First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.¹ He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.²

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?³

Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).⁴

Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that ‘you would understand it if you were spiritual’). Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.—in short, the language—comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where ‘receive,’ ‘welcome’ shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man).

Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther’s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die.

Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals—who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith—prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation!

Finally, though it is true that the modern translations ‘omit’ certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc.

I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those ‘mountains.’ We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world that is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria!

Addendum

One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books vilifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

¹ Now a humanist in the sixteenth century is not the same as a humanist today. Erasmus was generally tolerant of other viewpoints, and was particularly interested in the humanities. Although he was a friend of Melanchthon, Luther’s right-hand man, Luther did not care for him.

² It is significant that Erasmus himself was quite progressive in his thinking, and would hardly be in favor of how the KJV Only advocates have embraced him as their champion. For example, every one of his editions of the Greek NT was a diglot—Latin on one side and Greek on the other. The Latin was his own translation, and was meant to improve upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate—a translation which the Catholic church had declared to be inspired. For this reason, Cambridge University immediately banned Erasmus’ New Testament, and others followed suit. Elsewhere, Erasmus questioned whether the pericope adulterae (the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 7:53-8:11]), the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20), etc., were authentic.

³ “Suffer” in Matt 19:14 means “permit”; “study” in 2 Tim 2:15 means “be eager, be diligent.” See the Oxford English Dictionary (the largest unabridged dictionary of the English language) for help here: it traces the uses of words through their history, pinpointing the year in which a new meaning came into vogue.

⁴ There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions. For example, the KJV in Heb 4:8 reads: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” This sounds as though Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for! However, the Greek word for Jesus is the same as the word for Joshua. And in the context of Heb 4, Joshua is obviously meant. There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the KJV.

One of the greatest difficulties in the Bible, in terms of its accuracy, is the census mentioned in Luke 2:2—a census that purportedly led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, where Jesus would be born. The Greek text reads as follows: αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This text casts serious doubts on Luke's accuracy for two reasons: (1) The earliest known Roman census in Palestine was taken in AD 6-7, and (2) there is little, if any, evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria before Herod's death in 4 BC. In light of this, many scholars believe that Luke was thinking about the census in AD 6-7, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. At the same time, Luke demonstrates remarkable historical accuracy overall, and even shows both an awareness of this later census (cf. Acts 5:37) and an understanding that Jesus was not born this late (cf. Luke 1:5).

This issue cannot be resolved with certainty, though a couple of views are unlikely.  First, it is rather doubtful that πρώτη here is used superlatively: “first of at least three.”  Not only is the usage of πρῶτος for a comparative well established in the NT (cf., e.g., Matt 21:28 [“a man had two sons; he came to the first. . .”]; John 20:4 [“the other disciple came first to the tomb”]), but it is unnecessary to compound the historical difficulty this text presents.  A second census is hard enough to find!¹

Second, it has sometimes been suggested that the text should be translated, “this census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made.”² It is argued that other comparative expressions sometimes have elided words (as in John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25) and, therefore, such is possible here. In spite of the ingenuity of this translation, the basis for it is insufficient, for the following reasons: (a) In both John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25, the genitive immediately follows the comparative adjective, making the comparison explicit, while in this text Κυρηνίου is far removed from πρώτη and, in fact, is genitive because it is part of a genitive absolute construction.³  Thus, what must necessarily be supplied in those texts is neither necessary nor natural in this one.⁴  (b) This view presupposes that αὕτη modifies ἀπογραφή.  But since the construction is anarthrous, such a view is almost impossible (because when a demonstrative functions attributively to a noun the noun is almost always articular);⁵ a far more natural translation would be “This is the first census . . .” rather than “this census is . . .”

Third, πρώτη is sometimes regarded as adverbial: “this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”⁶  The advantage of this approach is that it eludes the historical problem of Quirinius’ governorship overlapping the reign of Herod.  However, like the previous view, it erroneously presupposes that αὕτη modifies ἀπογραφή.  Further, it ignores the concord between πρώτη and ἀπογραφή, making the adjective most likely to function adjectivally, rather than adverbially. Actually, the adjective functions similarly to John 1:15, 30, but in both places a genitive immediately follows. Also, if this governed the participial phrase, as Hoehner believes, a number of other constructions would be far more natural (and we might justifiably expect Luke's grammar to be somewhat “natural,” especially in his editorial sections [since such sections are not from other sources, but are in Luke’s own words]).

