From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: A Layman's Guide to How We Got Our Bible

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man

Copyright © 1999 James B. Williams and The Committee on the Bible’s Text and Translation

All Rights Reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any meanselectronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise—without written permission of the publisher, except for brief quotation in written reviews.

ISBN 1-889893-38-2

EISBN: 978-1-62020-404-7

Published by:

Ambassador-Emerald International

1 Chick Springs Road, Suite 203

Greenville, SC 29609 USA

and

Ambassador Productions

16 Hillview Avenue

Belfast, Northern Ireland

BT5 6JR

Cover design © 1999 Grand Design

Cover and internal design by Matt Donovan

Cover photos © 1999 Eyewire and Photodisc

Copyediting by Becky J. Smith

Ebook Conversion: Anna Riebe

www.emeraldhouse.com

ENDORSEMENTS

(PREVIOUSLY ON BACK COVER IN EARLIER EDITIONS)

This book is a rare find. It is a rare blend of factual information tempered with the kind of balance that is much needed in the present KJV discussion. Pastors and laymen alike will profit greatly from reading the information that has been largely absent from discussions on this vital topic.

Dr. David C. Innes, Pastor, Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco, California

Much research and work has gone into this book with much prayer and hope that it will enlighten those who really want to understand the real issues in the matter.

Dr. Les Ollila, President, Northland Baptist Bible College, Dunbar, Wisconsin

Many volumes on this subject of manuscripts and translations produce more heat than light. Happily, here is a book that is filled with light and little heat.

Dr. Ernest D. Pickering, Baptist World Mission, Decatur, Alabama

As a pastor, I appreciate the scholarly and sensible work these men have done. These men have done their homework, and it shows! Fundamentalists will be helped tremendously by this book. I am glad I can recommend it without reservation.

Dr. Bob Taylor, Pastor, Colonial Hills Baptist Church, Indianapolis, Indiana

Those who will read it for themselves will have facts for informed decisions. This book will not appeal to pride and prejudice, but to the honesty that deepens real love for the Word. A wonderfully helpful resource.

Dr. John Vaughn, Pastor, Faith Baptist Church, Taylors, South Carolina

ENDORSEMENTS

This is a book that probably had to be written. Why? Because there is so much wrong thinking and confusion about the Bible translation issue, thanks to a veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double-talk on the subject of King James Onlyism.. . . The problem especially affects the lay constituency in our churches because of their lack of tools to dig down and discover who is informed and who is-mistaken. This volume is subtitled: A Layman’s Guide to How We Got Our Bible. It is that and more. . . . It is fair to say no one should consider himself informed on the translation issue unless he has at least read this book.

Robert Sumner, Editor, The Biblical Evangelist

This book is the best bit of writing on the subject that I have ever seen. I want some to send to people I know.

George Birch, Retired Missionary

The whole book is a marvelous compilation of facts presented in very understandable terms. As I read through the chapters I was reminded of my seminary days. Some professors could go down deep and stay down longer than was tolerable, but your book was a blessing to read and gave renewed hope that the present controversy might find a nice quiet resting place.

Wilson Wahl, Ministry of Helps

Excellent book to bridge the Rift in Fundamental Circles. Splendidly written! These brethren explain the issues of Inspiration and Preservation exquisitely. This book is a MUST for ANY Bible College Bible Interp type class. A must read for any B.B.F. Pastor and any F.B.F. Pastor too. It is especially necessary to ANY Fundamental Baptist Missionary that will be doing ANY translation work.. Don’t be afraid to read the truth.

Roger Duncan from Phoenix, AZ, On amazon.com, October 9, 1999

I ordered a copy of From the Mind of God - To the Mind of Man and just finished reading it. It was very well done and you can be pleased at the results of all of your hard work. It will be a blessing to many and for many years.

Carl Barton, Representative, Baptist Mid Missions

First of all, I value the spirit in which the book was written. Humility was obviously the target and your team hit the bull’s-eye. Your apologetic approach should go a long way towards soothing the nerves of antagonistic readers.

Secondly, simplicity reigns in the team’s presentation of the origin and complicated history of the Bible. I have no formal education, so I can speak from the layman’s point of view, and I am certain anyone can read this book and benefit. From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man is a benchmark work, which should be of great use to the man in the pew.

