The people behind new translations of the Bible have convinced a large number of believers that new translations are needed because (a) the discovery of ancient Greek texts of the New Testament provide a more accurate text and (b) changes in the English language make the Authorized Version unintelligible to modern readers.

 According to a large number of serious scholars with knowledge of ancient languages and early church history, the reality is quite different. The highly touted Second Century manuscripts may be the oldest surviving complete texts of the New Testament, but there are thousands of older fragments of the New Testament, and citations in the writings of early church fathers, from which the complete Greek text of the New Testament can be obtained. These earlier texts all support the readings of the Authorized Version. One might surmise that the two ancient manuscripts survived because they were known to be defective and were thus set aside and seldom looked at.

 In all the publicity for the modern translations, it is not often mentioned that they omit many words and quite a few complete verses in the New Testament. This is going much beyond trying to make a more readable Bible.

 The text underlying the Authorized Version, the “Received Text”, was the Bible used by those churches which never accepted the authority of the church of Rome. These were the Greek and Syrian churches, the Waldensians, the early Christians of southern France, the Celtic Christians of the British Isles. The Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholic Church was based on texts which have a remarkable affinity with the two ancient texts so highly revered by modern translators.

 The following paragraphs are quoted from the conclusion of Philip Mauro’s book, Which Version? Authorized or Revised?, written around 1923. His comments are about the Revised Version of 1881 and the subsequent American Revised Version, but newer translations have taken the changes even further.

 What shall we then say to these things? Shall we accept the R.V. (either the English or American) as a substitute for the A.V.? . . .

 But can we profitably avail ourselves of the R.V. for any purpose? The conclusion to which the facts constrain the writer of these pages is that, conceding that there are improvements (and perhaps many) in the R.V., nevertheless the Greek Text upon which it is based is so corrupt that it is not safe to accept any reading which differs from that of the A.V. until the reader has ascertained that the change in question is supported by preponderant testimony.

 Furthermore, in the important matter of the work of translation we believe it to be the consensus of the best opinion that, in this feature also, the Authorized Version is vastly superior to that of 1881.

And finally, as regards style and composition, the advantage is so greatly with the Old Version that it would be little short of calamity were it to be supplanted by the R.V..