The History of the Bible: Lecture series

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written.  Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt.  There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

In order to best understand the lecture, please take the time to download the PowerPoint, Word document, and especially the manuscript chart.  Having them in front of you while you listen will allow you to more fully understand the information that is being presented.

To watch part 1 in the series, click on the link below:

The History of the Bible video, 1 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 2 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 3 of 3 

To look at the PowerPoint slides used in the presentation, click on the link below:

 History of the Bible PowerPoint (for all 3 parts)

To view the manuscript evidence Word document, click on the link below:

Manuscript evidence

To view the manuscript history chart created by Pastor Powell and Pastor Scott Woodlee, click below:

Manuscript History chart 

Why the Bible skeptics and KJV only fanatics have something in common.

As I continue to prepare for my upcoming History of the Bible series, I’ve been watching some of the Youtube videos of James White’s debates with both Biblical skeptics and KJV fanatics.  In doing so I’ve come to a realization, although I’m sure someone else has noticed this already, to me it was still worth noting.  The skeptics and the KJV fanatics are two sides of the same coin.  Now, they certainly won’t say that, and would likely have a hard time having a civil conversation, but that doesn’t change the fact that both groups are over-reacting to the same historical fact that we don’t have a perfectly preserved New Testament text, a fact which has been known since at least Erasmus first published his Greek NT over 500 years ago, but one that both groups never tire of using as some sort of “secret” that the Church doesn’t want you to know.

            The skeptics, like Bart Ehrman and John Shelby Spong, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, (which any rational Bible believing scholar readily admits without fear) and erroneously and over-zealously concludes that the entire NT is therefore untrustworthy, that Jesus never claimed to be God, that the resurrection and the virgin birth are myths, and that the Church has been part of some Dan Brown-like conspiracy to hide the truth from the rubes that still believe such things.

            The KJV only fanatics, like Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, and erroneously and over-zealously conclude that the only solution is to posit a perfect re-inspiration of the Bible in the form of the KJV, thus concluding that whatever mistakes the KJV contains don’t actually exists, that all further scholarship and all modern translations are perversions of the devil, and that the only option for the Church is blind faith in the KJV to the extent that even foreign missionaries should teach illiterate tribes English so that they can read the KJV instead of doing new translation work.

            That both of these positions are clearly unnecessary and exceedingly dangerous is clear.  If either group had their way, the Church as we know it would be destroyed and be replaced by something that either has no soul, because it has lost its faith to doubt, or no mind, because it has had to silence its intellect to exist. 

            The history of the Bible isn’t a fairy tale full of perfect people, but it also isn’t something to be afraid of.  For those who wish to maintain both their faith and their intellect, the study of the history of how the Bibles we have today came to exist is both enlightening and enriching.  Don’t let the skeptics or the fanatics scare you away, the truth is not our enemy.

* On a personal note.  This observation of the connection between these two groups occurred to me as I lay in bed, rather than hoping I remembered it the next day, I got up to post it to my blog.  I assumed that somebody else had noticed this before be, and of course they had.  Two days later I was watching a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace, during which Wallace drew the comparison between skeptics like Bart and KJV Only advocates.  Thus my "original" observation lasted only two days before I found out it had already been made by a NT expert, oh well.

Thoughts about the history of the Bible & KJV Onlyism

As I prepare to teach my series on the history of the English Bible for the third time, beginning on August 10th, I've been reminded of the zeal with which advocates of KJV Only positions have often disparaged the faith of fellow Christians in the name of defending God's Word.  That the Word of God should not be used to tear asunder the Church of God seems like an obvious truth, but sadly it is not.  That historic facts should be the basis of our faith, and our faith in the accuracy of the Scriptures also seems like an obvious truth, but it is routinely tossed aside when passion replaces reason and personal attacks replaces evidence.
As I was continuing to refine my presentation I came across several resources that might be helpful to those confused about the KJV Only debate that I would like to share here.

This first one is a web page by a man named Derek Oulette who created it in response to a "historic" chart that he was given by a KJV Only advocate.  It answers the fundamental questions of text types, copies, and reliability in an accessible manner.  To look at the web page, click here: KJV Debate web page

The second is series of TV shows recorded about twenty years ago that feature James White, one of the best authors on this subject, The King James Only Controversy, as well as representatives from the translation teams of the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, along with three KJV Only advocates, among them the notorious "Dr." Samuel Gipp.  As you watch, notice the use of evidence and facts on the side of those representing the modern texts, and the complete disdain for them on the other side along with circular arguments and personal attacks.  To begin watching the videos, click here: John Ankerberg TV show videos
** There are 39 videos in this series, but they average about 5 minutes each.  Also, the KJV Only advocates in these videos are fond of accusing those representing the modern translations of being on the side of their arch-villain, the Roman Catholic Church.  This attitude of acting toward the Catholic Church like the year is 1611 instead of 2014 is beyond sad; We're 500 years out from the Reformation, isn't it time to start building on our common love of Christ and stop acting as if the next Pope is likely to be the Anti-Christ?  Fear of the Catholic Church runs right alongside anti-intellectualism in the KJV Only circles.**

The whole issue of NT textual criticism can frighten lay Christians without cause (which is one of the reasons for my desire to teach the history of the Bible), this webpage does a good job of explaining some of those historical issues in a brief format. To visit the webpage, click here: NT Textual Criticism