In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.”⁷

Postscript

Evangelicals often have a tendency to find implausible solutions to difficulties in the Bible and to be satisfied that they have once again vindicated the Word of God. On the other hand, critical scholars tend to find errors in the Bible where none exist. At bottom, our belief in the infallibility and authority of scripture is a faith-stance, just as our belief in the Deity of Christ is a faith-stance. This does not mean that we have no basis! Nor does it mean that we are obligated to solve all problems to our satisfaction before we can believe. As B. B. Warfield argued long ago, we believe in the accuracy of the Bible, first of all, because the biblical writers themselves both held and taught this view. And if we consider the biblical writers to be trustworthy as doctrinal guides, then their doctrine of the Bible must also be trustworthy. Certainly we need to make many adjustments in how we define that accuracy (allowing the biblical writers themselves to shape our understanding⁸); but if we were to deny their accuracy at one point, then we must either (a) deny that they held and taught such a view of the Bible, or (b) assume that they might not be trustworthy in other doctrinal areas as well. There is much to be done in this aspect of bibliology, not just in terms of vindication, but also in understanding.⁹ Responses that are implausible on their face certainly do not help the evangelical faith in the long run.

¹Remarkably, Robertson in his massive grammar suggests that in Luke 2:2 the census is the “first in a series of enrollments as we now know” (669)!  He is basing his view on the work of W. M. Ramsay, though this particular point has long since been rejected.

²See Turner, Insights, 23-24, for a defense of this view. The view was found as early as the seventeenth century by Herwartus, and maintained by Huschke, Tholuck, Lagrange, Heichelheim, Bruce, Turner, et al.

³H. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) 21, argues similarly: “one notable difference between Luke 2:2 and the other passages cited is that Luke 2:2 has the participial phrase, ‘when Quirinius was governor of Syria,’ which is cumbersome, namely, ‘This census was earlier than [the census] when Quirinius was governor of Syria.’”

⁴Winer-Moulton, 306, rightly calls this view “awkward, if not ungrammatical.”

⁵BAGD point out that “When the art. is lacking there is no real connection betw. the demonstrative and the noun, but the one or the other belongs to the predicate . . .” (οὗτος, 2.c. [597]).  They list but two exceptions, calling them “more difficult” (Acts 1:5) and “most difficult of all” (Acts 24:21). BAGD suggest that Luke 2:2 should be translated “this was the first census.”  Incidentally, M. Palmer lists three such exceptions to this general rule in his Levels of Constituent Structure in New Testament Greek, 118, n. 33.  In addition to Acts 1:5 and 24:21, he gives Luke 24:21, but this is not the only interpretation.

⁶Cf. A. J. B. Higgins, “Sidelights on Christian Beginnings in the Graeco-Roman World,” EvanQ 41 (1969) 200-1.

⁷I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 69, n. 5, enlisting H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium (Freiburg, 1969) 1.98-101, on his side.

For an excellent treatment of the problem overall, especially from a historical perspective, see Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 13-23.

⁸ For example, the biblical writers did not feel any compulsion to quote exactly from their sources, even from Jesus. This is evidenced by the synoptic parallels and by the use of the Old Testament in the New. We must not, therefore, impose a definition of accuracy on these writers that comes from our twentieth century perspective.

⁹ There is also much to be done in terms of method. Evangelicals tend to allow their doctrinal convictions to guide their research. It is better to not the left hand know what the right hand is doing: methodologically, investigate with as objective a mind as possible, allowing the evidence to lead where it will. At all times, pursue truth! Then, when possible conclusions have been met, come back to the presuppositions and wrestle with how both relate to one another. Most of us recognize that we must do this in textual criticism; why not in historical criticism, too?

In the second verse of Mark’s Gospel, most modern translations read something like “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way.” The KJV on the other hand has “As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." The key difference (once you get past the thees and thous) is the source of the quotation. Modern translations present this as coming from Isaiah, while the KJV presents the quotation as coming from “the prophets.” The problem is that the quotation is initially from Malachi (3:1). Mark 1:3 then goes on to quote from Isaiah. Why, then, have the modern translations rendered the quotation as coming only from Isaiah?