Philip B. Fraiser, Missionary

With so many writers, one may not totally agree with one or two of them (association-wise, or who one of them quotes, e.g.), but we appreciate the vital contribution this book makes toward clarifying the mass of misinformation promulgated by extremists. We also liked the kind tone, and grieve at the often unnecessary hurt being caused by extremists. The two-text-families dispute may never be solved. We use only the KJV, but, can’t we disagree with those who don’t always use it without making this a test of fellowship?

Jerry Huffman, Editor, The Calvary Contender

With charitable spirits, scholarly pens, and sharp minds, these men have given the Body of Christ a crystal-clear presentation of an admittedly technical subject, all from the perspective of full faith and assurance that the Word of God has been preserved and is infallible and authoritative. This book does not pander to personality, camp, or institution; it is a faithful presentation of the evidence. We simply cannot afford to allow God’s people to be led astray by personal agendas. I have secured copies for my pastoral staff and I have heartily recommended FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN to my church members. Get the book and read it, and read it again.

Dr. Joe Davis, First Baptist Church Covington, Indiana 1992 PCC Graduate

CONTRIBUTORS

THE COMMITTEE ON THE BIBLE’S TEXT AND TRANSLATION

Dr. J. Drew Conley

Pastor, Kennerly Road Baptist Church, Irmo, South Carolina

Dr. Paul W. Downey

Pastor, Temple Baptist Church, Athens, Georgia

Rev. John K. Hutcheson Sr.

Pastor, Tabernacle Baptist Church, Clayton, Georgia

Dr. Mark Minnick

Pastor, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina

Dr. Randolph Shaylor

Pastor, Antioch Baptist Church, Riverdale, Georgia

Dr. James B.Williams

Conference Speaker, former Missionary, Ringgold, Georgia

ADDITIONAL AUTHORS

Rev. John E. Ashbrook

Pastor Emeritus, Bible Community Church, Mentor, Ohio

Dr. Keith E. Gephart

Former Pastor, Hedstrom Memorial Baptist Church, Cheektowaga, New York

Bible Professor, International Baptist College, Tempe, Arizona

Dr. John C. Mincy

Pastor, Heritage Baptist Church, Antioch, California

Dr. William H. Smallman

Founding Pastor, Galilee Baptist Church, Chicago Heights, Illinois

Vice President for Communications, Baptist Mid-Missions, Cleveland, Ohio

ACADEMICIANS

Dr. David Beale

Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina

Dr. David Burggraff

Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Lansdale, Pennsylvania

Dr. Sam Horn

Northland Baptist Bible College, Dunbar, Wisconsin

Dr. Rolland McCune

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Allen Park, Michigan

Dr. Douglas McLachlan

Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dr. Larry Oats

Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Watertown, Wisconsin

Dr. Ernest Pickering

Baptist World Mission, Decatur, Alabama

Dr. James Price

Temple Baptist Seminary, Chattanooga, Tennessee

APPRECIATION

THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED TO the memory of those who gave their lives in labor, and often in martyrdom, to bring the Word of God into the English language afresh for each generation. Their sacrifices humble all who serve the Savior in the study and proclamation of His inspired, inerrant, immutable Word.

We are further indebted to the copyists, textual editors, translators, printers, publishers, and distributors who were committed to follow the commission of the Lord Jesus Christ to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Had they not been willing to reject the restrictions of state, church, and religious tradition, we would still be in our sins. May there ever be those who follow in their steps to take the Word of an unchanging Lord into the constantly changing languages of men.

The committee members and the authors humbly acknowledge their debt to the churches they pastor and the Christian organizations with which they serve. Without their understanding, good will, and patience about absences from pulpits and fields of services the committee could not have functioned. We also express our deep indebtedness and appreciation to the secretaries in our offices and those available for committee meetings who so willingly interrupted other responsibilities to respond to our multiple short-notice requests. Perhaps more than to any others we owe gratitude to our wives and families, who sacrificially endured our late hours in the study, absences, and occasional surliness as deadlines approached.

