Missing From What?
Tradition Is ThenIllusion Of Permanence — Woody Allen
Picture yourself in a grocery store, strolling down the aisle with a shopping list in hand. You reach the egg aisle, grab a carton off the shelf, and carry on your way.
It’s not until you’re back in your kitchen, carton opened, ready to whip up an omelet, that you realize there’s a gap where the twelfth egg should be.
Instinctively, you think, “I’m short an egg.” But why? It’s the design of the carton itself, meant to cradle a full dozen that informs your expectations.
This mundane moment offers a slice of insight: To legitimately claim something is “missing,” there must be a predetermined norm for comparison.
This benchmark is embodied by the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.
The absence of these verses from nearly all modern English Bible translations raises a critical question: Why were they excluded? Contemporary New Testament scholars believe that these verses were not present in the earliest manuscripts.
In other words, these verses were not removed but were additions made at some stage in the transmission of the biblical text.
Exploring the origins of the King James Version (KJV) and its inclusion of these 16 verses is like stepping through a portal into history, giving us a view of the complex and often debated process of scripture compilation.
Delving into the historical, cultural, and theological factors that influenced the KJV’s translation team offers insight into why these verses found their way into the 1611 version, a decision that would reverberate through centuries of biblical interpretation.
Let’s begin by exploring a pivotal figure in the story of the KJV—a man whose scholarly endeavors laid the groundwork for this monumental translation.
Desiderius Erasmus
Desiderius Erasmus (C. 1466-1536): A Life In Summary
The KJV owes its inception to Desiderius Erasmus of the 16th century. He pioneered the effort to print and publish a Greek New Testament. Desiderius Erasmus was born around 1466 in Rotterdam, Netherlands.
He was a product of the European Renaissance and believed in the importance of education and the study of classical texts to improve society and individual behavior.
He argued that true religion was not about external rituals but a personal relationship with God and a moral life.
One of Erasmus’ most significant contributions was his belief in “ad fontes,” or “back to the sources.” He felt that to truly understand Christianity, one must return to its roots: the original texts of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.
This perspective drove him to produce a new Latin translation of the New Testament based directly on its Greek texts.
Erasmus vs. the Vulgate
Erasmus faced challenges when creating his new Latin text of the New Testament. Critics, especially within the Church, accused him of altering the sacred words of Scripture.
Some of the challenges echo modern “KJV-only” arguments where proponents believe that only the King James Version of the Bible is divinely inspired and any deviation or new translation is seen with suspicion.
The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the 4th century, was the primary Bible of the Catholic Church for over a millennium.
With his critical approach, Erasmus noted several places where the Vulgate did not align with the Greek manuscripts.
His annotations and corrections made him both influential and controversial.
Feud With Martin Luther
Luther was not only a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation but also a catalyst for monumental shifts in the religious and cultural landscapes of the 16th century.
His nailing of the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle church in 1517 is often considered the starting point of the Reformation, setting in motion a series of events that would forever change the face of Christianity.
Luther’s teachings challenged the authority of the Catholic Church, particularly its practices around indulgences and the role of the Pope.
His doctrine of “justification by faith alone” emphasized that salvation could not be earned through good deeds but was a gift of God’s grace, received through faith in Jesus Christ.
Initially, Erasmus and Luther shared common ground, particularly in their critiques of the Church’s excesses and their calls for reform.
Erasmus, with his sharp intellect and humanist leanings, was sympathetic to many of Luther’s concerns.
However, their camaraderie soon turned into a deep theological rift, centering around the doctrine of free will.
Erasmus, in his work ”De Libero Arbitrio” (On Free Will), defended the idea that humans possessed the capacity to choose between good and evil and that this free will played a role in salvation.
Luther, on the other hand, countered vehemently in ”De Servo Arbitrio” (On the Bondage of the Will), asserting that humanity was so thoroughly corrupted by sin that the will was in bondage.
According to Luther, it was only through the intervention of divine grace that a person could be saved, with no contribution from human effort or decision.
This disagreement between Erasmus and Luther wasn’t just a scholarly debate—it had profound implications for the direction of the Reformation and the development of Protestant theology.
It underscored the deep divides within the reformist movement between those who advocated for moderate changes and those who called for a radical rethinking of church doctrine and practice.
Luther’s stance on the bondage of the will would go on to influence many Protestant denominations, while Erasmus’s views would retain influence within certain Christian traditions that emphasized the role of human cooperation with divine grace.
A Word Of Appreciation
As we return to the narrative of Erasmus and his contributions to the King James Version, it’s important to bear in mind this backdrop of religious upheaval and the clash of ideas that characterized the era.
These debates about free will, grace, and salvation were not just theological abstractions—they were discussions that would shape the course of Western Christianity for centuries to come.
