A brief review of the testimony maintained by the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning the text and translations of the Holy Scriptures since the formation of the Society. This article was published in 1984.

When the Trinitarian Bible Society was formed in 1831 there were already in existence several English versions of the Holy Scriptures other than the Authorised Version, including one published in 1808 by the 'Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue by the Distribution of Books.' It was entitled—'The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation, with a Corrected Text and Notes Critical and Explanatory.' The design of that Society, as stated in the introduction, was 'to supply the English reader with a more correct text of the New Testament than has yet appeared in the English language and to render the New Testament more generally intelligible.' (page v). The introduction also claims for this version the merit 'of being translated from the most correct text of the original which has hitherto been published'— the text edited by Griesbach. Several sections of the introduction are devoted to recommendations or the correction of the received text by ancient manuscripts, versions and 'fathers', and one section briefly reviews the critical editions of Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetstein, Matthai, Alter, Birch and Griesbach.

Griesbach and Newcome

The introduction to this 'Improved Version' states that Griesbach 'persevered in and completed his great work of publishing a corrected text of the New Testament, with the various readings and authorities subjoined, for which he is entitled to the warmest thanks of the whole Christian world. Upon the same principles the late Dr. Newcome, Primate of All Ireland, printed what he modestly calls—An Attempt Towards Revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures—in which he professes generally to follow Griesbach.' Upon the 'same principles' the SPCK offered their 'Improved Version' to the English public in 1808.

The 'Improved Version' of 1808

Most of the significant omissions and alterations which characterise the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Today's English Version, New English Bible, and other similar versions, were presented in the 'Improved Version' of 1808, together with a brief introduction to the principles of textual criticism upon which it was constructed are given Examples below:—

Divine Inspiration and Purity of the Sacred Text

At the inaugural meeting of the Trinitarian Bible Society it was stated that its aim would be 'to give the widest possible circulation of the inspired Word of God, that as far as in them lies, the Gospel may be proclaimed to every creature, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'

Mr. Alexander Haldane, a member of the first Committee, moved the resolution, 'That this meeting desire to record their deep conviction, that in these awful times it becomes the imperative duty of all true Christians publicly to unite in contending for the faith once delivered to the saints—steadfastly to maintain inviolate the purity of the sacred text of Holy Writ—and zealously to promote the circulation of the Inspired Volume amongst all nation...'

Providential Preservation of the Word

The Rev. J. Lockhart said, 'It is obviously next in importance to the fact of their Divine inspiration that the Holy Scriptures continue in every essential respect the same as they came from the hands of those holy men of God who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost Let it be our zealous care, in our day and generation, to guard inviolate the precious treasure, and our delight to acknowledge with thanksgiving our infinite obligation to the special providence of the Lord, Who hath conveyed it down to us in its original purity But it is clear that not only the purity of the original text, but also the strict faithfulness of the translations must be solemnly guarded. Unless the language of the Holy Spirit is uniformly rendered by precisely correspondent terms and phrases, the professed version may fail to communicate the knowledge of the truth; yea, it may even totally subvert the Gospel of Salvation'.

The Authorised Version preferred to the 'Improved Version'

The Laws and Regulations of the Society were drawn up in harmony with these convictions, and the founders of the Society had to determine which English version of the Holy Scriptures preserved 'the purity of the sacred text of the inspired Word of God . .. conveyed down to us by the special providence of the Lord'. Without question, they regarded the disputed passages in the foregoing list as part of 'the inspired Word of God. conveyed down to us in its original purity,' and they agreed that 'the copies circulated in the English language shall be those of the Authorised Version'. They did not accept the so-called 'Improved Version' or the 'most correct text' upon which it was based, and they did not allow the Committee any latitude to circulate along with the Authorised Version such other English versions as the Committee might approve from time to time.

The Revised Version of 1881-1885

In course of time Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and other textual critics continued their researches, and the fruit of this labour was reflected in the English Revised Version of the New Testament published in 1881. The Trinitarian Bible Society raised no objection to the careful study of the ancient documents that came to light in this period, but they did not accept the conclusions which the textual critics drew from the evidence before them. Little was said on the subject until early in the present century, when the British and Foreign Bible Society amended its laws to permit the circulation of the Revised Version.

