Making Sense of the Greek Manuscripts and Later English Translations

Despite the long dominance of the King James Version (KJV) in the English-speaking world, three factors have led to efforts to produce new Bible translations. First, English, like all languages, continues to change, and despite the beautiful cadences and expressions of the King James Bible, its archaic forms and word uses have become increasingly difficult for many modern readers. Second, scholars’ understanding of and facility with biblical Hebrew and Greek continues to improve, particularly in the areas of lexicography (word usage) and grammar. Third, and most important for this discussion of the Greek New Testament, the discovery of older manuscripts than those used by Erasmus (1469–1536) and his successors has required a reexamination of many passages.¹

The Codex Alexandrinus (A), an early fourth-century uncial manuscript of the Gospels, was presented to Charles I of England in 1627. Like the much later manuscripts used by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, it provides a very early witness of a Byzantine text type that generally offers to readers smooth and uncomplicated readings. Such manuscripts formed the basis of the so-called Textus Receptus, or “received text,” which was an edited cluster of medieval manuscripts that underlay important translations into European languages, including English.

However, in the fifth edition (1657) of his Polyglot Bible, Brian Walton first published a collection of variant readings that included manuscripts outside of the Byzantine family.² Then in 1719, Edward Wells (1667–1727) published an edition relying upon more ancient manuscripts than those upon which the Textus Receptus had been based; when published, Wells’s edition differed 210 times from the Elzevir text, upon which the KJV was largely based.³ Relying solely upon earlier uncial manuscripts, Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) produced a text in 1831 that varied significantly from the Textus Receptus. Nevertheless, Lachmann confidently claimed that his edition reflected the New Testament as it had existed in the fourth century.⁴ The greatest changes, however, occurred with Constantin von Tischendorf’s 1844 discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (א), a complete uncial manuscript dating to the third quarter of the fourth century, and with his examination of the Codex Vaticanus (B), another fourth-century uncial that had been in the Vatican library since the late fifteenth century but had not been widely consulted. These two codices represent important examples of the Alexandrian textual family, a generally shorter, often more abrupt family that differed significantly from the manuscripts used in most previously printed editions of the Greek New Testament.⁵

In 1881, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort proposed that the Alexandrian text type, which is generally shorter and lacks the kind of refinements in style and grammar that suggest later textual developments, must be the closest to the original autographs.⁶ The edition of the Greek text of the New Testament that Westcott and Hort produced in that year is a good example of a so-called “eclectic text,” which draws its readings critically from a great number of different manuscripts.⁷

The year 1881 also witnessed the start of the English Revised Version (ERV) of the KJV, which had been commissioned by the Anglican Church in the Convention of Canterbury in 1870 and was completed and published in 1885.⁸ Basing its Greek text upon the editions of Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort,⁹ the translation committee made thousands of changes. Intended as a revision, not a retranslation, of the KJV, the result was nonetheless characterized as “strong in Greek, weak in English.”¹⁰ Members of the American committee that had worked with the ERV published the American Standard Version (ASV) in 1901.¹¹ While putting into practice some of the preferences of the American Committee that had not been accepted by the English committee, the ASV likewise sought for literal renderings of what were regarded as more trustworthy texts that privileged the tradition represented by Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B). Consequently, both the ERV and the ASV lacked, queried, or relegated to marginal notes some well-known and cherished passages, such as the doxology ending the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13) and the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), that did not appear in many of the older manuscripts.¹²

Such substantive changes, perhaps more than changes in wording to reflect more contemporary usage, aroused the anger of more conservative biblical scholars. Foremost among these was John W. Burgon (1813–1888), who maintained that God had superintended the survival of the most accurate manuscripts, thereby guaranteeing that those used by Erasmus and his successors were the most correct.¹³ The arguments of Burgon and other conservatives were largely adopted by J. Reuben Clark (1871–1961), longtime member of the First Presidency of the Church, who was particularly concerned by the publication of the Revised Standard Version of 1952 (RSV).¹⁴ This edition—seen as a continuing revision of the 1611 KJV, the 1885 ERV, and the 1901 ASV—was based largely on the 1927 eclectic Greek text of Erwin Nestle, but it sought also to take into account several recently discovered New Testament papyri, which provided an earlier witness than the manuscripts previously used in the preparation of Greek editions. Although the RSV and its successors soon became the standard text for many “mainline” Protestant denominations, it was not received well by conservative Christians,¹⁵ including President Clark.

