Why we reject The Textus Receptus (TR)

The Textus Receptus (TR), which served as the primary Greek text for the New Testament of the King James Version (KJV), has some significant limitations that modern scholars recognize. Here are key reasons why the TR is not considered a perfect representation of the original New Testament text:

1. Limited Manuscript Sources

The TR was based on a small number of late Byzantine Greek manuscripts available to Erasmus when he compiled it in the early 16th century. Erasmus primarily relied on six to eight Greek manuscripts from the 12th to 15th centuries, which do not represent the earliest or most diverse witnesses of the New Testament text.

Today, scholars have access to thousands of Greek manuscripts, including much earlier papyri from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which were unavailable to Erasmus. These older manuscripts often differ from the later Byzantine manuscripts, revealing variations and sometimes shorter or different readings.

2. Rushed Compilation and Printing Errors

Erasmus produced the first edition of the TR under significant time pressure. It was printed quickly in 1516, and Erasmus later acknowledged that he hadn’t been able to fully review it for errors. This haste led to typographical and transcription errors that were carried over in later editions.

Even after Erasmus’ initial compilation, later editors like Stephanus and Beza made their own edits to the TR, sometimes introducing new errors or speculative changes to the text without access to a broader manuscript base.

3. Influence of the Latin Vulgate

Erasmus sometimes relied on the Latin Vulgate when Greek manuscript readings were missing or unclear. For example, certain passages in the TR (like the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7–8) are based on Latin sources rather than Greek manuscripts, since Erasmus lacked any Greek manuscripts containing this phrase. Under pressure to include this passage, he eventually added it in a later edition based on a single Greek manuscript likely translated from Latin.

This Latin influence means the TR sometimes reflects Latin readings not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, reducing its accuracy as a purely Greek New Testament text.

4. Byzantine Text-Only Focus

The TR is almost exclusively a Byzantine text-type, which became the standard Greek text in the Eastern Orthodox Church during the Middle Ages. However, older manuscript discoveries (like the Alexandrian texts in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) have shown that the Byzantine text is not always the most accurate reflection of the original writings.

Textual criticism suggests that the Alexandrian text-type, generally shorter and more succinct, often represents the earliest form of the text, while the Byzantine text contains expansions and harmonizations. Since the TR is solely based on the Byzantine text, it sometimes includes readings that are considered secondary or later developments in the manuscript tradition.

5. Later Additions and Harmonizations

The TR includes several later additions that do not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts. For example:

The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20): This passage is present in the TR but absent from the earliest manuscripts.

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11): This story of the woman caught in adultery is also a later addition and not found in the oldest manuscripts of John.

These passages are now recognized by most scholars as later additions to the New Testament text, likely added to harmonize or expand the narrative. The inclusion of these passages in the TR reflects its reliance on later manuscripts rather than the earliest available evidence.

6. Modern Advances in Textual Criticism

Textual criticism has advanced significantly since Erasmus' time. Today, scholars use comprehensive techniques to evaluate manuscripts, considering factors like scribal habits, regional text types, and textual families. This process allows a more accurate reconstruction of the earliest text, moving beyond the constraints of the TR’s small manuscript base and limited methodology.

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBS5), which incorporate thousands of manuscripts, represent a more refined and reliable Greek text based on advanced textual criticism.

7. Influence on Translations and Theological Issues

The TR has influenced traditional translations like the KJV, but its differences from the earliest manuscripts mean it contains interpretative and theological variants that may not align with the original text. This can affect theological understanding and interpretation, especially when the TR includes readings that diverge from early manuscript evidence.

For example, variants in the TR, like those in Matthew 6:13 ("For thine is the kingdom...") and Acts 8:37 (Philip's confession of faith), are not found in the earliest manuscripts and may reflect later liturgical additions.

In summary, the Textus Receptus represents a valuable step in the history of biblical scholarship but is limited by its reliance on late Byzantine manuscripts, Latin influences, and lack of access to the earliest Greek manuscripts. We pray for a more accurate and scholarly reconstruction of the New Testament text based on a comprehensive array of early evidence. 

Verbal Plenary Preservation is a deception.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matthew 24:24)

Matthew 24:24 warns of false Christs and false prophets who will try to deceive even the elect, if possible. Some proponents of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) may unintentionally lead people astray by insisting on a doctrine that claims absolute perfection of a specific text, the Textus Receptus, often underlying the KJV. Such a stance can create unnecessary divisions and distract from the core message of the Gospel.

This insistence on a "perfect" Bible can sow discord and confusion within the church, echoing the warning in Matthew 24:24 about deception. Instead of focusing on the supposed perfection of a single manuscript tradition, it's more productive to recognize the robust and reliable nature of the broader manuscript evidence that collectively preserves God's Word.

Unity and the core truths of Christianity should be our focus, rather than divisive claims that risk misleading believers. Important to keep our eyes on the bigger picture, don’t you think?

We reject the Textus Receptus (TR) and its subsequent editions until further notice due to the incorrect teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation and attacks by its proponents.

English Standard Version (ESV)

English Standard Version (ESV) is highly regarded Bible translation, the ESV often receives praise for the following reasons:

1. Balance of Accuracy and Readability:

Accuracy: The ESV is known for its literal and accurate translation of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It aims to preserve the original meaning and structure of the text.

Readability: While maintaining accuracy, the ESV is also highly readable, making it suitable for both scholarly study and personal devotion.

2. Strong Textual Basis:

The ESV is based on a strong textual foundation, utilizing the latest scholarly insights and textual criticism. It aims to provide a reliable and accurate representation of the original text.

3. Clear and Consistent Language:

The ESV employs clear and consistent language, avoiding unnecessary complexity and archaic terms. This makes it easier to understand and apply the biblical message.

4. Preserves Literary Style:

While prioritizing accuracy, the ESV also strives to preserve the literary style and poetic beauty of the original text. This enhances the reading experience and helps to convey the full impact of the biblical message.

5. Wide Acceptance and Use:

The ESV is widely used and respected by scholars, pastors, and lay people alike. It is often considered a reliable and authoritative translation, making it a popular choice for both personal and academic use.

