Bible Translations

Questions in this section...

What is a good translation of Acts 16:7?

Question:  What is a good translation of Acts 16:7?

“The translation of Acts 16:7 in the RSV has the rendering, ‘Spirit of Jesus,’ which is in harmony with the Jehovah’s Witness Translation. The King James Version simply renders ‘Spirit.’ Is there anything in the original to mandate any of the two?”

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                  Zambia

Answer:

This is a good question. Actually, both translations are correct translations of a Greek text type. The reason for the difference is that there are two Greek text types that are used to make translations of the Bible, the Majority text type (otherwise known as the “Textus Receptus”) and the Alexandrian text type (with the two most prominent being the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus). The Majority text type, which makes up the vast majority of Greek texts and is the most reliable, being uncorrupted by the papacy, renders this verse “Spirit,” while the Alexandrian text type renders this verse “Spirit of Jesus.”

Jay P. Green, Sr., editor of several Greek-English Interlinear Bibles, notes the following concerning these two text types: “The NIV says: The most reliable early manuscripts, and other ancient witnesses, do not have Mark 16:9-20 but they are putting their mere opinion before the reader when they say most reliable. Since only 2 Greek MSS. lack these verses, they rest entirely on Aleph and B [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] (with 2,877 and 3,455 omissions respectively in the Gospels alone), can they be called reliable? Then lacking no other Greek evidence, they must bring in other ancient witnesses something they will not allow opposing critics to do. The critics refuse to credit the witness of thousands of Greek MSS. and lectionaries.” (Textual And Translation Notes On The Gospels, on Mark 16:9, by Jay P. Green, Sr.)

Notwithstanding the questionable nature of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek manuscripts, many translators today regard them as the final authority, regardless of the fact that thousands of other Greek manuscripts disagree with them thousands of times. This should cause us to take serious consideration before we select a Bible translation.

It is very sad that people would attempt to make alterations to the Word of God. John solemnly warned against this when he wrote, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19)

Green sums up the evidence, stating, “not only is Mark 16:9-20 vindicated, but codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] stand convicted of containing poison. They also contain the poison (mentioned above) in Matthew 1:7 and 10, Matthew 1:18, Mark 6:22, Luke 3:33 and Luke 23:45, John 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1. Does this not diminish their credibility as witnesses?” (Ibid.)

Green concludes, “Only a cultic belief in the value of the Egyptian manuscripts can explain the willingness of the critics and new versionists to cast out words contained in all other manuscripts. Yet these manuscripts which they have elevated to the role of supreme judges of authenticity have no known history. Who wrote them? Under what conditions were they written? What was their motivation for leaving out thousands of words (a total ejection of some 8 pages of Greek), and for adding, transposing, and otherwise altering passages contained in all of the other manuscripts? Without such a cultic belief, any unbiased, thinking person must reject the Egyptian manuscripts [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] which fly in the face of all the manuscript, version, and patristic evidence. For a full and complete discussion of all the evidence, and all the attempts to discredit these precious verses, see Unholy Hands, Vol. I, pp. C-1 to C-177, a complete book by Dean John W. Burgon.” (Ibid.)

There is much more evidence to indicate that the Majority text type, from which the King James Version of the Bible was translated, is the most reliable Greek text type. For a thorough study on this subject please read the article entitled “Which Bible?” by Lynnford Beachy, found in the March 1999 issue of Present Truth. You can either contact us and request a printed copy, or you can read it on the Internet at https://presenttruth.info or download and print the PDF version.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

This question and its answer were printed in the October 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

If you have a question you would like answered in our newsletter and posted on this page, please Click Here. We do not answer every question that is sent, but we try to answer most of them.

You are Visitor Number:

Since April 2002

Home    E-mail    Contact Us