“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, speak we in Christ” (2 Cor 2:17).
Introduction
The Revised Standard Version (RSV), while not the source of the stream of bibles emerging from the Revision Committee commissioned by Convocation in 1870, is the best known and very influential bible of the Revised Version (RV) stream, of which the RV is the source. The Revision Committee was convened for the task of revising the Authorised Version (AV), popularly known today as the King James Version (KJV) in 1870.
In a carefully prepared campaign of deception designed to ambush the Committee members and persuade them to adopt a new Greek text compiled by B. F. Westcott and W. H. A. Hort (WH), the Authorised Version was targeted for destruction by them and some of their partners in crime, in order to undermine and Catholicise the Church of England. As long as the KJV stood supreme, their revolution could not succeed.
Virtually the only voice raised in vigorous and scholarly opposition was that of Dean Stanley Burgon, who exposed the corruption of the new text by revealing its unorthodox readings and omissions, and how and where it differed from the traditional and divinely preserved Greek text, the Textus Receptus (TR). It wasn’t only that differing from the KJV was a serious problem; it was also that these changes altered the meaning of Scripture, and consequently, theology.
This “new” theology abandoned the Gospel of salvation in Christ by faith in his finished work on the cross, and replaced it with the Catholic system of salvation by works and a host of other false doctrines and dogmas. It was the Byzantine readings of the NT text, the most well-known being Textus Receptus, upon whichthe Authorised Version was based, which stood in the path of this attempted apostasy, and which was consequently hated by the revisers.
The Endless Streams of the Revised Version
The first bible revision in the stream, the New Testament of which was released in 1881, was the Revised Version (RV), also known as the English Revised Version (ERV); the complete bible (Old and New Testaments) was published in 1884 and the RV Apocrypha were published in 1894. This revision was supposed to be a revision of the KJV; but it was really a brand-new version, because the text of the New Testament of the RV was based on different Greek texts to that of the KJV. The physical manuscripts of this “new” (critical) Greek text are older than any of the extant physical Byzantine texts, so its supporters maintain that it is therefore more accurate and trustworthy. But the supporters of the Textus Receptus rightly insist that, because theirs is the majority of texts in existence, its readings can be found in some texts which are even earlier than those of the Westcott and Hort (WH) texts. Cyprian (early 3rd century), for one, clearly had a Byzantine manuscript from which he quoted the Johannine Comma (1 Jn 5:7); this was about two centuries before the oldest extant Alexandrian texts used for our modern bibles.
Soon thereafter an American version of this new English version was produced, published in 1901, known as the American Standard Version (ASV), thus beginning the first of many streams of bible versions based on the new Westcott and Hort (WH) text.
Theology of the Revisers
Most of the revisers of the KJV led by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort were liberal or “modernist” in their theology, Catholic in heart, Darwinian evolutionists, spiritualists engaged in séances, having Marxist tendencies, did not believe in the necessity of faith in Christ alone for salvation, and other heretical and pernicious ideas; and one of them, George Vance Smith, was a Unitarian. The situation was the same for the American revision committee, led by arch-liberal Philip Schaff. These are the “higher” theological Critics with some “lower” or Textual Critics.
Uriah Smith concisely exposes Modernism
Of the Modernist theology espoused by these heretics, Seventh Day Adventist commentator, Uriah Smith, summarises it nicely: “According to this radical criticism is there any inspiration? None. Any Trinity? None. Any fall into sin? None. Any devil or angel? None. Any miracles? None. Any law from Mount Sinai? None. Any wrath of God? None. Any prophecy? None. Is Christ God? No. Is the death of Christ vicarious? No. Did Christ rise from the dead? No. Has there been any outpouring of the Holy Ghost? No. Will there be any resurrection of all the dead? No. Or a final judgment? No. This is rather radical, and practically robs Christianity of everything that it has” (Uriah Smith, 1908, p. 624).
