Open the
Bible Question Form to send your own question.
Q: In Acts 1:13, Judas is referred
to as the brother of James in the KJV, yet in all of the newer
versions, he is called the son of James. Do you know why all
of the newer versions change this?
A: Thank you for pointing out this
distinction and for giving some good examples. I think you
would find the same thing in
Luke
6:16, which in the King James Bible states, "And Judas
the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the
traitor."
I have pointed out in other places that every difference between
the King James Bible and modern versions cannot be attributed to
a difference in the text used to translate the Bible. This is one
of those examples. There is no textual controversy or variant reading
involved in the Greek manuscripts. That is, all translators seem
to agree on the reading of the Greek phrase in question in these
verses. The difference is solely a choice of translation.
Now, I will say something that could be misunderstood but I believe
it needs to be said: the Greek phrase can be honestly translated
either way. You see, the Greek phrase that is translated either "Judas
the brother of James" or "Judas the son of James" comes
from only two words in the Greek. The first is Judas and second
is James. The declension of the nouns clearly shows the phrase
to mean, "Judas of James." That means that the relationship
is a close one and that Judas is related to James in a close family
kinship. Therefore, Judas is almost certainly either a brother
of James or a son of James. However, the phrase in and of itself
does not make that distinction. In fact, the King James Bible indicates
this uncertainty by putting "brother of" in italics both
in Luke 6:16 and in
Acts
1:13. This means that there is no corresponding word
in Greek to match the words "the brother."
Modern scholarship has decided that the relationship between Judas
and James must be one of father and son and I am sure that they
have their arguments for this choice. Yet, the footnotes of the
various versions often admit that the phrase could refer to a brother
to brother kinship. Therefore, the choice to unanimously (as far
as I can tell) change the acceptable reading of the King James
must have some motivation. Let us explore some possibilities.
1. Modern scholarship is better and has the answer absolutely determined.
Is this right? Probably not. Else, why do the notes still admit
the possibility that the King James Bible is correct. The truth
is, scholarship has not answered the question.
2. Modern scholars all copycat one another and this is the reading
presently in vogue. This answer probably comes closer to the truth.
Anyone who has compared many English versions has seen this copycat
tendency over and over again. There is nothing worse than being
scorned by the very scholars who are needed to puff you up.
3. We need some reason for denying that the author of the epistle
of Jude was one of the apostles. This is certainly a motivation.
In some of my reading I found that the modern reading was used
to reject the possibility that the author of Jude was the apostle
of Christ. The epistle in question begins, "Jude, the servant
of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" in
Jude
1:1. Jude is simply another form of Judas. Traditional and
popular teaching makes the author of Jude a half-brother of Jesus
Christ. If one of the apostles was a Judas (Jude) who was the brother
of James and Jude (of the epistle) was the brother of James, then
they might very well be the same people. However, if the apostle
was the son of James, the two were probably not the same.
In fact, most teachers believe that both Jude and James (of the
book of James) were half-brothers of Jesus. And, it is true that
Jesus had a half-brother named James and another named Judas (see
Matthew
13:55). But perhaps people want to give too much emphasis to
the flesh here and desire to elevate the physical kinship of the
men to Jesus. It is also very possible that all of the New Testament
epistles (Romans through Jude) were written by the twelve apostles
and Paul, who was the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans
11:13). That would keep the teaching of New Testament scriptures
in the hands of the chosen apostles. Perhaps modern scholars want
too much to spread the authorship of the New Testament or perhaps
they want to elevate the physical relationship and give too much
credit to it. I am sure this could be further studied by others
but I do not have the time right now to do it myself.
Of course, I must tell you this. Through a time of great study
and a time of seeking, I came to trust in the providential working
of God in the translation of the King James Bible. I have no problem
accepting it as God's perfectly preserved word. I can easily admit
that the text can honestly be translated either way and still believe
with confidence that it is correct in the King James Bible. This
is the Bible that God has put His stamp of approval on. I have
no reason to doubt it.
God bless,
Pastor David Reagan