Erasmus’ work laid the foundation for future biblical scholarship and translations. He remained a Catholic throughout his life but sought reform from within, advocating for a middle way between rigid traditionalism and radical Reformation.
In summary, Erasmus’ life and work represent a pivotal moment in the history of Christianity, merging the ideals of the Renaissance with the fervor of Reformation and underscoring the importance of returning to original sources to understand one’s faith deeply.
Erasmus Textual Legacy
Before the advent of the printing press, the transmission of the New Testament relied on hand-copied manuscripts.
These were intricate copies made over generations, tracing back to the original writings of the apostles and their companions.
Desiderius Erasmus emerged as a pioneering scholar in this era of meticulous yet varied transcriptions.
His monumental task was to compile a coherent Greek text for the New Testament. However, Erasmus faced significant limitations due to the scarcity of resources.
He had access to only about a dozen manuscripts for his work, a stark contrast to the over 5,800 manuscripts available to textual critics today.
In 1516, Erasmus published the first edition of the Greek New Testament, titled the “Novum Instrumentum omne.”
This publication was revolutionary, not only because it was the first Greek New Testament to be printed and published but also because of its accompanying Latin translation and detailed annotations.
Erasmus’s work marked a significant milestone in biblical scholarship, profoundly influencing the biblical texts of his time and shaping future interpretations and translations.
His efforts were a cornerstone in the transition from the era of hand-copied manuscripts to the age of printed scripture, laying a foundation for modern biblical studies.
Erasmus was not one to rest on his laurels. Throughout his life, he diligently refined his Greek New Testament through four subsequent editions, each reflecting his deepening understanding and response to criticisms.
These editions were released in 1519, 1522, 1527, and finally, in 1536, shortly before his death.
With each edition, Erasmus endeavored to correct errors, incorporate additional Greek manuscripts, and respond to the scholarly and religious debates of his time.
Following in Erasmus’s footsteps, two noteworthy scholars carried the torch of biblical scholarship forward.
Robert Estienne, also known by his Latinized name Stephanus, was a notable printer and scholar who produced several important editions of the Greek New Testament.
His 1550 edition is particularly significant. It included a critical apparatus that listed variant readings from different manuscripts, a feature that was revolutionary for its time.
Theodore Beza, a theologian and scholar in his own right, was another key figure in the lineage of textual scholarship.
He continued refining the Greek New Testament with his editions, which spanned from 1565 to 1604.
Beza’s work was influential, not least because of his annotations and textual decisions, which often reflected his Reformed theological leanings.
When the translators of the King James Version set to work at the beginning of the 17th century, they inherited this rich legacy of textual scholarship.
They primarily relied on the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, making their translation a culmination of nearly a century of scholarly endeavor.
However, it’s important to note that the manuscripts available to these scholars were relatively limited in number.
The readings that found their way into the King James Version, including the so-called “missing verses,” can be traced back to this relatively small pool of manuscripts, most of which dated from the later Medieval period.
In essence, the textual foundation of the King James Version was built upon the cumulative work of these three scholars.
The textual decisions they made, influenced by the manuscripts they had at their disposal and their own interpretive lenses, would shape the English Bible for centuries to come.
As we look back on this history, it’s a testament to both the dedication of these scholars and the evolving nature of textual scholarship—a journey of discovery, debate, and devotion to the words that many hold sacred.
Introducing The Textus Receptus
Introduced in 1611, the KJV represented a monumental achievement in Bible translation.
Rooted in several preceding English translations and grounded in the available Greek and Hebrew texts of the era, the KJV became the benchmark English Bible for generations.
While minor modifications emerged over time, the version retained specific verses, paying homage to the Greek New Testaments from which it was derived.
The English King James Version (KJV) didn’t just shape the religious landscape of the English-speaking world; its ripples extended into continental Europe.
By the 17th century, as a testament to its widespread influence, the term “Textus Receptus” (TR) emerged, mainly due to the efforts of the Elzevir brothers.
Introduced in their 1633 second edition of the Greek New Testament, the term TR literally means “text received by all.” However, its actual implications are more nuanced.
Unlike the later-developed Nestle-Aland (NA) or the United Bible Societies (UBS) critical texts, which were painstakingly constructed from a comprehensive examination of available manuscripts, the TR was more of a created Greek text.
It predominantly mirrored the readings found in the KJV, even in places where these readings had little to no Greek manuscript support.
In fact, some of its readings were so unique that they had no parallel in any known Greek manuscripts, underscoring its departure from the traditions that later texts like NA and UBS would uphold.
It’s essential to understand that the term “received by all” was less about a rigorous, universally accepted textual foundation and more of a strategic marketing slogan.
It projected an image of wide acceptance and reverence, even when its actual textual roots diverged significantly from later, more critically constructed texts.
While the TR and its readings played a pivotal role in its time, later critical texts like the NA and UBS emerged from a different approach and ethos, offering a depth of manuscript-based authority that the TR, in many instances, cannot claim.