The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort
The WH text consists of manuscripts most of which originate from ancient Alexandria, and most of which were discovered in the 19th century, and which enchanted liberal scholars who trumpeted that greater age means greater accuracy. Westcott and Hort concocted a text which they drew from the various manuscripts which had been discovered during the preceding decades, sifting and collating until they were satisfied with their achievement. Unfortunately, they accepted every “family” of texts except the widely accepted and circulated Byzantine, which was the vast majority of Greek texts. They hated this textual family, and Hort called the KJV, which is the best exemplar in English of the Byzantine, “vile” and “villainous”.
The manuscripts they regarded as closest to the autographs were Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), and a third known as Alexandrinus (A); which is bizarre because Aleph and B differ from each other in thousands of places – just in the gospels there are around 3000 differences between them. And they’re filled with scribal corrections (Sinaiticus being the worst), the text being scrubbed out to allow a newer reading here, and various other changes and omissions there, over several centuries. Nearly all of these changes and omissions either undermine or attack the deity of Christ, his Person, and his work.
Despite these manuscripts being demonstrably faulty and therefore corrupt, Westcott and Hort were enchanted by them. They are dated to late 4th and early 5th centuries and Westcott and Hort regarded them as being the earliest texts known to us and closest to the autographs. They are each almost a complete New Testament; they also contain the books of the Apocrypha and some other early Christian writings e.g. Epistle of Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas etc. The WH text has since morphed into the Nestle-Aland Text (NA) and the United Bible Societies Text (UBS), but they are all essentially the same, and known generally as the Critical Text, and based on the same few “unique” manuscripts. And all our bibles today are based on this corrupt text – if ever a bible text could be called “vile” and “villainous”, it is the Critical Text.
The Critical Problems with the Critical Text
Apart from the multitude of changes and omissions, the Critical Text has several built-in problems, which means that there can never be a standard bible used by all and which will remain authoritative and trustworthy. This is because the two textual versions are constantly being revised and updated (the current editions are NA27 and UBS 4) and necessarily continuing in this process endlessly; consequently, the Church can never again possess an authoritative bible as long as this text is its basis. The text is constantly being revised and updated, so the bible text is in a constant state of flux – a gift for publishers.
There are several categories in the Critical Text into which each word is placed – ‘most likely’, ‘less likely’, ‘least likely’ – and these are decided upon by the committee or its leader. The bizarre fact is that with each update, readings which were once in one category can be found in a different category in the update; and back again in the next. Each of these readings are debated and argued over as to which reading is the most likely to be closest to the autograph, and then a vote is taken to confirm it. Imagine that! The infallible, inerrant, authoritative, God-breathed Word and words of the Sovereign God of all creation, depends on a majority vote of a committee of fallible, unbelieving men and women before it can be trusted and used by the Church. After all the centuries of the Church on earth, is this what we have been reduced to? Jesus asked: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8).
The whole process is reminiscent of Enid Blyton’s children’s’ story “The Magic Faraway Tree”, in which the children never knew which magic land they would find when they climbed to the top of the tree. And it puts the Church in the ludicrous position of never being able to make definitive statements of doctrine, faith, or practice, because both the original language texts and the resultant bible versions are constantly changing. Our modern bibles are therefore really only best-guess bibles, and every few years we have to buy the latest version to keep up with the latest manuscript discovery or the change in our language or any other whim or furphy the textual critics and bible translation committees and bible publishers choose to tell us is the truth. In the end it’s a gold mine for bible publishers but worse than useless for people who want to know with certainty what God says; and “truth is fallen in the street” (Isa 59:14).
The Stream Becomes a Flood
The American Standard Version was itself revised, being completed in 1952, and becoming a new version, namely the Revised Standard Version (RSV). Despite its popularity, the RSV had its critics and some of them were angry and vocal about the radical changes to the text. It removed many passages, verses, and parts of verses from the text, italicised them, and placed them in a footnote, with a comment which undermines their validity and authority as Scripture.