The Revisers' Text and Translation rejected by the T.B.S.

The Trinitarian Bible Society then felt under some necessity to explain why it could not conscientiously take this course. They made their position clear in a series of articles published in the Quarterly Record, in which there were lengthy quotations from some of the ablest scholars who had severely criticised the Revised Version and its underlying text—John William Burgon, M.A., Dean of Chichester, Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, Gresham Professor of Divinity—author of The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, The Revision Revised, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, Inspiration and Interpretation, Letters from Rome, and many other books; Canon F. C. Cook, M.A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen, author of 'The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels', and editor of the twelve volumes of the Speaker's Commentary; and Prebendary F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., M.C.L., LL.D., one of the Revisers, and author of 'A Plain Introduction to Textual Criticism' and many other learned volumes on the text.

The Society explained why it could not yield to the prevailing pressure to 'change with the times' and adopt and circulate the new version. The reasons given by the Society then are equally applicable to the numerous modern versions which clamour for acceptance now. The arguments are the same, and the answers are the same. Only the names of the persons engaged in the discussion are different. The series of articles contributed to the Society's Quarterly Record by the Rev. E. Compton of Hastings in 1907 and 1908 is particularly relevant to current controversies on this subject. The articles also indicate that, unlike many other Christian institutions, the Trinitarian Bible Society maintains today the same testimony as was borne by our fathers at the beginning of this century, and by the founders of the Society seventy years before.

The Nestlé Greek Text

It is significant that these articles were published by the Trinitarian Bible Society three years after the British and Foreign Bible Society issued its 1904 edition of the Greek Text and Critical Apparatus prepared by Professor Eberhard Nestlé on the basis of Gebhardt's 1898 edition of Tischendorf's 8th edition of 1869-72, Westcott and Hort's edition of 1881, and the 1902 edition of D. Bernhard Weiss. Many of the more recent modern versions have been very largely influenced by this edition of the Greek Text, which had much in common with that followed by the Revisers of 1881. Neither the text, nor the translations based upon it, were acceptable to the Trinitarian Bible Society, and they left their law unchanged—'The copies circulated in the English language shall be those of the Authorised Version'.

The Rev. E. Compton's Articles

Under the title—'The Revised Version—is it trustworthy?' the Rev. E. Compton wrote, 'The character of the Revised Version demands the attention of Christians of all denominations. The question of its trustworthiness is not only for Hebrew and Greek scholars and critics, but is one that the whole church must consider and decide. The issues at stake are solemn and momentous, and everyone who knows the truth is bound earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints in the inspired Scriptures'.

Unsound Theology of the Revision

'Many have at various times pointed out the unfaithfulness of this Revision, and also the unsound theology that pervades the whole version. Christians generally are not acquainted with the facts of the case, for if they were, they surely would not remain indifferent to the errors taught in this corrupt translation of God's Holy Word. Much of the unbelief, false teaching, and unrest in our churches at the present time may be traced to the Revised Version.

'Dean J. W. Burgon, B.D., was the author of three articles in the Quarterly Review, which he says, 'were wrung out of me by the publication on May 17th, 1881, of the Revision of our Authorised Version of the New Testament'. These articles were republished in 1883 under the title, 'The Revision Revised'. From the preface page 9 we learn that he felt conscious after the publication of his first article in October 1881 that enough was even then on record 'to secure the ultimate rejection of the Revision and that in the end it must be regarded as—what it most certainly is—the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous, literary blunder of the age'. He knew that by demonstrating the worthlessness of the new Greek text of the Revisionists, he had also proved that the English translation of it must be incorrect.'

Deficiencies of the Revised English translation

'When the R.V . of the New Testament was published there was a feeling of intense disappointment in the minds of competent judges, which was shared by a large section of earnest Christians. The new version failed to satisfy it the humble believer, lacked a something that the A. V. contained The classic beauties of the English language that charm in the old version—as well as the spirit and power—were wanting. Dean Burgon well said, that 'the revised English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone' (Revision Revised page 12), or as C. H. Spurgeon said—'They needed a literary man on the Committee to revise the English'.

