John 1:18 - What Does Μονογενὴς Mean?

            The major English versions of the New Testament are inconsistent in their renderings of the Greek term μονογενὴς – and they are remarkably inconsistent in their rendering of the term in John 1:18b.  In the past 25 years the inconsistency has become downright silly.  The following examples –shown here without their footnotes – display the inconsistency with which this verse is treated:

            ● New American Standard Bible 1977:  “the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”  

            ● NASB Update 1995:  “the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”  

           ● New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989:  “It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.”  

           ● Good News Translation 1992 (Robert Bratcher):  “The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

           ●  Christian Standard Bible (CSB) 2017:  “The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side – He has revealed Him.”    

            ● The Message 2002:  “This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.” 

            ● English Standard Version (ESV) 2016:  “the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”  

            ● New International Version (NIV) 1984 (no longer in print):  “but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”  

            ● New International Version (NIV) 2011:  “but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”  

            ● New Living Translation (NLT):  “But the unique one, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart.  He has revealed God to us.”  

            ● New English Translation (NET) 2005:  “The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.”  

             ● New American Bible (NAB Revised) 2010:  “The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.”  

                           

            All of these recent translations and paraphrases, except for the New American Standard Bible, have something other than “only-begotten” in their English text to represent μονογενὴς. 
            The NIV's English translation of John 1:18 is particularly atrocious:  the base-text of the NIV is supposed to be the Nestle-Aland compilation, which, depending on the edition, reads either ὁ μονογενὴς θεός or μονογενὴς θεός – neither of which unfolds to mean “The one and only Son, who is himself God.”   If one were to attempt to translate the NIV’s English text of John 1:18 into Greek, one would end up with a made-up thing, a reading that does not exist in any Greek manuscript.  Similarly, the rendering in the ESV presents a puzzle to readers:  how is it that “the only God“ reveals the Father?  Do we not all acknowledge that the Father is God? 

            Translators do not seem eager to use the expression, “only-begotten God.”  The main arguments against interpreting μονογενὴς as “only-begotten” were presented by Dale Moody in 1953 in the Journal of Biblical Literature, and they were collected and re-expressed by Richard N. Longenecker in The One and Only Son, an article which appeared as the eleventh chapter of the 1991 book, The Making of the NIV, edited by Kenneth L. Barker. 

            However, most of the significant points offered by Moody and Barker have been tested and found wanting by researcher Michael Marlowe, whose detailed essay on the subject is online at the Bible-researcher.com website.  Marlowe also provides an essay by Harmann Martin Friedrich Buchsel on the meaning of μονογενὴς.
            Longenecker was repeatedly careless, and his flawed research led to a flawed conclusion.  At one point, as he discussed the use of μονογενὴς in the Septuagint, Longenecker stated that in Genesis 22:2, 6, and 12, “μονογενὴς is used of Isaac” – but the Septuagint does not read μονογενὴς in those three verses.  It is true that μονογενὴς is used to describe Isaac in Hebrews 11:17, even though Abraham had another son, Ishmael.  However, this may be accounted for by the author’s intention to draw a parallel between the near-sacrifice of Abraham’s son Isaac, and the sacrifice of God’s Son Jesus.  Strict literal accuracy should not be insisted upon when an author is sketching a typological parallel and says plainly (as Hebrews 11:19 conveys) that he is speaking figuratively.

            The translators of the recently published Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV) do not seem to have been persuaded by the claims of Moody, Longenecker, and Wallace; this is how they rendered John 1:18:  “No one has even seen God.  The only-begotten Son, who is close to the Father’s side, has made him known.”    

            I invite those who believe that μονογενὴς only means “one-of-a-kind” to sift through Greek compositions of the era in which koine Greek was used, and see how many times μονογενὴς describes inanimate man-made objects such as unique statues, unique houses, one-of-a-kind pictures, etc. – that is, things that are created rather than begotten – and then explain why there is no semantic implication of begotten-ness in the term μονογενὴς.  They may also want to read Dr. Denny Burk’s insightful critique of renderings of μονογενὴς that do not treat the term equitably and Dr. Charles Lee Irons’ 2016 essay Let’s Go Back to Only Begotten, Spencer Stewart’s thoughts on the subject, and Dr. Wayne Grudem’s thoughts on an overlapping subject.

            The traditional rendering “only begotten” is entirely appropriate.  (It is not “misleading,” as a false note in the NET claims.)  The eternal Word is unique because the Word is eternally only-begotten.  Instead of merely conveying that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is in a class by himself, English translators should return to the meaning of the term as it was expounded by the theological giants of the early church.  In the meantime one can only wince at the confusing renderings of John 1:18 (some of which are indistinguishable from conjectural emendations that conflate the rival variants) which defective analysis has facilitated.

            Besides the question about what the term μονογενὴς means, there is another question to consider in John 1:18:  does the original text refer to the only-begotten God, or to the only-begotten Son?  That question shall be explored here in detail, God willing, in the near future.

Readers are encouraged to explore the embedded links to additional resources.

         

The English Hexapla - You Should Get This!

            Usually when the term “Hexapla” is used, it refers to a project of the third-century theologian Origen in which the text of the Old Testament books was arranged in six columns, presenting (1) the Hebrew text, (2) a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew text, (3) the Greek version prepared by Aquila, (4) the Greek version prepared by Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint version, and (6) the Greek version prepared by Theodotion. 

            The English Hexapha (1841) is different:  instead containing six Old Testament texts, it presents six English translations of the New Testament:  (1) Wycliffe’s version (based mainly on a manuscript from 1388), (2) Tyndale’s version of 1534, (3) Cranmer’s version, also known as The Great Bible, of 1539 (4) the Geneva version of 1557 (5) the Rheims version of 1582, and (6) the King James Version of 1611.  

            Thus, in a single volume, readers are equipped with the means to consult most of the major English versions of the Reformation period.  Some differences in different versions are thus detectable even without knowledge of the base-texts used by the translators.

            The English Hexapla also includes a valuable and informative review of the history of the Bible in English up to the publication of the King James Version in 1611.  This review is divided into three parts. 

            Part 1 concisely reviews Caedmon, Bede, Aelfric, Alfred the Great, and Richard Rolle and their contributions to the spread of the written Bible in English, in a single chapter.   The next five chapters pertain in one way or another to the Wycliffe (or Wycliffite) Bible; chapter 3 features some interesting data about the Comma Johanneum. 

            Part 2 describes the work of Tyndale, and the ecclesiastical and political milieu in which his translation made its debut.  There are some interesting and moving accounts about people who were martyred in England for the crime of possessing and reading the New Testament, as well as an account of Tyndale’s own martyrdom. 

            Part 3 describes the sequel of Tyndale’s work, especially the determined efforts of Myles Coverdale, whose efforts to spread the English text of the Bible involved not only studiousness and erudition but also exploits of the most dangerous sort.  Coverdale studied the translations that had preceded his work, and stated “Sure I am, that there commeth more knowledge and understandinge of the scripture by theyr sondrie translacyons, than by all the gloses of our sophisticall doctors.”  The English Hexapla also reports the reasons – some clear historical facts, some likely deductions – for Henry VIII’s change of heart on the subject of whether the Bible should be circulated in English.   The rise of translators’ freedom in England during the reign of Henry VIII, the influence of Oliver Cromwell, the dangerous reign of Mary Queen of Scots, amd the more peaceful reign of Elizabeth, is documented, and the backgrounds of the English versions presented in The English Hexapla are all described.

            Besides details about the background of the work of Tyndale, Cranmer, and Coverdale, there is an interesting section on the significance of the mysterious initials that accompanied portions of the Bishops’ Bible published in 1568:  the authors believes them all to be initials of the scholars who prepared the text, and in addition to their names he provides brief biographies.             

            The Rheims version of 1582 is then described, although perhaps roasted would be a better term.  The author mentions a composition which appeared the same year, in which Gregory Martin objected to various features of the earlier Protestant English versions; Dr. Willian Fulke promptly composed a response; this exchange may account for some of the differences between the KJV and the English Protestant versions which preceded it.     

            The King James Version is the focus of the last chapter of the review of the history of the English Bible before the Hexapla itself begins.  If you are unfamiliar with what the Millenary Petition was, or if you would like to know a few specific readings that Dr. John Reynolds found objectionable in previous English versions, or if you want to learn which marginal notes in the Geneva Bible were especially opposed by King James, and similar details that led to the launch of the great translation-project in 1604, this chapter must surely be a priority.  And if you want to read the fourteen rules that the translators were instructed to follow, this, to, can be learned in this chapter.  The names of the members of each company of translators are also provided, with some brief biographical details.

           

            Two brief and helpful supplements appear before the sixfold comparison itself commences:  a description of the format in which the six versions are presented, and a collation of the Greek compilation prepared by J. M. A. Scholz (published in 1830-1836)– which accompanies the English translations’ text on every page – and the collation made by Griesbach in 1805.  Although Scholz’s compilation was denigrated by Metzger (cf. The Text of the New Testament, p. 124), and Scholz himself later assigned greater value to some Alexandrian readings, it is not drastically different from Griesbach’s compilation:  all of the differences between Scholz’s compilation (proof-read and revised especially for The English Hexapla) and Griesbach’s compilation are listed (even trivial differences in the spelling of the word “Moses”) in just four two-column pages.  (Although modern editions tend to agree with Griesbach more often than with Scholz, this is only a tendency.)  If you want an example of the results of textual criticism before Westcott and Hort introduced a transmission-model that drastically favored the Alexandrian Text (and before the discovery of the papyrus copies used in Egypt), you have come to the right place. 

            Those who possess a copy of The English Hexapla not only have a detailed account of the development of the English Bible, but also accurate transcriptions of the New Testament books as they appear in six of the most important English Bibles of the Reformation period, and a generally excellent Greek New Testament.   

            Those who must obtain a hefty three-inch thick paper copy of The English Hexapla can obtain a facsimile from the GreatSite website, where they are advertised with the purchase-price of $95.00.  If you prefer to obtain The English Hexapla for free, in digital form – as a 101,097 KB file – then you can download it from Google Books (use the little gear-like icon in the upper right corner of the page and in the sub-menu select “Download PDF”), or use this Google Books copy.  Readers may also want to obtain a review of The English Hexapla which also appeared in 1841, in the journal The Eclectic Review, and which challenges and supplements some of the claims made in its account of early English versions.  The English Hexapla can also be downloaded from the Internet Archive site, which presents a copy held at the University of Toronto, and which can be obtained not only as a PDF but in other formats (such as EPUB) as well.