Conclusion:

While the NIV and KJV are also valuable translations, the ESV's balance of accuracy, readability, and literary style often makes it a preferred choice for many readers. It is often beneficial to consult multiple translations to gain a deeper understanding of the biblical text.

Rejecting both the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus (TR)

The reason why some may reject both the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus (TR).

While both the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus (TR) have been influential in the history of Bible translation, they have also been subject to criticism.

Westcott-Hort Greek Text

Emphasis on Alexandrian Text-Type: Westcott and Hort prioritized the Alexandrian text-type, represented by manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, over the majority text-type. Critics argue that this preference was subjective and led to the neglect of valuable textual evidence.

Questionable Methodology: Some scholars criticize Westcott and Hort's methodology, particularly their reliance on internal evidence and genealogical relationships between manuscripts. They argue that this approach was flawed and led to inaccurate conclusions.

Alleged Liberal Theological Bias: Some critics claim that Westcott and Hort's theological views influenced their textual choices. They argue that the Alexandrian text-type, which they favored, aligns more closely with liberal theological interpretations.

Textus Receptus (TR)

Limited Manuscript Base: The TR was based on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts. This limited base raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the text.

Scribal Errors and Corruptions: Due to the process of manuscript copying over centuries, the TR is susceptible to scribal errors and corruptions that may have accumulated over time.

Lack of Critical Apparatus: The TR lacks a critical apparatus, which would have provided information about variant readings and textual uncertainties. This makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the text.

It's important to note that modern Bible translations, such as the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New International Version (NIV), are based on more extensive textual evidence and scholarly analysis than either the Westcott-Hort text or the TR. These translations have benefited from advancements in textual criticism and a wider range of manuscript evidence.

Some readers may prefer to use a translation that reflects the latest scholarly findings. Recent scholarly findings in Bible translation continue to shape our understanding of the biblical text. Here are some of the key areas of ongoing research and discovery:

Textual Criticism:

• New Manuscript Discoveries: While major discoveries have slowed, ongoing research and analysis of existing manuscripts continue to refine our understanding of the original text.

• Digital Tools and Technologies: Advanced digital tools are revolutionizing textual criticism, allowing for more precise analysis of manuscripts and their variations.

Language Studies:

• Semantic and Syntactic Analysis: Deeper analysis of the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) continues to shed light on the nuances of meaning and grammar.

• Cultural and Historical Context: Research into the cultural, historical, and social contexts of the biblical world helps to illuminate the meaning of the text.   

Translation Philosophy and Methodology:

• Balancing Accuracy and Readability: Translators continue to grapple with the tension between literal accuracy and dynamic equivalence, seeking to produce translations that are both faithful to the original text and accessible to modern readers.

• Inclusive Language: Many translations are incorporating more inclusive language to reflect contemporary sensibilities and avoid gender-specific language that may not accurately represent the original text.

Interdisciplinary Approaches:

• Archaeology and Biblical Studies: Archaeological discoveries continue to provide valuable insights into the biblical world, helping to contextualize the biblical narrative.   

• Literary and Historical Criticism: These disciplines offer new perspectives on the literary and historical aspects of the Bible, leading to fresh interpretations of the text.

It's important to note that while there are ongoing advancements in Bible translation, the core message of the Bible remains unchanged. These scholarly findings primarily help us to better understand the historical and cultural context of the biblical text, which can enrich our interpretation and application of its teachings.

We hope that the finest translation may be obtained by referring to all the manuscripts and early Bible translations:

Fact: We have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, making it one of the most well-attested ancient texts.

Here are some New Testament manuscripts and early translations:

 

Greek New Testament Manuscripts (Grouped by Century)

2nd Century (100–199 AD)

• Papyrus Manuscripts: Earliest and often fragmentary manuscripts, mostly on papyrus.

o 𝔓52 (Papyrus 52): Earliest known fragment, part of John (18:31–33, 37–38), dating to around 125–150 AD.

o 𝔓66: Nearly complete Gospel of John, dating to about 150–200 AD.

o 𝔓46: Contains most of the Pauline Epistles, dating to around 175–225 AD.

o 𝔓75: Contains large portions of Luke and John, dated to around 175–225 AD.

3rd Century (200–299 AD)

• Papyrus Manuscripts:

o 𝔓45: Portions of all four Gospels and Acts, dated around 250 AD.

o 𝔓47: Contains part of Revelation, dated to the 3rd century.

o 𝔓72: Contains 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, dated to the 3rd or 4th century.

4th Century (300–399 AD)

• Uncial Codices: Large manuscripts, mainly on parchment, written in uncial script.

o Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ or 01): Nearly complete Bible, including the New Testament, dated around 330–360 AD.

o Codex Vaticanus (B or 03): Nearly complete New Testament, dated to the 4th century.

o Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C or 04): A palimpsest with portions of the New Testament, dated to the 4th or 5th century.

5th Century (400–499 AD)

• Uncial Codices:

o Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02): Nearly complete New Testament, dated to the 5th century.

o Codex Bezae (D or 05): Contains Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, dated to the 5th century.

o Codex Washingtonianus (W or 032): Contains the Gospels, dated to the late 4th or early 5th century.

6th Century (500–599 AD)

• Uncial Codices:

o Codex Claromontanus (D or 06): Contains Pauline Epistles in Greek and Latin, dated to the 6th century.

o Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus (N or 022): Purple-dyed manuscript with the Gospels, dated to the 6th century.

7th to 10th Centuries (600–999 AD)

• Uncial Codices: Fewer uncials are produced; minuscule writing becomes more popular.

o Codex Basilensis (E or 07), Codex Laudianus (E or 08), Codex Sangallensis (Δ or 037).

9th to 15th Centuries (Minuscule Period)

• Minuscule Manuscripts: Written in cursive, many thousands of these exist.

o Examples: Minuscule 1 (10th century), Minuscule 33 (9th century, "Queen of the Cursives").

Lectionaries (From 8th Century Onward)

• Lectionaries: Arranged by liturgical use, passages for specific days, from the 8th century onward.

o Examples: ℓ32 (10th century), ℓ185 (12th century).

________________________________________

Early Translations of the New Testament (Grouped by Century)

2nd Century

• Old Latin (Vetus Latina): The earliest Latin translations, from around the late 2nd century.

