BIBLE VERSIONS 101 - WHAT BIBLE DID JESUS USE?

[Dr. Henry, President of the AOCI]

What Version of the Bible did the Lord Jesus Utilize?

Question for you, "From which version of the Bible did Jesus quote?" Believe it or not, a large majority of Clergy men and women select the "answer" indicating Jesus quoted from the "King James Version." And while many jokes have been made about the different versions there still remains some vagueness in understanding the different types of Bibles and where they originated from.

This document will discuss the English Bible Versions. My purpose is not to find fault with any one of the translations, should you prefer a favorite version, but rather to bring some understanding with the various kinds of translations and versions currently available for the serious Bible student.

While more than fifty Bible versions were produced during the twentieth century, only the more outstanding ones will be discussed. And although numerous versions have been produced in the past four hundred years, the KJV remains popular in the U.S., while the NIV enjoys more popularity worldwide.

The word for Bible (book) in the Greek is biblos. However, in theological thought today, biblos usually refers to the Bible, not to the Septuagint (LXX), the version from which Jesus actually quoted. In actuality, the Septuagint was the most important early Greek translation of the Old Testament, there being no New Testament at that time. The Septuagint was developed at Alexandria, Egypt in 200 B.C. It was the preferred translation of the early Church and was responsible for the acceptance of the Apocrypha (considered "false" books by Protestants), which was later used by the Roman Catholic Church in their church dogma.

Most of the following information comes directly from a textbook used by Omega Bible Institute & Seminary entitled, "A Brief History of English Bible Translations" by Laurence M. Vance, copyrighted in 1993, and published by Vance Publications, Pensacola, Florida.


►Latin Vulgate- The first English Bibles were translated from this Latin version -- not from the Hebrew and Greek. The word Vulgate is from the root word vulgar, which refers to the common language of the people. The Latin Vulgate was developed by the Catholic Saint, Jerome (A. D. 346-420), and remains the official version of the Roman Catholic Church today.

►The Wycliffe Bible- Produced by John Wycliffe (1320-1384), it was the first
English translation of the entire Bible.

►The Greek New Testament- Although this version underwent many revisions,
Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536) is credited for this popular translation. The first edition appeared in 1516. The second edition, published in 1519, was the edition used by Martin Luther (1483-1546) for his German translation.

►The Tyndale Bible- This Bible was translated by William Tyndale (1494-1536) of England. He was the first person to translate the New Testament from Greek into English.

►The Coverdale Bible- Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) is credited with translating from the original languages the first complete English Bible (1535). Like Tyndale, he was forced to flee England to preserve his life.

►The Great Bible- The "Great Bible" was the first "authorized" Bible. The work was done by Myles Coverdale and released in 1538, at the direction of Thomas Cromwell. Because of Cromwell's influence concerning this Bible, it has often been called the Cromwell Bible.

►The Geneva Bible- Published at Geneva, this version was produced by several great scholars using the editions of Stephanus and Beza. Stephanus was the first translator to show the present verse divisions in both the Bishops Bible, and not a new translation, as some believe.

►The King James Bible- Meeting together at the Hampton Court, fifty-four men were nominated to produce this Bible, although only forty-seven were actually known to have taken part in the translation. Even up to the current time, no other Bible version in history has paralleled the popularity and celebrated eminent position of the KJV (King James Version).

►The Revised Version- A revision of the New Testament of the Authorized Version (KJV), this work began in 1870. It was completed in 1881 under the direction of C. J. Ellicott and Henry Alford, Bishop Lightfoot and Bishop Trench.

►American Revised Version- Produced in 1898 by an American Committee, it has often been referred to as the American Revised Bible.

►The American Standard Version- A translation of the entire Holy Bible translated out of the original tongues in 1901. This Bible was developed in England by some of the same translators who had produced the Revised Version.

►The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text- This is a Jewish Version of the Old Testament produced in 1917 by the Jewish Publication Society.

►The Holy Bible: A New Translation- The work of James Moffatt, this Bible was published in 1913. Moffatt endeavored to present the Bible in effective, understandable English.

