Is the RV1909 a TR Bible?

Is the Reina-Valera 1909 a Textus Receptus Bible?

They say that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, that eventually it will become truth. I have read and have had repeated to me on several occasions that the 1909 revision of the Spanish Bible was done to bring the Reina-Valera in line with the Textus Receptus. On none of these occasions has any proof whatsoever been offered. Apparently, we are expected simply to believe this and accept it as fact. Below are two examples:

“Is the Valera 1909 a Textus Receptus Bible? Yes, it is…Because of these differing texts, no Protestant Bible is ever exactly the same the others; and almost all Protestant Bibles until the late 1880's were and are considered Textus Receptus Bibles. One of these Bibles is the Valera. So, logically we must recognize that the Valera 1909 is a Textus Receptus Bible, even with some variations from the KJV and the Textus Receptus it was based on.”

http://www.valera1909.com/faq_eng.htm#valeratr

“This revision made changes to the 1865 edition to make it agree more closely with the Greek Textus Receptus.”

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland2.html

More on those quotes later, but keep in mind that by proof I do not mean another list of verses, or a glowing write-up about the spirituality of the 1909 translators. I want to hear right from the horse’s mouth what the 1909 translators said about their own revision. Did they actually say that they were doing it to make the Valera Bible agree more with the Textus Receptus, or is it just hearsay? If what they said about their work agrees with the two quotes above then great, we’ve proven the rumor to be true. But if not, then anyone who uses the 1909, or a revision based on it (like the 1960 or the Gomez Bible), and loves the King James and the TR, has a serious problem on their hands. It would be utterly inconsistent for someone to say that they believe in the King James and the Textus Receptus, but then use a Spanish Bible that was based on a corrupt text.

Let’s take a look at what the 1909 revision committee said about their own Bible and see if this rumor is true or not. The following quotes were taken from ABS History Essay #16, Part V-D, section on Spanish translations from 1901 – 1930. It is part of an official history of American Bible Society translations and contains much detailed information on what we call the 1909 Valera Bible. Let’s see what it says.

“In December (of 1907) Committee proposed Greek basis be Westcott and Hort, with the English Revisers Text and Nestle to be consulted.” (Ibid, pg. 36)

No mention of the Textus Receptus here. By 1907 the Bible Societies had already switched over to the Westcott and Hort text, so it is no surprise that it was the text that they recommended for the 1909.

“Versions Committee recommends Westcott and Hort as basis with liberty to use the Revisers and Nestle’s Greek NT.” (Ibid, pg. 37)

In a letter from the 1909 Valera’s Revision Committee dated July 9^th, 1909, they made the following statement: “While stating the fact that in its entire work the Committee has taken for its basis the original text in the editions placed in its hands by order of your Committee on Versions, namely, those of Westcott and Hort, of Nestle, and of the American Revisers, your Committee does not claim for its work the character of an independent version.” (Ibid, pg. 40)

In a hand-signed letter, Henry Thomson, chairman of the 1909 Revision Committee, said the following: “The Greek text as edited by Nestle was placed in our hands as approved by the two Bible Societies, as the original which we should translate.” (Ibid, pg. 47)

So the ABS placed the Westcott and Hort text in their hands and that is the text that they used. Absolutely nothing is said at all about bringing the Valera Bible in line with the TR. In fact, the opposite is true. Since 1602 the Valera had ALWAYS BEEN a TR Bible. In 1862 Lorenzo Lucena Pedrosa began the work of CORRUPTING the Valera Bible by introducing readings from corrupt, Gnostic texts. In 1602 Cipriano de Valera PURGED the Spanish Bible of most of the corrupt readings it had, and now, beginning in 1862, corrupt readings are slowly being reintroduced. The 1909 committee was simply following in the footsteps of Pedrosa.

In the first quote listed above it is stated that, “almost all Protestant Bibles until the late 1880's were and are considered Textus Receptus Bibles. One of these Bibles is the Valera. So, logically we must recognize that the Valera 1909 is a Textus Receptus Bible…” This is an amazingly contradictory statement. The year 1909 CAME AFTER the late 1880’s, so by the author’s own criteria, the 1909 is not a TR Bible. In addition, we cannot claim that a Bible is TR or not based solely on the year in which it was translated. In 1812, a group of Protestants published a Spanish Bible translated directly from the Latin Vulgate. Should we consider that a TR Bible too? The answer is obvious.

In another article, Thomas Holland claims that the 1909 "made changes to the 1865 edition to make it agree more closely with the Greek Textus Receptus." According to who? All you have to do is open up the front cover of a 1909 or 1960 Bible and you can see that the 1865 is not in their "family tree". The inside cover of every 1960 Bible reads "...other revisions: 1862, 1909, and 1960", thus giving us the genealogy of these two versions. Besides that, the 1909 revisers were very open about what they were basing their version on. "...in their work the Revision Committee to give preference to existing versions in following order: Moderna, second Valera, esp. Cabrera & Tornos, then others," (Ibid, pg. 37). The 1909 was based on the 1862 and the Version Moderna of 1893 and not the 1865. The 1865 is a TR Bible, the 1862 and the 1909 were both purposely contaminated with critical text readings.

“The acceptance of the new revision of the New Testament came to be chiefly among students and scholars who desired a text more in accord with modern studies of the Greek text.” (Ibid, pg. 55)

Henry Thompson admitted that the average Christian and Pastor in Latin America did not want a new Bible (Ibid. pg. 56). They rejected the Version Moderna of 1893 and clung to their old, 1865 Valera Bibles. It was the “scholars” and Bible Societies that forced these modern versions on Latin American Christians.

There was opposition to this new version because it strayed from the Textus Receptus.

“Also a group of missionaries in Buenos Aires question use of Westcott and Hort and Nestle Greek Text, but Versions Committee does not change.” (Ibid, pg. 42)

“It was noted that most of the criticism received were of the Greek text use rather then of the Spanish translation. These criticisms came no doubt, as happened in other languages using the W. & H. (Westcott and Hort) or Nestle text, from adherents of Textus Receptus.” (Ibid, pg. 54)

H. B. Pratt, one of the two men mainly responsible for the 1865 Valera Bible, was asked to help on the 1909 revision. But, “as the work advanced, he discovered that the changes that it was proposed to make in his version, were in his judgment, too drastic for him to cooperate with us so he retired.” (Ibid, pg. 47)

If “adherents of the Textus Receptus” criticized this version when it first came out, why is it now considered acceptable to use by people who supposedly believe in the TR? Why can someone now base a revision of the Reina-Valera (like the Gomez Bible) on this Westcott and Hort Bible and have one Independent Baptist after another claiming that such a revision is a “Textus Receptus Bible” even though it was based on Westcott and Hort?!?! Could there be a bit of politics involved in this? Could it be that some are just taking other people’s word for it and not spending the time looking into this issue like they should? Whatever the cause, the 1909 IS NOT a Textus Receptus based Bible, and therefore, neither is any version derived from it. You don’t try and correct something that is corrupt, you discard it and look somewhere else. It makes even less sense considering the fact that Spanish speaking people have already had God’s word in their language for hundreds of years in the 1602 and 1865 Valera Bibles. So, if we already have a TR Bible in Spanish, why is there a need to produce another?