The last is a portion of a video from a physics teacher in England who regularly posts video that explain complicated things like the European Union or the American Electoral College.  This particular video is a Q&A that delves into the subject of opinions and why people hate to change them.  Skip ahead on the video to 1:15 to start the question about opinions.  To watch the video, click here: CGP Grey video

** I know that some will say, "the Bible isn't an opinion to be dropped when I learn something new!!"  Of course not, and if you think that you've missed the point.  The authority of the Bible is foundational to who we are as Christians, the history and exact text of the Bible is different, however, because it involves evidence and ongoing research.  When Nesle-Aland and UBS (the two primary Gk. texts for modern Bibles) issue an updated version of their text they're doing so because ongoing study in the fields of Biblical archaeology and textual criticism continue to help us move closer to the original text; the accuracy is already 98%+, but why shouldn't we be willing to continue working on that last 2%?  To fix the errors of the past is not to denigrate God's Word at all, rather it shows our reverence for it, thus when the text can be corrected we must do so instead of clinging to it like an out-dated or erroneous opinion.  That is the fundamental error of the KJV Only advocates, and the reason for referencing Grey's video.**

Lastly, let me make it clear that I appreciate the KJV Bible, it was a remarkable Bible in its day made by men who loved God and served his Church.  It has stood the test of time far better than many other translations, but it isn't perfect.  It has errors, these can be corrected, it has archaic language, this can be updated.  I have no problem with those who love the KJV, or with those who only use the KJV, but those who insist on KJV Only, and attack anyone who uses any other translation (even the NKJV), are wolves in sheep's clothing, they can only destroy the Church through their work.

Thankfully, I have encountered only reasonable ministers here in West PA, men and women eager to serve the Church of God, more interested in saving the lost and shepherding their flock than fighting their brothers and sisters in Christ.  This sort of environment doesn't exist in a vacuum, however, it continues to need education and ecumenical cooperation to feed it and keep it strong.  In my own way, I'm happy to be contributing to that effort.

Jerome, Erasmus, the KJV, and the Wycliffe Bible Translators

The science/art of translation work will always lead to controversial decisions when the material in question is the Bible.  This isn’t new, not by a long shot.  When Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (so called because it was “vulgar”, like the way common people spoke in his day) was first read in St. Augustine’s parish the people rioted.  They had previously used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the O.T.’s Hebrew, and didn’t want anything new.  In what seems ridiculous to us today, the people’s objection centered around Jerome’s more accurate translation of the plant that shaded Jonah from the gourd that the LXX had rendered it, to the caster-oil plant of the Vulgate.  Who cares which plant shaded Jonah?  This incident illustrates how seriously Bible translations can be taken by the people they are intended to help.

            Fast forward 1,300 years to Erasmus’ work on a Greek NT (basically returning the text in the West to its original language).  Erasmus was criticized heavily by his contemporaries when he made changes to Jerome’s now nearly sacred Latin Vulgate to the extent that he changed one important text (I John 5:7-9) to reflect the Vulgate’s reading even though it was not in any of the Greek texts that he was working with.  The Vulgate, received with skepticism at first, had become too loved to correct.

            The King James Bible followed this same pattern.  It was not preferred over the Geneva Bible for over forty years, but eventually became the primary Bible of the English speaking world.  When modern scholarship and archaeological discoveries enabled experts to correct some of the errors found in Erasmus’ Greek NT (he only had 7 of the now 5700+ manuscripts that we have to consult), the resulting modern translations came under fire by lovers of the KJV for daring to challenge their beloved text.  Even though genuine errors that had resulted from copyists’ errors were being corrected involving the 2% of the text that needed to be fixed (the other 98% was not affected, even with only 7 manuscripts, Erasmus’ work had been extraordinary), the ardent supports of the KJV were not willing to consider that a new translation of their 400 year old Bible was needed.

            The recent controversy involving Wycliffe Bible Translators regarding the use of “Allah” in Muslim countries for God, and how to best translate the familial relationship between God the Father and God the Son when our understanding of it is difficult to put into the receiving language’s cultural context, illustrates the same passion for Bible translations that plagued Jerome, Erasmus, and the teams that produced the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the rest.

            I have no problem with those who raise well informed objections to any part of the translation process, from the Greek/Hebrew text being used, to the translation theory behind the words chosen in the new language.  Such conversations can be a useful part of the process.  What I do not accept, and will not have any patience with, is the use of personal attacks used against these men and women whose lives are in service to the Church, such that they are accused of being under Satanic influence simply because somebody doesn’t like their choices in the translation process.  How ridiculous is it for Christians to accuse other Christians of evil simply because they can’t agree on how best to convey the Word of God to the lost?  It would be laughable if this joke wasn’t so serious.  Jerome wasn’t evil when he brought the “vulgar” Bible to the people in a language they could understand, neither was Erasmus when he sought to return to the original Greek as a basis for translation work into new vernacular languages.  The modern Bible translators had no nefarious plans when they updated the text behind the KJV and corrected the minor errors that were found, and neither are the Wycliffe Bible Translators tools of Satan simply because they’re trying to bring Jesus Christ to Muslim lands.  Stop the invective, stop the pronouncements of doom from on high; it sounds ridiculous and only shows that the person making it cares more about being right in their own mind than they do about the work of the Gospel.  Informed and knowledgeable Christians can, and will, disagree about translational issues, but they cannot treat those they disagree with like enemies and lob at them baseless accusations no more accurate than a politician’s TV ad; the only one laughing at this sad joke when they do, is the person they’ve accused their opponent of serving.