The two Bibles, or scholarship and inspiration compared / by Edward T. Couch

Preface

Dear Reader, this work is not got up to find fault with the common Bible, or Authorized Version, but with the hope that by reading it you may have more faith in “the book of books” than ever, and that you may read it more understanding^.

Passages from the King James, or Authorized Version, are given the first place in the comparison. Quotations from the Inspired Translation are given the second place in the comparison, and the punctuation is given just as it is in each of the Bibles.

In the reign of King James of England it took forty-seven scholars seven years to translate the common Bible. They had some former translations to refer to and many manuscripts, and plenty of wealth at their command.

The Inspired Translation of the Bible is a translation, or correction of the Common Bible, by Joseph Smith, by revelation from God. He began the translation in June 1830, and finished it in July 1833. He was then twenty-eight years old.

The fact that Mr. Smith was a man of but limited education, at the time he made this tianslation, is well known. It is also well known that he was very limited in means, as far as this world’s goods are concerned, and he was harassed by mobs almost continuously. So it is plain to be seen that he was only a very small part of the three years actually engaged in the work of translating.

HISTORY OF THE BIBLE.

It is to be hoped that it will be found interesting and profitable reading, to give a few thoughts concerning the Bible and its history, in this preface.

The Bible has all been written by-prophets of God, or some of His apostles — all inspired men. It should be understood by every oue that much of the Bible is historical. In this case, the inspired writer uses his owtt words to express the information he wished to convey. Sometimes historical parts of the scriptures contain prophetic words.

When a prophet of God says, “Thus saith the Lord,” the words following are the same as God spoke to him, if correctly translated. This is one kind of prophecy.

There is another kind of prophecy. It might appropriately be called prophetic vision. This latter kind is used in the book of Revelation and the book of Daniel, and to a small extent by some of the other prophets. In these cases, the Lord shows by prophetic vision, future events, and the prophet, or apostle, as the case may be, uses his own words to express the information of what the Lord wished to convey.

There are many people at the present time who believe that the Bible is perfect in its translation, but the translators themselves do not make such a claim. The following words are quoted from the latter part of the preface to the Revised Edition of the New Testament, which was put in print a little over twenty five years ago, and therefore they should be considered high authority on this point.

“We know full well that defects must have their place in a work so long and arduous as this which has now come to an end. Blemishes and imperfections there are in the noble Translation which we have been called upon to revise: blemishes and imperfections will assuredly be found in our own revision. ATI endeavors to translate the Holy Scriptures into another tongue must fall short of their aim when the obligation is imposed of producing a version that shall be alike literal and idiomatic, faithful to each thought of the original, and yet, in the expression of it, harmonious and free. While we dare to hope, that in places not a few in the New Testament, the introduction of slight changes has cast a new light upon much that was difficult and obscure, we cannot forget how often we have failed in expressing some finer shade in the original, how often idiom has stood in the way of a peifect rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve a familiar cadence has only added another perplexity to those which already beset us.”

“Thus, in the review of the work which we have been permitted to complete, our closing words must be words of mingled thanksgiving, humility and prayer. Of thanksgiving, for the many blessings

THE TWO BIBLEoS vouchsafed to us throughout the unbroken progress of our corporate labors; of humility, for our failings and imperfection in the fulfillment of our task and of prayer to Almighty God, that the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be more clearly and more freshly shown forth to all who shall be readers of this book:

From these two quotations from the preface to the Revised Edition of the*New Testament it can be seen that the translators say, “blemishes and imperfections there are in the noble Translation, [the common Bible,] which we have been called upon to revise; blemishes and imperfections will assuredly be found in our own revision” — the Revised Version.

There are also some people at the present time who believe that the translators had the original copies of the Bible writers to translate from. But the facts and evidences in the case do not warrant us in believing this to be true. For evidence on this point we will quote from a work called,

The Old Documents and the New Bible.

BY

J. Patterson Smythe, LL. B , B.D.

Published at New York by James Potts & Co., at London by Samuel Baxter & Sons, 1890.

Mr Smythe is a man of the highest authority on this question; he says: “Never did any writing comedown through the ages as pure as we have reason to believe did our Hebrew Bible; but that it has come to us word for word as it left the hands of the inspired writers long ago, the evidence will by no means allow us to believe.” — P. 22.

