αὐξανόμενοι εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ

Giuseppe Guarino

NEW HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH - Sicily

King James Version Authority Class Assignment

Comparing two Scripture texts as in the KJV and in other translations

One of the assignments in the classes I took in my church included a "King James Authority" discussion. I love textual criticism. It is one of my favourite Biblical subjects. Of course I had my opinions and, as I am used to do, I strongly supported them. I understood it was a risk. But I took it. The teachers where great because they did not judge my conclusions but my zeal, logic and the information provided. I did not even learn whether they supported my views or not.  

I will shortly consider two instances of variations that are peculiar to newer translations (or revisions) of the Bible comparing them to the KJV Bible.

One is due to a different original text being translated - John 1:18. The other to a different way of translating the same text - Isaiah 7:14.

Those two passages are not secondary for doctrinal purposes and such changes introduced by some, more recent versions, need to be discussed and to be recognized as being not improvements in the field of Biblical knowledge but as a corruption of the Received Text hold dear to Christianity for almost 2000 years.

The first istance I will discuss is John 1:18.

King James Version

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The New World Translation

No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom (position) with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Revised Standard Version

Has a footnote saying that: “other ancient authorities read God”

The Greek Textus Receptus

ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς – the only begotten Son

Westcott and Hort and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament  and recent critical editions read:

μονογενὴς Θεὸς – (the) only begotten God.

Since scribes usually abbreviated the divine names, the change was very easy to enter the text as the difference between Son and God in the manuscripts would be of one letter only.  υἱὸς, Son, was in fact abbreviated υς and Θεὸς, God, abbreviated Θς.

This Bible passage is of vital importance and it is my opinion that it deserves very close attention from serious Bible students. In Italy, the old translation of the TR, the Diodati Bible (first published in 1607 AD)  read Son (Figlio, in Italian). The same did the Italian Revised Version (this revision is – it is my personal opinion - far more acceptable than the English revisions of the KJV). What troubled me much was the fact that a newer revision of the text, very likely to be used in Evangelical churches, just recently published with the intent to better the text of the Italian Revised Version, has the reading God (Dio, in Italian) in the text.

It is my personal conviction that the text of the New Testament found in the so called Majority text is the type of text representing the faithful work of the church copying the original apostolic Scriptures. The Majority text is found in the Textus Receptus and translated in the KJV Bible. It is also my conviction that scholars of today are so fond of a text (Alexandrian or Egyptian) that is only evidence of deliberate textual changes.

Manuscripts supporting the Majority text, represent the vast majority of manuscripts. They show a wonderful accord among themselves, like faithful independent true witnesses. On the contrary, the few manuscripts supporting the Alexandrian text readings, like lying witnesses, do not even agree with one another.

The following is the manuscript evidence in support of the various readings.

-          The only begotten – is found in one Latin manuscript.

-          Only begotten God – without the article – P66, Sinaitic, Vatican, C, L.

-          The only begotten God – with the article - P75, 33.

-          The only begotten Son – the rest of the manuscripts.

The omission of the article by some Alexandrian witnesses, but not by all, is clear evidence of the shortened text of Scriptures supported by this type of text. Such omission can hardly be considered accidental ! Witnesses contradicting each other are not reliable !

Two more last reasons I must add to support the reliability of the KJV and TR reading.

Is it possible that such a truth, that the Son is the Only begotten God, be hidden for 2000 years to be finally revealed today? Or is it more probable that critics have only revived an old heretical corruption of the Alexandrian text that the Church had long since got rid of ?

Does the reading the only begotten God, or god, like Jehovah’s witnesses write it, mean anything at all? 

This wonderful passage of Scripture is so precious that we cannot tolerate any and the least corruption of it to weaken the wonderful doctrine of Incarnation.

Another instance of differences between the KJV translation and more recent revisions of it is

Isaiah 7:14.

King James Version

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Revised Standard Version

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.

Here the difference arises not because of another text being translated, but because the same original word was translated differently.

Concerning the Old Testament, the text commonly translated is still the so called Masoretic text, which is the same translated in the KJV Bible. The recent findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls have only validated the authority of this text.

So what we face is here is an attempt of a revision of the KJV to present a better translation. Is this the case?

If the correct translation of the Hebrew be young woman and not virgin, I am sorry to say that I fail to see the “sign”. There is nothing special in a young woman conceiving and bearing a son. On the contrary, I do see the miracle of the incarnation of the son of God in a virgin conceiving and bearing a son!

More than that, I read the quotation of this very Old Testament Bible passage in the gospel of Matthew, 1:23, which clearly says: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman’u-el.” – RSV.

Of course, it is called to the attention of the defenders of the traditional reading that Matthew was quoting the LXX (Septuagint) Greek version of the Old Testament. 

Anyway, we can’t help but notice that:

-       If the traditional translation was supported by an old and Jewish translation of Scripture produced before the birth of Christ, it is worth of credit!

-       If such translation was used by an apostle when quoting that passage of Scripture to support the Bible prophecy of Jesus being born of a virgin, are we entitled to consider ourselves able to understand the Scriptures and interpret them better than an inspired author ?

We don’t see any improvement in modern translations, but only an attempt to destroy the foundation of Christianity itself: the virgin birth of Jesus.

The traditional, KJV translation is still the correct one.

Catania, September 12, 2005.