The NIV uses the Alexandrian
manuscripts!
Many people know
that the Greek New Testament text produced by Westcott and Hort was
based on the (hopelessly corrupt) Alexandrian
manuscripts Sinaticus and
Vaticanus. This text was then used to produce the Revised
Version 1881 and the American Standard Version 1901. The
more recent translations such as the NASB and the NIV, claim to use an
'eclectic' text that combines all the known readings and supposedly
uses the most prevalent one. It is claimed that they did not use
the Alexandrian manuscripts or the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament at
all. Or did they?
In the NIV, Mark
16:9-20 is separated from the rest of the text by a line and some small
print text. In the 1984 edition this text reads:
The most
reliable early mss. and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark
16:9-20
This line implies
that they have many manuscripts that would justify their separation of
verses 9-20 from the rest of the text.
In the original 1978
edition (remember the scholars always say that older is better), the
separating text reads such:
The two
most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Notice in this text
there are only two manuscripts mentioned, and no "ancient witnesses."
The NIV translators made this omission based on only two
manuscripts!! There are 5000+ known NT mss.! But the two
that they use are supposedly the "earliest
and most reliable." Apparently in the 1984 edition,
the NIV editors had to change their footnote for Mark 16:9-20. What if
someone had realized that they had made this omission with only two
manuscripts to back it up? What would happen then?
That footnote implied that they were at least imcopentent,
if not worse.
But these great
scholars, who thought they were doing us a favor by informing us that
the "two most reliable early manuscripts" omit
this passage, never admitted the identity of these "oldest and best"
manuscripts. C. I. Scolfield, despite his support for new bible
versions, put this footnote in his Scolfield Reference Bible:
Verses
9-20 are not found in the two most ancient mss., the
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; others have them with partial
omissions and variations. But the passage is quoted by Irenaeus
and Hippolytus in the second or third century. (1998 ed.)
Scolfield actually
admits that the "oldest" manuscripts that omit the verse are Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus. The "two most reliable early manuscripts" of the
NIV are none other than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus!
But wait!! I thought the NIV translators didn't use those
manuscripts!!!
More proof the NIV
uses the Alexandrian Manuscripts of Westcott and Hort:
Westcott and Hort
edited the Greek text used for the Revised Version (1881) and the
American Standard Version (1901). Both the RV and ASV omitted
about 17 verses. The New American Standard Bible, a revision of
the ASV, only omits 16 verses. The NIV omits the exact same 17
verses that the RV and the ASV omits! If the NIV uses a different
Greek text, then why does it omit the same verses?
And if you still
won't believe me . . . the NIV translators themselves admit
that they used the Sinaticus and
Vaticanus manuscripts:
Here is what NIV
translator Ralph Earle wrote about the two Alexandrian manuscripts:
Soon after
the middle of the nineteenth century (1859), N. Tischendorf discovered
in the monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai a fourth-century
uncial manuscript of the entire New Testament, together with much
of the Old Testament in Greek translation. From its place of discovery,
it is called Codex Sinaiticus. ("Codex" means a bound book, in
distinction from a scroll.) Soon after that he pressured
authorities into making another fourth century manuscript
available to scholars. It is called the Codex Vaticanus,
because it is held in the Vatican library at Rome. Codex
Sinaiticus is now in the British Museum.
These two
great fourth-century uncials agree
rather closely with the third century papyri [see below].
This provides us with a more accurate Greek text of the New
Testament that that found in the Textus Receptus, which is based
primarily on late minuscules. We should be grateful to God for
making these early manuscripts available to us as the basis
for an up-to-date, contemporary translation of an ancient text.
(From The NIV: The
Making of a Contemporary Translation, Edited by Kenneth Barker, pp
56,57, online ed. <http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/>
Emphasis Added.)
The "third century
papyri" referred to are "two copies of John’s Gospel (Papyri 66 and 75)
from about A.D. 200" (p 56). (So you see that since these four
older manuscripts disagree with the the Majority Text (the TR), and
agree with each other, the scholars concluded that they are "more
accurate")
Notice that last
sentence: "We should be grateful to God for making these early
manuscripts available to us as the BASIS for an up-to-date,
contemporary translation of an ancient text." Since Papyri 66
& 75 only contain the Gospel of John, they can not be used to
translate any other book than John. Here you have it:
NIV translator Ralph Earle admits that they used Sinaticus and
Vaticanus as the basis for their NT translation (excluding the
Gospel of John)!!!
Note the gushing
words he uses for these manuscripts: "these two GREAT
fourth-century uncials" and "We should be thankful to God for making
these manuscripts available to us..."
Being born
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:23
If the word of God
abides with us forever, then why would it take the scholars to 1859 to
discover it! This would mean that Christians would have gone
without a pure copy of God's Word for 1,500 + years! Does that
sound like 'preservation' to you?
The words of the LORD are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 12:6,7
(Ralph Earle was the
author of "The Rationale for an Eclectic New Testament Text," Chapter 4
of "The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation")