God authorised it, but that many years
ago King James I of England authorised it to be read in church buildings in his
land.
In this document we shall trace the development of the Bible text so that
believers may know how our beloved book reached us. It is quite a journey and it
is worth following. This is not a paper on what is known as Textual Criticism
but it will touch on that subject and give some examples. Many others have
written on that subject but unfortunately there are difficulties in accessing
their work. Many are highly technical, they all need a reasonable knowledge of
Greek and Hebrew, they are often bulky tomes, and worst of all, most are written
by doubters, not believers. I intend to avoid those problems and present an
accessible document that will help all believers have a sound background history
to the Bible. I hope that by the end of it your faith in God and His Word will
be increased rather than challenged, as you see the preserving work of the Holy
Spirit through millennia of vicissitudes.
The Reliability of the Text
When we say that the Scriptures are inspired by God we have to be very clear at
the outset that we are referring to what was written by the prophets and
apostles - not what was copied by later hands or translated by others, for both
of those processes introduced errors. When we study the text of either Testament
in the original language, one of the first things we find is that there are
variant readings, because copying scribes were not as good as they thought they
were. But before this starts to raise doubts in our minds we need to realise
another very important fact, and that is that with all these thousands of
textual variations, not one doctrine of Christian belief is called into
question. To me, this is one of the most remarkable evidences of the work of the
Holy Spirit down through the centuries, that the message of redemption is
perfectly clear, both in its history and in its doctrine. We can improve the
text, clear up obscure passages and make various other corrections, but none of
these variations change the message to the slightest degree. In all our
investigations we must never lose sight of this precious truth. Opponents of the
faith (especially Moslems) like to pounce on these textual variations as proof
of unreliability but they are wrong. There is not one textual variation that
affects any crucial issue. The Bible’s message remains clear and unambiguous. It
is worth remembering that what is required in any court is proof beyond
reasonable doubt, not 100% accuracy. While the original writings were 100%
accurate, what has been passed down to us is not, but it is still reliable
beyond any reasonable doubt.
This evidence of reliability should lead us on to another very logical
deduction, but unfortunately it does not for many people, either for the experts
writing their tomes or for the average believer. The fact is that the Holy
Spirit who inspired the text will also assist us in deciding between variant
readings and also assist us in understanding the text. We must understand that
this quest for the correct text is not just a scholarly exercise but a spiritual
journey. The more we delve into the text the more the Holy Spirit is involved in
our studies and the more he will reveal to us. This has been my experience and
it ought to be so for every believer.
The bulk of what follows focuses on the Old Testament, largely because that has
been my field of study, but also because that is where we find the bulk of the
problems. I have, though, added a small section on the New Testament just to
bring some kind of completeness and a conclusion that I hope is worthy of
consideration.
The Masoretic Text
Most people know that the Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew. Sections
of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic, a closely related language that was
the language of Palestine in Christ’s time. We see it in Mk 5.41 and 15.34. What
many do not know is how the text got to us in the state it is in. We shall begin
our journey in the middle, which may seem strange but with good reason.
The Hebrew text on which our Bibles are based is called the Masoretic Text
(abbreviated to MT) so called from the Hebrew word masorah, which some say means
tradition. It is the form of the text traditionally accepted by Judaism, but
that does not mean it is the best text available. One of the controls scribes
used was to count the letters in a document, the idea being that if old and new
documents had the same letter count then there was a good chance of accuracy.
Unfortunately, that did not stop them putting wrong letters in or swapping
letters around. Also, it did not stop them counting wrongly. Just because MT is
used as the standard text is no reason to assume it is the most reliable text.
That will become clear as we proceed.
MT is not one document but many, with the oldest of these dating from about the
Middle Ages. Our Old Testament is based mainly upon a manuscript dating from
about 1200 AD, held in a museum in St Petersburg. This immediately introduces us
to the biggest problem, namely that the texts are about one thousand years
removed from New Testament times (and much further than that from their
originals). The reason for this is that once the scribes were happy with a copy
they discarded the old. It was not destroyed but put away in safe storage, but
time and regular persecution of the Jews got rid of most (but not all) of those
old copies..