The reason, quite simply, is that the earliest and best witnesses have such wording. New Testament scholars who work on determining the wording of the original Greek New Testament are functioning at the level of the deepest integrity when they argue that the original read “in Isaiah the prophet.” This is because they are arguing for wording that seems to communicate a mistake. They argue this in spite of their own feelings about the biblical author’s accuracy.¹ Their basis for this view is that a number of important and early manuscripts have the reading “in Isaiah the prophet” rather than “in the prophets.” The witnesses that have “in the prophets” are A, E, F, G, H, P, W, Σ, family 13, the majority of minuscules, the bulk of lectionaries, one Vulgate MS, Syriac Harclean (6th century Byzantine version), a few scattered Bohairic MSS, Ethiopic, Slavic, Ireneaus (Latin translation), and Asterius. Except for Ireneaus (second century), the earliest evidence for this is thus from the late fourth century (W and Asterius). The difficulty of Ireneaus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have “in Isaiah the prophet.” Only the later Latin translation has “in the prophets.” The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late manuscripts (MSS).

On the other hand, the witnesses for “in Isaiah the prophet” (either with the article before Isaiah or not) are early and geographically widespread: Aleph, B, L, Δ, Θ, family 1, 33, 205, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2427, Itala MSS (such as a, aur, b, c, d, f , ff2, l, q, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Syriac Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Irenaeus (Greek), Origen, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severian, Cyril-Jerusalem, Hesychius, Victorinus-Pettau, Chromatius, Ambrosiaster, Jerome (who has a variant of this reading, but NOT “in the prophets”), Augustine, etc. This evidence runs deep into the second century, is widespread, and is found in the most important Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean witnesses.

On the whole, we would have to say that the “Isaiah” reading has a better external pedigree in every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from all the texttypes that matter. It is widespread throughout the Mediterranean world, and from a very early period.

Hence, this leaves us with an interesting question: If this reading is not original, where did it come from? Scribes surely knew that the first part of the quotation was from Malachi--after all, not a few of these same scribes had copied out the OT. They knew their Scriptures well. Hence, an accidental change to “Isaiah” by some well-meaning early scribe is rather unlikely.²

Further, there is virtually no possibility that a scribe could have accidentally written Isaiah by dittography. This is the beginning of the gospel; there is not only no Isaiah (Ησαια) in the preceding material, there is also no Ησ in the preceding material except in Jesus’ name, but that would have been written as a nomen sacrum (ΙΥ) from early on.

This leaves one possibility left: conspiracy. Indeed, this is the charge that John Burgon makes of these early MSS. But if there is such a conspiracy, then three problems remain that are difficult, if not impossible, to explain: (1) How in the world could such a conspiracy have infected so many early and diverse witnesses? Its roots must go back so early that we would have to doubt virtually any reading in the NT. This would mean that the very first copies--and therefore often the majority of MSS (according to majority text theory) got corrupted. Thus, the conspiracy theory proves too much. That’s even too much for Burgon! (2) If there was a conspiracy, then these conspirators were singularly inept, for they blew most of their chances to corrupt the NT. Further, it is demonstrable that virtually every MS (and certainly the major ‘conspirators’ such as Aleph, B, and D) harmonizes Gospel passages from time to time, even against the majority of MSS. Such harmonizations are cross-purposed with conspiracy and intentional corruption. (3) In order for there to be a conspiracy, there must of course be some sort of collusion. If so, why then do these early MSS disagree so much? That is, they are not nearly as uniform as the later Byzantine MSS. One simply cannot have his cake and eat it, too: if you hold to conspiracy, you must also affirm some measure of uniformity. The majority text advocates strongly speak against the disunity of the early MSS, while at the same time arguing just as strongly they they (at least the Alexandrian MSS) come from a singular recension. But if that is the case, why then the fracturing? You can’t have it both ways.

If “in Isaiah the prophet” is neither an accident nor an intentional change, do we dare call it original? All the evidence points in that direction. This leaves two questions: How do we then explain “in the prophets”? And what impact does this make on inerrancy? The explanation is that “in the prophets” is obviously a secondary reading, motivated by perhaps several pious scribes who thought “Isaiah” was a contradiction. Hence, they changed it to “the prophets.” This smells very much like a predictable variant that could have occurred in several regions without any kind of collusion or genetic connection. At the same time, if Ireneaus’s Latin translation is informed by later witnesses, then it is possible that this reading originated as a Byzantine reading. It is noteworthy that Asterius reads “in the prophets.” He was Lucian’s student and was the first church father to use the Byzantine text form, as far as we can tell. (Lucian was proposed by Hort as the father of the Byzantine text. This proposal, incidentally, was by no means necessary to Hort’s theory, but was a decent hunch that may well be correct.) Thus, “in the prophets” either arose in more than one region by pious scribes or was initiated by the Byzantine archetype which, in turn, infected the majority of subsequent Greek witnesses. Either way, the reading is easily explained as a “correction” to Mark’s wording.

