MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE:

In the summer of 1985 Dr. Tom Hale, a medical doctor working in Nepal, visited our home in Kathmandu and began a discussion about Bible versions. He was involved with a Nepali Bible translation and wanted to know what I could share with him about the texts and versions. We had an interesting time going through some of the reasons why the new versions differ from the old Protestant ones, and when he returned to his hospital in central Nepal, we carried on our conversation via correspondence. I also gave him some books on the subject, including, if I remember correctly, Edward F. Hills's Defending the King James Bible, and D.O. Fuller's Which Bible? On July 28, Dr. Hale wrote the following:

"Thank you very much for your long and thoughtful letter to me about the Greek texts. I greatly appreciate the time you took to answer me, and I have found what you have written to be most informative, and indeed, worrisome. I hadn't realized that the battleground, as it were, is in the area of the Greek texts."

I was amazed at this. The man is a student of the Scriptures and of Bible theology and has sat under the ministry of key evangelical leaders, yet he had never heard that the major differences between the new versions and the KJV results from the different Greek texts upon which they are founded.

As time passed it became evident that Dr. Hale had rejected the Received Text in favor of the modern critical text. A chief factor in this bad decision was the counsel he received from Dr. James M. Boice, pastor of the Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and head of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Hale wrote to Boice to seek his opinion on Bible versions, and Hale sent me a copy of Boice's letter when he closed our conversations on the subject. The following statements from this evangelical leader reveal how multitudes of Christians have been led to reject the Bible of their forefathers:

"There are some in this country and elsewhere who are very zealous for the textus receptus, prepared by the humanistic scholar, Erasmus, and used as the basis for the King James translation. This has led some, quite unwisely in my judgment, to defend the King James Version as the only true and faithful English text.

"Let me say that the concerns of some of these people are undoubtedly good. They are zealous for the Word of God and very much concerned lest liberal or any other scholarship enter in to pervert it. But unfortunately, the basis on which they are operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do what I could in a gentle way to lead them to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are concerned. ...

"The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that complexity. ...

"What this boils down to is that, although there are large numbers of manuscripts that support the textus receptus, these do not have a weight proportionate to their numbers. In fact, if one or two very old manuscripts disagree with a reading common to this very large number of European manuscripts, the one or two early manuscripts should perhaps be preferred. This is what the scholarly editions of the Greek text do. They attempt to apply sound principles of judgment to determine the oldest and best readings which, however, as I have pointed out, are not necessarily the readings of the majority of the manuscripts.

"Now let me say a word about the textus receptus. Sometimes people who object to modern English versions of the Bible do so on the basis that one or more of the translators is less than evangelical, perhaps even liberal in theology. They defend the King James on that basis, because all of those translators were godly men. However, in doing that, they overlook the fact that Erasmus, who produced the Greek text on which the King James Bible is based, was actually a humanist. He was not supportive of the reformation and took issue with Luther in his book on the Freedom of the Will. This is not to say that Erasmus was not a good scholar. He was. He was perhaps the best scholar of his day; but he was a humanist, and if bias is supposed to enter in on that basis, it would presumably have entered into his text and thus have contaminated the KJV. Moreover, Erasmus did not have very many texts to work with. ... He was a great scholar; his Greek comes quite close to what was originally written. However, people who defend the textus receptus ardently should know these facts. It is not a Divinely given and specially preserved text of the New Testament.

"Let me say personally that the English text that I work from most often is the New International Version. It is not perfect, but it is a very good text and may well win a place in the contemporary church similar to the place held by the King James Version for so long. ...

"Of course, all these matters are spelled out in the various textbooks dealing with textual criticism. I am particularly appreciative of the works of Bruce Metzger, the best textual scholar I know. But you can find those books yourself. What you were asking for was my own understanding of the situation and problem as an evangelical scholar committed to inerrancy and biblical exposition" (Letter from James M. Boice, Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Dr. Thomas Hale, United Mission to Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, September 13, 1985).

I have quoted this lengthy letter because it presents such a typical defense of the modern versions. Though Boice's reasoning sounds plausible, when examined carefully, a great many of his assumptions must be called "myths." The Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines myth as "a belief or set of beliefs, often unproven or false, that have accrued around a person, phenomenon, or institution." That is exactly what we find in modern textual criticism.