►The Revised Standard Version- The New Testament portion was produced in 1946, although the entire version was not completed until 1952. James Moffatt, Edgar Goodspeed, and J.M. Powis Smith were the producers. The second edition appeared in 1971.

►The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts - The New Testament from the Aramaic of the Peshitta first appeared in 1936. A translation by George Lamsa, an Assyrian, the entire Bible was published in 1957. This version sheds light on some obscure passages and helps the reader to
Testaments. The Geneva Bible became very popular, and greatly influenced the Authorized Version of 1611 (King James Version). It was the official Bible of the Reformers and also was popular with the early settlers who came from Europe to America.

►The Bishops Bible- Released in 1568, it was the first Bible to be produced by a committee. Later, the "Authorized Version" or King James Version of the Bible appeared in 1611. The King James Bible was a revision of understand with clarity the accurate intent of Scripture.

►The New Testament in Modern English- Produced in 1958 by J.B. Phillips, an Anglican Priest. Though the work is a paraphrase, it is, nonetheless, a masterful work that has been hailed as one of the best paraphrases ever produced.

►The Berkeley Version in Modern English- Translated by Gerrit Verkuyl, it was released in 1959 as the Berkeley Version of the New Testament and was so named because the translator lived in Berkeley, California.

►The Amplified Bible- The New Testament portion was released in 1958, although the entire Bible was not released until 1965. The Amplified Bible is the work of twelve editors for the Lockman Foundation. The translation is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text.

►New English Bible- The New Testament portion was released in 1961, and the entire Bible in 1970.
►The Living Bible- Translated solely by one man, Kenneth Taylor. Began as a project to help Dr. Taylor produce a Bible that his children could understand, this paraphrase is based on the American Standard Version of 1901.

►The New American Standard Bible- First published as a New Testament in 1971, it is another translation by the Lockman Foundation of California. Fifty-eight anonymous translators produced this work as an ecumenical committee from different denominations.

►Good News Bible- Released in 1976, this popular version was originally produced in 1966 as Good News for Modern Man.

►New International Version- First released as a New Testament in 1973, the original name for this version was A Contemporary Translation. Over 100 international scholars from different denominations worked directly with the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts to produce this version which is currently the #1 best selling translation worldwide.

►New King James Version- First produced in 1979 with only the New Testament, the entire Bible was completed in 1982. It is a revision of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scripture, and claims to be the fifth major revision of the King James Version, the last one being the 1769 Oxford revision of Benjamin Blayney. A special feature of this Bible is that its thought conforms to the 1611 King James Version. This NKJV changes the Elizabethan English words into modern-day English words.

►New Century Version- This edition appeared in 1987 as a complete Bible, while the New Testament portion first appeared in 1984. Some of the same translators who had worked on the New King James Version also worked on this one.

►New Revised Standard Version-
This translation was published in 1989. It is an effort to "continue in the tradition of the King James Bible," although some changes were made.

►Contemporary English Version-
Produced by the American Bible Society in 1991, this is a translation of the New Testament only.
►21st Century King James Version-
According to the editor, this version is "not a translation" but rather an attempt to eliminate obsolete words and phrases found in the King James Version. It appeared in 1991.

►The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language- Developed and written by Pastor Eugene Peterson and published in segments from 1993 to 2002. Published in its entirety in 2002 with both Old and New Testaments, it is a popular paraphrase taken from the original languages, but crafted in a way that expresses events and ideas in everyday language.

I pray this article has helped you to better understand the various types of Bible versions and why they were developed at different periods in history. Be assured there is much to be gained from studying the Holy Writ in different versions and styles. Even paraphrases shed light on some passages that are difficult to understand. And for those who believe it's a sin to use a paraphrase, even when the cover says, "Paraphrased Version," perhaps it should be remembered that Paul the Apostle used a paraphrased quote of the Lord's words in Acts 20:35, when he said: "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Did the Lord Jesus really say this, or did He say something like this? This proves that rabbis and teachers would often paraphrase certain quotes while at other times a literal rendering was required. Even when one paraphrases Scripture, the meaning is essentially the same as the literal. However, I believe it's a good idea if you plan to paraphrase Scripture vocally or in writing, that you inform your audience so no one will assume what you say or write is literal Scripture.

