Who/What Determines the Authenticity of a Bible Version?

[qui_est_ce]

Marks long ending: The NIV preface Mark 16:9-20 and states they are not found in the earlier texts. Irenaeus, who wrote “Against Heresies”, quoted from the scriptures in question above.

Just a few comparisons:

Matthew 6:13
KJV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

NIV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Quote: …for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Didache 8:2[1st - 2nd century]

Matthew 19:9
KJV: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NIV: I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Quote: “For whosoever puts away his wife,” says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;” Athenagoras: A Plea for the Christians: 33 [Late 2nd century]

Quote: The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." Shepherd of Hermas: Commandment Fourth: 1[2nd century]

Thank you for your post.

In the NAB

Mathew 9:9-13
9 *
"This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10
your kingdom come, 7 your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
11
Give us today our daily bread;
12
and forgive us our debts, 9 as we forgive our debtors;
13
and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
14 *

Which is correct? I was in a nondenominational Bible study and was using the RSV. When we got to this verse, the leader said, "The Catholic Church is unbiblical, because Catholics leave out the “for thine is the kingdom…” I told her it was not in my Bible. She said that it was because I was using a “corrupt” Catholic Bible. When I showed her I was using the RSV, she insisted it must be the “Catholic” version, which it was not.

Matth 19:9**
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
**

Obviously the Catholic Church does not allow remarriage after divorce, unless the marriage was invalid (unlawful).

Is it sinful for a Protestant to divorce and remarry without proving the first marriage invalid?

How does a Joe in the pew nonCatholic know which translation is correct without resorting to scholarly exegesis?

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Thank you for your post.

In the NAB

Mathew 9:9-13
9 *
"This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10
your kingdom come, 7 your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
11
Give us today our daily bread;
12
and forgive us our debts, 9 as we forgive our debtors;
13
and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
14 *

Which is correct? I was in a nondenominational Bible study and was using the RSV. When we got to this verse, the leader said, "The Catholic Church is unbiblical, because Catholics leave out the “for thine is the kingdom…” I told her it was not in my Bible. She said that it was because I was using a “corrupt” Catholic Bible. When I showed her I was using the RSV, she insisted it must be the “Catholic” version, which it was not.

Matth 19:9**
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
**

Obviously the Catholic Church does not allow remarriage after divorce, unless the marriage was invalid (unlawful).

Is it sinful for a Protestant to divorce and remarry without proving the first marriage invalid?

How does a Joe in the pew nonCatholic know which translation is correct without resorting to scholarly exegesis?

That’s why we are charged to preach the gospel to the world. If we distort God’s word, we will be held accountable by God.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Astute remarks as usual, BDewey!

The article also makes it clear that the DRB never received an Imprimatur and has never been formally recognized as “authorized.”

As I understand it, you are completely correct. However, the Douai-Rheims did receive some approbations:

In the year 1578, owing to political troubles, the college was temporarily transferred from Douai (which was then in the dominions of the King of Spain) to Reims, and during its sojourn there, in 1582, the New Testament was published, and became consequently known as the “Rheims Testament”. It contained no episcopal imprimatur, but a recommendation was appended signed by four divines of the University of Reims. The Old Testament was delayed by want of means, until the whole Bible was eventually published in two quarto volumes, in 1609 and 1610, by which time the college had returned to Douai, and the recommendation was signed by three doctors of that university.

I assume that the tradition of requiring an episcopal imprimatur dates back to at least the decree of Pope Leo X at the Fifth Lateran Council forbidding the printing of books without the permission of the ordinary of the diocese. But I do not know if the publication of the Douai-Rheims Bible was against this decree (given the college’s unusual status being of being formed of recusants in exile) – certainly the absence of episcopal imprimatur did not seem to harm the work’s wide acceptance by English speaking Catholics.

 

[qui_est_ce]

That’s why we are charged to preach the gospel to the world. If we distort God’s word, we will be held accountable by God.

How can one preach God’s word, when it cannot be determined which books contain His word?

 

[Rulkiewicz]

How can one preach God’s word, when it cannot be determined which books contain His word?

God promised that his true word would never perish. And you make an excellent point. Why do we have so many different Christian churches today? Because they pick and choose what they want to teach.

False variations of Christs teachings were around during the time of the Apostles. Multiply that over 2000 years and you now have a multitude of false doctrines.

 

[beeliner]

My understanding is that some Bibles produced during the Reformation were translated with a bias against the Catholic Church (Wycliffe, KJV, Tyndale). Some were purposely mistranslated, contained error, mispellings, etc. I do know the Catholic Church burned many heretical Bibles before and after the Reformation.

In many such cases, the problem was not so much the actual translation as the footnotes and commentary.

