The Three Key Failures of the Reina Valera 1960

by Pastor Jonathan Everhart

The truth shall set you free. One must never be bound by tradition, when it conflicts with the truth. In this article, we will unlock three key truths about the Reina Valera-1960 Spanish Bible. It is my hope that it will create an open mind, like a door that has been opened and reveals what lies beyond. There is much debate, and there is confusion about the Spanish Bible. Unfortunately, there is also much friction. It may seem that this article is aimed at causing hurt or to discredit the Bible you hold dearly, but the purpose of writing this article is not to malign any of our brothers in Christ (I love them dearly), nor to attack a Bible version that many hold dear. I just simply want people to know the whole truth, no half-truths, no spin. The truth can be abrasive at times, and because of that you may not take kindly to me after reading this article, but I want you, the reader, to understand that I am your friend. The Bible tells us, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend”. Let’s leave off influence, agendas, and tradition, and just take an honest look at the text. I challenge you to have an open mind and an honest heart.

We will focus on the three key issues within the Reina Valera-1960 Spanish Bible. There are other external issues that could be discussed at length, such as the copyright of the Reina Valera-1960, but those are beyond the scope of this article. It is my aim that once you finish reading this article, you will have a solid understanding and a clear view of what this translation has produced. I did not grow up using the Reina Valera-1960, so I have no attachment and therefore can look at this issue very objectively. These are the three failures that caused me to begin searching for a better option. Of course, “a Bible” is better than “no Bible” but if there were a better Spanish Bible available, my convictions would not allow me to choose the Reina Valera-1960.

The Critical Text

The first problem and the biggest issue with the RV-1960 is its incorporation of Critical Text readings. The 1909 Spanish Bible that existed prior to the RV-1960, had some Critical Text readings. When the translation was done for the RV-1960, they incorporated even more Critical Text. They did so in a way that was elusive and manipulative. I will leave that story to another article, but the important thing to understand is that corrupt readings were intentionally added. Now, don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at some primary source evidence. Jose Flores, a consultant for the RV-1960 translation wrote:

One principle added to the first list of the Reina-Valera 1960 Revision Committee was that wherever the RV (1909) version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text, [Critical Text] we did not return to the Receptus… in cases where there is a doubt over the correct translation of the original, we consulted preferentially the English Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of the 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946, and the International Critical Commentary.

Eugene Nida, the translation secretary, also wrote explaining that more Critical Text readings were added into the Reina Valera 1960:

Nevertheless in some instances where a Critical Text is so much to be preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus, the committee did make some slight changes particularly if such changes were not in well known verses where an alteration would be unduly upsetting to the constituency.

Here we see undeniable evidence of some major problem areas in the RV-1960. These were created intentionally by the editorial committee. Yes, these problems do weaken doctrine. I haven’t met a person yet that has told me the RV-1960 had no issues. They readily admit that the Reina Valera-1960 has problems. So, the question is: Why is it so wrong to correct these issues? If you have no problem with Critical Text readings in Bible translations, then you will have no issues with this. But if you would prefer that your Bible didn’t have these readings, then I think you would understand where I’m coming from. How good would it be to hold a Bible that you can be completely confident in! I personally use the Reina-Valera Gómez and no one can tell me it has Critical Text readings in it. It is a completely pure Spanish Bible. It’s just like Dr. Gomez told me, after about the millionth question I had, “There is nothing wrong with our Bible.”

The Reina Valera-1960 in so many ways is a beautiful translation. It uses the standardized form of Spanish, which is what we need in our Spanish-speaking churches and on the mission field. It is very close to the King James Version in this way, because the King James Version was written in early modern English. I’m glad we English speakers aren’t reading from an Old English Bible. The Reina Valera-1960 is indeed beautiful, but, my friend, it is a thorny rose. It contains Critical Text.

Some defend it from the position of diminishing this issue. That’s not a valid defense. It is better to say, “There is nothing wrong with it” than “It’s not that bad”. The fact is, it is worse than most realize because the translators laced readings from the Critical Text throughout the “lesser-known” verses of the RV-1960. Some argue, “It’s based on the Textus Receptus”. That all depends on how you look at it. The textual changes made were done with the Critical Text. On that basis, the revision or textual changes were a Critical Text Revision. One could argue the base or the majority of the text is based on the Textus Receptus. While that is true, and those involved with the translation also stated that the base of the Reina Valera-1960 is the Textus Receptus, it is where it departs from the Textus Receptus that becomes the issue. We see this in modern corrupt translations. There is some overlap in places between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus. So, depending on which version of Bible you use, the majority of the underlying text (Greek and Hebrew) could agree with the Textus Receptus. The point is, it’s the bad, corrupt minority of the text that does the majority of the damage.

The Faulty Textus Receptus Variants

The Textus Receptus was a revision process that started with Erasmus. He edited and compiled the first printed Greek New Testament. Following Erasmus  there is a line of editions and editors from Erasmus to Stephanus, to Beza, and others. Not one of the editions contains a perfect set of readings. However, the vast majority of the King James Bible was based on Beza’s fifth edition. There were issues in different editions of the Textus Receptus. There were faulty readings and there were even missing verses. This is what sets the King James Version apart and makes it the standard. It was not just a translation. The translators, who were world-class, collated, challenged, and confirmed every last reading. They not only relied on Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but also the Old Latin and citations of early church fathers that predate 4^th century manuscripts. This was undeniable proof that certain readings existed. It was the final collation of all extant evidence.  As they stated, they “brought back to the anvil,” and by God’s miraculous providence, brought forth the complete and accurate Word of God, complete from cover to cover. What Erasmus began in Greek, the King James translators finished in English. We no longer must search through the many editions of the Textus Receptus. We have the final edition in the King James Version. This is why the King James Version should be the corrective guide in any Bible translation. It’s not about the English. It’s about having the right text.