The next thing we need to realise is that Hebrew is a consonantal language, like
Arabic. In these languages you do not need to write the vowels, for the trained
reader can supply them for himself. But as time went on and the Hebrews remained
scattered from Israel, many forgot how to read and speak the language, so
scribes invented systems of punctuation using dots and dashes above and beneath
the consonants. Three different systems were invented, known as Palestinian,
Tiberian and Babylonian, but one prevailed, the Tiberian. We must remember that
these vowel points were never part of the original text, and that sometimes, the
adding of vowels by scribes who did not fully understand what they were reading
changed a meaning. Also, those early texts did not have spaces between words or
any punctuation, so there was much scope for misunderstanding.
MT was established by the Jews long after Christianity had separated from
Judaism, which introduces another problem. In places the text has been changed
to represent the thinking of dead religion rather than preserving God’s original
revelation. Judaism is NOT the same as Old Testament religion. Scribes were not
averse to changing what they did not like or did not understand, as we know from
the evidence that has filtered down through the ages. Therefore, documents other
than MT are very important, for they reveal an earlier text that helps us get
closer to what was originally written.
Some examples of errors follow. In each case I have shown the transliterated
Hebrew, so that the nature of the error is apparent. Please remember that these
are just a few examples only. Many more errors exist.
Examples of Textual Corruption
Duplicated letters (e.g. loose instead of lose)
Lev 27.12 (contains an extra k - ke’erekka instead of ke’erek). It reads “as
you, the priest, value it”, but it should read, “as the priest values it”.
Ruth 3.14 (contains and extra h - boh ha’ishah instead of boh ‘ishah). It should
read “a woman came” not “the woman came”.
Duplicated Words
Jer 46.20 (bo’ bo’). Our text therefore incorrectly has “it is coming” twice.
Ezek 11.15 (a’chika a’chika). Thus we see “your brothers, your relatives”.
2 Ki 7.13 contains the duplicated phrase, “which are left in the city. Behold,
they will be like all the multitude of Israel“.
2 Sam 6.4 is largely a duplicate of the previous verse. The only section that
should be kept is “and Ahio was walking ahead of the ark”.
Wrong letters (e.g. queen instead of queer)
Isa 5.17(has gerim instead of karim). Read “rams” not “strangers”.
Isa 48.16 (has verucho instead of berucho). It should read, “has sent me by his
Spirit”, not, “has sent me and his spirit”.
Ezek 21.20 (has birushalayim instead of virushalaylim). This gives the
geographically
impossible “Judah in Jerusalem“, whereas it should read, “Judah and Jerusalem”.
2 Sam 7.7 (has shibti instead of shophti). It should read “judges” not “tribes”
as in 1 Chr 17.6, which has the correct text.
Missing letters (e.g. ripe instead of tripe)
Gen 23.11 (needs an extra letter yodh - lo ‘adoni shema’ni instead of lu ‘adoni
yishma’ni). This change to the last word would give the reading, “oh that my
lord might hear me”, instead of the grammatically impossible “not lord hear me”.
Ex 32.4 (missing an m - vayyiqach miyyadam instead of vayyiqachem miyyadam). It
should read, “he took them from their hands”, whereas the text omits the “them”.
Ps 68.4 (missing a ch - beyah shemo instead of beyah simchu). This then smoothly
reads, in “Jah rejoice”, instead of the impossible, “in Jah his name”.
Jer 3.1 (le’mer instead of lek emor). The Hebrew as it stands is impossible, so
the translators fudged something, but the added letter and word division gives
the quite sensible, “go, say”.
Missing words
Isa 8.19 (el hamethim instead of al el hamethim). The missing “not”, once
supplied, makes the whole thing readable and sensible.
2 Ki 7.1 (machar instead of yimkar machar). By dropping the similar sounding
word, a scribe left out the word “sold”, which would make sense of the sentence.
Transposition (e.g. fear instead of fare)
Gen 38.21 (meqomah instead of hamaqom). This reads much better as, “the men of
the place”, rather than the given, “the men of her place”.
Ps 22.15 (kichi instead of chiki). Thus we should read, “my palate is dried up
in the heat”, not, “my strength is dried up like a potsherd”. There is also a
wrong word here (kacheres instead of bachoreb) which gives the change from
“potsherd” to “heat”.