The Tyndale Bible is the most often cited example of this. Even some Catholic scholars agree that Tyndale’s translation was, for the time, quite good; however, his sole purpose in making the translation seems to have been to wrap it around his own heretical teachings and musings, as if to lend them more authority.

Unless I am confusing him with a contempoary or near-contemporary, I think it was also Tyndale who declared that he wanted every plowboy to have a copy of scipture in his hip pocket, ignoring the fact that at that time very few plowboys could read.

 

[qui_est_ce]

God promised that his true word would never perish. And you make an excellent point. Why do we have so many different Christian churches today? Because they pick and choose what they want to teach.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Given that there are so many interpretations of what is “meant” by certain Scriptural passages, this begs the question which Christian churches are picking and choosing?

False variations of Christs teachings were around during the time of the Apostles. Multiply that over 2000 years and you now have a multitude of false doctrines.

Yet most, if not all, were suppressed as heretical and went “silently into that dark night” for 1500 years until the Reformation.

In Jesus Christ, there is no relativism. Either he teaches it or he does not.

Who/What determines which variations are truly Christ’s teachings and which are merely heretical interpretations?

I look forward to your insights.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Given that there are so many interpretations of what is “meant” by certain Scriptural passages, this begs the question which Christian churches are picking and choosing?
Yet most, if not all, were suppressed as heretical and went “silently into that dark night” for 1500 years until the Reformation.

In Jesus Christ, there is no relativism. Either he teaches it or he does not.

Who/What determines which variations are truly Christ’s teachings and which are merely heretical interpretations?

I look forward to your insights.

Regarding which churches are picking in choosing dates back to the earily manuscript copist. There is proof that some copist blatently omitted words and verses of scripture (I can get you the quote later, as I’m at work now)

Think of the game “Telephone” only in paper format.

I would say that the churches which directly reflect Jesus and the Apostles teachings are the only non heretical church.

 

[BRB]

Matthew 6:13
KJV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

NIV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Quote: …for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Didache 8:2[1st - 2nd century]

]

Didache was written the earliest. Thus, the KJV account would seem to be the most likely one … perhaps ?.

There is certainly no quarrel with the statement " For thine is the Kingdom and Power, and Glory … forever … Amen."

According to S. Hahn … Amen has Oath-like implications. And Amen - Amen is the ‘double solemnity’ … as true as it gets.

Apparently only Christ in NT ever used these solemn words to emphasize what is most important for us to accept. Like in "Amen, Amen I say to you … you must be born of water and spirit … "

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Didache was written the earliest. Thus, the KJV account would seem to be the most likely one … perhaps ?.

There is certainly no quarrel with the statement " For thine is the Kingdom and Power, and Glory … forever … Amen."

According to S. Hahn … Amen has Oath-like implications. And Amen - Amen is the ‘double solemnity’ … as true as it gets.

Apparently only Christ in NT ever used these solemn words to emphasize what is most important for us to accept. Like in "Amen, Amen I say to you … you must be born of water and spirit … "

Right. People will argue that since the longer version of the verse is not found in some/most of the OLDEST manuscripts, it must have been added in later centuries… which is not the case because the text in question is highlighted in the Didache. Therefore age doesn’t always equal authenticity.

 

[BRB]

Who wrote the Didache ? Is it intact & original … or just fragmentary / copies of original ?

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Who wrote the Didache ? Is it intact & original … or just fragmentary / copies of original ?

Most scholars believe it was originally dated to about 120AD. As far as I know, the only known copy is dated 1056.

 

[Old_Scholar]

A poster in a previous thread claimed that another poster was using an unauthorized version of the Bible.

Here

Here is the authorization note of the English Bible. It says:

The Authorized Version
Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as “King James’s Bible”. It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics.

Notice that this is the Catholic version of the Bible that is authorized. This was not written by a non-Catholic. I suppose that if it is not an “authorized” version, then it is an “un-authorized” version. Would you agree?

 

[Old_Scholar]

There are many different bible version out. Their sources comes from either the Alexandria texts, Byzantine texts, Syriac Texts, or Western textual types (there may be some more). Just search wikipedia or google them.

The original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts are categorized by they textual type line, in other words, where they mainly originated from:

Alexandria texts are from Alexandria Egypt, Byzantine from the Byzantine Empire/monks, and so on. After the **original **manuscripts were written, they were sent to their destination and then copied and distributed onward.
For the most part, all four major text types are similar, but there are some differences.

For instance: the NIV is primarily compiled from the Alexandrian line, and the KJV is compiled primarily from the Byzantine line. Now, other than the obvious modern vs. old English grammar, the content of these two bible vary.