The Majority Text
The Majority Text, which represents the majority of readings of existing Greek manuscripts 9, often finds favor among staunch King James Version advocates.
They perceive it as closely aligned with the KJV’s readings and, thus, consider it a primary authority in Greek.
However, it’s essential to note that the Majority Text and the TR have several discrepancies. Despite their similarities, they diverge in many places.
This poses a challenge for the “KJV- only” camp. If the Majority Text, with its vast manuscript backing, differs from the TR, upon which the KJV heavily relies, it raises questions about the KJV’s unwavering authority.
For some KJV proponents, their advocacy for the Majority Text seems more like an attempt to bolster the KJV’s standing than a genuine commitment to an authoritative Greek text.
This suggests that for some, the “KJV-only” stance may be driven more by attachment to the KJV translation than by consistent textual evidence.
Tradition Verses Truth
Throughout the ages, our search for understanding has led us to unearth ancient manuscripts that cast fresh light upon the New Testament’s original words.
These documents, older than the manuscripts that underly the KJV and Textus Receptus, sometimes tell a different story than the one familiar to many from the King James Version.
This revelation poses a heart-wrenching dilemma for believers and churches: Do we cling to the comforting cadences of tradition, or do we bravely embrace the truths presented by these age-old scripts?
In the pews and pulpits of modern churches, this question resonates deeply. Many congregations like the one I attended in South Korea find solace in the familiar verses of the KJV, its words etched into the hearts of generations.
However, when newer translations, grounded in the findings of ancient manuscripts, omit or alter beloved verses, a sense of dissonance emerges.
It’s a profound challenge, watching congregations grapple with the choice of revering an English translation they’ve held dear or venturing into the deeper waters of biblical scholarship in pursuit of truth.
This evolving landscape of biblical understanding puts the faith of many to the test. It asks us: What do we value more, the comfort of tradition or the pursuit of accuracy?
In this ever-unfolding journey from the KJV, through the Textus Receptus, and onto the insights of modern archaeology, we are reminded of our collective responsibility—to seek, to question, and ultimately, to choose truth over tradition.
Beyond The 1611
This chapter isn’t intended to undermine the commendable efforts of the KJV translators or Erasmus. Given the resources they had, their achievements were remarkable.
It’s worth noting that even the original KJV translators alluded to the possibility of updates in their preface.
In the original 1611 King James Version, a preface titled “The Translators to the Reader” was penned. Within this preface, the translators stated:
Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly and strangely with us.
For to whoever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?… But it is high time to leave them and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held, in this perusal and survey of the Bible.
Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one….. but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
For today’s readers who might find the original language challenging to understand, here’s my best effort to provide a more straightforward explanation:
“Before we finish, we need to address a third complaint and objection from others who criticize us for frequently changing and improving our translations. Honestly, they are being unfair and unreasonable in this matter.
Has it ever been considered a mistake, especially by wise people, to review and improve something one has done when necessary?… But let’s move on from them and briefly explain our goals and approach in reviewing and revising the Bible.
To put it simply, dear Christian reader, we never initially intended to create an entirely new translation or turn a bad one into a good one.
Instead, we aimed to take a good translation and make it even better or combine various good translations into one outstanding one. This was our effort and our goal.”
This suggests that the original translators never perceived their work as the ultimate authority; they recognized the inevitability of subsequent revisions.
It’s also naive to assume that the contemporary King James Version mirrors the 1611 edition precisely.
To illustrate this point, consider just some notable changes in the KJV since its 1611 inception:
Yet, some staunch KJV proponents persistently declare the KJV as the definitive authority, championing it as the sole impeccable Bible.
My experience in South Korea provided firsthand insight into the profound devotion many Christians harbor for the King James Version (KJV).
Nestled within that quaint congregation, I was swiftly introduced to the passionate belief held by many that the KJV stands unparalleled as the sole authoritative Bible.
While the intricacies and fervor surrounding KJV-only are indeed fascinating, it’s a vast topic that goes beyond the scope of this book.
For those seeking a deeper dive into this matter, James R. White’s “The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?” is a comprehensive and enlightening guide.
What’s Next?
As we’ve journeyed through the history and evolution of the King James Version, it’s clear that this translation, like any other work, is a product of its time and available resources.
But understanding the past is only one part of the equation. The question then becomes: How does the Bible continue to change and adapt over time, especially with new findings and evolving scholarship? Textual criticism stands at the forefront of this process.
Just as any historical document undergoes rigorous examination and verification, the Bible, too, has its checks and balances.
These ensure that what we read is as close to the original intent as possible, even as centuries pass.
As we transition to our next chapter, we will delve into the mechanisms that have shaped the Bible over the millennia.
We’ll explore the methods scholars use to determine its authenticity and the steps taken to correct and align its passages with historical accuracy.