The Story of the Bible - A Review

            If you have ever wondered about the origins of the Bible, and about the history of its text, then you should read Larry Stone’s 2010 book The Story of the Bible.  In nine chapters, Stone reviews the Bible’s languages, the historical backgrounds of its books, and – of special importance to students of textual criticism – its transmission.  The Story of the Bible features pouch-pages containing 23 removable full-size, full-color facsimiles of pages from important manuscripts and printed Bibles, including the following:

            ● Papyrus 46:  the last page of Ephesians and the first page of Galatians

            ● Codex Vaticanus:  the last page of Second Thessalonians and the first page of Hebrews

            ● Codex Sinaiticus:  the last page of Luke

            ● The Lindisfarne Gospels:  the first page of text of Matthew

            ● The Winchester Bible:  the first page of Genesis

            ● William Tyndale’s 1526 English New Testament:  the last page of Luke and the first page of the Gospel of John, and  

            ● The 1611 King James Version:  frontispiece.

            In addition to the removable facsimiles, the text of The Story of the Bible is generously supplemented by photographs of sample-pages of a variety of manuscripts, including the Aleppo Codex and the Book of Kells.  While less sumptuous than some other books about manuscripts (such as Illuminated Manuscripts – Masterpieces of the J. Paul Getty Museum), the pictures in The Story of the Bible represent a wide range in terms of manuscript’s ages and locales.

            At the website www.storyofbible.com visitors can not only learn about Stone’s book but also learn more about the manuscripts, translations, and media that are featured in it, ranging from the Great Isaiah Scroll to The Devil’s Bible (Codex Gigas) to The Jesus Film.  There is also a special section that presents over 100 selected excerpts from the KJV.  A YouTube video tells more about the book, with some comments from the author.

            Not everything in Stone’s book can be relied upon.  He unfortunately repeats the false story that says that Erasmus made a rash promise to include the Comma Johanneum if a Greek manuscript could be found that had it in the text of First John.  In a section that focuses on the Greek New Testament and Textual Criticism (pages 66-67), Stone is guilty of spreading a misimpression about Mark 16:9-20, stating that this passage is missing not only in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but also in “other very old manuscripts,” which is not the case.  He also perpetuates Neil Lightfoot’s grossly inaccurate method of counting textual variants:  “‘if one slight variant were to occur in 4,000 different manuscripts, this would amount to 4,000’ variations.” 

            Stone also does a disservice to scholars such as Bengel and Bentley (to say nothing of Reformation-era researchers such as Zegers) when he writes that “Not until the nineteenth century did scholars begin making judgments on which reading was “best.””  Also, in a section about Constantine von Tischendorf, Stone repeats the highly dubious story that Tischendorf spread (but which the monks of Saint Catherine’s Monastery deny) about how he found parchment leaves of Codex Sinaiticus “in a basket of manuscripts used for kindling to light fires.”  These errors – no doubt the result of dependence upon inaccurate sources – are comparable to a few counterfeit coins in the midst of a treasure-chest filled with valuable information.

            The Story of the Bible’s website should be updated about the Book of Kells:  although Stone says at the website that “As far as I know, Ireland’s finest national treasure [the Book of Kells] is not online in its entirety,” the situation has changed, and now each extant page of the Book of Kells can be viewed at the Trinity College Dublin website.          

            The Story of the Bible closes with a short but stirring chapter about Bible-distribution efforts by missionaries, Bible societies, and Bible translators.  May The Story of the Bible inspire its readers to not only vigilantly guard the text of the Bible and its message, but also to continue to take the gospel into all the world.

Readers are invited to explore the embedded links to additional resources.

Orm and the Ormulum

MS Junias 1 at the
Bodleian Library.

            Orm!  You may recognize the name of Aquaman’s half-brother who, in a recent movie, aspires to lead the undersea realm of Atlantis in a war against us surface-dwellers.  In the history of the English Bible, the name Orm has an entirely different significance, as the name of the author of the Ormulum, a Middle English text from the 1100s that is among the earliest substantial attempts to translate the Gospels into English.   Orm (whose name means “dragon” or “serpent”) produced the Ormulum (meaning, basically, “The Book written by Orm”) in Bourne, England, about 100 miles north of London.  Each chapter in the Ormulum begins with an extract from the Gospels in Middle English – the “Godspelless” – followed by its exposition (often based on comments by earlier authors, such as Bede), also in Middle English. 

            Only two copies of the Ormulum are known to exist:  MS Junius 1, at the Bodleian Library.  This is the autograph of the composition.  The other copy – a copy of MS Junius 1 – was made in the 1600s when MS Junius 1 had 27 more leaves than it has today; this is MS 783 at the Lambeth Palace Library.