So Jesus did NOT use the King James Version but our Lord used the Septuagint to quote from. I guess this will upset our brothers and sisters who insist on using the King James Version (though I prefer the NKJV). God bless! Dr. Henry, 04/30/2010

[Dr. Henry, President of the AOCI]

I agree with your statement about true faith and I think we are both saying the same regarding it. It might interest you to read my blog titled "Arminianism and the Word of God:

In 1 Cor. 11:5-10 a woman who appeared bareheaded in public was considered to be loose and immoral. Uncovered hari or a shaved head could symbolize a loose or unclean condition (Lev. 14:8, 9; Num. 5:18) Hence, these verses emphasize the disgrace of a womans UNSUBMISSIVENESS in public worship. Verse 10 talks about angels which represent the spiritual realm and may refer to the efforts of fallen demonic beings to motivate to pride and to invest themselves wherever they can inspire ignorance. The term may also be recalling the original authority that was lost over the Garden of Eden because eve was "UNCOVERED". that is, she acted independently of Adam. At the time, their privileged authority and access were lost (Gen. 3:24). Behind the symbolism of wearing the veil is the acknowledgment of mankind's need to show submission to divinely appointed authority if he is to regain the dominion lost (Gen. 1:28). True authority comes by submissiveness, and both men and women - husbands and wives - are called to learn it (Eph. 5:21).

AdditionalIy I wrote a full commentary on 1 Corinthians on my blog here but I have copied and pasted below for your convenience. God bless.

Vs. 4-6 this had to do with a local custom Paul had to deal with and should not be applied to today. At this time the prostitutes in Corinth went unveiled so a wife who didn’t wear her veil dishonored her husband since people would think she was a prostitute at that time. Jews began wearing head covering around the 4th century although some may have worn them in New Testament times. Jews pray to God with their heads covered as a symbol of their unworthiness to approach Him but Jesus opened the door for us to approach God freely and with boldness.
Vs. 7-10 Again Paul is addressing a local custom and with a specific historical situation so be very careful not to speculate. We know however that Angels are concerned with honoring God, comfort and protect Christians, perform according to the will of God and that Christians will judge evil angels.

[Glenda Lee Smith]

Dear Dr. Paul, I certainly do not want to belabor this discussion, and I appreciate your tolerance of my thoughts on this subject, i.e. Paul's view of women.
.
I do want to complete my reason for this comment, but first, I would like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your view of Paul's and James' views on faith and works. I did not mention that in my last comment as a concern. But, since you mentioned it, I have recently had a pretty belabored debate about these two things with an Orthodox believer. As you may know, they believe that the church is the pillar of truth and scripture is secondary to the church "fathers'" teachings, and that works are more important than faith rather than a sign of that faith. This is their understanding of James' reasoning. But I said that works without faith is even more dead, and that faith comes first then works. Without faith in Christ Jesus, we are spiritually dead, still in our sins. True faith will ALWAYS produce good works because scripture says, "...ye are born in Christ Jesus UNTO good works...". Therefore, if there were those who professed faith in Jesus but were not producing good works then it is my belief that they were not "born again" and truly in the faith.

But here are the verses I had in mind when I wrote my last comment.

5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

I know that Paul was referring to the OT teachings where it talks about 'giants in the land" and "Nephalim", and this is why I wondered where Paul was coming from with this teaching, even if it was just for the women in that church (which I don't think it was). The only other answer I have will appear to be heretical I imagine...but I was wondering if it was some addition to Paul's writings by some scribe, perhaps in the first or second centuries.