“But what is the value of the textal critic of these venerable documents? How many thousand years do they go back? Have we amongst them the autograph of any inspised writer? Have we manuscripts of at least the time of our Lord? How far do they enable us to fix with certainty the exact original of the Hebrew Old Testament? To the reader who knows something of the ‘New Testament, with their documents reaching up near the days of the apostles, and the many variations nevertheless existing in the text, an acquaintance with these strange old manuscripts can scarcely fail to cause

FHE TWO BIBLES surprise. Not one of them we shall see immediately, is written in the ancient writings. * * * The oldest Hebrew manuscripts in

existence is of date little earlier than William the Conqueror. * *

* Let us realize what this means. * # * That of the. early Old

Testament books, we have not a single copy 1,000 years old.” — P.

3°» 31*

uThat the whole Old Testament together was at any period absolutely word for word as it left the hands of the writers, no one who understands its history will venture to say.” — P. 67.

From tire foregoing evidence it can be seen that the translators had no access to the original manuscripts of the Old Testament. No doubt they were lost or worn out.

These quotations front Mr. Smythe’s work are quoted from the preface of “The Three Bibles,” by Elder R. Etzenhouser. Some of the texts in the comparison in this work are received from that book, which is acknowledged with thanks.

Let us now introduce to you evidence which goes to show that it is not likely that the translators had the original writings of the New Testament writers. There is a work called —

“Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament.”

BY

Alexander Roberts, D. D.

Copyrighted 1881 by I. K. Funk & Co., and O. M. Dunham.

Mr. Roberts, D. D., is good authority on a question of this kind. He says, “The number of various readings in the New Testament has been differently estimated at different times. Nor could this have been otherwise. Every new manuscript which is discovered increases the amount, and every more accurate examination of already known manuscripts tends to the same result. Hence, while the varieties of reading in the New Testament were reckoned at about 30,000 in the last century, they are generally referred to as amounting to no less than 150,000 at the present time.” — P. 1.

Of manuscripts and their dates, Mr. Roberts says, “There are, in our possession as will immediately be shown, manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the fourth and fifth centuries.” — P. 16.

He says again, “Besides some very preciotfs fragments, there are only five copies of the New Testament at all complete which can be referred to a higher antiquity. These are to be dated, as we shall see, between the fourth and sixth centuries.” — P. 17.

Mr. Roberts designates these as UA, or the Alexandrian MS.”, “B, or the Vatican MS.”, “C, or the Ephraem MS.”, UD, or the MS. of Beza,” UN, or the Sinaitic MS.”

Of “B, or Vatican MS.”, he says, ‘‘Unfortunately it now wants the Epistle to the Hebrews from chapter 9:14, all the Pastoral Epistles, and the book of Revelation.”

Of “C, or the Ephraem MS., so far as it has survived it is a very valuable copy of the New Testament. But gaps frequently occur in it, and two whole epistles, second Thesalonians and second John, have been altogether lost.” — P. 18 23.

Of “N, or Sinaitic MS.”, Mr. Roberts says, “And though it contains many obvious errors, it yields assistance of a kind most precious towards the settlement of the true text of the New Testament.” — p. 25.

From all this it can be seen that of the vast number of New Testament manuscripts now extant, the great majority of them date from the fourth and fifth centuries. Only five copies of the New Testament, and these not complete, which can be referred to a greater antiquity, and of these the learned D. D. does not make any claim that they were original writings of the apostles. The evidences in the case are that they were only copies of the original writings.

Let us quote some more from the work of Alexander Roberts, D. D., already referred to. Mr. Roberts proceeds to give the facts of the history and character of the Greek text on which the Authorized Version was founded, or as it is commonly called, the King James Bible :

“When an English version of the New Testament is put into our hands as furnishing a transcript in our own language of God’s revelation of himself through Jesus Christ, it is of the most vital importance to be assured of the trustworthiness of the text on which that version has been based. Without this, everything else must be comparatively worthless. * * * The first and gravest question

to be asked regarding it has respect to the faithfulness with which the text on which it was based represented the true and original word of God. * * * The illustrious Erasmus comes into view, a man