Wrong vowels (e.g. shot instead of shut)
Remember that the vowel signs were never part of the inspired text.
Isa 9.20 (zero’o instead of zare’o). People will not eat their own arms but
their offspring.
Isa 2.4 (robbim instead of rabim). We should read “contending peoples”, not
“many peoples”.
Ps 78.4 (nekachad instead of nikechad). This must be read as a passive, not
active, thus, “it was not hidden”.
Ps 55.12 (lo instead of lu). Do not read, “it is not an enemy…nor is it one”,
but “if an enemy…and if it is one who hates me”.
Wrong spacing (e.g. nowhere instead of now here)
Ps 44.4 (elohim tsuvveh instead of elohi metsuvveh). Thus we read, “O God,
command”, whereas it should read, “my God, who commands”.
Jer 23.26 (hayish beleb hanebi’im instead of yachsob leb hanebi’im). It should
read, “how long will the heart of the prophets invent?” The text as given is
grammatically impossible and the translators have invented something that looks
reasonable in English.
Jer 23.33 (eth mah massa’ instead of athem hamassa). Thus, instead of Jeremiah
responding, “what burden?”, he scathingly replies, “you are the burden”!
Ps 73.1 (tob leyisra’el instead of tob leyashar el). Thus the nationalistic “God
is good to Israel” is replaced with the theologically sound, “God is good to the
upright”.
Lost Text
Translators seem to aim for a readable text rather than accurate representation
of what is present in the Hebrew, so when we read the Bible in English we are
not aware of the deficiencies of the text (as we have mentioned above). Here are
three examples of missing text that has been obscured by the translators.
Gen4.8 - “And Cain said to his brother….and it came about”. The missing phrase
can be found via LXX (see below) so that it reads correctly as, “And Cain said
to his brother, ‘let us go into the field’. And it came about”.
Ps 145 is an acrostic (a poem where each successive line or section starts with
the succeeding letter of the alphabet. See below.) When we look at this psalm in
Hebrew it becomes clear that a verse is missing between our v13 and 14, the
stanza beginning with the Hebrew letter nun. The verse can also be found in LXX
so we can safely add “The LORD is faithful in all his words and holy in all his
works”.
Ex 19.25 reads, “so Moses went down to the people and said”. This time we cannot
recover what he said, for the missing words have not survived in any version.
Glosses
Glosses are remarks added to the text to make something clearer, and as the
Scriptures were copied down through the ages, scribes added a few words of
explanation here and there to explain something that his readers may no longer
have understood.
1 Sam 9.9. The early word for a prophet was a seer.
Jos 1.2. “To the sons of Israel” is clearly an unnecessary addition.
Jos 1.4. The great river has to be named Euphrates for those who did not know
that.
Jos 3.16. The sea of the Arabah is named as the Salt Sea. (I’ll add my own gloss
to illustrate the process. This is the Dead Sea in our modern terminology).
Ex 38. 9 & 13. These two show up slightly in KJV (east side, eastward and south
side, southward) but not in NASB. They are clear in Hebrew, for if they were
properly translated they would read, “on the east side (toward the sunrise)” and
“on the south side (on the right)”.
Abbreviations
Ancient scribes abbreviated just as we do, but this practice led later scribes
to misunderstand in places. One common abbreviation was of the divine name Yhwh,
often abbreviated to Y. But Israel was also so abbreviated!
Jos 22.12, 16 and 18 show this error. In two of these verses the abbreviation is
lengthened correctly to (the congregation of )Israel but in v16 it is written
out wrongly as (the congregation of) Yhwh.
Zec 12.1. The same abbreviation is used, but written out incorrectly as Israel
instead of Jerusalem. (remember that in Hebrew, Yhwh, Israel, Judah and
Jerusalem all start with the letter yodh).
2 Chr 28.19. Ahaz was king of Judah, not Israel, so either this is a
misunderstood abbreviation or a copying error.
Acrostic aids
As mentioned above, the acrostic pattern of some sections makes it easy to spot
a textual problem.
