Differences in the KJV
vs CUV
By Lim Seng Hoo
Many bilingual, English-Mandarin Christians, were
taken aback by a recent article published on 2 September 2007, entitled,
“NO VPP, NO KJV! NO CUV!” Its’ author is a Bible-Presbyterian
pastor cum lecturer of the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) in
Singapore, where the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) view is
aggressively promoted. In a bid not to alienate Chinese brethren, these
VPP proponents try to make out the Chinese Union Bible (CUV) as “the
best, most faithful, most reliable, and most accurate Bible for the
Chinese speaking people,” just as the King James Version (KJV) is for
the English speaking, in a way that misrepresents the CUV and the KJV as
having nearly identical underlying textual basis.
The truth however is that the CUV, like most other translations in other
languages, was not based on the same Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek texts used by the
1611 KJV translators. This 1919 publication, which is
today’s most widely used Chinese Bible, was translated in 1890 by a panel of
missionaries from the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Congregationalist
churches and from the China Inland Mission, using the 1885 English Revised
Version as its source text supplemented by the original manuscripts for
crosschecking.
To illustrate the above, some KJV - CUV differences
are here shown: -
Verses/Portions of Verses found
in the KJV that are not in the CUV
Mk 9:44 and 46, Col 1:2, 14, 2:2, 11,
1Thess 1:1, 2Thess 2:4
1 Tim 2:7, 3:3, 4:12, 5:4, 16, 6:5
and 7, 2 Tim 1:11
1 Pet 1:22, 4:1 and 14, 1John 4:3,
5:7
Rev 1:8, 11, 5:14, 11:1, 17, 15:2,
16:5, 14 and 21:24
KJV Verses
not found in the CUV text but harmonised in the Margins
(Given in
brackets in smaller print preceded with “some old Mss contains ~”)
Matt 17:21, 18:11 and 23:14, Mark
7:16, 11:26 and 15:28
Luke 17:36 and 23:17, John 5:4
Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7 and 28:29
Other KJV
Vs CUV Differences
Eph 6:24 “Amen” ending in KJV is absent in the CUV and in
the Greek TR texts.
2Sam 8:4 in the
KJV reads 700 horsemen. CUV reads 1,700 horsemen, which accords with the
underlying Hebrew Masoretic Text.
Ps 12:7 - the CUV
states that God shall preserve His people (not the words), from this
generation forever, while the KJV is unclear (but gives “him” in the
margins).
Rev 22:19 – “book
of life” in the KJV was reversed engineered from the Latin and has no Greek
warrant. CUV renders this “tree of life”.
Jude 1:25, where
the KJV truncates away, “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (CUV translation – “to
the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord”)
Act 4:25, where
the KJV truncates away “by the Holy Spirit” (CUV translation – “It was thou
who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant…”)
The above should not shake the faith of our Chinese brethren in the CUV,
which is in various respects actually more accurate than even the KJV, such
as in its rendition of Rev 22:19 above. The CUV was also the Bible of men
like Wang Ming Tao and John Sung, without whom the Bible Presbyterian
churches in Singapore would not have come into being.
truth unending and
unchangeable
The crucial problem about VPP is its starting premise,
first made around 1930, that the KJV is perfect. From there, VPP proponents
today make the unproven claim that the original language
Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek texts used by the KJV translators in 1611 were jot and
tittle perfect, and the identification of the “perfect VPP texts” take its
reference to the KJV. This would mean that if there is a difference in the
Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek readings and the KJV, certain VPP proponents would
correct the original language readings with the KJV.
VPP thus puts the cart before the horse, crimping in
the process, the work of methodical textual collation. VPP adherents are
told they must reject the testimony of all of the thousands of extant
manuscripts that God has preserved for us, on any point in which the KJV
deviate from these. They are also to ignore the fact that Erasmus, whose
work formed the basis of the Textus Receptus, had in his time only 5 or 6
Greek manuscripts to work with, which were incomplete, missing for example
the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, which obliged Erasmus to
reverse translate these from the Latin Bible back into the Greek!
The sad part is that in elevating one translation
above all others, VPP proponents had also gone out at length to level
unnecessary and unjustified attacks against brethren who do not accept their
views, notwithstanding that these are godly and conservative brethren, who
fear the Lord and His Word. It is almost as if they made the KJV an idol to
the extent that they are willing to hate their brethren who have done no
harm to the cause of our Lord Jesus Christ. The irony of this also is that
in reality, the textual agreement among conservative Bible translations are
exceedingly great and no major doctrine is impugned by the remaining areas
of diversities. The KJV Preface to the Reader on their “reason for setting
diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for
each”, itself states,
“It hath pleased
God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences
of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern
salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain)
but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than
confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S.
Augustine: It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than
to strive about those things that are uncertain.”
Where does all of the above take us? Simply this - if
VPP is indeed a Biblical doctrine, it would not keep changing! This however
has been precisely the case for VPP, with the above cited article
representing yet one more new change, contradicting earlier VPP
propositions.