1HL TWO BIBLES to whom modern thought is, in so many ways, under such deep and lasting obligations. That great scholar was in England in 1515, and April 17th of that year he received a request from Froben, an eminent printer at Basle, to prepare for publication an edition of the Greek New Testament. Though encumbered by other literary labors, Erasmus set about this work with characteristic diligence, and completed it within the too short period of a few months, by February, 1516. The work was immediately published, and thus the original text of the New Testament was, for the first time, given to the world. * * * The first edition of Erasmus was reprinted,

with corrections amounting to about two hundred, by Aldus, at Venice, in 1518. A second edition, with more than three hundred improvements, was issued by Erasmus himself in 1519. This was followed by a third edition in 1522. * * * He published his lourth

edition in 1527. The fourth edition of Erasmus is thus the most important, and became the basis of all subsequent texts, until what is known as the ‘Received Text’ was formed. * * * The true

successor of Erasmus in this department was Robert Stephens, the famous Parisian printer. He issued two editions in 1546 and 1549, having availed himself in these of some manuscripts in the Royal Library, and of the Complutensian text. But his great edition was the third, issued in 1550. This edition is remarkable as containing the first collection of various readings, amounting, it has been reckoned, to 2,194. But though these had been collected from a considerable number of manuscripts, no critical use was made of them. The text of Erasmus was closely followed, and readings found in it were even clung to when opposed to the authority of all manuscripts. The fourth edition of Stephens was published at Geneva in 1551. In this edition the New Testament is, for the first time, divided into verses, an invention of Stephens. * * * Beza, the reformer, next

appears as an editor of the Greek New Testament. He published five editions, the first in 1565, the second in 1576, the third in 1582, the fourth in 1589, and the fifth in 1598. These editions varied somewhat among themselves, but were based throughout upon the text of Stephens.”

“And now we have reached the interesting and important point of this sketch, as the history of the printed text of the New Testament just given has led 11s very near the date at which the Authorized English Version began to be made. It was commenced about 1604, when the above named Greek texts were, in one form or another, generally circulated Which of them, we ask with eagerness, formed the original from which our common English translation was derived? To this question the answer is, Beza’s edition of 1589 was the one usually followed. It had been based on Stephen’s edition of 1551, and that again had been derived from the fourth edition of Erasmus, published in 1527. Such is the parentage of the Authorized Version — Beza, Stephens, Erasmus. What manuscript authority, let me ask, is thus represented? Beginning with Erasmus, we find that his resources were meagre indeed, and that even the materials which he had were not fully utalized. It has already been noticed how hastily his first edition was prepared; indeed, he himself said of it that it was rather tumbled into the world, than edited. The manuscripts which he had in his possession are still preserved, one having been recovered some years ago after long having been lost. Some of them bear in themselves the corrections which he made, and show too obvious marks of having been used as ‘copy’ by the printer- They consisted of the following: In the gospels he principally used 9 Cursive manuscript of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. This may still be seen at Basle, and is admitted by all to be of a very inferior character. He also possessed another Cursive manuscript of the twelfth century, or earlier and occasionally referred to it. * * *'

In the Acts and Epistles he chiefly followed a Cursive manuscript of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, with occasional reference to another of the fifteenth century. * * * For the Apocalypse he had

only one mutilated manuscript. He had thus no documentary materials for publishing a complete edition of the Greek Testament. The consequences would have been that some verses must have been left wanting had not Erasmus taken the Vulgate and conjecturally retranslated the Latin into Greek. Hence has arisen the remarkable fact that in the text from which our Authorized Version was formed, and in the ordinary uncritical editions of the Greek current at the present day, there were and are, words in the professed original for which no Divine authority can be pleaded, but which are entirely due to the learning and imagination of Erasmus. * * * Thus,

then, stood the text of the Greek New Testament when the revisers of the Bishop’s Bible set themselves to form from it our present Authorized English Version. Not one of the four most ancient manuscripts was then known to be in existence. * * * In these cir-

cumstances can it be wondered at THAT VAST MULTITUDES OF CHANGES WILL BE FOUND IN THE REVISED ENGLISH VERSION, owing to an amended text? The wonder really is that they are so few, or at least, THAT THEY ARE, IN GENERAL, OF SUCH SMALL IMPORT- ANCE.”— P. 34-44.