• Syriac Translations:

o Old Syriac (Diatessaron): Likely a harmony of the four Gospels by Tatian, around 170 AD.

o Peshitta: Standard Syriac version, emerging in the 2nd century and finalized later.

3rd Century

• Coptic Translations: In Egypt, there were several Coptic dialects:

o Sahidic: Southern Egyptian dialect, one of the earliest Coptic translations.

o Bohairic: Northern Egyptian dialect, translation completed later but based on early texts.

4th Century

• Gothic Translation: Made by Bishop Ulfilas, the Gothic Bible (4th century) represents the earliest translation into a Germanic language.

• Armenian Translation: Began in the early 5th century but initiated by missionaries in the 4th century.

5th Century

• Latin Vulgate: St. Jerome’s Latin translation, completed around 405 AD, became the standard in the Western Church.

• Georgian Translation: Created in the early 5th century, derived from Greek and Armenian sources.

• Ethiopic (Ge'ez) Translation: Created in the 5th or 6th century, based on both Greek and Syriac texts.

6th Century

• Old Church Slavonic: Developed by Saints Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century for Slavic-speaking peoples but based on manuscripts that possibly had roots in the 6th century.

Translating the Bible from various manuscripts and early translations is a meticulous process that involves several steps to ensure accuracy and faithfulness to the original texts. Here’s a broad overview of how this is done:

1. Gathering Manuscripts

Scholars collect as many available manuscripts as possible, ranging from early papyrus fragments to later medieval codices. These manuscripts include significant texts from the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western traditions, among others.

2. Textual Criticism

Textual critics analyze these manuscripts to identify variations and determine which readings are most likely original. This involves comparing the texts and considering factors such as the age of the manuscript, the geographical distribution of the readings, and the quality of the scribes.

3. Creating a Critical Text

Based on textual criticism, scholars compile a critical text of the New Testament. This text represents the most accurate reconstruction of the original writings based on the evidence from various manuscripts. 

4. Translation Committee

A diverse committee of scholars, fluent in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), is assembled. This team includes experts in linguistics, theology, and biblical studies to ensure a balanced and comprehensive translation.

5. Translation Philosophy

The committee decides on a translation philosophy—word-for-word (formal equivalence) or thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence). Word-for-word translations (like the NASB) aim for literal accuracy, while thought-for-thought translations (like the NLT) aim for readability and capturing the intended meaning.

6. Drafting and Revising

Translators draft the initial version, often working in small teams. They cross-reference early translations like the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac Peshitta, as well as consulting commentaries and linguistic studies. Multiple drafts are reviewed and revised to ensure clarity, accuracy, and faithfulness to the text.

7. Review and Feedback

The draft undergoes extensive review, both internally within the translation committee and externally by other scholars and language experts. Feedback is incorporated to refine and improve the translation.

8. Finalizing the Text

Once the translation committee agrees on the final version, it is proofread and typeset. The final text is prepared for publication, including any necessary footnotes, cross-references, and study aids.

9. Continuous Updates

Even after publication, translations are periodically reviewed and updated to reflect new manuscript discoveries and advances in linguistic understanding. This ensures that the translation remains accurate and relevant.

By following these steps, translators can produce a Bible that faithfully represents the original texts while being accessible and meaningful for contemporary readers. This process honors the integrity and depth of the Scriptures, ensuring that their transformative message continues to reach people across generations. It’s a remarkable journey of scholarship and faith.

There haven't been any major breakthroughs or groundbreaking discoveries in Bible translation in 2024. 

Organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators continue to work tirelessly to translate the Bible into languages spoken by millions of people around the world.   

While there may not be a single "latest Bible translation finding" in 2024, the collective efforts of scholars and translators are gradually improving our understanding of the biblical text and making it accessible to more people worldwide.

To stay updated on the latest developments in Bible translation, you may want to follow organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators or consult with biblical scholars.

It's important to note that Bible translation is a complex and ongoing process.

These are the reasons why we reject Verbal Plenary Preservation:

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) asserts that God supernaturally preserved the original autographs of the Bible and that these original writings have been perfectly transmitted through subsequent copies to the present day.

While many Christians hold to this belief, there are several reasons why some reject VPP:

Lack of Explicit Biblical Support: Critics argue that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of VPP. While it affirms the inspiration and authority of Scripture, it does not explicitly claim that every word of the original autographs has been perfectly preserved.

Textual Criticism: Modern textual criticism, which involves the study of ancient manuscripts, demonstrates that the transmission of biblical texts was not error-free. Scribal errors, intentional alterations, and accidental omissions occurred throughout the copying process.

Historical and Cultural Context: The biblical texts were written in ancient languages and cultures, and their meaning can be influenced by various factors, including historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. This can lead to differing interpretations and translations.

Different Textual Traditions: Different textual traditions, such as the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western, have emerged over time, reflecting variations in the transmission of the biblical text. These variations highlight the complexities of textual transmission.

Theological Implications: Some argue that VPP can lead to a rigid and inflexible approach to Scripture interpretation, hindering critical thinking and open dialogue.

It's important to note that while VPP is a common belief among some Christians, it is not a universally accepted doctrine. Many Christians hold to a more nuanced view of biblical authority, recognizing the complexities of textual transmission and the importance of careful interpretation.

Stay current with the latest manuscript discoveries and advancements in textual criticism. These resources can provide a more accurate and comprehensive foundation for translation.

Reject VPP and kick it's false teachers.

Why Leave Fundamentalism and KJV-Onlyism?

It is with a heavy heart that we must share with you today the difficult decision we have made to leave the fundamentalist movement and the strict adherence to the King James Version of the Bible. This was not a decision made lightly, but one that has been deeply considered and prayed over.

We have come to realize that our narrow interpretation of Scripture and our insistence on the KJV-Onlyism have limited our understanding of God's love and grace. We have often focused on rules and regulations, forgetting the importance of compassion and mercy. This has led to a divisive and judgmental attitude that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, we have come to appreciate the value of historical and textual criticism in understanding the Bible. While the KJV is a valuable translation, it is not the only accurate one. There is much to be learned from studying the original languages and other translations.