Untrustworthiness of the Revised Greek Text

'The new Greek Text, of which the R. V. is only a poor lame translation, is extremely corrupt. Very much has been done and said to make it appear an improved text, and many students, as well as the public, have been deceived.

'Dean Burgon says—'l am able to prove that this revision of the Sacred Text is untrustworthy from beginning to end. The systematic depravation of the underlying Greek is nothing but a poisoning the River of Life at its sacred source. Our revisers, (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of inspiration on every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated readings, which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type.' (He refers to manuscripts Aleph, B, C, and D.)

Dominant influence of Westcott and Hort

'The Revisers have, in fact, been the dupes of an ingenious theorist If any complain that I have sometimes it my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out, that when the words of inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined to preserve the deposit in its integrity to hit either too straight or too hard'. (pp. 6-8). 'I have traced the mischief home to its true authors, Drs. Westcott and Hort, a copy of whose unpublished text (it was published later in 1881) of the Greek New Testament, the most vicious in existence, had been confidentially, and under pledges of strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising body.' (p 11).

'The Revisers, led by Drs. Westcott and Hort. were chiefly governed by what are called the four oldest manuscripts—Aleph B, C, D. The question is, are these documents trustworthy? We shall prove that they are corrupt, and as these corrupt manuscripts form the foundation of the English R.V., therefore that version must partake of the same character—to which must be added a vast number of incorrect renderings of the Greek. In numberless instances the A. V. is more the few correct than the R.V . and improvements in the latter cannot compensate for its numberless errors.'

'Dean Burgon, speaking of these manuscripts, says, 'It matters nothing to these editors that all four are discovered, on careful scrutiny, to differ essentially, not only from 99 out of a 100o f the whole body of other extant manuscripts, but even from one another In different degrees they all exhibit a fabricated text. They are not united as witnesses, and ought received not to have been as authorities in revising the sacred .text of Holy Scripture.'

Time to call a halt

'These Greek manuscripts, which Dean Burgon and Canon Cook, editor of the Speaker's Commentary, pronounce corrupt, have been unfortunately followed by the Revisers as infallible guides. They were no doubt misled, and disregarded the greater number of more faithful Greek manuscripts, because of their supposed inferior antiquity, in favour of a little handful of documents of the most depraved type. Many are following in the same path, and it is time to call a halt, and to reconsider the whole question'

Arian bias of the Revisers' text

'The Codex Sinaiticus, known by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet—Aleph—was discovered by Tischendorf in the Convent of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai in 1859 and is supposed to have been written about the middle of the fourth century. The Codex Vaticanus—B—in the Vatican library at Rome contains nearly all the Septuagint and the greater part of the New Testament ... Tischendorf thinks that it was written by one of the two scribes who produced the original part of the Sinaitic manuscript. These two manuscripts, Aleph and B, were certainly written at the time when Arianism was in full ascendancy, when Eusebius of Caesarea was the most prominent and most influential leader of the party . . . They also contain internal proofs of their Arian origin. Words, clauses, and entire sentences are obliterated or mutilated in these two manuscripts.

'Canon Cook says, 'I hold it as all but certain that they were written at Caesarea between 330 and 340 A.D. under the direction of Eusebius, whom Jerome called the standard-bearer of the Arian faction. These are the ancient authorities to which must be traced the many new readings and omissions found in the pages of the Revised Version.'

Views of Dr Scrivener and Canon Cook

In the July 1907 issue of the T.B.S. Quarterly Record the Rev. E. Compton continued his detailed criticism of the Revised Version and its underlying Greek text. Referring to the changes made on the authority of the Aleph-B group of manuscripts, he wrote—'Dr. Scrivener gives passages from these mss. to prove that they are corrupt documents, and that the Greek text founded upon them is destitute, not only of historic foundation, but of all probability. (Introduction to Textual Criticism page 531). Canon Cook says that, 'The omissions and corruptions of these two Greek manuscripts Aleph and B are logically incompatible with an entire faith in the Saviour's proper and true Divinity, (Revised Version of the First Three Gospels page 177), and that these two oldest manuscripts are responsible for nearly every change which weakens or perverts the record of sayings and incidents in our Lord's life' (page 142). Readings from these manuscripts should therefore be looked upon with suspicion and received with caution'.

