Question: I wrote you earlier in regards to the omissions of some verses in the NIV translations and others. In Luke 9:56, the words "For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them", (KJV), is missing in most of the other translations, (I have 10 of them), and my questions are: Was the translation of this verse from the original manuscripts wrong? What manuscripts do these other translations compare with? Also, can you recommend a book or source that would explain how the Bible was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew?

Thanks for your ministry.

Tom

(P.S. The New King James version retains these words).

Answer: Dear Tom,

You are asking a question of the discipline of Biblical studies referred to as textual criticism. The word "criticism" is not meant in a negative way, as if those who do these studies do not believe in the Bible. Rather the word "critic" is used in a broad way, as we would think of a movie critic, a literary critic, etc – someone who is an expert or a professional.

Let’s just consider the New Testament for example (easier than the Old Testament). There are over 24,000 partial and complete manuscripts available, as well as over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in early church literature (some of which is almost as old as the manuscripts). Scholars, textual critics, have discovered that there are more than 200,000 variants in the manuscripts. Most are minor – such as a missing letter in a word, or the inversion of a phrase or name (Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus). None of the variants impacts any doctrine of the historic Christian faith or any moral imperative taught by the New Testament.

Textual critics compare available manuscripts with each other, and thus help us come to an assurance of what the text actually said. That is – the textual critic examines the very documents that translators study when a translation is done.

The King James translation was originally done in 1611. The vast majority of the Bibles that people own today and that are called King James are not, in fact, the translation of 1611, but the fourth revision known as the Authorized King James, which was completed in 1769. Spelling, punctuation, caps, etc. have all changed in the revisions of the King James – so if one is to try to make a case that the King James is the standard by which we judge the Bible (presumably only in English, for there are other languages that have older translations as well), we hope that we would understand that simply because it is in English the King James cannot be judged to be the standard. Another consideration someone must take into account would be the fact that the 1611 version of the King James included the Apocrypha – not everyone is comfortable believing that the Apocrypha is the inspired Word of God.

I suggest that you begin your studies with the subject of the "Bible" – history of – in a good standard Bible reference encyclopedia. Most Bible college libraries have them, as well as larger city libraries. The most basic explanation is given by one-volume Bible Dictionaries such as Harper’s Bible Dictionary. If you would like we would be willing to send you a photocopy of the two or three page entry if you will send me your mailing address. Multiple volume Bible Dictionaries provide much more background, such as the four-volume Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. You would want to check the subjects of Bible, Canon, Inspiration, Revelation (not the book of the Bible), Manuscripts, Biblical Criticism, etc. – this would begin a deeper study, from many differing perspectives, not all of them faith affirming, I’m afraid.

Translators and the Bible translations they have produced (with a few exceptions) are highly skilled people, who are careful with the work they do, and highly trained in a variety of disciplines. Much has been learned in many fields of study since the translation of the King James Bible – in fact the entire discipline of archaeology has been birthed together with its rich insights into the history and background of the Bible, as well as incredible progress in the studies of Hebrew and Greek, as well as Aramaic – so the idea that the King James cannot be improved on would be an untenable position.

Hope this helps.

In Christ,

Greg Albrecht