APO:Errors in English Bibles?  by Jim Levitt

   It is unfortunate to see intelligent people substitute zeal for
scholarship. Someone uploaded a file called ERRORS.TXT, which asserts
that all modern English translations of the Bible are faulty. The
author assumes that a Roman Catholic conspiracy adulterated the
manuscripts made available to scholars in order to change the theology
of English translations which rely on these manuscripts. The writer
concludes that only the King James English translation is reliable. All
others are suspect.

   The author ignores a few important points. The KJV translation was
not the first English translation. If later versions are all phony,
what about earlier ones? The Oxford and Cambridge translators of the
KJV also used the Coverdale Bible, Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and
Tyndale's New Testament English translations.

   The unsigned ERRORS.TXT gives "proofs" of deliberate change in
doctrine reflected in modern translations. The proofs are severely
flawed. For example:

   The writer criticizes the omission of "firstborn" in Matthew 1:25,
claiming that the word was deleted to endorse the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary. If that were the reason for the change,
then the translators made a stupid error in the parallel account in
Luke 2:7 where the word "firstborn" appears.

   The textual evidence is persuasive that the word "firstborn" occurs
in Luke but not in Matthew. Had Matthew claimed that Jesus was not the
firstborn, there would be a conflict. But as the text stands, Luke adds
a detail that God did not require Matthew to include.

   Another "proof" focuses on differences in the KJV and modern
translations of Luke 2:33. The KJV begins: "And Joseph and his mother
marvelled at those things." The NIV translates: "The child's father and
mother marveled." The writer argues that the use of the word
"father"--though supported by the better textual tradition--promotes a
lie because Joseph was not Jesus' physical father.

   If it is improper to refer to Joseph as Jesus' father, then even the
KJV goofs in Luke 2:48, where Mary states, "thy father and I have
sought thee." Certainly Mary knew that Joseph was not involved in the
conception of Jesus. And yet she calls Joseph her husband Jesus'
father. This proves that the use of the term "father" is not
inappropriate when referring to Joseph's relationship to Jesus.

   One must then go back to the manuscripts and determine which reading
is primary. In this case, the unical and miniscule support strongly
favors "ho patar autou kan ha matar" = "his father and mother".

   One must note that in debates of this sort substantive differences
are virtually non-existent. Only about 400 of the variant New Testament
readings cause any doubt about the meaning of the text in question, and
only 50 of those are of any great significance. None of these 50
differences occur in passages which teach unique doctrine. Their
teaching is also found in parallel passages that have no variants.

   Compared to ancient texts like Caesar's Gallic War, the Roman
history of Livy, the Histories of Tacitus, the History of Thucydides,
and the History of Herodotus, the manuscript evidence for the
reliability of the Bible is enormous and irrefutable.

   Conspiracy theories which earmark all English translations of those
texts as faulty promote neither good scholarship or holiness. The
English translations commonly available today offer reliable truth from
God to which we must respond..

   One interested in this subject may wish to examine the following
books:

   "Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, " Phillip
Schaff, Harper Brothers, 1883

   "An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, "
A.T. Robertson, 1907.

   "Text of the New Testament, " Bruce Metzger, Oxford University
Press, 1968.

   "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?, " F.F. Bruce,
Inter-Varsity Press, 1964.

   "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the new Testament, " Frederic
Kenyon, Harper & Brothers, 1941.

   "Cambridge History of the Bible, " Stanley Greenslade, Cambridge
University Press, 1963.

   Jim Levitt, Wolverton, MN (RBBS-PC of Fargo)