Now, how does all this relate to the issue of inerrancy? Three answers need to be given. First, the evidence is overwhelming that Mark wrote “in Isaiah the prophet.” Whatever one’s beliefs about inerrancy, it seems to me, they have to adjust to this piece of evidence.

Second, when it comes to dealing with textual criticism, if we want to take an approach to the text that says, “Start with the presupposition of inerrancy,” then we should logically be forced into holding to conjectural emendation in some places (such as Luke 2:2). This is so because there are several more severe problems to inerrancy than Mark 1:2. But if that is our approach, shouldn’t we also emend the text any time it disagrees with our theology on other fronts? There are passages that seem to indicate that Jesus was less than true deity. Don’t we have the right to change them to fit our doctrinal convictions? There is no stopping this kind of dogmatic method once it has begun. In the end, all one believes is what he wants to believe. And his Bible is of the same kind as Thomas Jefferson’s (who cut out passages that offended him, principally texts that affirmed that miraculous). This is not honoring to the God of the Bible who works in history. Theology must never be divorced from history; when it is, Christianity is no better than any other religion.

Third, we simply need to be honest with the evidence in front of us. It is acceptable to say, at times, “I don’t know.” Inerrancy does not live or die with Mark 1:2. There are many fine exegetes who adopt the “Isaiah” reading and yet affirm inerrancy (in fact, I would venture to say that most inerrantist scholars adopt this reading). Nevertheless, they have options as to what is going on. They may not have the answer, but to simply call “in Isaiah” a mistake is quite arrogant. Some suggest that Isaiah headed up the scroll of the prophets and hence Mark meant “In the scroll of Isaiah.” This may be, but we are lacking sufficient proof. There are other suggestions as well, though no firm answers. Like any other doctrine, we base our belief on what we think Scripture teaches and place the difficult passages in the ambiguous category. This is because the doctrine is based on clear passages that seem to be overwhelming to us. There are times that we simply say, “I don’t know what this means, but I know what it doesn’t mean.” Why should Mark 1:2 be any different? At the same time, the closer we look at the Scriptures, the more we are delighted by the subtleties of truth woven into them. We should never be afraid to look more closely at Mark 1:2--or at any other difficult passage. But we should be afraid of our own arrogance--an arrogance often borne of fear and ignorance, not evidence.

¹ By saying this, we are not arguing that the majority of textual critics embrace inerrancy. However, the vast majority do have sufficient respect for a biblical author that they will not impute to him an ostensible inaccuracy unless the manuscript testimony compels them to do so. At all points, textual critics are historians who have to base their views on data, not mere theological convictions. The rule that almost all textual critics follow is: Choose the reading that best explains the rise of the others. This means looking at the external and internal evidence in an effort to trace out both history and psychology.

Further, conjectural emendation is generally anathema to textual critics, even though they sometimes resort to it to solve difficulties in the text. In the least, this shows that textual critics as a group are in no way trying to destroy the Bible’s credibility.

² To be sure, there is some evidence that an occasional later scribe made this error. But to argue that an early scribe did so and that his error infected many MSS for generations in several widespread regions is beyond credibility.

Matthew 9.23-24 reads, Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ  ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς αὐλητὰς καὶ τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον ἔλεγεν· ἀναχωρεῖτε, οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν τὸ κοράσιον ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. The Mishnah offers some valuable insights with reference to who these mourners might have been, how they were mourning, and possibly even why their mourning turned to scornful laughter.