Ps 9 and 10 are one psalm in LXX and so they should be for this is one acrostic
poem. Whoever split it into two made an obvious error. Each stanza of this psalm
consists of two lines but the text is quite corrupt so that several lines are
missing and unrecoverable. If complete and in one psalm it would have contained
44 verses.
Ps 25 is another acrostic that has been corrupted, the clearest corruption being
the scribal addition of the last verse, which does not fit the acrostic pattern
and is a typical scribal gloss that should be ignored.
Ps 34 also has an extraneous verse tacked on to the end, but is missing a verse
between v 5 & 6.
Correction via Parallelism
Hebrew poetry does not rhyme in sound but in thought, so that the second line
explains and amplifies the first. For example, Isa 9.6 says, “unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given”. This technique, known as parallelism, enables us
to spot errors that have crept into the text.
Ps 75.9 has its first line corrupted, for the last two words (declare forever)
do not fit the thought of the second line. If however the text is amended from
‘agid le’olam to ‘agil be’elyon it then reads harmoniously as “I will exult in
the Most High”.
Isa 5.17 (see above under Wrong Letters) is another example of using parallelism
to determine the correct text.
Prov 10.7. Rot is not a good antonym for blessed so consider the following
change. Substitute yinnaqeb for yireqob and “will rot” becomes “will be cursed”.
Ps 37.28 can be corrected using parallelism and the acrostic format and spotting
a scribal error of skipping over a word because of its similarity to the
previous one. This is rather complex to explain so I will simply present the
finished article. Read the verse as “the LORD loves justice and does not forsake
his holy ones. The unjust are exterminated and the descendants of the wicked
will be cut off.”
Misunderstanding
Ps 9. 5, 15, 17, 20 (goyim instead of ge’im). This one, like the previous error
is something that crept in because of Judaistic thinking. Their thinking was
that since God had chosen them, the Jews were somehow special in God’s eyes - He
looked after them but cursed everyone else. Consequently, Ps 9 (and other psalms
where this word occurs, e.g. Ps 118.10) were understood to say that God would
look after Israel but dump all other nations in she’ol. But read “arrogant”
instead of “nations” and you get a much better theology.
Scribal correction and censorship
Religion always tries to be holier than God so we should not be surprised to
discover that both scribes and translators have tried to cover up the text at
times. We know about this because scribes have left records of some of the
changes they made. Here are some examples.
Gen 18.22. This is the account of when God came to visit Abraham and we read
that Abraham was standing before God. But that is not what was written. God was
in fact standing before Abraham, but since that seemed irreverent in the
scribes’ eyes, they changed it.
Job 2.9. Our translators have (correctly) adjusted this one so that we read what
Job’s wife actually said, namely, “curse God and die”. The Hebrew says, “bless
God and die“, because the scribes could not bring themselves to write the two
words “curse“ and “God“ in the same sentence.
1 Sam 3.13. This is similar to the last, for what was actually written was that
Eli’s sons cursed God. The scribes were horrified by that thought so they
changed it to read that the sons brought a curse upon themselves.
Deut 28.30. A word appears here, shagal (and in Isa 13.16; Jer 3.3; Zec 14.2 but
nowhere else in Scripture) that the Jews consider too vulgar to speak out, so
they substitute it when reading aloud with shakab, meaning “violate”. A
down-to-earth word like “shag” or “fuck” would be about right when used with its
proper meaning and not as an expletive. (Its noun form appears in Neh 2.6 and Ps
45.9, where it clearly indicates a member of the royal harem, not the queen.)
The issue we must face here is that if God chose to use a strong word because he
wanted to sound a serious warning, then how dare anyone substitute something
“nicer”?
Jdg 18.30. This verse records that Jonathan, a descendant of Moses, was
responsible in leading Israel into idolatry. The Jews held Moses in such respect
that they changed the text to read Manasseh (an addition of just one letter in
Hebrew).
Yhwh. The Jews were so in awe of the divine name that they never pronounced it,
with the result that they eventually forgot how it was pronounced. (Remember
that the text only had consonants.) Fortunately, its close to correct
pronunciation exists in a Greek transliteration, so we know that God’s name is
Yahweh. Unfortunately, most translations obscure this by rendering the Name as
LORD.