            The Table of Contents in MS Julius 1 leads readers to expect 242 sections, consisting of portions of the Gospels and expositions of them – but only 32 sections still exist.  The Table of Contents, however, supplies the opening phrase of each section that was to be presented and interpreted, and thus we can discern the contours of all texts which Orm included (or intended to include) and commented upon.  The series began with (1)  Luke 1:5-17, (2)  Luke 1:18-25, (3)  Luke 1:26-38, (4)  Luke 1:39-56, (5)  Luke 1:57-80, (6)  Matthew 1:18-24, (7) Luke 2:1-15a, (8)  Luke 2:15b-20, (9)  Luke 2:21, (10)  Matthew 2:1-12, (11)  Luke 2:22-32, (12) Luke 2:33-40, (13)  Matthew 2:13-18, (14) Matthew 2:19-20, (15) Luke 2:41-52, (16)  Luke 3:1-6, (17) Matthew 3:4-10 and Luke 3:10-14, (18) John 1:19-27 and Luke 3:16-17 and John 1:28, (19)  Matthew 3:13-17, and (20) Matthew 4:1-11; the next eight sections consisted of John 1:29-3:36, and the 29th section covered John 1:1-14 (and John 1:16-18).  A fuller presentation of the list of sections of Scripture that were covered (or planned to be covered) in the Ormulum can be viewed at the Orrmulum Project website. 

The other Orm.

          Professor Nils-Lennart Johannesson of Stockholm University is presently preparing a new edition of the text of the Ormulum, with detailed analysis of the Latin sources used by Orm in the composition of his sermon-like commentaries.  A transcript of the Ormulum was made in 1852 by Robert Meadows White, and can be accessed in two volumes; Volume One and Volume 2.  Fans of The Lord of the Rings may be interested to know that J. R. R. Tolkien gave the Ormulum some attention in the course of his philological research.

            One of the interesting things about the Ormulum is that Orm treated vowels in a peculiar way, so as to facilitate uniform pronunciation.  Probably this was done so that the text could be read aloud in a congregational setting.  The Gospel-excerpts in the Ormulum constitute one of the most substantial attempts, before Tyndale and before Wycliffe, to translate the Gospels into English so that a common English person could understand it.

            More information about the Ormulum can be found in K. Dekker’s article The Ormulum in the Seventeenth Century:  The Manuscript and its Early Readers (published in April 2018 in Neophilologus). 

                                                                                                                             

 

The Mumpsimus Mentality

           In the summer of 1516, Desiderius Erasmus, who had compiled the first published printed Greek New Testament earlier that year, wrote an interesting letter to his friend Henry Bullock.  In that letter, he described his frustration with some people who objected to his translational and text-critical work on the grounds that he was introducing changes to the Scriptures:

Erasmus of Rotterdam

           “Do they allow any changes in Holy Writ, or none at all?  If they allow any, why not examine in the first place whether it is right or no to make the change?  If they do not, what will they make of those passages in which the existence of a corruption is too obvious to be denied or overlooked?  Would they rather imitate on this point the mass-priest who refused to change the word mumpsimus which he had used for twenty years, when someone told him that sumpsimus was what he ought to say?  They burst out in horror crying, ‘O heavens, o earth!  This man is correcting the Gospels!’  But with how much more justice one would cry out upon the man who fills them with error, ‘Rank sacrilege!  This man corrupts the Gospels!”¹

            Mumpsimus and sumpsimus?   What do these words mean?  Erasmus was referring to the traditional Latin prayer which is offered by Roman Catholic priests near the end of the Eucharist-service; the relevant line goes, “Quod ore sumpsimus Domine pura mente capiamus,” meaning, “May what we have received with our mouth, O Lord, be received with purity of mind.”  The scene pictured by Erasmus (popularized, with some embellishment, by Richard Pace shortly thereafter) is one in which a priest was in the habit of saying this part of the prayer with the term “mumpsimus,” which is not the correct Latin word (and which, if not for Erasmus inventing it, would not be a real word at all), and when a learned visitor priest told him (correctly) that he ought to say “sumpsimus” instead, replied that he would not abandon the traditional “mumpsimus” in favor of the new-fangled “sumpsimus.”

             The term “mumpsimus” quickly became a designation for incorrect things – whether incorrect forms of words, or incorrect interpretations, or incorrect textual decisions – that some people prefer merely because, as far as the people who prefer them are concerned, they have been favored by tradition.  The term “mumpsimus” is found in statements by William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, Henry VIII, and Hugh Latimer; Latimer, in a sermon in 1553 (two years before his martyrdom), memorably said, “Some be so obstinate in their old mumpsimus that they cannot abide the true doctrine of God.”

            One could say nowadays that there are some who are so sure about their old textual mumpsimus – poorly attested readings that are perpetuated in the Textus Receptus – that they cannot abide the original text.  In the case of readings for which there is barely a whiff of Greek manuscript-support, and even less Greek patristic support, what is the reason to prefer such poorly attested readings, except a preference for what is traditional over and above what is true?  

            It has been said by some defenders of the King James Version and its base-text that the Textus Receptus represents the “Antiochan line” of reliable manuscripts, as opposed to the Alexandrian line, which is represented by fewer (but older) manuscripts.  But the Textus Receptus contains some readings which most manuscripts do not support.  Consider the following ten readings from the Gospel of Matthew which are in both the Byzantine, or “Antiochan” Text (representing a large majority of manuscripts) and the Nestle-Aland compilation (representing mainly the Alexandrian text), contrasted with the KJV’s base-text: 

                                                               

● Matthew 4:18:  Περιπατων δε (And walking). 