And in a cleverly subtle use of “Thou” and “Thee” for God, capitalising them, and using these archaic words to refer to Jehovah, God, and the Father throughout the RSV text, and using “you” for Jesus throughout, they undermined his deity by divorcing him from God. These changes, among many, were so radical that Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim apologist, took advantage of the vandalism, a gift to him, pouring scorn upon the RSV, the bible itself, and Christianity and Christians, in a widely published booklet entitled “Is the Bible the Word of God?” Sadly, his observations and attacks were justified, and reflect badly on Christianity as a whole.
The RSV was updated in 1971 to become more orthodox by restoring the controversial omissions and changes in the 1952 version back to their rightful place in the text, albeit in italics to distinguish and separate them from the main text; and with comments in the margin to ensure the reader believes them to be doubtful or spurious readings. But the undermining of Jesus’ deity remained, and is preserved in the later revisions. So, although the RSV 1971 was an improvement, it basically retained the errors of the 1952 edition but in a less blatant form.
In 1965-1966 the RSV was slightly modified to placate the Catholic Church, e.g. “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 was changed back to “the virgin”, as it should have been etc. And the apocrypha were included in the Old Testament, following the order of the Vulgate.
In 1973 the Common Bible was released. It was the RSV with the apocrypha placed between the Testaments and was designed to be used by all denominations.
In 1982 the Readers Digest Bible was published, a condensed version of the RSV. It catered to those who didn’t read much or well, so 55% of the Old Testament and 25% of the New Testament were cut out. It still contained the Lord’s Prayer, Ten Commandments, and Psalm 23 because they are so well known, but I doubt it was of much use to anybody.
In 2006 Ignatius Press (Catholic) released the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE), making some readings and notes already in the RSV text more in accord with Catholic theology. For example, the word “cup” has been changed to “chalice”, which suggests ritualism in the Lord’s Supper.
A Revision Becomes a New Version
In 1989 the RSV was revised and the revision was called the New Revised Standard Version, a version which is based on the 1971 RSV and which is now the preferred bible of academics, scholars, liberals, theological colleges, and many churches because of its vaunted accuracy and the gender-inclusiveness of its translation. It says of itself in “To the Reader”, it is “As literal as possible, as free as is necessary…Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language – the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun”. However, it has been criticised because, in order to achieve gender-inclusive readings, it resorts to adding words, changing the singular to plural, and various other ways of mishandling the Greek or Hebrew text. And it incorporates the dodgy readings of its predecessor.
And now the NRSV is also being updated. “A three-year process of reviewing and updating the text of the NRSV was announced at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. The update will be managed by the SBL following an agreement with the copyright-holding NCC. The stated focuses of the review are incorporating advances in textual criticism since the 1989 publication of the NRSV, improving the textual notes and reviewing the style and rendering of the translation. A team of more than fifty scholars, led by an editorial board, is responsible for the review, which goes by the working title of the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSV-UE)” (emphasis mine).
So, the NRSV-UE is now an update of a revision (NRSV) of a revision (RSV-71) of a corrupt revision (RSV-52) of a derivation (ASV) of a corrupt translation (RV) which was intended to be a revision of a translation (KJV) but was in reality a brand-new version, the RV being the well-spring of the stream of English versions which now flood the market.
Another Revision Becomes another New Version
In response to the appearance of the radical gender-inclusive NIVI, Evangelicals began yet another new translation, which also branched out from the RSV 1971. The result was the English Standard Version (ESV) which was released in 2001. A blog called “Biblical Catholic” tells us: “By contrast, the ESV was conceived as a kind of knee-jerk reaction against the publication, in England, of the NIV with Inclusive Language in 1996…The ESV was first conceived in 1997, the committee was put together in 1998, and the first edition was published in 2001. They didn’t really devote the necessary time and attention to the task that they should have, because they were in a rush to get it out as soon as possible”. The ESV has subsequently become very popular with Evangelicals. A Catholic edition, ESV-CE, was published in 2018/2019. It is little different to the RSV and NRSV but catering more to an evangelical readership, as will be noticed in some of its readings.
New Revisions, New Versions, New Streams
Another stream, again arising from the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 was itself a revision which became the New American Standard Bible (NASB) in 1971. It has gone through several “modified editions” – 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and the Updated Edition (1995), and designated Updated NASB or NASB95. The latest edition is the NASB2020.