Septuagint
We are not left to the MT alone, for there are numerous other sources and they
all provide assistance in improving the text. The first we will consider is the
very important source of the Septuagint abbreviated to LXX). This was a
translation into Greek made in Alexandria by a group of seventy scribes, hence
its name. It was made for the many Jews who had forgotten Hebrew but spoke Greek
(the international language of the time). This work was started in about 250 BC
but there is much disagreement as to when it was finished. This work is
important for three reasons.
Firstly, it was the Old Testament of the early church and many of the New
Testament quotations of the Old are taken from this translation, not from the
Hebrew.
Secondly, it is possible for linguists to work backwards, discovering what
Hebrew word may have been the source of a particular Greek translation. In this
way it is sometimes possible to discover ancient copying errors and correct
them.
Thirdly, this ancient translation is important because LXX was based on a Hebrew
source text older that MT by over a millennium and it shows considerable
variation from it, even allowing for suspect translation. Some examples of
correction via LXX have appeared above but three more illustrations of its value
are given below. Many more could be given, of course, especially where the
improvement comes from NT quotations.
Having said those things to show the importance of LXX, it is also necessary to
be aware of its drawbacks. The first is that the quality of translation varies
from book to book (and even within books at times). Thus, according to the
language experts, some books are translated almost literally while others (such
as Job and Daniel) have been translated with great freedom. Secondly, the text
has been revised by several ancient authors, so that we have a variety of LXX
texts. Thirdly, LXX includes the Apocrypha, both the apocryphal books and
additions to the canonical books, an inclusion that has caused much confusion
for many years since these texts were never part of the Hebrew Scriptures but
treated as canonical by the Roman Church. Therefore, we must always be aware of
the drawbacks when assessing the value of LXX as a witness to the Bible text.
Improved Text
Isa 42.4. The last line of this verse is quoted in Matt 12.21 but see how
differently it reads. Matthew is quoting from LXX. We should therefore assume
that the reading in Matthew correctly represents what Isaiah actually wrote,
while the Hebrew represents a scribal corruption. (Remember that the Jews did
not like to read promises of God saving the Gentiles.).
Ps 72.3-4. This verse is unscrambled by LXX so that it reads, “let the mountains
and the hills bring peace to the people. In righteousness He will save the
children of the needy.”
Hos 6.6. Here we read that God requires “loyalty” but in Matt 9.13, following
LXX, we read that the desired element is compassion. Once again, believe Matthew
rather than the scribes of Judaism.
Shorter Text
LXX is not just valuable for variations in readings of individual verses, for in
places it shows blocks of variations. The biggest variation is in Jeremiah,
which is about one eighth shorter and in a different sequence. The largest
portions missing from LXX are 27.19-22; 33.14-26; 39.4-14; 48.46-47.The
difference in sequence is that 25.14-45.5 are at the end of the book.
Another large variant is in the story of Saul, David and Goliath in 1 Sam 16-18,
where once again LXX is shorter, lacking 39 verses. Missing are 17.12-31, 55-58;
18.1-6a, 10-11, 17-19, 29b-30. If you read the story carefully you will see that
by dropping out these sections the contradictions in the story disappear. Maybe
those extra sections were later scribal additions that were not there when LXX
was created.
There are also interesting variations in Joshua and Judges that we should
consider. Firstly, there are some small sections missing in LXX and a quick look
at them shows them to be later glosses. A more important omission is in Jos
20.1-6, where LXX lacks v4-6 and most of v6. As with the variations in Samuel,
these omissions remove a contradiction, so maybe once again we are looking at a
purer text via LXX.
Additions
Then there is an important addition, an extra paragraph at the end of Joshua
that leads straight into the story of Judges as if they were one book. Couple
this with the likelihood that Jdg 1.1-3.11 is another scribal addition (for it
is a duplicate story) and we would then have a smooth transition from Joshua to
Judges.
LXX also contains an extra psalm at the end of the book.