We believe that a more open-minded and inclusive approach to faith is necessary to reach out to a world that is increasingly diverse and skeptical. By embracing a broader understanding of Scripture and a more compassionate attitude towards others, we can become a more relevant and effective witness for Christ.

We know that this news may be difficult for some of you to accept. Please know that we still love you all deeply, and we pray that we can find a way to move forward together in faith.

Thank you for your understanding.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

 TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

    Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that discrepancies exist in the biblical text. Why wouldn’t God have preserved his Word with greater care? How can we really know what God has said when there are variations in the wording? These are important questions for people who believe the Bible to be God’s inspired, authoritative Word. To answer them, we must consider what Christians believe and have believed about the nature of the Bible—our doctrine of Scripture.

Evangelical Christians generally consider the Bible to be “the completely true and trustworthy, final and authoritative, source for theology.”⁶ Many Christians also use the word “inerrant” (literally “without error”) to describe the Bible. However, this term can hold different meanings. For some, inerrancy means there are no errors of any kind in our Bible—God has preserved it as perfectly as he inspired it. For others, inerrancy extends only to the autographs of the Bible, while the manuscripts (and our English translations) that descended from them are understood to contain variation in readings, from scribal mistakes to theological emendations. People also associate the word “infallible” with the Bible—another word that holds varying meanings. Some equate it with “inerrant,” while others consider infallibility a broader category that refers to the overall trustworthiness of Scripture’s teaching.⁷

The doctrine of Scripture has developed over time, as have all theological doctrines. Early on, the church fathers recognized variants among their biblical manuscripts. However, they did not seem to view these variants as damaging to Scripture’s authority. Differences in texts became more problematic after the advent of the printing press. For the first time, Christians were able to have a fixed text—but which text should be fixed? Later, as European scholars in the eighteenth century sifted through a plethora of newly discovered biblical manuscripts, they began to understand how the biblical text had developed over time.

By the nineteenth century, scholars had begun to engage in textual criticism with the goal of determining the “original text.” At the same time, some biblical scholars questioned the veracity and historicity of the Bible. This convergence of questions and scholarly investigation led many critical scholars to dismiss the Bible as a flawed, ancient document with no value for modern faith and practice. In response, Christians rose to defend the Bible. In the process, though, some conservative Christians came to view the discipline of textual criticism as “another scholarly weapon in the many-sided attack against Scripture.”⁸ The most extreme position—beginning with the widely held evangelical belief that the autographs of the biblical text were inspired and inerrant—argued that “God must have faithfully preserved these autographs throughout the history of the church and that the original text [can] be found in the TR [Textus Receptus].”⁹ Proponents of this view today are typically “King James only” Christians and consider textual criticism a “theologically suspect and completely unnecessary” endeavor.¹⁰

Most Christian scholars believe that while God did inspire the content of Scripture, he also chose to entrust human authors with its composition and copyists with its transmission. Even though God superintended the preservation of Scripture, he was pleased to reveal his word through human imperfection. When we consider that the Bible was transmitted by hand and in harsh climates for thousands of years, we can only marvel that, even though there is variation in the text, most of these variants are insignificant copying errors, and nearly all variants involve no significant doctrinal issues.¹¹

Ultimately, we can have confidence that the Bible we use reflects an extraordinary degree of accuracy and integrity. The variants in biblical manuscripts are not challenges to the authority of God’s word. Rather, they reflect God’s use of human instruments in the divine process of authoring and preserving his sacred text. Through the efforts of textual critics, God continues to employ human agents in preserving his Word.^[1]

---

⁶ Stanley J. Grenz, “Nurturing the Soul, Informing the Mind: The Genesis of the Evangelical Scripture Principle,” in Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, ed. Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 22.

⁷ Kevin Vanhoozer distinguishes between inerrancy, a subcategory of infallibility that pertains to propositional statements, and infallibility, which applies to the “full variety of Scripture’s utterances” (see Vanhoozer, “Semantics of Biblical Literature,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], 49–104).

⁸ John J. Brogan, “Can I Have Your Autograph? Uses and Abuses of Textual Criticism in Formulating an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture,” in Evangelicals & Scripture, ed. Bacote, Miguélez, and Okholm, 96.

⁹ Brogan, “Can I Have Your Autograph?” 97.

¹⁰ Brogan, “Can I Have Your Autograph?,” 98. kjv-only proponents are normally supporters of the Majority Text, and they make the same arguments in defense of that text. This is different from the conservative scholars who provide text-critical reasoning for their support of the Majority Text.

¹¹ You can check this for yourself by looking at the footnotes of your English Bible, which should indicate variation units that have significance for translation.

^[1] Anderson, Amy, and Wendy Widder. 2018. Textual Criticism of the Bible. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Revised Edition. Vol. 1. Lexham Methods Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Recommendation of a reliable Bible translation for church members and new believers

Bible-Presbyterian Church family, it's important to understand why we might not recommend exclusive reliance on the King James Version (KJV). The issue here isn’t with the beauty or the historic significance of the KJV itself—it's a powerful and influential translation. But the KJV-only movement and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) can be problematic. 

In the meantime, let's focus on using other faithful translations like the NIV, ESV, or CSB during our worship and fellowship. This way, we can maintain a unified approach and create a common ground for our discussions. Once we have the chance to sit down and talk, we can explore ways to embrace our diverse traditions while working towards unity and mutual respect. Let's move forward with hearts open to understanding and collaboration.

The KJV-only movement insists that the KJV is the only valid English translation of the Bible, sometimes to the exclusion of all other translations. This stance can create unnecessary division among believers and restrict access to the richness found in various translations that can enhance understanding and personal growth.

Furthermore, the heresy of Verbal Plenary Preservation promotes the idea that the Greek text underlying the KJV is perfectly preserved without error. This claim doesn't align with the historical and textual evidence showing that all manuscript traditions, including those behind the KJV, have variations. Such a belief can lead to an unrealistic view of scriptural transmission and dismiss valuable scholarly work aimed at understanding the Bible’s original context and meaning.

By embracing a variety of faithful translations like the NIV, ESV, CSB, and others, we can appreciate the depth and breadth of God’s Word. These versions are based on the best available manuscripts and scholarly research, helping us connect more deeply with the Bible's message.