From this long quotation it can be seen that Mr. Roberts, D. D., in speaking of the New Testament, says, “such is the paientage of the Authorized Version — Beza, Stephens, Erasmus,” and that Erasmus used the “Cursive manuscript of the thirteenth, or fourteenth century,” so it is evident he did not have the apostles’ original writings.

An important point to be learned from the latter part of this long quotation is “that vast multitudes of changes will be found in the Revised English version,” but Mr. Roberts admits, “that they are, in general, of such small importance.”

This learned divine, in his “Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament,” on pages 154 and 155, gives the time of the production of the King James Version as from 1604 to 1611, seven years. The number of distinguished scholars employed in the work is forty-seven. He says they received no compensation, except indirectly by way of preferments, and the necessary expenses were mostly paid by the publisher, Robert Barker. Their names are now forgotten, but their work lives on and will never die.”

THE REVISED VERSION.

The following is quoted from the preface to the Revised Version of the New Testament:

“The present Revision had its origin in action taken by the convocation of the province of Canterbury in February, 1870, and it has been conducted throughout on the plan laid down in the resolutions of both houses of the province, and more particularly, in accordance with principles and rules drawn up by a special committee of convocation in the following May. Two companies, the one for the Revision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, and the other for the revision of the same Version of the New Testament, were formed in the manner specified in the resolutions, and the work was commenced on the twenty-second day of June, 1870. Shortly afterwards, steps were taken, under a resolution passed by both houses of the convocation, for inviting the co-operation of American scholars; and eventually two committees were formed in America, for the purpose of acting with the two English companies, on the basis of the principles and rules drawn up by the committee of convocation.” -p. i5.

From this it can be seen that English and American divines were engaged in getting up the Revised Version of the Bible.

Mr. Roberts in his '‘Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament,” tells us on page 165: “The whole number of English revisers in 1880 amounted to fifty-two; twenty-seven in the Old Testament company, and twenty-five in the New Testament company.”

The American committee “consisting of about thirty members, was formed in 1871, and entered upon active work in October, 1872.”

From these two quotations it can be seen that there were fifty-two English revisers, and thirty American ones, eighty-two in all, engaged in the revision of the Bible.

The following two paragraphs are taken from the preface of the Revised edition of the Old Testament:

“The revision of the Authorized Version was undertaken in consequence of a resolution passed by both houses of the convocation of the province of Canterbury, as has been fully explained in the preface to the Revised Version of the New Testament, which was first published in May, 1881.”

“It could not but be expected that in the course of fourteen years, many changes would take place in the members of the company. Of the original number who first put their hands to the work on the 30th of June, 1870, only fifteen now remain. Ten of the company have been removed by death, and two resigned; the places of these were filled from time to time, by others, but since October, 1875, no new members have been added. The revision was completed in eighty-five sessions, ending on the 20th of June, 1884; and it occupied 792 days. The greater part of the sessions were for ten days each, and each day the company generally sat for six hours. The labor therefore has been great, but it has been given ungrudgingly; and now with a feeling of deep thankfulness to Almighty God, and earnest hope that their endeavors may with his blessing tend to a clearer knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures, the revisers bring their long task to a close.

The sum of all this evidence is this: Eighty-two English and American scholars were engaged fourteen years in making the Revised Version of the whole Bible. They began in June, 1870, and finished in June, 1884; and the Revised Version of the New Testament was first published in May, 1881.

I have compared more texts from the Revised Version of the Bible, with the common Bible, than . there are of texts from the James Translation in this work, expecting to find its imperfections corrected by the late Revised version. You may imagine how surprised I was, for in all that amount of comparing of the two Bibles, I found only two or three texts of the inconsistencies corrected, and not one! no not one! of the contradictions of the Bible are corrected.

The late translators of the Bible have changed many words where it did not make any difference one way or the other, but where a real inconsistency, or a contradiction occurs, they have, as a rule, changed nothing. You know the James translation, in giving the account of the crucifixion of Jesus, tells that two thieves were also put to death at the same time.. The account also tells us tlTat the unbelieving people who were there, mocked and reviled the Saviour. St. Matthew, in speaking of this, says, “the thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.” — Matt. 27:44.

Mark 15:32 says, “and they that were crucified with him reviled him.”