Qumran
The second most important source for the Old Testament text is the treasure of
Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. A whole library was discovered
there in 1947 containing parts of every Old Testament book except Esther as well
as other non-canonical books. Some of these parts were only fragments, but
others were complete books. These fragments must not be underestimated, as even
the oldest ones, portions of a copy of Samuel made about 250 BC, have proved
useful in clearing up textual obscurities. (Samuel is the book with the most
textual corruption, so any help there is to be welcomed.) The most popular books
for the Qumran community were the Law, Psalms and Isaiah, several copies of each
being found. Since these finds were dated at 100-300 BC they are currently the
oldest Hebrew manuscripts available. In numerous places they agree with LXX
against MT so once again they provide a valuable tool for improving the text.
There are some interesting extra lines in the Qumran text of 1 Sam 11 that
belong before v1 and they read as follows. “Nahash, king of the children of
Ammon, sorely oppressed the children of Gad and the children of Reuben and he
gouged out all their right eyes and struck terror and dread in Israel. There was
not left one among the children of Israel beyond the Jordan whose right eye was
not gouged out by Nahash king of the children of Ammon; except seven thousand
men fled from the children of Ammon and entered Jabesh Gilead. About a month
later”. It is plain how this section, missing from MT, clears up some otherwise
inexplicable details of the story.
Some improvements from the Qumran text of Isaiah
28.21. Our Bibles have “as” in two places - “as at Mount Perazim” and “as in the
valley of Gibeon”. Omit those two words as the Qumran text does and you have a
clearer reading. This change involves the substitution in Hebrew of just one
easily confused letter.
42.6. Instead of “a covenant to the people” read, “an everlasting covenant”.
(For le‘am read ‘olam.)
47.10. Replace “wickedness” with “knowledge”. Again, this requires the change of
just one letter in Hebrew to bring a much better sense to the passage.
14.4. The KJV translators were faced with an unknown word (mdhbh) so they
guessed and put in “golden city”. Qumran shows the word to be mrhbh, which
translates as “assault”.
The New Testament
There are differences in our English Bibles between what the Old says and what
the New quotes, and this deserves our serious consideration. Interestingly, few
experts in Textual Criticism have examined this field, leaving themselves
exposed to an accusation of gross neglect of a valuable source. Since the
apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writings, we should take
careful note of what they made of the Old Testament text. When we examine their
quotes we find no consistent pattern. Sometimes they agree with the Hebrew text,
sometimes they follow the LXX text, and at other times they reject both to give
us a different reading. Following on from our two premises we are left with a
logical deduction. If the apostles were inspired by God and if the New Testament
text is more reliable than either the Hebrew or the LXX translation of the Old,
then we must conclude that the apostolic versions of Old Testament quotes
reflect the original intention of the Holy Spirit.
Other Records
There are numerous other ancient translations ,such as those into Aramaic
(called targums, with rabbinic commentaries added), Arabic, Coptic and Latin.
These are not as useful as other records in determining the text, but do help to
clear up some obscurities. Then there is the Samaritan text. This consists only
of the Torah, for that sect only accepted Moses as inspired. This too shows
agreement with Qumran and LXX against MT so once again there are improvements
that can be made, although here we have to be aware of the deliberate changes
made by the Samaritans to make the text agree with their doctrines.
There is also the matter of conjecture, which is another way of saying
guesswork, but is not as hazardous as it may seem. There are places where the
Old Testament text is so corrupt that the Hebrew does not make sense. But a
language expert can often make a knowledgeable guess at what the text should
have been. Some examples of this process have been included above.
What exactly is the inspired Word of God? Textual criticism aims to give us the
information necessary to make a sensible judgement under the direction of the
Holy Spirit. Let us remind ourselves once again that the Lord Jesus and the
apostles had complete faith in the minute accuracy of Scripture (Matt 5.18;
22.32; Gal 3.16; Heb 11.19) even though in their day there were plenty of
textual variations around. As for us, two millennia later, we still have a
reliable (if imperfect) witness.
Pre-Masoretic History
Since we have a reasonable idea as to what the Old Testament might have looked
like in Christ’s time, we should now journey back in time to establish how the
books came that far. As one can imagine, the first clues are sparse. We know
that writing is as old as man, for the first mention of books is in Gen 5.1.