Furthermore, the ASV spawned other versions, namely The Amplified Bible New Testament (1958), the Living Bible (1971), Recovery Version (1999), and World English Bible (2000). Two of these also became streams in their own right.
The first of these two was the Amplified Bible (AMP). This was conceived and birthed by a devout Christian woman named Frances Siewert (1881-1967). The New Testament had as its base the ASV and the Old Testament was based on the RSV. In 1962 and 1964 the two-volume Amplified Old Testament was published, and in 1965 the complete Amplified Bible was published. This was later expanded and in 1987 the Amplified Bible, Expanded Edition was completed and published. It is popularly known today as the Classic Edition. Finally, in 2015, an updated edition, designated Amplified Holy Bible, was completed and published. It was designed to be more readable but many Christians still prefer the Classic Edition.
The other of these two streams issuing from the ASV was a paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor who created The Living Bible (TLB), which also had as its base the ASV; it was published in 1971. Sales were huge and it was produced in many editions. The publisher saw its lucrative potential and a revision committee was set up to turn the Living Bible paraphrase into a true version.
As a result, the New Living Bible (NLT) was born, and released to the public in 1996. It is a dynamic equivalence translation based on the two major critical texts (UBS and NA). The first edition saw it start losing its dependence on its forbear, becoming a version in its own right, and a very successful, productive, and lucrative cash cow overnight. It, too, was revised, and the second edition was released in 2004 and is sometimes referred to as NLTse. Further editions with minor revisions were released in 2007, 2013, and 2015. In a collaborative venture between NLT revisers and Catholic scholars, changes were made to the text, which were incorporated into the 2015 edition in order to make it acceptable to the Catholic Church; these changes will be included in all future editions of the NLT. The Catholic edition naturally includes the apocrypha (which are incorporated into the OT as found in the Vulgate, rather than between the Testaments as a separate entity from them).
The NLT fulfilled its potential by becoming No. 1 best bible seller in July 2008, toppling the NIV and ending its twenty-year reign at the top of the sales charts.
The Stream Becomes a Raging Torrent
The number of new versions, revisions, updates, modified versions etc. arising from the English Revised Version and its relatives, and the corrupt WH Text on the churches is eye-watering. The publishers have realised what a golden goose and cash cow these bible versions and revisions are, and an endless stream of income for them; they will not easily let go of its productive teat.
And with each of these new versions comes an even greater multitude of study bibles, version-specific commentaries, word studies, and even some concordances and lexicons. The number of study bibles alone is staggering! One need only turn to Amazon to see endless pages of them. The innovative creation and marketing of these study bibles is genius, with study bibles for every conceivable niche in a highly lucrative market, to such an extent that the niches actually divide and separate Christian from Christian on the basis of race, colour, age, gender, military, politics, relationships, popular bible teachers, and so on. It is shameful!
The modern bibles constantly fall by the wayside because they are constantly being updated, and every few years the publishers change it and it disappears from sight as the newer, “more accurate” replacement takes the baton. But the finishing line is constantly drawing away from it because the Critical Text is never completed and never will be.
Bible publishers don’t know anything about the LXX
The apostles did use a Greek text for the majority of their OT references, and nobody knows whether the LXX they used contained the apocrypha. The original and early copies disappeared very early, and the LXX that circulated thereafter, not being the divinely preserved text, quickly became corrupted.
“The Encyclopaedia Judaica concludes that ‘what we term the Septuagint is in fact an almost accidental gathering together of texts from diverse sources.’
Although there are extant older fragments of the OT in Greek, the Encyclopedia continues, ‘For the most part, our earliest texts for this Greek material derive from codices from the third and fourth centuries [A.D.]; in particular, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus.’ These may or may not be good exemplars of the OT Greek translations of that time period” (Did the Apostles Favor the Septuagint? – Purely Presbyterian).
The LXX with apocrypha was subsequently corrected by some of the early Fathers, such as Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome. They each corrected the many errors they had in their possession.
