KJV Textual Technology

Essay 2

       Inerrancy & Greek Manuscript Variance: An Introduction to the Topic

By Dr. L. Bednar

Errors of scholars

Long ago scholars discredited Greek-text inerrancy due to variance in extant manu- scripts. Textual critics Westcott & Hort offered what looked like a simple concept of text history that might restore the original text, on the basis of their low view of the Received Text, and their invention of a text based on a master Alexandrian man- uscript, but these critics have been proven wrong in major aspects of their theories. Despite the failure of Westcott/Hort theory, scholars today utilize their type of text as the main basis for their Greek critical texts in modern versions, likely because they don’t know what else to do after having dismissed the Received Text.

Text Inerrancy Revealed by Extant Manuscripts

Textual commentary by modern scholars can easily cause laymen to think inerrancy is wishful thinking. Now variant extant Greek manuscripts do reveal the faulty hand of men on the history of the written text, but they don't disprove the existence of an inerrant text. Rather, the variant quality reflects two aspects of text history, that of text-preservation among Bible-believers, in contrast with that of the world overall. The reality of such a state of text inerrancy is deduced by comparing different types of manuscripts. God would preserve the word in its inerrant state in select texts for those desiring to follow Him completely (as taught in Psalm 12 - essay 6a ), while providing basic truth elsewhere that allows unbelievers to suppress natural skept- icism and come to true faith. Thus the state of various texts would reflect God’s provision for people & nations on the basis of their desire to know and practice His truth so that their attitudes will render their final judgment a righteous one. The desire to know His truth is rightly related to the wonders of His creation (Psalm 19), the need for God inherent in all people and the need for those who know His truth to share it with others in witnessing and missionary  endeavor.

The importance of translations: This view of manuscript accuracy would advocate that an inerrant state of the text would be lost by any nation or people group that shrinks from following God; this would relate the state of the Greek text in many lands today to their lack of devotion to God, and their rampant humanist carnality. Further, such a view would indicate God's  provision of inerrant texts in languages of lands where His true church has been established, which is a reasonable expectation since dependence on skills of mere scholars appointed by mere men could not produce an inerrant text. It would be wrong to think that faulty scholarship of men prevents the certainty of infallible guidance by God's inerrant Word, especially in regard to final judgment. The only way all of God's people can have an inerrant guide to God's will is through those translations that He has ordained in their languages, which can only be those produced by men that He has chosen for the task, and to whom He has given His guidance in the hard work of translation. Such men will necessarily have out- standing scholarship and reverence for God and His Word.

Thus the ultimate desired textual goal will be various ordained inerrant translations, and the present writer has this in mind in contrasting accuracy of the KJV & modern English versions. English-speaking people in the era of KJV predominance had a far greater reverence for God and His Word, and were better educated than they usually are in our deteriorating schools today. They could be expected to inherit an inerrant text if the proposed concept is correct, and the same would be true of the remnant still holding to the KJV today. This concept is a primary aim of the present website.

Nonetheless, no translation can be more accurate than its textual basis, and con- trasting that of the KJV with that of modern versions is another major goal of the present website. Greek texts of modern versions differ notably from the traditional one of the KJV, and this subject is discussed here, but first we interject a little com- mentary on the Hebrew/Aramaic text.

The Greek text

Greek manuscripts present a complex, but predictable, matter based on the concept of the church as God’s instrument by which people come to true faith. Some Bible passages vital to true churches, like the Johannine Comma in 1 Jn. 5:7,8 that reveals Christ in the Trinity, and the eunuch’s confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God in Acts 8:37, have been preserved in an inerrant state in relatively few extant manu- scripts linked to small historical biblical churches of the medieval era. A lack of these truths would prevail in the many manuscripts historically located in large un- biblical churches of that era (a classic case of the axiom, quality trumps quantity). Manuscript error often repeated by many indifferent scribes of large unbiblical churches likely began early. Thus preservation of accurate texts of translations of earliest biblical churches, translations older than 4th-century uncial manuscripts favored by scholars, is vital in retaining true readings (essay 4i). Further, 2nd-3rd century papyri contain some Traditional-Text readings (see Sturz, H.A. The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism. p55-76), indicating a potential link of the Traditional Text to the autograph originals and text renewal in post-4th century times. Indeed, the Traditional-Text overall harmony places it far above its Alexandrian-text competitor in regard to a relationship to the autographs (essay 4j). 

The Traditional Text: Traditional-Text manuscripts from which the Received Text derives are sound overall, but most of them date only to the 10th-11th centuries. These likely represent renewal of truth in providing a textual basis for an Italic Old Latin version of biblical churches originating in apostolic days, and receiving new prominence through the Waldenses who were influential in Europe in the 12th century & later. These Greek-text copies are excellent overall, but most have some errors that would be due to copying by the many scribes of many large unbiblical churches. lnerrancy would be retained only in a few manuscripts possessed by the few biblical churches that remained small due to severe persecution by the Roman church that didn't tolerate interference of scripture with its humanist tradition.