              KJV/TR:  Περιπατων δε ο Ιησους (And Jesus, walking).   

● Matthew 5:27:  ερρεθη (it was said). 

              KJV/TR:  ερρεθη τοις αρχαίος (it was said by them of old time).

● Matthew 6:18:  αποδώσει σοι (shall reward thee).

              KJV/TR:  αποδώσει σοι εν τω φανερω (shall reward thee openly).

● Matthew 7:2:  μετρηθήσεται υμιν (it shall be measured to you). 

KJV/TR:  αντιμετρηθήσεται υμιν (it shall be measured to you again).

● Matthew 8:5 – Εισεθόντι δε  (And when he had entered). 

KJV/TR:  Εισεθόντι δε τω Ιηοου (And when Jesus was entered).

● Matthew 8:15 – και διηκόνει αυτω (And she arose and ministered unto him.) 

KJV/TR:  και διηκόνει αυτοις (And she arose and ministered unto them.) 

● Matthew 9:36 – εσκυλμένοι (harassed). 

KJV/TR:  εκλελυμένοι (fainted).

● Matthew 12:35 – θησαυρου (treasure). 

KJV/TR:  θησαυρου της καρδίας (treasure of the heart).

● Matthew 18:29 – και αποδώσω σοι (and I will pay thee).

KJV/TR:  και πάντα αποδώσω σοι (and I will pay thee all).

● Matthew 25:44 – Τότε αποκριθήσονται και αυτοι (Then shall they also answer).

KJV/TR:  Τότε αποκριθήσονται αυτω και αυτοι (Then shall they also answer him).  

Other minority-readings are scattered through the rest of the New Testament in the Textus Receptus,² and are reflected in the KJV; here are some samples:

● Ephesians 3:9 – οικονομία (dispensation, or, administration).

KJV/TR:  κοινωνια (fellowship).

● Philippians 4:3 – Ναι ερωτω και σε (Yes, I entreat thee also).

KJV/TR:  Και ερωτω και σε (And I entreat thee also). 

● Colossians 1:6 – και εστιν καρποφορούμενον και αυξανόμενον (and is bringing forth fruit, and is growing).

KJV/TR:  και εστιν καρποφορούμενον (and is bringing forth fruit).

● First Timothy 5:4 – τουτο γάρ εστιν απόδεκτον ενώπιον του Θεου (For that is acceptable before God).

KJV/TR:  τουτο γάρ εστιν καλον και απόδεκτον ενώπιον του Θεου (For that is good and acceptable before God).

● Second Timothy 2:19 – το ονομα Κυρίου (the name of the Lord).

KJV/TR:  το ονομα Χριστου (the name of Christ).

● Hebrews 12:20 – λιθοβοληθήσεται (it shall be stoned)

              KJV/TR:  λιθοβοληθήσεται η βολιδι κατατοξευθήσεται (it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart)

● First John 5:7-8 – Οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν (For there are three that bear record, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree in one.)

KJV/TR:  Οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, και το αγιον πνευμα· και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν.  Και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω γη, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν.  (For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one).

● Revelation 22:19 – του ξύλου της ζωης (the tree of life).

KJV/TR:  του βίβλου της ζωης (the book of life).

In these 18 minority-readings, the causes of corruption in the Textus Receptus are usually not difficult to perceive: 

● Matthew 4:18:  Jesus’ name was added at the beginning of a lection.      

● Matthew 5:27:  Conformation to 5:21.

● Matthew 6:18:  Conformation to 6:4 and 6:6 (as read in the Byzantine Text).

● Matthew 7:2:  Harmonization to Luke 6:38.

● Matthew 8:5 – Jesus’ name was added at the beginning of a lection.

● Matthew 8:15 – Scribes were probably confused by an abbreviated word. 

● Matthew 9:36 – A quirk-reading, perhaps the result of Erasmus’ awareness of the reading in Codex Regius (L).

● Matthew 12:35 – Harmonization to Luke 6:45.  

● Matthew 18:29 – Conformation to 18:26.

● Matthew 25:44 – Conformation to 25:37.     

● Ephesians 3:9 – An exemplar was misread (or miswritten).

● Philippians 4:3 – An exemplar was misread (or miswritten).

● Colossians 1:6 – A parableptic error (-μενον, -μενον).

● First Timothy 5:4 – Harmonization to 2:3. 

● Second Timothy 2:19 – An interchange of sacred-name contractions; the more specific name was written to replace the less specific name.

● Hebrews 12:20 – An expansion to conform more precisely to a Septuagint-reading. 

● First John 5:7-8 – An expansion added (initially in an Old Latin transmission-line) as an allegorical interpretation of the three transposed witnesses “the water, the blood, and the spirit.”

● Revelation 22:19 – A result of Erasmus’ retro-translation of the last six verses of Revelation from a form of the Latin Vulgate.

