Former Presbyterian Church moderator Stafford Carson responds to the question: Is the King James Bible still the best?
IN a recent edition of the News Letter (December 29), Philip Bradfield succinctly rehearses the long-running debate on the issue of the textual accuracy of the Bible.
His article appended a table which compared the New King James Version with the English Standard Version (ESV) and gave the impression that the ESV is theologically suspect because it does not fully endorse two textually controversial sections of the New Testament.
Among the 5,700 manuscripts of the Greek NT which are still in existence, there are two large textual variants, each involving 12 verses: Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. The earliest and best manuscripts lack these verses. In addition, these passages do not fit well with the author’s style. No essential truths are lost if these verses are not authentic.
Most conservative biblical scholars accept that the story of the woman taken in the act of adultery was not originally part of John’s Gospel. Professor Don Carson, research professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, points out in his commentary on John’s Gospel that the verses are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us.
The story is missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts. All the early Fathers omit this narrative. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. In addition, a number of later manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity.
Even if we decided that the verses are authentic, it would be very hard to justify the view that the material is authentically the work of the apostle John. There are numerous expressions and constructions in these 12 verses that are found nowhere else in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels.
On the other hand, there is little reason for doubting that the event described in the KJV’s rendering of John 8 actually occurred, even if its written form did not belong to the canonical books of the Bible from the beginning. This disputed passage may have been inserted into John’s Gospel in order to illustrate what Jesus said in John 7:24 or 8:15.
Similar points can be made about the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel which is included in the KJV. Most of the content of these disputed verses at the end of Mark is found elsewhere in the New Testament, and no key Christian doctrine is affected by the presence or absence of Mark 16:9-20. Given the weight of the evidence, it is intellectually honest for the ESV translators to point out these variants and to place them in brackets.
The answer to the question “Is the King James Bible still the best?” must be in the negative. By including the insights of the 400 years of biblical scholarship since 1611, modern conservative translations like the ESV reflect a more reliable and accurate text of the Bible.
* Dr Carson is the minister of First Presbyterian Church in Portadown
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Belfast
Thursday 24 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 7 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 7 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
amadeus
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 03:01 AMFrom a Christian perspective I would like to pose a question to any Christians reading this. I am told that the food and ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses have passed away but that the moral aspects of the Law remain binding today. So I would like to know, are any or all of these 4 specific aspects of the Law of Moses still applicable today? 1. a man has the right to marry a prisoner of war, if she takes his fancy, and after the man has slept with her, if he doesn't like her he can send her away (Deuteronomy 21 10-14.) 2. if a man rapes a virgin (who is not engaged to another man) he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver, he must marry her and must not divorce her ever.(Deuteronomy 22 v 28-29) 3.if a man marries a girl and then suspects she was not a virgin he can demand her parents provide proof of her virginity publically. If they can the man is fined 100 shekels of silver. If they can't the girl must be stoned to death at her father's front door. ( Deuteronomy 22 v 13-21) 4"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living in your country and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" (.Leviticus 25 v 44-46 ). thank you.
offering
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 09:57 PMI wonder what D.M. means by ---'more reliable, more inspired versions have replaced it in the vast, vast majority of churches in the English speaking world like the NIV and ESV.' Is heshe saying that God has shed a new revelation subsequent to the former record of the scriptures and that previous writ was not as inspired and modern translations? Is the suggestion that God's previous revelations to men no longer apply and is no longer reliable? Sounds like they belief that over time the scriptures must change to suit the behaviour and philosophies of mankind. When then is the scriptures the word of God and when not? Sounds that heshe is prepared to make up their own bible to suit whatever they want.
amadeus
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 07:52 PMardens: Your first sentence is inaccurate: check Matthew 5 v 22, v 29, v 30. Matt 10 v 28, Matt 18 v 9, Matt 23 v 15, v 33; Mark 9 v 43, v 45, v 47; Luke 12 v 5, Luke 16, v 23; James 3 v 6 and 2nd Peter 2 v 4. The rest of your rant is just as inaccurate.
ardens
Sunday, January 8, 2012 at 12:17 AMThe NIV (produced by the Murdoch Empire) has dropped the use of the word hell from its translation. Sodomites are referred to as "temple prostitutes" And now we have a non-gender specific version of the NIV. They who believe God is a woman must be catered for regardless of the content of the texts.The purpose of these translations is not to remain faithful to the original text but to appeal to the prejudices of certain groups. Tells us all we need to know about the motivation of the translators who set out with a specific agenda to fulfill. Only a fool who has been too lazy to do a bit of research would depend upon the NIV as a "reliable version". The men who translated the KJV were men of great Godliness. Men who knew Greek and Hebrew from their earliest years. The fact that a homosexual and a lesbian were allowed to take part in the translation of the NIV shows that Godliness was not a requirement to be on the panel of translators and it is unlikely that they would have approved any texts that disowned their sinful lifestyle. DM talks about more "reliable, more inspired versions", but produces no evidence to back up his assertions. A trawl of the internet will reveal the problems with many of these new translations although i accept the ESV is one of the better attempts compared to the dreadful NIV. As for Thee and Thou, they impart a distinctiveness and a Majesty to a name the Hebrews themselves were afraid to pronounce but in our shallow brain-dead, happy clappy churches today, the God Who is clothed in Majesty and splendour has become our next-door buddy and the reverence due to His Name has largely disappeared.I want to distinguish between God and my neighbour in my prayers. Ichabod is a fitting name for many of our all-singing, all dancing. hand clapping churches and what passes for their worship. Praise is taking over from the primacy of preaching and that is why our churches are in such decline. As a preacher once said "You worship God in your way and I will worship Him in His".
amadeus
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 05:33 PMardens: not sure why you have chosen to have a go at gay people in your post? seems no reason for it to me. I have long thought that those who view the KJV as somehow especially holy are in very great danger of a subtle form of idolatry- that is that they worship the KJV rather than understand that God did not speak in 'thees and thous' when the Bible was originally written. I remember conducting an interview with a member of a Biblical translation organisation who had actually been asked if (when they produced the scriptures in other languages) they translated it into KJV Russian, French etc. I think that says it all!
DM
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 08:57 AM"Put no trust in men or princes"...The men and princes who wrote the KJV 400 years ago. Stafford is absolutely right. Its really ironic, that the 'KJV only' crowd have historically been the most critical of Catholic traditions and practices, whilst fiercely clinging to their own tradition of 'KJV only-ism'. Listening to the scholars debate the merits and drawbacks of the KJV, it is striking how shallow the arguments are in favour of the KJV from a sources point of view. The KJV had a massive impact used by God in its time, but that time has long been over, and more reliable, more inspired versions have replaced it in the vast, vast majority of churches in the English speaking world like the NIV and ESV. Perhaps ardens should ask himself why the NIV and ESV are used by virtually every church now?
ardens
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 06:24 AMAnd in the next 400 years, what else will be removed or diluted by the minds of men? Does the sole rule of faith and practice seems to be crumbling? Are some saying God failed to get it right first time? No mention of the involvement of homosexuals and lesbians in the NIV? Put no trust in men or princes.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.