Luke 23:39*41 says, “and one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, * * but the other answering rebuked him,

saying, * * this man hath done nothing amiss,”

Now it does not require a great amount of skill to be able to see that Matthew and Mark teach that both the thieves reviled the Saviour, while Luke tells us that only one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him. The circumstances in each of the three gospels are all alike, but the difference is in the number of the thieves who reviled. If Matthew and Mark are right in regard to the number of thieves, then Luke is wrong. If Luke is right, then Matthew and Mark are wrong. Now you would naturally expect that the learned divines who got up the Revised Version of the New Testament would have corrected this, but they did not.

Here is the account of the crucifixion of the Saviour quoted from the Revised Version of the New Testament: “And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach.” — Matt. 27:44, R. V,

“And THEY that were crucified with him reproached him.” — Mark

“And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, * * but the other answered and rebuking him said, * * this

man hath done. nothing amiss.” — Luke 23: 39 42, R. V.

You will notice that St. Matthew and St. Mark in this Bible both teach that the two men put to death when Jesus was, reviled him, and that St. Luke says only one of them did so. So the main point of error was not corrected by the late translators.

Where the common Bible says “the thieves cast the same in his teeth,” the Revised Version says “the robbers,” &c. Now, you know, this is a matter of little importance whether you call them thieves or robbers. Well, dear reader, this is a fair sample of the work done by the late translators. They changed many words where it did not make any difference in the meaning, but where a real inconsistency, or contradiction, occurs, as a rule they changed none. The translators have done just as that eminent scholar, Alexander Roberts in his “Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament,” says they have done, as already noticed, “that vast multitudes of changes will be found in the Revised English Version,” but he says, “that they are, in general, of such small importance.”

Well, we must give the late translators credit for what they have done. They did correct these texts of the common Version, and here they are:

JAMES TRANSLATION, i Corinthians 4:

4 For I know nothing by myself; yet I am not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

24 Let no man seek his own, but every man anothers’ wealth.

Titus 2:

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

REVISED VERSION.

4 For I know nothing against myself; yet I am not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

24 Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor’s good.

11 For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men.

Besides these, there are a few texts in the Revised Version which are not corrected, but are somewhat improved in consistency. Then there are some texts in this Bible which the translators have made worse. Here is one of them:

“Now if we put the horses’ bridles into their mouths, that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also.” — James 3:3, Revised Version.

The James Translation in this place reads, “Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.” — James 3:3. It is plain to be seen that the common Bible gives the correct rendering of this text.

Here is another place where the James Translation is more correct than the Revised Version; “And I heard another out of the altar say, even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.”— Rev. 16:7.

“And I heard THE altar saying, yea, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.” — Rev. 16:7, Revised Version.

These are fair samples of the Revised Version of the Bible. Wherever there is a real inconsistency, or a contradiction in the common Bible, you will find the same in this Bible, with but very rare exception; so there is nothing to be gained by giving quotations from the Revised Version, in the comparison in this work, for both Bibles read so much alike. So this work will be a comparison between the James Translation and the Inspired Version.

THE INSPIRED TRANSLATION.

The Inspired Translation is a revision, or translation, of the more erroneous parts of the common Bible, by Joseph Smith, the prophet, by revelation from God. He did the work of translating in three years, besides doing a great amount of other ministerial labor during the same period of time. After his untimely death, in June, 1844, by the hands of a lawless mob, the manuscript was kept by his widow, and in the year 1867 it was published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

In the main, the Inspired Translation and the James Translation read almost word for word. This should be evidence to everyone who is skeptical of the divine origin of the common Bible, that this great book is of God, from the fact that the Bible translated by revelation from God endorses so well as it does the common version of the Scriptures.

There are some texts in the James Translation,which are not correctly translated. They are only few when compared with the vast number of words in the Bible, yet to count them it makes quite a number. They are corrected by the Inspired Translation. A good many, but not all of them, are introduced in this work.

It is to be hoped that everyone into whose hands this book may come will read the preface as well as the rest of it, as there is much useful information to be gained by doing so. That this work may be interesting and profitable reading to everyone, is the sincere wish of

The Author.

.

.

Compared by Texts from Genesis to

J. TRANSLATION.

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 For it repenteth me that I have made them

16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

INSPIRED.

13 And they heard the voice of the Lord God, as they were walking in the garden, in the cool of the day.

13 And it repented Noah and his heart was pained that the Lord made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.