Let's focus on the truths that unite us and remember that the core message of the Bible transcends any single translation. The Word of God is living and active, meant to be understood and applied in our lives in ways that resonate with the times and our hearts. Together, we can grow in faith, understanding, and unity.

Here are some Bible translations that are widely regarded for their faithfulness to the original texts:

1. New American Standard Bible (NASB): Known for its literal translation approach, the NASB aims to stay as close to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as possible.
2. English Standard Version (ESV): This translation balances readability with accuracy, making it a popular choice for both study and personal reading.
3. New King James Version (NKJV): An update of the KJV, the NKJV incorporates modern English while maintaining the traditional style and wording.
4. Revised Standard Version (RSV): A revision of the American Standard Version, the RSV is known for its scholarly accuracy and readability.
5. New International Version (NIV): A dynamic equivalence translation that aims to be both accurate and accessible, making it one of the most widely read versions globally.
6. Christian Standard Bible (CSB): A more recent translation that seeks to balance readability with fidelity to the original texts.

Each of these translations has its strengths and can be a valuable tool for study and personal growth.

For new believers, it’s essential to have a Bible translation that is both faithful to the original texts and accessible in its language. Here are some excellent options:

1. New International Version (NIV): Known for its readability and accuracy, it’s widely used and easy to understand, making it great for newcomers.
2. New Living Translation (NLT): Uses contemporary language and is very readable while staying true to the original meanings. It's particularly helpful for those new to Bible study.
3. Christian Standard Bible (CSB): Balances accuracy and readability, making it an excellent choice for study and devotional reading.
4. English Standard Version (ESV): Provides a good balance of word-for-word accuracy and readability, suitable for both in-depth study and general reading.
5. New King James Version (NKJV): Modernizes the language of the KJV while maintaining its literary quality, which can be helpful for those who appreciate a more traditional tone.

Each of these translations can help new believers grasp the core messages of the Bible without getting bogged down by archaic language or overly technical terms. God bless.

My Thesis - Divine Preservation: An Examination of God's Word in Byzantine and Alexandrian Manuscripts

Divine Preservation: An Examination of God's Word in Byzantine and Alexandrian Manuscripts

Abstract: God's words have been totally preserved in Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts.

The transmission of the biblical text through the centuries has been a complex and multifaceted process, influenced by various cultural, linguistic, and theological factors. Two of the most significant textual traditions that have shaped our understanding of the Bible are the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts. These two traditions, originating in different regions of the Eastern Mediterranean, offer distinct perspectives on the biblical text, each with its own unique characteristics and contributions to the development of the New Testament canon.

This thesis will explore the key differences and similarities between the Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions, examining the nature of the manuscripts themselves, the textual variants that distinguish them, and the implications of these variations for biblical interpretation and theology. By analyzing the evidence from these two traditions, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the complex history of the biblical text and the challenges involved in reconstructing its original form.

Introduction

The preservation of sacred texts is a central concern in the study of biblical manuscripts. Two prominent manuscript traditions—the Byzantine and Alexandrian—represent divergent approaches to textual transmission. This thesis investigates how these traditions have safeguarded the integrity of God's Word while also allowing for variation and adaptation.

The doctrine of divine preservation asserts that God has safeguarded His Word through the ages. This thesis examines how this preservation is evident in both the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript traditions. By analyzing the historical context, textual characteristics, and theological implications, we can appreciate the role of these manuscript families in maintaining the integrity of the Scriptures.

Historical Context

Understanding the origins of the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts is crucial. The Byzantine text type, also known as the Majority Text, became prevalent in the Byzantine Empire and forms the basis for the Textus Receptus. The Alexandrian text type, on the other hand, is associated with early manuscripts found in and around Alexandria, Egypt, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Preservation in the Byzantine Tradition

The Byzantine manuscripts, characterized by their later dates and greater number, reflect a textual tradition that was widely used in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Despite their later origins, these manuscripts show remarkable consistency and accuracy, suggesting careful copying practices and a communal effort to preserve the text. The Byzantine tradition's uniformity attests to a deliberate preservation effort, aligning with the belief that God has overseen the transmission of His Word.

The Byzantine textual tradition, also known as the Majority Text, is characterized by its widespread circulation and influence throughout the Byzantine Empire. This tradition is represented by a large number of manuscripts, dating from the 5th century onward, and is believed to have been the predominant textual tradition used in the Eastern Church during the medieval period.

Key features of the Byzantine textual tradition include:

1. Wide geographical distribution: Byzantine manuscripts were found in various regions of the Byzantine Empire, including Constantinople, Greece, Syria, and Egypt.
2. Large number of manuscripts: The Byzantine tradition is represented by a vast corpus of manuscripts, providing a rich source of textual evidence.
3. Consistency and uniformity: Byzantine manuscripts generally exhibit a high degree of consistency and uniformity, reflecting the efforts of scribes to standardize the biblical text.
4. Influence on later translations: The Byzantine tradition has had a significant influence on later translations of the Bible, including the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version.

Despite its widespread influence, the Byzantine textual tradition has been criticized for its tendency to introduce textual variants that may not reflect the original reading. Some scholars argue that the Byzantine tradition was influenced by theological and liturgical considerations, leading to alterations in the text that were intended to conform to prevailing doctrinal and liturgical practices.

Preservation in the Alexandrian Tradition

The Alexandrian manuscripts, some of the earliest and most esteemed texts, offer a different perspective on preservation. These manuscripts, although fewer in number, are prized for their age and perceived proximity to the original autographs. The Alexandrian tradition's textual variations provide a broader understanding of the early textual landscape, revealing a diversity that underscores the robustness of the textual transmission process. The careful preservation of these ancient manuscripts by early Christian communities illustrates a commitment to maintaining the integrity of God's Word.

The Alexandrian textual tradition, originating in the city of Alexandria, Egypt, is characterized by its early dating and its emphasis on textual accuracy. This tradition is represented by a smaller number of manuscripts, but these manuscripts are generally considered to be of higher quality and earlier date than those of the Byzantine tradition.