Although President Clark made it clear that he was not a linguist or textual scholar and that his opinions were his own,¹⁶ his exhaustive research, thorough argumentation, and prestige helped reinforce the KJV’s position as the official English Bible of the Church.¹⁷ President Clark exhibited an understandable preference for the literary excellence of the KJV,¹⁸ but he was more concerned about the changes in substance over form that occurred when new translations were based on critical Greek editions rather than the Textus Receptus. In addition to the arguments of Burgon and others against the Alexandrian and in support of the Byzantine textual family, President Clark’s 1956 Why the King James Version raised concerns over word choices, omissions, and other differences and implications of such changes for the nature of Christ.¹⁹ In particular, President Clark understandably worried that Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B), having been presumably prepared in Egypt during the great theological controversies of the fourth century, might have differed because of heretical attempts to deny or reduce the divinity of Christ.²⁰ A fuller understanding of Arianism and additional textual discoveries require some modification of President Clark’s position,²¹ but his concerns for the devotional associations of the KJV for Latter-day Saints, the harmony of KJV renderings with modern scripture and the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), and the doctrinal implications of new translations and textual changes retain considerable validity.

Indeed, despite earlier ambivalence about the KJV,²² the traditional version has become and remains the official English version of the Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Having one official version has not only allowed for standardization in Church publications and sermons²³ but also provides for unity and a common spiritual experience with the text among members sharing a common faith.²⁴ Although many other reasons have been given regarding the importance of the KJV’s status,²⁵ perhaps the most important is the fact that the KJV was the common English translation at the time of Joseph Smith, leading the Prophet to echo its phraseology in his translation of the Book of Mormon, in his own recorded revelations, and in his own inspired revision of the Bible, the Joseph Smith Translation.²⁶ The continuity of the language of the standard works of the Church makes it easier for students of the scriptures to see connections and recognize literary and doctrinal parallels.²⁷

While not replacing the KJV in Latter-day Saint usage, translations since the RSV can nonetheless serve a valuable role to supplement study of the Bible, particularly the New Testament. The most prominent of these, employing modern but not colloquial English, can help readers unravel some difficult passages in the KJV where archaic English diction and changed usage make understanding difficult. Furthermore, many of these translations incorporate or note textual issues raised by the discovery of additional manuscripts and the changing state of textual criticism, although one must be aware that the majority of opinions about current scholarship are far from conclusive.

The first of these translations was a conservative response to the RSV. In 1971, evangelical scholars of the Lockman Foundation produced the New American Standard Bible of 1971 (NASB),²⁸ a very conservative translation that sought for a word-for-word rendering of the Hebrew and Greek and chose to retain in brackets passages that the ASV and RSV had omitted, while noting that they did not appear in some ancient manuscripts.²⁹ Notable among its conservative tendencies was the NASB’s practice prior to its 1995 revision of using the traditional Elizabethan pronouns “thou,” “thee,” and “thine” “in the language of prayer when addressing Deity.”³⁰

The New International Version of 1978 (NIV) was a fresh translation, rather than a further revision, of the Bible in English.³¹ Although its New Testament is based on the critical Greek text of the United Bible Societies’ 1966 edition of the Greek New Testament, it nonetheless chose to agree with the Textus Receptus in many significant passages. Seeking to retain modern but familiar readings for well-known and important passages, the NIV received widespread acceptance, outselling the KJV in 1987.³²

The most conservative response was the New King James Version of 1982 (NKJV).³³ Its translation is for the most part modern, although it preserves many familiar wordings and patterns. Most significantly, the NKJV remained absolutely faithful to the Textus Receptus for the New Testament, although it noted places where it diverged from critical eclectic texts or from the so-called “Majority Text,” an edition of the Greek text that draws its readings primarily from the Byzantine text family, since the majority of extant manuscripts come from this group.³⁴