—The Committee on the Bible’s Text and Translation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Copyright

Endorsements

Contributors

Appreciation

Title Page

Preface

Text and Translation Committee Disclosure

Introduction: The Issue We Face

Our Final Authority: Revelation, Inspiration, Inerrancy, Infallibility, and Authority of the Bible

Canonization and Apocrypha

Let’s Meet the Manuscripts

The History of the Textus Receptus

English Translations Before the King James Version

The Making of the King James Version

The Changing King James Version

Printed Greek Texts

English Versions Since 1880

Conclusion

Glossary

PREFACE

THIS VOLUME ADDRESSES VITAL AND scholarly issues with regard to biblical manuscripts and translations. Good men hold differing views. It is hoped that the content of this document will acquaint pastors and laypeople with information that will provide them with answers to the translation controversy.

Many volumes on this subject of manuscripts and translations produce more heat than light. Happily, here is a book that is filled with light and little heat. Several things commend this volume to our attention.

It is a clear presentation. While dealing with very complex and technical information, the authors are to be commended for their simplicity of presentation. The average pastor and layman should be able to gain a good grasp of the issues involved from reading this volume.

It is comprehensive. It is amazing to observe how much material has been covered in such a small volume. There is much historical background which will help the reader to follow the succession of manuscripts and translations.

It contains a proper spirit. Too often, those who write on the subject of manuscripts and translations have been acrimonious in their tone. There have been vilification of character, personal attacks, and a generally unchristian spirit. The authors of this work have presented their information objectively and without attacks on the character of their opponents.

It is a clear commitment to biblical infallibility. While acknowledging the variances between ancient manuscripts and the problems of translation attendant to that, there remains a definite commitment to the full inerrancy and authority of Scripture.

This volume should be extremely helpful in guiding open-minded readers through the complicated maze of the discussion concerning manuscripts and translations. It will be welcomed by laypeople, college and seminary students, and pastors. The editors and writers have done an excellent job. May our great God bless the dissemination of this book and use it to enlighten readers everywhere.

Ernest D. Pickering, Th.D.

Field Representative

Baptist World Mission

Decatur, Alabama

TEXT AND TRANSLATION COMMITTEE

DISCLOSURE

(PLEASE READ)

A WORK OF THIS NATURE, AUTHORED by multiple writers, some of whom have had little or no discussion between themselves, necessitates a brief explanation of its limitations and purpose.

To begin with, the committee has made little effort to synthesize the book’s contents. Apart from arranging the chapters in an order that seems to advance their topics in logical progression, adding some explanatory footnotes, and editing to maintain a conciliatory tone, the committee has allowed each chapter to stand as an entirely independent entity succeeding or failing on its own merit alone. The committee felt that its purpose was to give the twelve separate authors a voice but not to attempt to make them one.

One consequence of this approach is that there is a considerable variation between the authors’ writing styles. Some write familiarly. Others adopt a tone more formal. All, however, have attempted to write for the layman rather than the scholar (although it is hoped that the final product is not unscholarly).

Another consequence of inviting each author to write independently of the others is that there exists a certain amount of overlap between some chapters. This evidences itself either in some unavoidable repetition of facts, quotations, or illustrations, or, in a few cases, even in minor discrepancies between the authors’ statements. After careful review, the committee has allowed these to stand unresolved in the confidence that the slight differences reflect only the usage of different source materials and do not materially alter the authors’ arguments.

The chief advantage of this kind of book is that it allows men of differing views (or degrees of dogmatism about the same view) to write their convictions without being pressured to adjust to each other’s positions artificially merely for the sake of publishing together under the same title. Some authors do, in fact, differ among themselves on certain points, particularly the issue of which manuscript family is most representative of the original text of the New Testament. This might also be true of the academicians who reviewed the chapters. These scholars, whose academic credentials are sound and whose position within Fundamentalism is respected, did not meet together in any attempt to resolve differences between themselves. Each one simply read through a chapter or chapters in order to confirm its factual correctness and to make suggestions for the author’s improving his clarity or argument.

In order to enjoy the greatest possible benefit from this advantage of letting men of differing views speak, the committee has abstained from attempting to influence the positions of either the authors or the reviewing academicians. Neither has it edited their content, except insofar as a particular fact was in question or an occasional choice of words seemed to be unnecessarily contentious. Every statement made, therefore, does not necessarily represent the view of the committee as a whole or even of its individual members. Each author is solely responsible for his own position and content. If a statement of fact is in question, the reader should check carefully for the author’s documentation (generally found in his footnotes). Any questions still unanswered to the reader’s satisfaction should be addressed to the author, not to the committee members.