While humanist anthropologists may have their theories about the origins of
language and writing, the believer should have no doubt that God was the source
of both. We know he spoke to Adam, so it is reasonable to assume that He showed
him how to make written records. We also know that Ancient Egypt was an advanced
society whose learning Moses had absorbed (Acts 7.22) so it should be no
surprise that he should be used by God to put together the first Bible books.
That does not mean that he wrote them without using source materials, for the
earlier prophets would have left their records of events. Scripture tells us
that both Abel and Abraham were prophets (Lk 11.50-51; Gen 20.7) and therefore
would have been channels of God’s revelation. There was a succession of prophets
from Abel through Abraham and Moses to Malachi. There were the prophets Samuel,
Nathan and Gad who were used (inspired) by God to record Israel’s history (1 Chr
29.29) and we read that Jeremiah used a scribe to record God‘s word. He also
rewrote the whole thing when an evil king cut a scroll and burned it (Jer
36.17-23, 27-28). These records were collected and revered because men (even
rebellious, unbelieving men) knew that God had spoken (Jn 9.29). This reverence
for Scripture was found even amongst those who killed the prophets who brought
the revelation (Matt 23.29-31)!
The New Testament Text
The problems with the New Testament text are far fewer than with the Old because
the manuscript evidence is far better, both in quality and quantity. Also, these
manuscripts date from far closer to the time of the originals and have suffered
less from scribal emendation. There are complete New Testaments in existence
that date back to the fourth century, sections that date from the second century
and a few fragments from the first century. We should also remember that these
documents were preserved (by and large) by believers, whereas the Old Testament
texts had been in the hands of Jews who had resisted the Gospel, and therefore
more likely to be manipulated.
The biggest NT textual problem is the ending of Mark’s Gospel. To the delight of
non-Pentecostals, 16.9-20 is missing from the oldest manuscripts. This means
that anyone wanting to base doctrine upon this passage must first present proof
that these verses are indeed part of what Mark wrote. Interestingly, although
the manuscripts of the fourth century omit it, Irenaeus (2nd century) and
Hyppolitus (3rd century) both quote it. “The Angus Bible Handbook says, ‘the
overwhelming mass of manuscripts, versions and fathers are in favour of the
verses.’ Doubt concerning them does not seem to have been expressed until the
fourth century.” (Baxter). Those words come from a non-Pentecostal, by the way.
Other New Testament variations are much smaller. For example, Acts 7.37 and a
large portion of 1 Jn 5.8 are missing from the oldest manuscripts and therefore
from our translations. On the other hand, there is an interesting variety to
Acts 8.39 that most translations omit but that we would do well to ponder,
namely, “the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the eunuch”.
Then of course there are hundreds of minor variations just as there are with the
Old Testament text. Here are just a few.
Jn 1.18. “The only begotten God”. Some manuscripts replace “God” with “Son”.
Eph 1.1. The words “at Ephesus” are missing from some of the oldest manuscripts.
Col 1.7. “on our behalf” reads “on your behalf” in some manuscripts.
1 Tim 3.16. “He was revealed in the flesh” reads “God was revealed in the flesh”
in some manuscripts.
A Concluding Thought
We have to make do with texts that have suffered from two millennia of human
fallibility but that does not leave us in a state of confusion. I present to you
two New Testament texts that I believe are highly relevant to this situation.
Heb 1.1-2. “Having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many
portions and in many ways, God has in these last days spoken to us in His Son”.
2 Pet 1.19. “We have the more sure prophetic word to which you do well to pay
attention”.
The detail of the Old Testament text may be obscure in places but there is no
doubt whatsoever about what God revealed in Christ and what God has spoken
through the apostles. This means that we should always show a degree of caution
when using the Old Testament to prove minute points, being very careful to
follow the Holy Spirit’s prompting, but that we can have full confidence in the
text of the New Testament.
The History of the Bible in English Translation
Although there were sporadic attempts to translate the Bible into the
vernacular, the general trend wherever the Roman church held sway was to keep
the Bible away from people. It was known to the scholarly monks, but even among
them only in Latin. Very few of them ever bothered to learn Greek and Hebrew so
as to read in the original languages. Consequently, ignorance was great.