Kethuboth 4.4 is the most often cited Mishnah by commentators in reference to Matt 9.23: “Rabbi Judah says, ‘Even the poorest [man] in Israel must not furnish less than two flutes [i.e., flute players] and one woman wailer [at the funeral of his wife].” The context is about the responsibilities and privileges of a husband toward his wife. The previous sentence in this Mishnah concludes with, “… he is responsible… for her burial.” This is what Rabbi Judah apparently interprets as meaning that such a responsibility includes the hire of at least two flute players and one female wailer. However, neither this Mishnah nor any other of which I am aware speaks of explicit burial responsibilities that one has for his children (as would be the case in Matt 9.23-24). On the other hand, such responsibility does seem implicit here. Along this line it is interesting to note that Kethuboth 4.4 initially deals with the transference of authority from the father of a betrothed girl to her husband. Girls could become betrothed at age twelve (cf. Gittin 6.2 and Jastrow, 2.922, on נערה). In Mark 5.42 (a parallel account to Matt 9.23-24) the evangelist points out that the girl who died was twelve years old. Had she been married, this Mishnah would certainly have applied. As the situation was, however, there were at least two flute players (αὐλητάς—plural) and apparently plenty of wailers and weepers (cf. τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον in Matt 9.23 with κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας in Mark 5.38).

How were these people mourning? Moed Katan 3.8 is illuminating here:

They [i.e., the mourners] may not set down the bier [i.e., the platform on which the coffin is placed] in the street [during חול המועד, i.e., “the weekdays intervening between the first and the last days of Passover and of Succoth” (Jastrow, 2.745)] so as not to give lamentation; and of women never, out of respect. During the Intermediate Days women may lament, but they may not beat their hands. Rabbi Ishmael says, “The women nearest the bier may beat their hands.”

Moed Katan 3.9 adds to this some pertinent definitions: “What is lamentation [עינוי]? When all [the women] lament together. [What is] wailing [קינה]? When one [woman] speaks out and all [the other women] respond [or wail] after her.” There is a good possibility that Mark was attempting to describe these distinctions when he penned κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας (5.38).

Kelim 16.7 may add a further note as to how the mourning was carried on. The Mishnah is describing items as either susceptive or unsusceptive to uncleanness. As it goes through the list, the “sistrum of the wailing woman” is mentioned. Jastrow merely defines this as a musical instrument (2.1443), but Blackman describes it as “a musical instrument of Egyptian origin consisting of a pear-shaped frame with four transverse metal rods, and jingled and rattled at funerals” (n. 14 on Kelim 16.7). It is possible that such was used at the little girl’s death.

If flute players, professional wailers, and lamenters were present at the death of the little girl, one might ask who hired them. Jairus the synagogue president was with Jesus when his daughter died. Although he would be responsible for hiring these people, he did not do so. In fact, his desire to see Jesus that he might heal the girl suggests that Jairus would not even be prepared to have hired the mourners via one of his servants. His position in the community suggests wealth (as president of the synagogue, he was an elected official). It seems, too, that the crowd of mourners was aware of Jairus’ wealth (they would be members of his congregation) and wanted to take advantage of it by hovering around his daughter, waiting for her to die, that they might get paid for their services. Such hypocritical mourning would certainly turn to sconrful laughter (κατεγέλων in Matt 9.24) at Jesus’ announcement that the little girl was only sleeping.

When Jairus and Jesus arrived at the ruler’s house, the Lord drove out the mourners, asking Jairus to trust in him concerning the girl. This was a crucial point for Jairus. By allowing Jesus to drive out the crowd, he would be denying payment to the mourners on the basis that the girl was not dead. But if Jesus could not raise her, the mourners could come back and receive their wages. It is possible that they might have charged a higher rate the second time because Jairus had identified with Jesus rather than with the crowd. Baba Metzia 6.1 suggests that if the mourners themselves did not fulfill their obligations, the one who hired them was not liable to pay. Although such is not the issue at hand, Blackman points out on this Mishnah that “when, if the cancelation comes from the employer, the workers can get no other employment, they are entitled to a day’s wages.”

The primary relation of the Mishnah to this passage is that the mourners were not genuine, but simply a milling crowd, ready for hire. They cared less about the girl than their own pocketbooks. And their professional hypocrisy becomes transparent when their less-than-sincere lament turns to laughter at the suggestion by our Lord that the girl was only sleeping.

Remarkably, we see how much Jairus risked when he sided with Jesus at the crucial juncture: Not only would he have to pay extra to these mourners if Jesus failed, but he would lose face before his congregation. His livelihood may well have been on the line, as well as the life of his precious daughter.