The Received Text: This text, first printed in the 16th century, shortly before the Reformation began, marked a return from religious tradition to biblical faith, and in the 17th century it became the foundation for Separatist & biblical Baptist churches in England. Editions of this text in matured states usually differ only in literality that doesn't affect accuracy, and the KJV presents an optimal literality (essay 4-h). KJV translators consulted various texts in addition to Received-Text editions, including earlier English versions & the Italic Old Latin version in particular. We today see evidence of an optimal literality by a study of an approximation of content of the Received Text underlying the KJV (Comments on the Greek Received Text of F.H.A. Scrivener, www.wcbible.org). The finalized Received Text, appearing in English form in the KJV, would be a renewed inerrant Traditional Text, and is needed greatly today since the end of the church era, and an end of all opportunity to follow God by His Word, is evidently approaching.

Modern Critical texts: Modern times are marked by heathenism & carnality that have invaded the majority of churches, so it's no surprise that versions today are usually based mainly on the texts of the Alexandrian manuscripts that contain much error. A small minority of scattered churches loyal to the true faith cling to the KJV based upon the true finalized Received Text in the New Testament. These statements are strongly supported by the various topics of the present website.

Minor manuscript support of certain Received-Text readings

Some readings in finalized Received-Text editions have very little Greek manuscript support, likely reflecting an inability of biblical churches to renew true manuscripts due to widespread persecution & martyrdom in early centuries; persecution occurred in the 3rd century, under Roman emperor Decius, and destruction of scripture copies was a major goal of vicious empire-wide persecution in the early 4th century by Diocletian & Galerius, who sent out Roman soldiers to destroy all text copies; this persecution was concentrated in the eastern empire where the Traditional Text, the ancestor of the Received Text, was the standard. Widespread manuscript loss during persecutions would interrupt copying processes, but God would provide a restored true text to His churches. He won't be thwarted by men, so in His appropriate time, He would renew it, by His guidance of His chosen faithful men.

Delayed renewal of this type is indicated by word choices of Theodore Beza in his 1598 edition of the Received Text that was the main basis of the New Testament of the KJV. Contextual/linguistic internal evidence indicates Beza was providentially guided to renew certain original readings in true manuscripts renewed for churches remaining true to God, yet evidently were never renewed in Greek manuscripts of the world in general (brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm provides evidence of early version and commentary support for readings absent in extant manuscripts). An illustration is noted below, and others are noted in essay 4g..

An illustration: As part of the process of finalizing the Greek text, Beza (and the KJV) at Rev.16:5 reads O Lord, which art, and wast and shalt be, which replaces illogical language in all earlier Greek texts/manuscripts that read who art and who wast and the holy one (no verb); the holy one interrupts the continuity of reference to God's eternality, and omits a logical third verb. Beza’s rendering speaks of eternal God of the past, present & future, as expected of a true reading, and in accord with Rev.1:4  that says him which is, and which was, and which is to come, and in accord with similar readings in Rev.1:8, 1:18, 4:8, & 11:17. All 5 of the Revelation verses present the obvious expected future aspect of God's eternality.

Now Rev.17:11 speaks of a beast representing a vile empire cult. This empire beast has no ultimate future, Rev.17:11 describing him in past & present tense only as, the beast that was and is not, and yet is. Due to the close contextual proximity, omitting the future aspect in Rev.16:5 can make this verse seem to say that God, despite His great power, is like the beast in having no ultimate future, and cannot secure our eternal future. This looks like satan's influence on text copying that suggests, despite God's power and His destruction of satan & the beast, His people have reason to doubt their eternal security. This is reminiscent of Gen.3:1-5 where satan, by the serpent, puts doubt in Eve’s mind on obeying God's command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Further, the holy one looks like an early scribe’s faulty effort to ensure a clear reference to God in a defective reading in manuscripts not rightly related to the autographs. Shall be is both theologically & linguistically correct, and the alternative is unsound, so providential renewal of a lost true reading in Beza's 1598 (&1589) edition is indicated. God, by Beza, corrects a faulty phrase in all extant Greek manuscripts, texts & contrary versions, correcting a vile potential interpretation; the KJV supports this, as can be expected of a God-ordained inerrant version (see brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm for further comment).

Beza’s stated reasons for his choices are irrelevant, only his text being important. We can see that Beza, like certain others, was providentially chosen to correct an ancient text that, while excellent overall, needed some changes. A restored inerrant textual state seems likely for churches of the Reformation era seeking to end non-biblical tradition, and honor God’s Word. God’s intervention would continue later in churches desiring a completely accurate biblical standard, accounting for readings that are contextually & linguistically accurate emerging after the Reformation. This inter- vention would be the cause of the KJV displacing early English versions having incorrect readings like holy one, at Rev.16:5, and the cause of the reign of a finalized KJV Received Text as the popular one. Thus a process of different persons making a few changes that many see as creation of error, would be God’s way of restoring text inerrancy, while preventing exaltation of men regarding His Word.

What has been noted above offers a logical position for those who trust in God to administer His creation. It is far more logical to believe in God’s sovereign control of His Word in all circumstances throughout history than it is to rely on opinions of self-appointed scholars who take it upon themselves to decide what God’s Word should say, mere men who are just part of the creation, and have no standing with the Creator. We can either be true followers of Christ who trust in God’s power, or we can be skeptics who follow the opinions of modern scholars.