Scholars who translated the modern versions of today’s Bible favor the Alexandrian Text over the Byzantine Text, stating that since the Alexandrian manuscripts are older, they must be more authentic. Using the theory of age equals accuracy; one could assume that the Alexandrian Texts are more accurate.

There are plenty of quote from post apostolic church leaders that quote from the Byzantine manuscripts, where these verses are not in the older Alexandrian text line. So age doesn’t always equal validity.

Marks long ending: The NIV preface Mark 16:9-20 and states they are not found in the earlier texts. Irenaeus, who wrote “Against Heresies”, quoted from the scriptures in question above.

Just a few comparisons:

Matthew 6:13
KJV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

NIV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Quote: …for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Didache 8:2[1st - 2nd century]

Matthew 19:9
KJV: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NIV: I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Quote: “For whosoever puts away his wife,” says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;” Athenagoras: A Plea for the Christians: 33 [Late 2nd century]

Quote: The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." Shepherd of Hermas: Commandment Fourth: 1[2nd century]

**Notice the verse I have highlighted above. The Scripture does not condemn divorce and remarriage. It only condemns divorce if it is not because of adultery. If a spouse commits adultery, then the other spouse may divorce and remarry, as long as he/she marries one who has not violated this rule either.

Contrary to belief, this verse does not condemn divorce completely.**

 

[Bible_Reader]

Here is the authorization note of the English Bible. It says:

The Authorized Version
Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as “King James’s Bible”. It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics.

Notice that this is the Catholic version of the Bible that is authorized. This was not written by a non-Catholic. I suppose that if it is not an “authorized” version, then it is an “un-authorized” version. Would you agree?

I think there is some basic confusion here.

The King James Version was “authorized” by King James I, who was the head of the Church of England – a Protestant Church. It is in fact called the “Authorized Version” (especially by Anglicans), but of course, it is only authorized in the sense of having been authorized by the Church of England (which is considered to be apostate by the Roman Catholic Church).

The other poster was referring to Bibles that have the imprimatur of a Bishop (or, more recently, a National Conference of Bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church – that is Bibles that are authorized by the Roman Church.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I think there is some basic confusion here.

The King James Version was “authorized” by King James I, who was the head of the Church of England – a Protestant Church. It is in fact called the “Authorized Version” (especially by Anglicans), but of course, it is only authorized in the sense of having been authorized by the Church of England (which is considered to be apostate by the Roman Catholic Church).

The other poster was referring to Bibles that have the imprimatur of a Bishop (or, more recently, a National Conference of Bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church – that is Bibles that are authorized by the Roman Church.

Aren’t you aware that all the non-Catholic churches consider the Roman Catholic Church to be apostate?

 

[Bible_Reader]

Aren’t you aware that all the non-Catholic churches consider the Roman Catholic Church to be apostate?

In fact, this is not true – but in any case, I don’t understand – why is this relevant to the question of what the Roman Catholic church considers to be an authorized translation?

Certainly each church has the right to determine which translations it considers to be authorized. For Anglicans, the KJV is an authorized version. For the Roman Catholic Church, the KJV is not authorized. Do you dispute this?

 

[beeliner]

In fact, this is not true – but in any case, I don’t understand – why is this relevant to the question of what the Roman Catholic church considers to be an authorized translation?

Certainly each church has the right to determine which translations it considers to be authorized. For Anglicans, the KJV is an authorized version. For the Roman Catholic Church, the KJV is not authorized. Do you dispute this?

I don’t know of many AMERICAN Anglican (i.e. Protestant Episcopal) churches that still use the KJV in their liturgy, nor recommend it over newer and better - MUCH better - translations for private reading, but in any case, as far as I know, all Anglican KJV’s include the Deuterocanonicals/Apochrypha.

The last I heard, the most commonly used Anglican version is the New English Bible, but this may vary locally.

 

[Old_Scholar]

In fact, this is not true – but in any case, I don’t understand – why is this relevant to the question of what the Roman Catholic church considers to be an authorized translation?

Certainly each church has the right to determine which translations it considers to be authorized. For Anglicans, the KJV is an authorized version. For the Roman Catholic Church, the KJV is not authorized. Do you dispute this?

Has the Roman Catholic Church “authorized” a certain translation?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I don’t know of many AMERICAN Anglican (i.e. Protestant Episcopal) churches that still use the KJV in their liturgy, nor recommend it over newer and better - MUCH better - translations for private reading, but in any case, as far as I know, all Anglican KJV’s include the Deuterocanonicals/Apochrypha.

The last I heard, the most commonly used Anglican version is the New English Bible, but this may vary locally.

It is true there are those who keep re-doing it so it reads the way they want it to but that isn’t the way it should be done. With the KJV, at least they translated it from the original Hebrew and Greek and did not depend on a certain translation.