Bible Translations Textual Omissions

The Bible Translation issue is more challenging than what it seems, we as Christians need to be careful on how we approach this topic, or else we can go down some dangerous paths, sometimes we see missing verses or seemingly changed words in the new translations eg. the New International Version, but we do not know the reason why these changes or omissions have been made. So the question about these are quite reasonable, but we must try to find the answers before we jump to conclusions.

This is what I found out. A pastor was speaking on the radio, and answered a question from a caller who asked him why some Bible translations have missing verses? The pastor explained that there are three different “text” that governs Bible translations, I also found a forth. Deciding which translation is more accurate depends on who you ask, but the majority of Bible scholars lean towards the Byzantine Text, Critical Text and the Textus-Receptus.

Byzantine Text

Critical Text

Alexandrian Text

Byzantine Text: One of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, though not in the oldest.

Critical Text (Textual criticism): A branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand

Textus-Receptus: The name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.

Alexandrian Text: one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of biblical manuscripts. The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts.

The King James Version was translated from the Textus-Receptus , but at the time, when it was translated, the writers had difficulty with translating some Greek Text, so they translated as close as possible. The King James version is a very accurate translation of the Textus-Receptus, but the translator/s had problems translating some of the Text into English, because there were no English equivalent at the time.

Textus-Receptu

We can get slightly different translations (not wrong, just different) depending on what “text” is used for example…

Compared to Alexandrian text-type manuscripts, the distinct Byzantine readings tend to show a greater tendency toward smooth and well-formed Greek, they display fewer instances of textual variation between parallel Synoptic Gospel passages, and they are less likely to present contradictory or “difficult” issues of exegesis.

For example, Mark 1:2 reads “As it is written in the prophets..” in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..” in all other early textual witnesses. Since the quotation introduced is partly from Malachi, the Byzantine form of the verse avoids the difficulty that might be adduced were it to be concluded that Mark was presenting a factual inaccuracy.

The New King James Version was translated from the Byzantine Text, which is a more trusted translation among scholars. The Byzantine text does not contain verses included by Textus Receptus: Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34.

Textus Receptus was established on a basis of the Byzantine text-type, called also ‘Majority text’, and usually is identified with him by his followers. But Textus Receptus has some additions and variants which did not exist in the Byzantine text before the 16th century. The Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7 is well known example, but there are also other texts like: Matt 10:8; Mark 27:35; Luke 17:36; John 3:25; Acts 8:37; Acts 9:5; Acts 15:34; and some readings (“book of life” instead of “tree of life” in Revelation 22:19) which the Byzantine text did not have. In these cases the majority of manuscripts agree with the Alexandrian text-type against the Textus Receptus.

Dean Burgon, one of the main supporters of the Textus Receptus, declared that the Textus Receptus needs correction. He suggested 150 corrections in the Textus Receptus Gospel of Matthew alone.

Matthew 10:8 it has Alexandrian reading Î½ÎµÎºÏÎ¿Ï…Ï‚ ÎµÎ³ÎµÎ¹ÏÎµÏ„Îµ (raise the dead) omitted by the Byzantine text.
Acts 20:28 it has Alexandrian reading Ï„Î¿Ï… Î˜ÎµÎ¿Ï… (of the God) instead of Byzantine Ï„Î¿Ï… ÎºÏ…ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±Î¹ Ï„Î¿Ï… Î˜ÎµÎ¿Ï… (of the Lord and God).

Conclusion: Bible translation is very difficult to understand especially if we do not have the correct training to understand the different language issues involved, therefore we cannot jump to conclusions when we see minor differences or missing verses. It is very important that we cross reference when we are doing our Bible studies, so that we get a clearer understanding of the text. It is a miracle in my eyes that we even have so many manuscripts and translations of the Bible existing today, we can be assured that the Word of God is preserved not in one particular translation but in the fact that scholars today can check the manuscripts for errors, and we now have Bibles circulating the globe in such abundance. The most important place to preserve Gods word is in our hearts, so that we may not be led astray by the evil one.

Source: Wikipedia – Byzantine Text, Critical Text, Textus-Receptus, Alexandrian Text