Despite the minor differences, the committee, the authors, the academicians, and the respected Fundamentalist leaders whose recommendations grace this volume’s cover do all agree that the biblical and historical facts on the text, transmission, and translations of Scripture argue eloquently for the unity, not the division, of God’s people on these issues. We are one in our concern that unlearned or unscrupulous leaders are driving an unnecessary wedge between Fundamentalists over these very issues that would actually further unite us if the true facts were allowed to speak for themselves. We regret the ungracious and divisive tone, the character assassination, and the inflammatory speech of much of the current debate over texts and translations. It simply cannot be justified by the facts of church history or by the statements of Scripture.

The committee, therefore, humbly requests a reading of this volume by God’s good people everywhere in order that they may be reassured by the encouraging facts about the Bible’s text, transmission, and translation. We send it forth with the earnest prayer that our Lord will graciously choose to use it as a help to restoring the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

—Mark Minnick

INTRODUCTION

THE ISSUE WE FACE

James B. Williams

THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY BELIEVERS HAVE been faced by doctrinal and theological controversies that at times seemed to threaten the very existence of the church. In the early centuries of the New Testament era, it was necessary for Christians to define and set forth in understandable terms the true nature of Jesus Christ—His deity, His Sonship, His true humanity, and His redemptive work. The Reformation period restated and reemphasized the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.

Protestantism, which grew out of that Reformation, has faced four major controversies during the present century that are directly related to what is known as Christian Fundamentalism:

1. The first of these was the conflict between liberalism and orthodoxy. This sharp controversy during the first thirty years of this century pointed up the radical differences between those who denied the historic view of the Bible and its central teachings and those who defended against these attacks. The terms Fundamental and Fundamentalist were coined to describe those who adhere tenaciously to the historic position. The Bible and its foundational doctrines were the issues.

2. Neo-evangelicalism, which arose in the middle of this century, is a further attempt to bridge the gap between liberalism and Fundamentalism that Neo-orthodoxy had attempted to close. At stake is the issue of ecclesiastical separation. It is very divisive.

3. The Charismatic movement, which is a complete misunderstanding of and misuse of the spiritual gifts, has also proved to be very divisive. The present day Charismatic emphasis has its roots in the movement that began in 1901 and produced numerous Pentecostal denominations. Since the middle of this century, these false teachings and their divisiveness have spread into the ranks of many churches and denominations, even to some who had been considered Fundamentalists.

4. The translation controversy, which arose from the immediate ranks of Fundamentalism, has created unnecessary confusion and division. This issue focuses on whether the King James Version of the Bible should be the only translation used by Fundamentalists. This controversy is doing more damage to the cause of Christ among Fundamentalists than any of the other controversies.

KING JAMES ONLY ADVOCATES

Dealing with the current translation controversy is difficult because of the varying shades of differences between many of those who are strong King James Only advocates. Perhaps these are best summarized by James White in his book The King James Only Controversy, which lists five groups within the ranks of King James Version Onlyism:

1. There are those whose attitude is I like the King James Version best. You pick your version, and I will cling to the King James Bible. This group is not militant.

2. Another group believes that the texts used in the translation of the KJV are the most reliable and would be the better texts to use in translating. This group is rarely militant.

3. There are others who advocate using only the Textus Receptus in translating. In this group there are many who are militant.

4. Others could be called the Inspired KJV Only group. These contend that the KJV, as a translation, is inspired and inerrant. The KJV is the only inspired Bible we have. This is a militant group.

5. Most extreme is a group that contends that the KJV contains new revelation from God, that He inspired the translators of the 1611 Version. (The KJV translators themselves deny any claim to inspiration.) This group believes that the original Hebrew and Greek documents may be corrected by the 1611 Version. This group is very militant.