                     

              The sense of all 18 of these readings has been perpetuated in English (and other languages) for hundreds of years, but that does not make them the original text that God inspired.  At every one of these 18 points, the Textus Receptus departs from the Byzantine Text, and simultaneously disagrees with the Alexandrian Text as well.  What may appear to be the “traditional” reading, from the perspective of an individual who knows the Scriptures primarily via the KJV, has the support (in these 18 places) of neither the most numerous manuscripts, nor the oldest manuscripts, nor the most widespread manuscripts, and internal considerations point toward an origin for each one that is elsewhere than in the autographs. 

              Since the Textus Receptus’ readings at these points are not original, they should not be considered authoritative.  There is no good reason to make the original text give up its seat to the creations of scribes.

              Nevertheless there are some individuals who insist that each and every word of the Textus Receptus must be original.  This is mainly because they have misinterpreted passages about the eternality and immutability of God’s Word as if those passages mean that every letter, and every part of a letter – every jot and tittle – must be available to the people of God, at all times.  After all – as Bart Ehrman and John MacArthur have said – why inspire the words without preserving them? 

              This approach has gained some momentum in parts of Reformed Protestantism.  Some individuals who subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith have pointed to its affirmations as if they express such a view – particularly the affirmation that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek “being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.”  Working from the premise that “kept pure” must mean “preserved exactly,” these individuals proceed to deduce that inasmuch as the formulators of the Westminster Confession of Faith used the Textus Receptus, the Textus Receptus should be regarded 100% as the original text. 

              Such an approach requires some rather acrobatic reasoning.  The formulators and past defenders of the Westminster Confession of Faith do not seem to have harbored objections against the practice of textual criticism; they seem to have acquiesced to the textual research undertaken by James Ussher, Francis Turretin, Gerardus Vossius, Brian Walton, John Lightfoot, Edward Pococke, Patrick Young, et al in the 1600s.  Certainly their predecessors in the 1500s did not object to the textual research that resulted in the different compilations that they used; even the Elzevirs in the 1620s and 1630s were still tweaking their Greek compilations (for example, in Mark 4:18 and Second Timothy 1:12).  And Benjamin Blayney was neither executed nor excommunicated when he undertook a mild revision of the KJV in 1769, in which dozens of textual changes were introduced.³

              Those who exaggerate and inflate the Westminster Confession’s statement that God has kept the text of Scripture “pure in all ages,” so as to insist that the Textus Receptus is indistinguishable from the original text in every detail, contort their creed and the Scriptures themselves, and ignore historical facts.  For where and when did a Greek manuscript contain a text identical to the Textus Receptus in all respects, with αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22, and with και ὁ ἐσόομενος in Revelation 16:5, and with the 18 minority-readings already listed?  If it were true that the Textus Receptus has been kept pure in all ages, completely unchanged, then the answer would be, “All the time in all places,” but our manuscripts say, “Nowhere and never.”  

              So-called Confessional Bibliology assumes that if a variant circulated in print in the 1500s and early 1600s, it must be authentic, and on that premise, many variants which are found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts are rejected by adherents of this approach, and are allowed to be usurped by scribal corruptions.

              Such an approach is fundamentally unsound.

              Consider geocentrism.  Some individuals not only believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but that the sun must revolve around the earth or else the Bible is not true.  Empirical evidence is superfluous to these individuals; Scripture, they say, decides the question.  But they are not truly being led by Scripture; they are misled by their flawed interpretations of Scripture.

              Confessional Bibliology is the textual equivalent of geocentrism.  Positing the idea of “verbal plenary preservation” by asserting that various passages in the Bible require one to believe that the Greek text of the New Testament has been preserved completely intact in its pristine form, they proceed to claim that the text has providentially been made available to the church in every age, and from there, they proceed to claim that the Textus Receptus must be the original text, dismissing observable evidence that forcefully shows that the Textus Receptus contains some scribal corruptions.    Regardless of how these individuals insist that they are defending God’s integrity, I have no doubt that if Erasmus could see them, he would undoubtedly declare that they are overly attached to their mumpsimus.   

_______________

Footnotes

1 – See Letter #456 on page 46 of The Correspondence of Erasmus, Letters 446 to 593, 1516 to 1517 (Volume 4), translated by R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson, and annotated by James K. McConica.  © University of Toronto Press, 1977. 

2 – Dr. Daniel Wallace has reported that he counted 1,838 differences between the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and the 1825 edition of the Textus Receptus.  A substantial number of these differences, however, consist of readings that are only discernible in printed editions of the text, and which would not be perceptible in manuscripts written in scriptio continua, and with contracted sacred names.  An even greater number of the differences counted by Wallace are incapable of having an impact on translation. 

3 – It should also be observed that many Reformed ministries, such as Ligonier Ministries and some members of The Gospel Coalition, presently promote the Westminster Confession of Faith and yet routinely use English versions with New Testament base-texts that reject hundreds of readings found in the Textus Receptus.  

The Evangelical Heritage Version New Testament - A Review

            In 2017, the Evangelical Heritage Translation of the New Testament and Psalms was published.  Let’s take a look at this new translation (focusing on the New Testament portion)!   

