Why we use only the Authorised Version of the Scriptures Part 2

II. Why a raft of new translations? 

The lay person has his/her reason for new translations - the Scriptures must be made more understandable, more easily read etc. That is a false premise in itself for natural man will never understand the Scriptures by himself, no matter what versions are made available. The work of the Holy Spirit is needed.

But we need to dig a little deeper to find out the real reasons why new translations have come unto the market.

Over a period of years there were a number of new translations leading up to the A.V. 1611 and its editing of 1769. From then until the late 1800s there was no new translations. In 1881 a new Greek text was issued by Westcott and Hort and there followed what was known as the Revised Version. From then till now these new versions have multiplied. What were the real reasons for a new translation?

1. To facilitate ecumenism. At the time when the Revised Version appeared the Oxford Movement was in full flow with its Romanising tendencies. There was a clamour among ecumenists to have the Authorised Version superseded. The Revisionists by and large were in full sympathy with the Oxford Movement.

The Revised Version appeared in the form of a 'Common Bible', the first page said in large letters: AN ECUMENICAL BIBLE. The New English Bible which appeared sometime later stated in the preface that its goal was: the promotion of the ecumenical church and the oneness of the people of God in all sorts of Churches worldwide. The Authorised Version was too much a Protestant Bible and this would never do in the new ecumenical, Romanising climate that was developing.

Examples of this ecumenical facilitation is found in the way in which these new translations treat specific texts: The Good News Bible/Today's English Bible puts Peter as the rock. The New International Version has a footnote that says Peter is the rock. The New English Bible puts the word 'tradition' in 1 Cor 11:23 which gives justification for the mass.

2. A hatred of the truth. Westcott and Hort were the two main Revisioners. Hort gloried in the fact that a Unitarian had been invited unto the Committee. Had he been forced to resign when this became more widely known Westcott would have resigned with him. 

Both denied the vicarious atonement and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Hort called it 'an immoral counterfeit of the truth'. They both favoured the Larger Hope, Darwinism and O.T. Higher Criticism. Westcott said: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. Hort said: I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden existed. They were on record as saying that they fully intended to bring about doctrinal changes by their revisions. Sodomites later on sat on the New International Version translation committee. 

How can men who openly opposed and ridiculed orthodox Christianity ever be trusted to compile a new translation of the Scriptures? The Scriptures ask: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Job 14:4.

3. A hatred for the Authorised version. The new translation was never about updating the words. It stemmed from a hatred of the Authorised Version. In 1851 Hort called the Greek text that underlay the Authorised Version: the villainous Textus Receptus. The full quote reads: 

I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts.

This was said even though he had read very little of the Greek N.T. Hort is said by other critics to have organised his entire argument to depose the received Text which underlies the Authorised Version. The man was prejudiced against this Majority Text. He believed that the most accurate texts were those discovered in the Vatican and in a monastery on Mt Sinai. These were characterised by omissions. The reason they were the oldest was because they had been set aside as corrupt. Yet Westcott & Hort relied heavily upon them.

The modern translations come mainly from the manuscripts that had been discarded. A reading which has 80-90% support from the Received/Majority Text would be discarded in favour of a reading from these corrupt manuscripts just because it came from these manuscripts. Westcott & Hort showed a distinct prejudice against the Authorised Version from the very outset. The new translation wasn't an effort to provide a faithful translation it was a prejudiced attempt to discard the Authorised Version.