Other important translations include the 1986 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)³⁵ and the 1990 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).³⁶ The NJB is an updated version of the Jerusalem Bible printed in England in 1966 as an English companion to the French La Bible de Jérusalem. Both of these were translated at the Dominican Biblical School of Jerusalem and were the first Roman Catholic Bibles translated directly from Hebrew and Greek rather than the Latin Vulgate. Although the NJB was more accurate than its predecessor, its decision to use more gender-inclusive language made it less traditional. Roman Catholic doctrine did not noticeably affect the translation, but while employing critical texts, the translators often opted for readings from the Western text family, which is the one most attested in the writings of early Latin church fathers.³⁷

The NRSV is a further modernization of the RSV that likewise follows the principle of gender inclusiveness. This revision most closely follows a recent version of the critical texts of the Greek New Testament, the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland text or the third edition by the United Bible Societies.³⁸ Consequently, its translation often differs substantially from the KJV and the NKJV, which were based on the Textus Receptus. Like the RSV before it, the NRSV is often accused of “reading out” Christian allusions in the Old Testament in its translation.³⁹

When assessing different translations for use as study aids, two important factors must be considered: the translation methodology followed and the theological or philosophical biases of the translators. Two different translation methodologies are (1) formal equivalence (word-for-word), which stresses a faithful rendering of the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words into the new language, and (2) dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought), which seeks to recreate for its readers the effect the text had on its original audience. A good translation must be both reliable and readable and so, to a certain extent, must contain elements of both formal and dynamic equivalence.⁴⁰

However, the overriding concern should be reliability, especially if difficulty in reading can be overcome with sufficient study aids.⁴¹ True formal equivalence is obtained only by an interlinear translation. The most strictly literal, but readable, translation is the NASB, but the KJV, NKJV, and RSV are also literal. The NRSV can be judged as literal with some freedom to be idiomatic, whereas the NIV and the NJB tend to be towards the middle of the spectrum. An example of a very dynamically equivalent translation is Today’s English Version, sometimes known as the “Good News Bible” for its colloquial style.⁴²

A translation’s position on the continuum between formal and dynamic equivalence, however, is not enough. Evangelical scholars who were quite conservative on doctrinal issues produced both the NASB and NIV, whereas the decidedly more liberal NRSV falls between the NASB and NIV in terms of formal equivalence. The bias of translators can often be discerned in the book introductions and the notes of study Bibles. In the actual translation, one litmus test for evangelical Christians has often been whether a translation renders the Hebrew ʿalmah of Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” or “young woman.” As another example, in considering eight disputed New Testament passages that could refer to Jesus as “God,” Barlow found that the KJV did so four times; the RSV, the predecessor of the NRSV, did so four times; and the NIV did so seven out of eight times. By contrast, the New World Translation, sponsored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, did not render any of these passages as affirming Jesus’ divinity.⁴³ Determining doctrinal biases is not always easy.

Despite significant differences in the actual translations of the New Testament, the greatest differences stem from the underlying Greek texts that these translations use. In reality, the doctrinal impact that these differences make is minimal. Metzger has noted, “The overwhelming majority of such variant readings involve inconsequential details. . . . In any event, no doctrine of Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain.”⁴⁴ Nevertheless, the ongoing development of textual criticism will continue to have an important impact on the study and translation of the New Testament.

As President Clark once expressed, he hoped that continued work in this area “will somehow provoke . . . the desire and determination to go over the manuscripts and furnish us, under the direction and influence of the Holy Ghost, a translation of the New Testament that will give us an accurate translation that shall be pregnant with the great principles of the Restored Gospel.”⁴⁵ Consequently, Latter-day Saints have an interest to work on our own translation to help support our study of the New Testament—a translation that prefers a relatively high degree of formal equivalence, aims for high tone in translation that maintains long-held spiritual associations with the text, bears in mind doctrinal implications, and maintains resonance with the other standard works.