What is more startling though, and an established fact, is that Justin Martyr knew that the Jews had excised passages from the LXX because of its support for the deity of Jesus: “Your teachers have removed many complete passages of those Scriptures in their entirety from the translation of the elders who were with Ptolemy. Those passages show clearly that He who was crucified is both God and man and that His crucifixion and death were foretold” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 71).
So, bible publishers (some of them self-styled Evangelical), willingly use a proven corrupt text (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) as the basis for their bible versions and revisions; use the LXX for corrections; and include the apocrypha which, in many places within its text is anathema to true Christianity. Thus they invite God’s wrath on themselves because, in order to make further sales and profit, they are careless about the confusion they sow among the churches and individual Christians. The church is the body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and his people the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16-17). “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are”.
Protestants must become Catholic
Now that Catholics and evangelicals all use the same Greek critical text as the basis for their bibles, and both accept them as the word of God, Protestants are bound to pray to departed saints, bound to pray for the dead, bound to believe in purgatory, bound to accept the totality of Catholic teaching and antichristian dogmas, if they would be consistent. Even if the apocrypha are not in their preferred version; even if the apocrypha are bound as a separate section to the Bible text; the fact is that the text in their version is a Catholic text with all its omissions, changes, and textual errors. And therefore, Protestants are obligated to follow where their Bible leads – to Rome. If they don’t like this implication, let them use a King James Bible which is free of the corruptions of the Alexandrian texts. If they want the unadulterated word of God, let them use the divinely preserved word and words of God in the King James Bible.
The Reformers saw this implication, and so rejected the Catholic bible and its source texts, and produced new bibles based on proven preserved texts from the Byzantine family of texts. Some of these texts came from Constantinople with the scholars who brought them to the West when they fled the capture of their city by the Ottomans; and from the Waldenses fleeing Catholic persecution in the Alps, who brought their preserved Byzantine texts and gave them to the Reformers. And there were already Byzantine manuscripts in Europe and the West.
The Bottom Line
The King James Bible is based on the Textus Receptus, which is the best exemplar of the Byzantine family of Greek NT texts. Very early Byzantine versions, one of which is the Peshitta, predate the extant Alexandrian manuscripts by centuries, even to the 2nd century; this is 2-3 centuries before codices A, D, and Aleph. Not only that, the Alexandrian texts are confined to a small area, namely Alexandria (hence, their name), whereas the Byzantine texts are spread across the whole ancient world and are the vast majority of extant texts.
This indicates that they were used by the Church universally and, although there are no very ancient extant manuscripts, the fact that they are in the majority and are so widely spread, indicates that they contain the true reading of the New Testament; and the Alexandrian textual variants were chopped and changed by unfaithful scribes for their own devious purposes. Even if the changes were well intentioned in order to support the current theological views, they were still changed, and a change is still a corruption, no matter how well meant.
The King James Bible is, therefore, is still the most accurate and trustworthy Bible version.
“Yet the aesthetic and emotive qualities of the King James Version are equally matched by its precision and faithfulness to the few manuscripts of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of scripture from which it was translated. Even today, the King James Version of the Holy Bible continues to be cherished by millions as their Bible of choice, and its words continue to serve as the very words of God, just as they have for countless other believers in times past. In a certain sense, as we read the King James Version, we join with these believers and experience anew the richness of God’s Word as it has been known by countless people throughout the past four hundred years” (Introduction to the KJV Study Bible).
References
Smith, Uriah, “Daniel and The Revelation”, undated (circa 1899), published by The Stanborough Press, Watford, Herts.
The KJV Study Bible, copyright 2011, publ. Barbour Publishing, Inc., Uhrichsville, Ohio, 44683
Revised Standard Version – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New Revised Standard Version
https://catholicbibles.blogspot/2009/01/esv-vs-nrsv.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New Living Translation
Did the Apostles Favor the Septuagint? – Purely Presbyterian
Unless otherwise stated, the bible verses in this article are from the King James Bible.
For those who wish to know the apostate theology of Westcott and Hort taken from their own writings: FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS – Westcott and Hort – Saved By Grace