The Chameleon VPP Text
Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Academic Dean of FEBC wrote “Kept
Pure in All Ages”, FEBC Press, 2001, following the position of Dr Donald A
Waite, who first introduced the VPP idea to Singapore in 1992, which
maintained Beza 1598 as the perfect Greek NT text: -
“Since there
were no printing or photocopying machines in those early days, the
production of copies of the NT manuscripts was done painstakingly by hand,
word for word. This tedious process would invariably result in some copying
errors experienced even today by typists on electronic typewriters or
computers.” (p 31) “By the providential hand of God, all such
typographical and transmission errors, both accidental and intentional, have
been corrected by 1598 in Theodore Beza’s fifth edition of the Textus
Receptus. The printing machine invented during the 15th century has removed
the need to hand copy the Scriptures, thereby preventing any scribal errors
from recurring in the transmission process.” (p 32)
All of the above was well and
good… except that the Greek text used at FEBC was not Beza 1598 but
Scrivener’s 1881/1884 text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. When
informed by Rev Charles Seet that the two texts differed in over 190 places,
Dr Khoo quietly changed his position in “A Plea for a Perfect Bible”, The
Burning Bush, January 2003, p 9: -
“In like
manner, the Lord allowed copyist errors and
corruptions to enter into the transmission process
through the pen of fallible scribes. I believe that in the
fulness of time - in the most opportune time of the Reformation … –
God restored from out of a pure stream of preserved Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts, the purest Hebrew and Greek Text of all—the Text that underlies
our KJV—that accurately reflects the original Scriptures.”
“If there
exists a perfect TR, then which of the many editions of the TR is perfect?
The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized
Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza’s 1598 edition as the primary
authority, and corresponds with ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek
according to the text followed in the Authorized Version,’ edited by F H A
Scrivener.”
This author wrote to Dr Khoo
on 12 February 2003, pointing out that Scrivener served on the RV Committee
with Westcott and Hort, and his 1881 work was a product of the Commission,
which included revising the AV via “the removal of ‘PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS’
whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the
Translation made from the same.” Only necessary changes were to be made –
to introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the AV”, and
“they should indicate such alteration in the margin.”
Dr Khoo responded thus on 14
February 2003: -
“I do not
consider Scrivener's 1881 Greek edition of the TR to be the perfectly
restored text or the exact replica of the Autographa. What I did say was,
"the purity of God's words has been faithfully maintained in the Traditional
/ Byzantine / Majority /Received Text and fully represented in the Textus
Receptus that underlies the KJV." In other words, it is not strictly
Scrivener's TR (although extremely close) but the TR underlying the KJV that
is the perfectly restored text or as Hills calls it "The Reformation Text.”
Which paved the way for my
simple rejoinder on 14 March 2003: -
“But wonderful
– all that is now required to decisively come to a judgement is to produce a
copy of this “The Reformation Text” for all to see and examine! This will
be the talk of the Millennium! But ought not this VPP text by now to be
very well known, broadly published and widely used and scrutinised by the
public, resulting in its infallibility being clearly upheld? Why did Burgon
not know of this? Hills and Burgon did argue that God would not allow such
a text to be hidden in some monastery or in a bottle, but would ensure its
wide accessible public use in the churches! (And… is the CUV also based on
this “The Reformation Text”?) And poor Scrivener did not know of it either
and spend great efforts and years in reconstructing the Greek TR underlying
the KJV from Beza and other sources.”
At which Dr Khoo, fatally for
the VPP proposition, conceded on 21 March 2003,
I do not
believe there is a "single purified" TR (there is no such volume at
present). I have never advocated a "miraculous" (i.e. double inspiration)
but a special "providential" preservation of Scripture. I have never held
to a perfectionist view of the KJV. I have always affirmed that the KJV is
the best, most faithful, most reliable, most accurate, most beautiful Bible
in the English language.
the true established
doctrine
The established Doctrine of the Bible consists of the
Verbal Plenary Inspiration of every word of the Original Autographa, and the
Providential Preservation (not VPP) of the same throughout the ages under
Almighty God’s singular care. This is clearly evident today in: -
1.
The strong similarities and agreement among the different
conservative Bible versions wherein over 99.5% of verses are not in doubt
and no major doctrine is affected.
2.
The many thousands of ancient manuscripts, early Bible translations
and numerous New Testament quotations in the writings of the early Church
Fathers, which have survived, providentially preserved till this present
day, provide for us the highest certainty possible of the veracity and
record of the Original Autographa.
3.
The powerful witness of the Bible itself, to all humble and
discerning readers, who will find when reading God’s Word reverently, a
powerful conviction of sin and a purifying conviction of truth (Ps
119:89-112, 2Tim 3:16, Heb 4:12, 2Pet 1:19-21).
In concluding, if VPP was
true and the KJV Translators in 1611 perfectly identified every jot and
tittle of the inspired Word so as to perfectly preserve the same, the whole
Church of God would have known of this! Thereafter, all faithful Bible
Translations, including the CUV, would have been translated based on this
“VPP” text, which however is clearly not the case! |