Dr. Edward Hills, a highly accomplished scholar and defender of the Traditional Text, stated:

The King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

There are those who will attempt to “vindicate” certain readings of the Reina Valera 1960 by finding readings that match certain editions of the Textus Receptus. Let’s look at 1 Peter 2:2:

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:”

The underlying Greek for the King James is correct here, and it is doctrinally correct.

In the Reina Valera 1960 it says,

“desead, cono ninos recien nacidos, la leche espiritual no adulturada, para que por ella crezcais para salvation.”

This follows a slightly different reading, but is very significant. Where the KJV reads “that ye may grow thereby” the RV-1960 reads “grow unto salvation”. Three words. Big problem.  As saved people, we grow by the milk of the Word. We don’t grow unto salvation. That’s by grace.

You can find a reading that matches 1 Peter 2:2 for the RV-1960 in Colines Greek New Testament. It is, however, important to note that some don’t weigh this edition of the Textus Receptus quite like they do the Stephanus, Erasmus, or Beza editions. But the claim can be made that this is a valid reading simply because it is in an edition of the Textus Receptus, once again trying to defend the RV-1960 by minimizing its faults. The trouble with this is that a bad manuscript is a bad manuscript, and a faulty reading is still a faulty reading, even if it is found in a particular edition of the Textus Receptus. Remember what I mentioned earlier about overlap? Coincidentally, the Reina Valera-1960 reads just like the New International Version in 1 Peter 2:2. So this same erroneous reading is found in the Critical Text editions as well. How does one weigh a bad reading as “better” because it was found in an edition of the Textus Receptus when the same bad reading is found in the Critical Text? A faulty reading is a faulty reading no matter where it is found.

As for the “Textus Receptus Only” people who don’t hold the King James Version as the Final Text, they will always be playing the multiple-choice game with the different Textus Receptus editions and as a result, their versions will always have some form of error. This is the trouble with the Trinitarian Bible Society’s latest Spanish revision. The King James Version is the FINAL TEXT. It is the final collation of all extant evidence. It is the Final Authority. Therefore, it must be the corrective guide in order for any translation to have accuracy and certainty. Otherwise, all translations will be different, and we know that God gave us one Word. You can read more on this topic and about what is called “The acceptable textual variant philosophy” here:

https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/no-final-authority-the-dangerous-acceptable-textual-variant-philosophy

Inaccurate Translation

The translation of the Bible is a two-edged sword. One edge is the purity of the underlying text, and the other is the accuracy of its translation. A dullness on either side can damage doctrine. A perfect manuscript that is poorly translated can mislead as much as a flawed manuscript that is accurately translated. In many ways, the translation is just as vital as the underlying text. Throughout RV-1960, we see inaccuracies and areas that aren’t necessarily wrong but are imprecise, resulting in some loss of meaning or depth.

I’ll give a couple examples. In Daniel 3:25, the King James Version says “Son of God” when Nebuchadnezzar saw Jesus walking in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. In the Reina Valera 1960, it says “son of the gods”. The underlying text is not the issue here. It is the translation. The controlling factor for whether this should be God or gods is the context. The defense for the RV-1960 is made by saying Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan king who didn’t know the Hebrew God, and, with his pagan mindset, he said “gods”. Some may look at this and dismiss it as insignificant, but every word matters, and in this case, it destroys the picture of a Christophany. As far as the context goes, we know at the beginning of the book of Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar had besieged Jerusalem. He even brought vessels from the temple in Jerusalem to Babylon. He was very familiar with the Hebrew God. Also, in the very next verse after he saw the “fourth man” in the fire, he literally says to those thrown in the furnace “ye servants of the most high God”. He didn’t say “gods”. He was very familiar with the God of Israel.

Another example of a lack of precision is found in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, “Abstain from all appearance of evil”. Let’s focus on that word appearance. I can recall many messages preached on this specific topic. In the RV-1960 instead of “appearance”, it uses the word “especie,” which means, according to the Royal Spanish Academy, “type, kind, category, or manner of something”. This isn’t completely wrong, and many may consider it a minor issue. But there is clearly a loss in meaning. There is a difference between a type of evil and appearance of evil. One is to avoid every kind, type, or even form of a bad thing. The other is to avoid it completely, even if its appearance is evil. The Reina-Valera Gómez uses “apariencia” here which is Spanish for “appearance”. How can I, as a non-native speaker of the Spanish language, preach a message that cuts a little cleaner than a native Spanish speaker using the 1960? I’m not a dynamic speaker either. It’s because of the superiority of the Reina-Valera Gómez, the sword I’m using. There’s nothing wrong with our Bible.

Additionally, we see the translators of the RV-1960 following the Revised Standard Version’s choices; this is their own admission. We see things like the word “buffalo” appear in place of unicorn for the first time in the Spanish Bible because the Revised Standard Version uses “buffalo”. In Mark 9:5, the verb “answered” is omitted entirely because it is omitted in the Revised Standard Version. There are examples of verses like these throughout the entire RV-1960. One could easily dismiss these as insignificant, but collectively these add up to quite the loss or lack of depth.

I hope you take all these things into consideration. I mean no disrespect to anyone or the version you use. Again, it is easy for me to look at this issue completely objectively. My motives are from a place of love. I pastor a Spanish church, and I have sacrificed much to do so. Our Spanish-speaking brothers love the Lord, and they love the Word of God. I’m convinced they would love it even more if they could say, “There’s nothing wrong with my Bible”. Some of God’s greatest servants are our Spanish-speaking brothers and sisters and they deserve a Bible that contains all of God’s Words.