Key features of the Alexandrian textual tradition include:

1. Early dating: Alexandrian manuscripts are generally earlier in date than Byzantine manuscripts, providing a more direct link to the original biblical text.
2. Emphasis on textual accuracy: Alexandrian scribes were known for their meticulous attention to detail and their commitment to preserving the original text.
3. Distinct textual variants: Alexandrian manuscripts often exhibit unique textual variants that are not found in Byzantine manuscripts.

Influence on critical scholarship: The Alexandrian tradition has had a significant influence on modern biblical scholarship, particularly in the area of textual criticism.

While the Alexandrian textual tradition is generally considered to be more accurate than the Byzantine tradition, it is not without its own challenges. The smaller number of Alexandrian manuscripts and the possibility of scribal errors make it difficult to reconstruct the original text with absolute certainty.

Textual Characteristics and Integrity

Both the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts exhibit unique textual characteristics. The Byzantine text is known for its fuller readings and harmonizations, while the Alexandrian text is often considered more concise and possibly more reflective of the original autographs. Despite these differences, both traditions demonstrate a high degree of fidelity to the core message of the Scriptures. The preservation of God's Word is evident in the way both manuscript families converge on essential theological truths, even as they reflect minor textual variations.

Theological Implications

The coexistence of Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts enriches our understanding of divine preservation. It suggests that God’s providence operates through a multiplicity of textual traditions, each contributing to a fuller comprehension of His Word. This multiplicity does not undermine the authority of Scripture but rather reinforces its reliability by providing a comprehensive witness to the original texts. The theological implication is that God's preservation is not confined to a single manuscript tradition but is evident in the diverse yet complementary textual witnesses.

Comparing the Byzantine and Alexandrian Traditions

The Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions offer distinct perspectives on the biblical text, each with its own unique strengths and weaknesses. While the Byzantine tradition is characterized by its widespread influence and consistency, it has been criticized for its tendency to introduce textual variants that may not reflect the original reading. The Alexandrian tradition, on the other hand, is known for its early dating and emphasis on textual accuracy, but it is limited by the smaller number of manuscripts and the possibility of scribal errors.

In order to gain a more complete understanding of the biblical text, it is necessary to consider both the Byzantine and Alexandrian traditions. By comparing and contrasting these two traditions, we can identify the key differences and similarities between them and assess the implications of these variations for biblical interpretation and theology.

Case Studies of Significant Manuscripts

This chapter provides detailed analyses of notable manuscripts from each tradition, such as Codex Vaticanus (Alexandrian) and Codex Sinaiticus, and Byzantine texts like the Gospels of John and Matthew.

Alexandrian Manuscripts

Examination of Codex Vaticanus and its impact on modern biblical scholarship.

Codex Sinaiticus and the discovery of early Christian text variations.

Byzantine Manuscripts

The significance of the majority text and its implications for modern translations.

The role of the Byzantine text in shaping the received text (Textus Receptus).

Conclusion

This thesis concludes by synthesizing the findings of the previous chapters, highlighting the complex interplay between transmissions in the Byzantine and Alexandrian traditions. It argues that both manuscript families have played vital roles in safeguarding God's Word, each reflecting unique theological perspectives and historical contexts that continue to influence biblical interpretation today.

The preservation of God's Word in the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts demonstrates the resilience and integrity of the biblical text through centuries of transmission. Both traditions offer valuable insights and contribute to a holistic understanding of Scripture. By recognizing the divine hand in the preservation of these manuscripts, we can trust that God's Word remains accurate and authoritative for guiding faith and practice. This acknowledgment fosters unity among believers, affirming that, despite textual variations, the core message of the Bible endures as a testament to God's faithfulness.

The examination of God's Word in Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts provides valuable insights into the complex history of the biblical text and the challenges involved in reconstructing its original form. While both traditions offer important contributions to our understanding of the Bible, it is essential to approach these traditions with a critical eye, recognizing the limitations and biases that may have influenced the transmission of the text.

By carefully analyzing the evidence from Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the diversity and complexity of the biblical tradition and the ongoing challenges of textual criticism. As scholars continue to explore the rich and multifaceted world of biblical manuscripts, we can look forward to new discoveries and insights that will deepen our understanding of God's Word.

I believe God's words were miraculously preserved in Byzantine, Alexandrian and various manuscripts. 

The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament

The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament

The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation. As you read the New Testament, you are no doubt struck by the numerous times it quotes or alludes to the Old Testament. Examining the quotations closely, you notice they are not always exact word-for-word quotations. Does this overturn all we have said about the principles of normal interpretation? As the New Testament writers exercised freedom in the way they quoted the Old Testament, were they abandoning normal, grammatical, historical interpretation?

How does this relate to the doctrine of verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy? If there are disparities between the Old Testament and their New Testament quotations, can we still hold to the inerrancy of the Bible?

Were the New Testament writers interpreting the Old Testament by a different standard as they quoted from it? And if so, does that give us liberty today to do the same?

 

Variations in the Wording of the Quotations

When citing the Old Testament, the New Testament writers often changed the wording or omitted words. They used freedom in changing points of grammar, in paraphrasing, omitting selected portions, giving partial quotations, using synonyms, and recognizing new aspects of truth. We will look at a number of these kinds of changes and then note various purposes the writers had in quoting the Old Testament.

Making Variations in Grammar

1. The New Testament writers sometimes substituted a pronoun for a noun. When Matthew quoted Isaiah 40:3, “make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God,” he wrote, “Make straight paths for Him” (Matt. 3:3), substituting “Him” for “our God.”

Isaiah wrote, “All your sons will be taught by the Lord” (Isa. 54:13). When Jesus quoted that verse, He said, “They will all be taught by God” (John 6:45). Obviously in His remarks “They” suited His purposes better than “All your sons.” In quoting Jeremiah 31:33, “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel,” the writer to the Hebrews used the words “with them” (Heb. 10:16) rather than “with the house of Israel.”

2. Nouns were sometimes used in place of pronouns. “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord” (Luke 19:38) makes more specific the words of Psalm 118:26, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”

3. A plural noun is sometimes used in place of a singular noun. Matthew referred to Jesus speaking in “parables” (Matt. 13:35), but the verse he quoted (Ps. 78:2) has the singular “parable” in the Hebrew. The words “his mouth” (Ps. 10:7) are changed to the plural form “their mouths” when this verse is quoted in Romans 3:14.