            The EHV is mercifully free of arbitrary paraphrase.  An Introduction explains that the EHV is intended to be “an all-purpose Bible for the church,” and this has elicited a balanced approach.  Terms such as “justify,” “flesh,” “mammon,” and “saints” have not been shunned.  Conveyance of the meaning of the original text was, according to the EHV’s Introduction, a higher priority than elegant English style.  The issue of gender-inclusivity was specifically addressed:  “In the use of so-called “gender-accurate language,” the translator will strive to be inclusive where the original is inclusive and exclusive where the original is exclusive.”  Other principles of translation that were engaged in the production of the EHV can be found at the Wartburg Project website.

            The New Testament base-text of the EHV is somewhat unique; the editors attempted to avoid a bias toward any single textual tradition, whether Alexandrian or Byzantine.  Their approach is described at the website:

            “In general, as we examine significant variants, the reading in a set of variants that has the earliest and widest support in the witnesses is the one included in the text. The other readings in a set of variants are dealt with in one of three ways:

            ● A reading that has very little early or widespread support in the witnesses is not footnoted in order to avoid an overabundance of textual notes.

            ● A reading with significant early and/or widespread support but not as much early or widespread evidence as the other reading is reflected in a footnote that says, “Some witnesses to the text read/add/omit: . . . .”

            ● A familiar or notable reading from the King James tradition (e.g. the addition or omission of a whole verse) whose support is not nearly as early or widespread as the other reading can be reflected in a footnote that says, “A few witnesses to the text read/add/omit: . . . .”

            In short, readings and verses that are omitted from UBS/Nestle-based versions of the New Testament, which have textual support that is ancient and widespread are included in our translation.”

            That is a generalization, and readers of the EHV should not expect to see it applied evenly.  For instance, in Acts 9:5, the KJV’s phrase, “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,” for which the manuscript-support is lightweight, is neither in the EHV’s text nor in a footnote.  Similarly, there is (thankfully) no footnote drawing Matthew 12:47 into question, although the ESV omitted it from the text on the basis of relatively few manuscripts. 

            A few sample-readings from each Gospel may give readers a sense of the EHV’s eclectic nature:

► Matthew 1:25 – “until she gave birth to her firstborn son” (A footnotes states, “Some witnesses to the text omit firstborn and simply read she gave birth to a son.”)

►Matthew 6:13 – “but deliver us from evil.”  (“For yours is the kingdom,” etc. is in a footnote, not in the text, attributed to “Some witnesses.”)

► Matthew 17:21 – included in the text.  A footnote says that “A few witnesses” omit the verse.

► Mark 1:2 – “This is how it is written in the prophet Isaiah” (The reading “in the prophets” is attributed to “Some witnesses” in a footnote.)

►  Mark 1:14 – “the gospel of the kingdom of God” (A footnote attributes the non-inclusion of “of the kingdom” to “A few witnesses.”)

► Mark 1:41 – “Moved with compassion” is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 3:5 – “as whole as the other” is not in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 6:22 – “When the daughter of Herodias came in” is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 9:29 – “except by prayer and fasting” is in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses omit “and fasting.”

► Mark 10:24 – “for those who trust in their riches” is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 11:26 is in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses do not include the verse.

► Mark 15:28 is not in the text; it is in a footnote, attributed to “Some witnesses.”

► Luke 2:14 – “and on earth peace, good will toward mankind” is in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses read “among people of his good will.”

► Luke 9:55-56 include the portion that is not included in the ESV’s text; a footnote states that some witnesses omit this quotation.

► Luke 22:43-44 is included in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses omit these verses.

► Luke 23:34 is all in the text; there is no footnote.

► Luke 24:12 is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Luke 24:51 is all in the text; there is no footnote.  (Yet there is a footnote for the phrase about the honeycomb in 24:42.)

► John 1:18 – “The only-begotten Son” is in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses read The only-begotten God.

► John 3:13 – “who is in heaven” is in the text; a footnotes states that a few witnesses omit these words.

► John 5:3-4 is all in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses omit the passage.

► John 7:8 – “I am not going up to this festival yet” is in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses omit “yet.”  (This ought to be changed, inasmuch as the support for “yet” is both more ancient and more widespread than the evidence for the alternative reading.)

► John 9:35 – “Son of God” is in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses read “Son of Man.”

            In the epistles, quite a few readings found in the majority of manuscripts go unmentioned:  “of Christ” does not appear in Romans 1:16 (no footnote); “adultery” does not appear in Galatians 5:19 (no footnote); Galatians 5:24 reads “to Christ Jesus” (no footnote); “through Jesus Christ” does not appear in Ephesians 3:9 (no footnote); Ephesians 5:9 reads “of the light” (no footnote), James 4:12 includes “and judge” (no footnote); First Peter 1:23 does not have “forever” (no footnote), etc.  Yet there are also plenty of Alexandrian readings which have been quietly rejected; Matthew 16:2-3, for example, is all included in the text with no footnote, and Philippians 4:13 says, “through Christ, who strengthens me” with no footnote. 

            Occasionally a reading that is found in the majority of manuscripts is described in a footnote as if it supported by “A few manuscripts.” Hopefully this will be corrected in the future, so as to differentiate between minority readings found in the Textus Receptus and the readings of the Byzantine Text.  (Perhaps the footnotes could be improved by simply referring to the Byzantine Text and Alexandrian Text, so as to avoid describing two different groups of manuscripts in the same terms.)