THE KING JAMES DISCREDITORS

On the other side of the controversy there is an extreme group that can be labeled KJV Discreditors. This group would replace the KJV, claiming that it is fraught with errors and overlooking the way it has been blessed by God throughout the many years of its use. These make statements such as the following:

Regardless of how much we may prize the King James Bible for its sacred memories, when we know that it does not bear out the final and crucial test of faithfulness to the original text, we should not be slow in discarding it for a newer and more accurate version.¹

Yet the King James version [sic] had grave defects. By the middle of the Nineteenth Century, the development of biblical studies, and discovery of many manuscripts made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation.²

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, contained the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.³

To the younger generation it is quite clear that the KJV, for all its literary beauty, is hopelessly out of date.⁴

After giving examples of the changes in the King James Version from 1611 until the present, Jack P. Lewis says, The King James Bible, then, as a currently circulating book, becomes a phantom, a figment of imagination clinging to the past.⁵

The extremes have produced a deplorable condition in Fundamentalism at a time when the religious confusion and apostasy in Protestantism demands unity among Bible believers.

These problems have increased because of the mass of mis-information that has been proclaimed from pulpits and spread in print by those who because of their lack of theological understanding and biblical language training are not qualified to speak to the issues.

This misinformation, in the hands of unsuspecting and often immature pastors and laymen has resulted in confusion and, in some instances, heresy. Many who are strong advocates of the KJV Only position believe that they are heroically defending the Faith, when, in reality, they are defending false assumptions. It is also unfortunate that the focus of these disseminators of misinformation has developed into attacks upon the faith, character, and integrity of those who do not share their viewpoint. The critical issue becomes lost.

Partial truth has often been twisted to prove some point. Through this twisting, a partial truth becomes a lie. For example, a church paper mailed out from a Fundamentalist church took the textual editors Westcott and Hort to task for being members of an occult society. The truth is that when these men were young they were involved in the formation of a group to study reported appearances of spirits, demons, and other supernatural manifestations. Unfortunately, in their youth they gave it a name that created a false impression. They called it the Ghostlie Guild. Later, when it was becoming a spiritualist group, they both withdrew. Robert Sumner documented this in Target magazine (January 4,1994). Both these men are now with the Lord and cannot defend themselves against half-truths that have been made into lies. Another church paper labeled Westcott a liberal. I have three of Westcott’s commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine.

Another church paper printed by a Fundamentalist pastor who had received misinformation from one of these disseminators of untruth accused Westcott of being a baby baptizing Anglican. If Westcott’s textual works are to be rejected on this basis, it will be necessary to reject the entire 1611 KJV translation because many of the translators were baby baptizing men of the Church of England.⁶ The same reasoning would apply to the Textus Receptus, which is based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus, whose Greek text is said to be the basis of the KJV translation, was a Roman Catholic priest who never left the Roman Church. He baptized babies by a few drops of water on the head, which, according to the Roman Church, gave salvation and placed the babies into the Kingdom of God.

Another Fundamentalist church paper published an article to warn believers about the NIV and NASB because the word me had been deliberately left out of John 6:47. This deletion, according to this paper, proves that these translations present a New Age view by denying that Jesus Christ is the target of faith for salvation. But my response would be to ask, If that were the reason for the omission, why would verse 40 of the same chapter make ‘the Son’ the object of faith? The reason me is omitted is simply that many of the Greek documents do not have the word me in verse 47.

A number of pastors have related incidents in which visitors who were looking for a church to attend made Bible versions a divisive issue. They made inquiry about the stand of the church and pastor relative to the KJV Only question. They were disappointed when they learned that the church and pastor held the same view held by Fundamentalist Christianity throughout the church age. Many of these visitors left and did not return because they were seeking a church that believed the Bible. (They equated believing the Bible with believing the King James Only position.)

One fairly well known Fundamentalist preacher in a recent radio broadcast advocating the KJV Only position made the absurd statement that if the King James Version were not used when someone made a profession of faith, that person was not saved. It would be necessary for that person to go back through the procedure again using the KJV in order to be saved.

DESCRIPTION OF THE HISTORIC VIEW

It is an interesting historical fact that all the recognized Christian leaders of the Christian Faith for the past three hundred years have been in agreement relative to the King James Version.

1. The King James Version was understood to be a translation from copies of the original documents that were inspired of God into Elizabethan English, the common language of 1611. Only the original documents were considered to