4. Sometimes the writers changed a pronoun. Isaiah said, “The virgin … will call Him Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). When Matthew quoted this verse, he said, “They will call Him Immanuel” (Matt. 1:23). Both were obviously true. The virgin named Him Immanuel and others will call Him by the same name. Zechariah 12:10 states, “They will look on Me, the One they have pierced,” but when John quoted the verse he wrote, “They will look on the One they have pierced” (John 19:37). Moses told the people that God said, “I will make them envious by those who are not a people” (Deut. 32:21). When Paul quoted this verse, he made it more pointed by changing “them” to “you”: “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation” (Rom. 10:19).

5. Occasionally the speaker is identified in the quotation. John the Baptist quoted Isaiah 40:3, but included in it the fact that he was the one Isaiah referred to. Isaiah spoke of “A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the Lord,’ ” whereas John said in response to a question by the religious leaders about his identity, “I am the voice of one calling in the desert” (John 1:23). Obviously he needed to alter the quotation slightly to answer their question.

6. Sometimes direct discourse is changed to indirect discourse. This is seen in Hosea 2:23, “I will say to those called ‘Not My people,’ ‘You are My people,’ ” which is quoted in Romans 9:25 as follows: “I will call them ‘My people’ who are not My people.”

7. Other times an indirect discourse is changed to direct discourse. “He” in Isaiah 29:16 (“He did not make me”) is changed to “You” in Romans 9:20 (“Why did You make me like this?”). In addition the affirmative sentence is changed to a question.

8. The verbal form is sometimes altered slightly. The commands beginning with the words “You shall not” in Exodus 20:13–16 are changed to the imperative “Do not” in Mark 10:19. Regarding the Passover lambs the Lord instructed the people, “Do not break any of the bones” (Ex. 12:46). When John applied this to Jesus, he changed the imperative to an indicative statement, “Not one of His bones will be broken” (John 19:36). Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 6:9 are in the imperative mood: “Be ever hearing, but never understanding.” But when Jesus quoted this verse in Matthew 13:14 He changed it to the future tense, indicative mood: “You will be ever hearing but never understanding.”

9. A general reference is occasionally made more specific in the New Testament quotations. Amos 5:26 refers to “the shrine of your king … the star of your god.” When Stephen quoted this in Acts 7:43, he referred to “the shrine of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan” (Acts 7:43).

10. Sometimes the extent of the reference is changed. Amos 5:27 referred to “exile beyond Damascus,” but Stephen extended it to refer to “exile beyond Babylon” (Acts 7:43).

11. The order of the clauses is sometimes rearranged. When Jesus quoted five of the Ten Commandments in Luke 18:20, He gave them in an order that differs slightly from the order in Exodus 20:12–16.

12. Sometimes two quotations are combined and assigned to the more prominent of the two Old Testament authors. This is the case in Mark 1:2–3. Verse 2 quotes Malachi 3:1 and verse 3 quotes Isaiah 40:3, and yet Mark introduced the verses with the words, “It is written in Isaiah the prophet.” Isaiah obviously is the more prominent of the two authors, and his book begins the section in the Hebrew Old Testament known as the Prophets, which concludes with Malachi.

13. Sometimes the New Testament writers rendered the sense of an Old Testament passage loosely as a paraphrase. An example is Matthew 13:35, “I will utter things hidden since the Creation of the world,” which paraphrases Psalm 78:2, “I will utter things hidden from of old.” Isaiah wrote, “In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to Him” (Isa. 11:10). Paul rendered this loosely when he wrote, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, One who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in Him” (Rom. 15:12). Though not a word-for-word quotation, the thought is basically the same. Paul could be faulted if he had claimed to make it an exact word-for-word quotation, but since he did not make that claim, it seems logical to allow him the freedom, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to paraphrase the thought in Isaiah 11:10.

Other examples are these: Jeremiah 31:34, “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more,” becomes “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more” in Hebrews 10:17. The last two lines of Isaiah 29:13, “Their worship of Me is made up only of rules taught by men” becomes “They worship Me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men” in Jesus’ words in Matthew 15:9. Amos referred to idols “which you made for yourselves” (Amos 5:26), but Stephen renders it loosely by referring to “the idols you made to worship” (Acts 7:43).

Omitting Certain Portions of Verses

Writers of New Testament books occasionally shortened Old Testament verses they quoted. An example is seen in the last line of Mark 4:12, where Jesus said, “Otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.” This is a condensed rendering of the last half of Isaiah 6:10: “Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” In addition to the condensing, the synonym “forgiven” replaces the word “healed.”

Zechariah wrote regarding the Lord’s triumphal entry, “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!” When John cited this passage he changed the imperative to a negative, “Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion” (John 12:15). Also it is interesting to note that Zechariah 9:9 has six lines, but John selected only three to quote. Matthew, however, cited four of the lines (Matt. 21:5).

Matthew 15:8, “These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me,” purposefully selects part of Isaiah 29:13: “These people come near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.”

Giving Partial Quotations

When Jesus read from Isaiah 61:2, as recorded in Luke 4:18–19, He stopped in the middle of verse 2 of Isaiah 61, not reading the words, “and the day of vengeance of our God.” This was because His carrying out the day of vengeance is yet future and was not relevant to His first advent. The last part of Isaiah 56:7 reads, “For My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” However, when Jesus quoted that verse He said, “My house will be called a house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13). He omitted the words “for all nations.” Why? Because in His earthly ministry the temple was only for the Jews. It was not for all nations then, as it will be during the Millennium.

When Matthew quoted Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew 21:5, he omitted the words “having salvation” (nasb). This is because Jesus was not bringing national salvation or deliverance to the nation at that time, knowing that He was rejected by the nation and would be crucified within a few days.

Using Synonyms

The word “highway” in Isaiah 40:3 is replaced by the word “paths” in Matthew 3:3. Apparently John the Baptist felt this word was more appropriate as he quoted this passage to his audience in the desert of Judea.