           

            No doubt readers want to know how the EHV treats Mark 16:9-20.  I am pleased to report that the EHV fully includes these 12 verses in the text with no brackets.  The EHV’s footnote should be read with attention:  “This translation includes verses 9-20 because they are included in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts that have been handed down to us.  Evidence for the existence of this long ending extends back to the 2^nd century.  In the early centuries of the church, these verses were read in worship services on Easter and Ascension Day.   However, a few early manuscripts and early translations omit verses 9-20, and a few manuscripts have a different ending.”  One might wish that this note were improved (we have only two early Greek manuscripts that stop Mark’s text at 16:8, for one thing) but it is far better than the misleading treatment found in some other versions. 

            John7:53-8:11 is also fully included in the text.  A note for John 7:53 states, “Some witnesses to the text omit 7:53-8:11 or include these verses in other places within John’s Gospel, The witnesses that include these verses are early and widespread throughout most of the early church.”  This is a welcome clarification – one might even say correction – of the unhelpful vagueness that characterizes the treatment of this passage in some other versions.  (Instead of “in other places” the note could say “before or after the Pentecost-lection, or at the end of the book with a note stating that it was previously found after 7:52,” but this might be too much to hope for.)

            In First John 5:7, the EHV does not have the Comma Johanneum in the text.  A footnote states, “Only a very few late witnesses to the text read testify in heaven:  the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸And there are three that testify on earth”.”  This could be improved by referring to “Very few late Greek manuscripts,” inasmuch the Latin evidence for this interpolation is plentiful.

                       

            Now about the formatting of the EHV’s text:  it is arranged in paragraph-form, and simple headings, set off from the main text via the use of a different font, regularly separate blocks of text, filling the same role as the ancient kephalaia (chapter-titles) fill in our Greek manuscripts.  In the Gospels, the headings are supplemented in smaller print by mention of parallel-passages.  Extensive poetic passages and extensive quotations are indented.  Luke 1:46-55 (the Magnificat) is all indented; Luke 1:68-79 (Zechariah’s Song) is all indented; Luke 2:29-32 (the Nunc Dimittis) is all indented.  Likewise First Corinthians 3b-5 and the last six lines of First Timothy 3:16 (beginning with “He was revealed in the flesh”) are indented.  Philippians 2:5ff., however, has no special indentation.

            Old Testament quotations, whether extensive or not, are identified in footnotes.  Footnotes also serve to occasionally supply or define terms for which there is no exact modern equivalent, such as monetary units and measurements of weight and volume. 

            The formatting is, in a word, excellent.  Some sections are much longer than others, but this is perhaps an unavoidable effect of following the natural structure of the text. 

            As a translation – setting aside questions about the base-text – the EHV New Testament is a model of skillful, accurate work.  The translators have generally taken a conservative approach, avoiding needless imprecision while recognizing the need to treat idioms with reasonable freedom.  Its treatment of passages which, in some recent translations, have been adulterated in the service of egalitarian theology or feminism, is above reproach.  The EHV is remarkably clear and candid in First Corinthians 14:34-35, First Timothy 2:12, First Timothy 3:1-7, and Titus 1:5-9.  Likewise the EHV’s renderings of passages about homosexual acts are unlikely to be welcomed by those who want to advance an ungodly agenda. 

            Only occasionally does the EHV resort to unconventional renderings:  “Gentlemen,” for instance, appears repeatedly at the beginnings of speeches in the book of Acts; yet this is not necessarily a bad thing; this modern English term is, I think, a perfect proxy for the Greek word which several modern translations fail to translate altogether.  Another fresh and admirable rendering is found in the EHV in Christ’s words in John 21:5 – “Boys, don’t you have any fish?”.  More debatable:  the decision to present what are, in other versions, some references to the Spirit, as references to the spirit (meaning, according to a footnote attached to Galatians 5:16, “the new nature in contrast with the sinful flesh”), and the decision to translate what has traditionally been rendered as “born again” as, instead, “born from above.”

            Much more information about the Evangelical Heritage Version can be found at the Wartburg Project website, which features, among other things, an expanded Introduction, 49 Frequently Asked Questions and their answers, and a comparison of the Christmas story in the EHV and some other translations.  It should not be overlooked that while the EHV is not the official version of any denomination, it is, by design, a translation made by individuals professing to be spiritually invested in the church.  Members of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod have overseen its production.  Brian R. Keller served as the New Testament Editor.   

            While I would prefer a version based on a Greek text with more Byzantine readings, the EHV New Testament’s base-text avoids the extreme dependence upon poorly attested Alexandrian readings which characterizes the base-text of the ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.; as I have stated in the past, given the choice, I would rather sail in a ship with harmless barnacles on its hull than in a ship with holes in its hull.  All in all, the EHV New Testament is a superb translation which deserves to be warmly welcomed by evangelical Christians.  It merits the consideration, especially, of ministers and congregations who favored the (discontinued) New International Version of 1984, but who recognize that the 2011 edition of the New International Version, post-TNIV, is significantly flawed.  It is available to purchase online at the Wartburg Project, at Amazon (where the entire Gospel of Matthew can be previewed), and (with bulk discounts) at the website of its publisher, Northwestern Publishing House.

            The EHV Bible is scheduled to be available in summer of 2019.