I identify the following myths in Boice's letter: (1) Erasmus is a "humanist." (2) Erasmus and the Reformation editors had extremely limited access to manuscript witness. (3) True scholars reject the Received Text and the KJV. (4) The subject of Bible versions and texts is too complex for the average person to comprehend. (5) The readings of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which Boice calls "one or two early manuscripts") are to be preferred over the majority of manuscripts. (6) The doctrine of Bible preservation does not guarantee a perfect Bible. Boice thinks the Received Text used during the past 450 years was corrupted, and he admits that there is no perfect text or version today. His concept of preservation is very weak. He tells Hale about the supposed weakness and errors of Bible editors of old, but he does not remind Hale that God is the One who has promised to keep His Word. (7) Modernists can be trusted in their testimony regarding Bible texts and versions. James Boice pointed Dr. Hale to the writings of Bruce Metzger, a modernist who works for the radical National Council of Churches in America. Metzger is the head of the continuing committee for the perverted Revised Standard Version, and thinks the Old Testament is filled with myths and errors. I have documented Metzger's heresies in Unholy Hands on God's Holy Book: A Report on the United Bible Societies, available from Way of Life Literature.

In this series of booklets we will deal with most of the myths which Boice delineated.

In the late 1800s, after taking a long, hard look at the theories of Drs. Westcott and Hort, the brilliant biblical scholar John Burgon referred to these myths. Most of the significant differences between modern versions and the Authorized Version are the result of Westcott and Hort's textual theories. Burgon's scholarly evaluation as described by Philip Mauro, one of the foremost patent lawyers of the United States of the last century, is an appropriate way to begin these studies:

Dean Burgon is not amiss when he characterizes the whole theory as "mere moonshine." Indeed, it seems to us to be either a case of solemn trifling with a matter of supreme importance or a deliberate attempt to lead astray the English-speaking nations, and through them the whole world, and that without the support of a scintilla of real proof, but rather in the face of all the pertinent facts. As Dean Burgon, in his exhaustive analysis of Dr. Hort's theory, says:

"`Bold assertions abound (as usual with this respected writer) but proof, he never attempts any. Not a particle of "evidence" is adduced.' And again:

"`But we demur to this weak imagination (which only by courtesy can be called a "theory") on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate with our would-be guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favor at all.'

"Truly, that with which we are here dealing is not a theory, but a dream; a thing composed entirely of gratuitous assumptions, destitute not only of proof, but even of probability" (Philip Mauro, "Which Version," True or False, p. 114).

Order MYTHS ABOUT MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS on line at: http://www.wayoflife.org/.

Jack Moorman says: "This book is excellent! It presents a good and thorough overview of the subject, and I found it especially helpful in dealing with some of the 'nit picking' arguments the other side has raised in recent years."

MYTHS ABOUT MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS deals with eight popular myths surrounding the modern Bible version issue. Myth One, Erasmus was merely a humanist. Myth Two, the Reformation editors lacked sufficient manuscript evidence. Myth Three, differences between texts and versions affect no doctrine. Myth Four, inspiration was infallible but preservation is fallible. Myth Five, the scholars do not support the Received Text. Myth Six, modern texts and versions are based upon Bible-believing scholarship. Myth Seven, Evangelical scholarship can be trusted. Myth Eight, dynamic equivalency is a faithful method for translating the Scriptures.

The book answers questions such as the following:

Why are the modern Bible versions so different from the KJV?
Is it true that the differences between the versions do not affect doctrine?
What is the Received Text? What is the Westcott-Hort Text? Is it still influential?
Who are the scholars who defend the King James Bible?
Is modern textual criticism based upon biblical principles?
Who were the men who developed modern textual criticism?
Who was John Burgon?
Who are the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek Text?
Why did the Unitarians love the Westcott-Hort Greek text?
Why do most Evangelical scholars support the modern versions?
Does Psalm 12:7 refer to the preservation of God's Word?
Why do textual critics ignore divine preservation?
Why do so many seminaries reject the Received Text?
Who is Bruce Metzger?
Why does Billy Graham support the modern versions?
What kinds of Bibles are being translated into foreign languages?
Is the fight for the KJV necessary?
Do I have to be a Greek scholar to understand this issue?
Where was the preserved Word of God before 1611?

The book contains reports on most influential textual critics and modern translators of the 19th and 20th centuries, including Johann Wetstein, Johann Griesbach, Karl Lachmann, Constantine Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, George Vance Smith, Philip Schaff, Ezra Abbot, Joseph Thayer, Caspar Rene Gregory, Walter Bowie, Edgar Goodspeed, James Moffatt, C.H. Dodd, Carlo Martini, Eugene Nida, Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, Robert Bratcher, William Barclay, F.F. Bruce, Fredric Kenyon, Ernest Colwell, Frederick Conybeare, Samuel Driver, Gerhard Kittel, Kirsopp Lake, J.B. Phillips, Henry Wheeler Robinson, and Hermann von Soden.