A more difficult use of synonyms is seen in Hebrews 10:5, “A body You prepared for Me.” This is also the wording in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, from which many Old Testament writers quoted. However, the Hebrew has, “My ears You have pierced” (Ps. 40:6). When a slave had his ear pierced, he was symbolizing his giving himself over to his master for lifelong service (Ex. 21:6). The idea of having one’s ears pierced is closely connected to the fact that Jesus had a body prepared for Him by God the Father. As Westcott wrote, “The ‘body’ is the instrument for fulfilling the divine command, just as the ‘ear’ is the instrument for receiving it.”⁶ The Septuagint obviously gave a free translation of the Hebrew, using the words “body” and “prepared” in place of “ears” and “pierced.”

There was nothing wrong in quoting from the Septuagint, for the writers did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The common translation available to people in Jesus’ day and in the days of the early church was, of course, the Septuagint. Therefore it was natural for them to quote from it. On the other hand many of the citations of the Old Testament in the New are from the Hebrew, with which the Septuagint often agrees.

Giving New Aspects of Truth

When Paul quoted Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8, he changed the words “received gifts from men” to “gave gifts to men.” Paul was simply building on the fact that since the ascended Lord received gifts from men, He was then able to give gifts to men. Also Paul applied the statement in Psalm 68:18 to spiritual gifts, whereas its Old Testament use referred to a victorious general sharing the spoils of warfare with his soldiers.

When Paul quoted Hosea 2:23 in Romans 9:25, he altered the wording slightly so that it referred to the Lord calling Gentiles “My people” (Rom. 9:24), rather than limiting it, as Hosea did, to Jews.

Paul made a meaningful adjustment in the wording of the command in Deuteronomy 5:16. The Old Testament verse reads, “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.” When Paul quoted the verse in Ephesians 6:2–3, he did not say, “that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God has given you.” Instead he wrote, “that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” The difference is a dispensational one. The promise in Deuteronomy held true for Israel to whom the Lord was promising life in the land of Israel in return for their obeying this command. However, since Paul was addressing believers in the Church Age he did not refer to the land the Lord was giving; instead he referred to “life on the earth.”

All this above material illustrates that the New Testament writers often preserved the thought of the Old Testament passages cited, rather than always giving verbatim quotations (though they often did that as well). We should not conclude that verbal variations we have noted are inaccurate. They do not affect the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture, because the Holy Spirit, being God, had the freedom to modify the wording of the Old Testament as He desired. The end product is the inspired Word of God whether the quotation is complete and exact or partial and varied.

The Septuagint is the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. It was made by Jewish scholars residing in Alexandria, Egypt approximately 200 years before Christ. Obviously this was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, it varies in many places from the Hebrew. If then it is not always accurate, how can the New Testament writers have quoted from it? Actually this is no problem when we realize that even today our quoting from a book does not mean we approve of it in its entirety. Evangelical scholars have pointed up that no New Testament quotation from the Septuagint differs in any substantive way from the Hebrew Old Testament. ^[1]

About 150 years ago Horne classified the New Testament quotations of the Old into these 11 categories: Quotations that agree exactly with the Hebrew; quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew; quotations agreeing with the Hebrew in sense but not in words; quotations that give the general sense but that abridge the material or add to it; quotations taken from several passages of Scripture; quotations differing from the Hebrew but agreeing with the Septuagint; quotations agreeing verbatim with the Septuagint or changing the number of persons; quotations taken from the Septuagint but with some variation; quotations agreeing with the Septuagint in sense but not in words; quotations differing from the Septuagint but agreeing exactly or nearly so with the Hebrew; quotations differing from both the Septuagint and the Hebrew which were probably taken from some other translation or paraphrase.⁷

 My observation: For us today, we should approach Scripture with respect, seeking to understand its context and deeper meanings. While we can draw inspiration from how New Testament writers engaged with the Old Testament, we should do so thoughtfully, guided by sound interpretation principles and the broader context of Scripture. Proper exegesis and hermeneutics are key. In short, it’s about balancing reverence for the text with the flexibility to see its application in light of Christ’s teachings and mission. There is nothing wrong to read the NIV, ESV or NLT.

---

⁶ B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3d ed. (1889; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), 308.

^[1] Campbell, Donald K. 1991. “Foreword.” In Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth, edited by Craig Bubeck Sr., 254–60. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook.

⁷ Thomas H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia: J. Whetham & Son, 1841), 311–13.

Aramaic, Latin and Greek

John 19:19-20

English Standard Version

19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek.

Since Pilate wrote this inscription, was he inspired by the Holy Spirit? Inspired him to affirm that Jesus is the King of the Jews? Was the Holy Spirit came upon Pilate? Inspired him to write these words in three languages? 

1. Aramaic The majority of Judaeans would have understood this language. See John 5:2.
2. Latin The official language across the Roman Empire. Government documents, well-educated people, and the Roman military and guard used Latin.
3. Greek The common language of commerce and writing used in the eastern part of the Roman Empire.

Pilate wrote in three languages, indicating that the people of Jerusalem knew these three languages. No matter what, Jesus still seeks today the realization of his claim, ‘I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself’ (John 12:32).

What, then, can we say about Jesus? It seems that He could indeed read Aramaic, the language of his time. Luke suggests that he could also read Hebrew. Some would argue that he knew Greek as well. He is God, and He understands all languages below and above the skies. 

Returning to the time when He led His disciples. Did Jesus look for the perfect Hebrew Bible? A perfect Greek Septuagint? Did Jesus teach His disciples the theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation? Did He criticize anyone who was reading the Septuagint? 

Should we look down on our brothers who read NIV, ESV, or NLT? Should we chastise everyone who dislikes the KJV? Should we demonize the ESV and NIV? Should we?

Jesus didn’t seek out a perfect Hebrew Bible, nor did He attack those using the Septuagint. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, was widely used among Jews, especially those in the Hellenistic world. Jesus and the Apostles often quoted from it, and many of the Old Testament references in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

This acceptance and use of the Septuagint by Jesus demonstrate that He didn’t condemn different translations but rather focused on the message and its transformative power. His mission was about conveying God’s truth and love, not debating over textual precision.

In essence, Jesus showed that the heart of the Scripture’s message matters more than the exact wording. This encourages us to focus on understanding and living out the teachings of the Bible, rather than being divided over different translations.