A third article in the January 1908 Quarterly Record declares that 'every page of the Revised Version represents a corrupt Greek text that changes the testimony of Scripture respecting the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and also His Words and Works. The translation contains unpardonable blunders, often expressed in ambiguous language.'

The Revisers' note on John 1.18

'A strange and dangerous reading is found in the margin of the Revised Version of John 1.18, 'No man hath seen God at any time; the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' This reading is supported by manuscripts ACEFGHKMSUVT etc., and confirmed by the most trustworthy ancient versions The Revisers have put the strange false reading (of Aleph BCIL) into the margin, and render it 'God only begotten' affrming that it is the reading of 'many ancient authorities' . Is it not deplorable that the false doctrinal teaching of a human creed should be found, even in the margin, of a translation of the Word of God? But the Re-revision of the American Bible Union has 'Only begotten God' in the text of John 1.18 and the A. V. reading in the margin. The leaven spreads and other versions are adopting the same erroneous reading'.

Doubt and uncertainty on every page

In a fourth article Mr. Compton examines many deficiencies of the textual in detail, including Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11. Referring to the last twelve verses of Mark, he quotes Dr Scrivener—'These verses are also found, nearly word for word, in the most ancient versions and in many of the Fathers .. . All opposition to this paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius (an Arian) and the testimony of Aleph and B concludes—'We think that we have fully proved that the Revised Version is not trustworthy. Our Authorised Version has for generations endeared itself to Christians of all denominations, and has been reverently accepted with unwavering confidence as a faithful translation of the Word of God. Its acknowledged defects are harmless, and do not tarnish any of the foundation doctrines of Christianity. It is a noble monument of Protestant piety and scholarship but by the Revised Version, especially of the New Testament, this restful assurance in the written Word has been shaken by many omissions, and doubtful readings introduced into the text, and also by the notes with questionable readings in the margin. Doubt and uncertainty are stamped upon every page In its present state it is a very unsafe guide, and unfortunately many versions are being made after the same imperfect model, containing the same errors, and guided, as the Revisers were, by the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and what are called the older manuscripts.'

Decline of sound Protestant scholarship

'Our aim has been to defend 'the truth as it is in Jesus', by pointing out a few of the numberless corruptions and omissions contained in the Revised Version. May the great Head of the Church bless our feeble protest, and arouse His people to contend for pure versions of the Word of God, at home and abroad.

'If the Revised Version as it stands should prevail over the Authorised Version, it would be named in future Church history as a monument marking off a stage in the decline of sound Protestant scholarship, and the decay of evangelical religion.'

Conclusion

These remarks are equally applicable to the modern versions produced during the last few years, and while the decline and decay referred to in the previous paragraph have been only too evident, even in some 'reformed' and 'evangelical' quarters, the Trinitarian Bible Society has endeavoured to give to the present generation the same warning and the same counsel as were so faithfully and so ably given In the pages of the Quarterly Record in the days of their parents and grand-parents.

Since the appearance of the New English Bible in 1961 we have published a large number of articles showing that many of the shortcomings of the modern versions can be traced to the deficiencies of their underlying text, and that the adoption of defective readings has been the result of a fundamentally unsound method of textual criticism, which has erred in giving a dominant place to a group of ancient but unreliable manuscripts, in which the testimonies to the Deity of Christ, and other aspects of biblical Trinitarian doctrine, are diminished.

During the whole period embraced by this review the constitution of the Society has not changed, and the Society's public testimony on the subject of the text and translations of the Holy Scriptures has not changed. We continue to affirm what was declared at the inaugural meeting in 1831—'It is clear that not only the purity of the original text, but also the strict faithfulness of the translations must be solemnly guarded.'

Article Number 56. First published in 1984. Last updated 4 December 2023.