The first name we should remember in the history of Bible translation into
English is John Wycliffe, who produced an English Bible (from the Latin
translation) in 1382. This was before the invention of printing, so copies had
to be made by hand, making them scarce and expensive. He earned the wrath of the
church hierarchy for his efforts, but he still died in peace, unlike William
Tyndale. He produced the first printed New Testament in English in Belgium and
smuggled copies into England, but the Roman bishops caught him and killed him
(1532). Before his death he had started translating the Old Testament from
Hebrew, but only got about halfway. His work was finished by Miles Coverdale,
who brought out his Bible in 1535. By this time, Henry 8th was king of England
and the Bible a permitted book, but that changed again during the reign of Mary
(1553-1558) when once again the English saints paid for their faith with their
lives. The next significant event as regards the Bible was the authorisation in
1611 of a new translation by King James (see Introduction). This translation, in
places just a revision of Tyndale’s work, proved to be a landmark of English
literature, becoming such a fixed part of the church landscape that many people
still use it today, despite its two major problems. The first of those is that
its English is 400 years out of date and the second is that there are now far
better source materials to work from - but tradition dies hard, so some people
still act as though KJV were itself the inspired Word of God.
The Problems with Translations
There are three problems we face when we look at any Bible translation (into any
language). The first is the translator’s bias. We all know only as much as we
have learned, so the blind spots we have will be with us when we approach the
Scriptures. This is most obvious when we look at some modern translations. Some
of these (like Moffatt, NEB and RSV) were produced by liberal, modernist
sceptics and most have been produced by people who have not had any Pentecostal
or Charismatic experience. Consequently, they try and render into English
expressions that describe experiences they have never had, and they fail
miserably. Similarly, all translations have been made by men of the
institutional church, so their Babylonian worldview creeps into their
translations with expressions like “bishops, deacons, preaching, baptism“. This
not only clouds the issues but also provides the basis for all sorts of
authoritarianism and control in church groups. This is because words describing
the functions of servants are twisted into meanings of superior position,
authority and dignity. (For the benefit of the unlearned, those words above
should be translated “overseer, servant, proclamation, submersion”.)
Secondly, there is the problem of human fallibility. It is so easy to put into a
translation what we think should be there instead of faithfully reproducing what
the original says. There is also the problem of not recognising what the writer
is trying to say and thus misrepresenting him in our translation. Another error
(seen especially in NIV, Good News Bible and Message) is the attempt to put the
Scriptures into popular, easy to read language. It might sound like a good idea
but the result is something that is no longer faithful to the original. It might
be understood, but what is understood is not what was intended. We thus fail to
grasp the meaning of the authors.
We saw earlier that the scribes were so religious that they sometimes shuddered
at the down-to-earth expressions used by the Holy Spirit. The same malady
affects translators, with the result that when we read in English we do not
always get the message intended. Possibly the greatest loss we suffer here is
the obscuring of the bold sexuality and eroticism of the Song of Solomon, but
there are also other passages where the translators have been too shy to deal
with bodily parts and functions the way the Holy Spirit speaks of them.
Thirdly, and possibly the biggest problem of all, is the non-reliance on the
Holy Spirit. We know that He inspired the original writers and we know that he
enlightens us as to many meanings. Sadly, the middle step is missing, for no
Bible translator has ever acknowledged that he (or they) ever sought the help of
the Holy Spirit in their work of translation.
Thus, while we can be thankful that we have the Bible in our own language (and
in English that means a variety of translations) we should never assume that
what we have is the perfect and inspired Word of God. Any knowledge of the
original languages and any understanding of the historical process of textual
transmission will put us on a firmer footing.
Bibliography
British and Foreign Bible Society - Hebrew Old Testament
- Greek New Testament
Holladay, W. - Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
Kennedy, J. - An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament
Tov, E. - Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
Wurthwein, E. - Der Text des alten Testaments
Miller, A. - Church History
Benyon, Sir L. - The Septuagint with Apocrypha
Harris, R.L. - Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible
Cross, F.M. and Talmon, S. - Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text
NB: This work may be freely copied and reproduced on condition that no part of the text is changed. The work should be cited as: Collins, P, The History of our Bible, www.emeth.co.za/pcbible.html