[Dr. Henry, President of the AOCI]

Correct exegesis and hermeneutics of this passage indicates these where things going on in that time. Sister, my point here is that Paul is addressing women who where being disruptive in the service not a calling. In the final analysis we must be very careful to apply culture to this day. Concerning your comment on Paul being "Legalistic" As an example that Paul is not contridicatory to the Gospel, Paul and James are not contradicting each other in theology, only complementing each other. In other words, if you read the book of James it may seem that it contradicts Pauls theology of Grace. However, both are preaching and teaching the same Gospel. Concerning your comment on "bad angels" attacking women, I have really never heard this or even read this in the Bible. Many times people will add to scripure their own interpretation or read more into the meaning. I hope this has helped you. Please look over our blogs. There are many biblically sound teachings which you might enjoy. The diversity which our LORD has blessed this ministry is so exciting and blesses me beyond words. God bless.

[Glenda Lee Smith]

Well, I appreciate your explanation, but Paul seemed pretty adament that women, not just some women, were not to speak in the church, but were to be taught at home by their husbands, and had to cover their heads in church, explaining the difference between men and women and the way they were dress "in church" , etc. Now, it looks to me like, if this was an issue that Jesus would have mentioned something about women's dress, and how or why they should cover their heads, etc. It also seems to me, that Paul is rather "legalistic" in his analogies, and even "old wives tales", and the danger of "bad angels" attacking women who did not have their heads covered. Yes, I appreciate Paul mentioned the names of women who participated in spreading the Gospel, but that was not the conflict, it was women speaking in the churches. This is the ONLY issue I have with Paul, and I KNOW he was sent from God; but it is one doctrine that I would ask him about if I get to see him in heaven. I am definitely a Paulinian person in spite of that, however.

There is also the verse 2 timothy 3:1-9 and the mention of "silly women", which I believe should have read "churches", who were led astray and preached and taught false doctrine. So, I don't know why they used the word "women" other than a code word for "churches" unless they just had very little regard for women. The phrase "silly women" just does not seem to be a REAL threat to Christians or the church. Kind of like interpreting the word for "virgin" to mean "young woman". I understand this Hebrew word was one which could mean either "virgin" or "young woman". The Jews who made the interpretation to be "virgin" in the Septuagint had good reason to choose virgin over young woman.

[Dr. Henry, President of the AOCI]

Sister Glenda, thanks for your comments. Actually the Apostle Paul and Jesus had the same view in terms of women in ministry. Both were for women. The reason for such a mix up is what some people do in their interpretation. For example, In 1 Tim 11-12 the church has used this to justify women not being pastors or teaching men but the word man their is actually husband so what this is actually saying is that wifes should not usurp authority over her husband. It has nothing to do with women not being in ministry.

WOMEN ARE CALLED BY GOD IN THE MINISTRY!!
The verse which states that “women should keep silent” is referring to a problem group of women who are disrupting the worship service either by tongues, prophecy, or questions. Their exuberance in their new freedom in Christ was causing cultural difficulties in evangelism and worship.
Notice all of the women in Rom. 16 who were fellow-workers with Paul in the gospel (cf. Phil. 4:3): Phoebe in v. 1; Prisca in v. 3; Mary in v. 6; Junia (or Junias—if so it was a man) in v. 7; Tryphaena and Tryphosa in v. 12; Persis in v. 12; “his mother” in v. 13; Julia in v. 15; and “his sister” in v. 15. In fact the Bible teaches that All believers are gifted (cf. I Cor. 12:7,11); all believers are full-time ministers (cf. Eph. 4:12). In this list we have a woman deacon, Phoebe, and a possible woman apostle, Junia (cf. Joel 2:28; Acts 2:16-21).

The truth is God uses both women and men to accomplish His purposes and will and to definately preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[Glenda Lee Smith]

I certainly understand about the various versions of the Bible, and the Septuagint, which was written by believeing Jews who had forgotten their Hebrew tongue. There is reason to believe that perhaps some Jewish scribes may have "tweaked" some scripture in the Maseoretic texts. Some believe that this is where the errant teachings about "women in the church" came from, as the OT had a very Patristic bent. Jesus cleared that up for His disciples when He said that Mary had chosen the best part, to be taught of Him, and to sit at His feet just as the men did. Evidently, Paul did not think in the same vein as Jesus did about this subject. So, I go with Jesus. The Jews argue over the word "virgin" as used in Isaiah and say it should have been interpreted "young woman"...yet what kind of sign would that have been? Anything to distract people from the truth.