Ask Mr. Religion said:
I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe
the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God (
WLC-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is,
to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in
reverent esteem as if both versions are the
word of God.
AMR,
I understand where you are coming from. Moreso, I have always appreciated your stalwart stand for the truth, your irenic tone toward those who aren’t picking a fight and your undying commitment to the doctrines of grace. I also hold the Holy Scriptures in highest esteem. I have also studied the differences between the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text and the Critical Texts and I have come to a different conclusion than you have. Largely for historical reasons.
First, the KJV Translators themselves pointed out there is value in consulting differing translations.
Preface to the 1611 King James Bible said:
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
The question I had to wrestle with in my own evaluation of this issue is, “why would the variety of translations stop being profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures just because the KJV translators had finished the first edition of the KJV?
Furthermore, why would the consultation of Greek and Hebrew texts be discouraged when the KJV translation committee used textual criticism in arriving at the KJV. They compared other translations, they compared and contrasted the versions of Erasmus that they had with the texts from Stephanus and Beza. They even put alternate readings in the margins of the 1611 version of the KJV.
And here is the rational for why they did just that.
Preface to the 1611 KJV said:
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S.Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine.
(Underline added)
Here are a few examples of those notes:
1 Cor 2:4 “Or persuasible”
1 Cor 2:15 “Or discerneth
1 Cor 3:9 “Or, tillage”
1 Cor 3:17, “Or destroy”
Now, I think it is helpful for us to consider why these men sought to provide alternative readings in the first place. I am not faulting the KJV translators for doing so, quite to the contrary, I think it is quite helpful to be given the freedom to do the hard work of bible study rather than be told that “this” or “that” reading is the right reading because it is the King James Bible and to question the decisions of the translation committee is heresy.
I believe it was Spurgeon who said, “the best of men, are men at best.”
Should we not presume this to be true of the faithful men laboring over Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in order to present to the King a translation the whole English empire could get behind?
Interestingly, I have an edition of the 1611 KJV on my bookshelf and it has those notes. I also have a 1762 Cambridge edition that doesn’t.
Which one is the “real” King James Bible?
It is my understanding that the 1762 isn’t even the last edition, I believe the last revision of the KJV was in 1679.
AMR said:
For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Amen!
Do you think that King James himself shared that sentiment?
Scotland’s King James the 6th (England’s King James the 1st), was not exactly a great friend to the puritans. When Prebyterian delegates urged James to consider revising the ecclesiastical structure of the Church of England James’ famous reply was, “No Bishop, No King!”
Thus the episcopal structure was retained in order to keep the monarchy strong and the Presbyterian structure was rejected. King James was happy to accede to the request for a new translation as the Geneva bible had far too many marginal notes that could be construed to be critical of the monarchical structure of 16th-17th centuries and encouraging reforms that James found uncomfortable.
Ergo, the puritans that landed on the shores of the New Colonies favored the Geneva Bible not the KJV.
I have heard that King James gave instructions to the committee on what words could and could not be used in the translation process and kind of marginal notes could and could not be used in explanation of the text.
I have also heard some say that this is myth, revisionist history.
Either way, I think it is reasonable to assume that political considerations were not absent the minds of the translators.
King James was, after all,
King James. And in a monarchy (even the kind following the Magna Carta) a scholar’s honest assessment of a text must be at least marginally tempered by the desire to keep oneself out of the tower of London and in the good graces of the king.
One is justified in asking the historical question, “to what extend was the oversight of the translation of the KJV influenced by King James’ thoughts and desires on monarchy?”
One of the modern luxuries enjoyed by the scholars who sit down to work together in the endeavor of translating the ancient texts is that they are free from the pressures associated with a monarch overseeing the process.
AMR said:
When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out for I believe, as it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version
I think that it is only fair to point out that the KJV has indeed been mightily used in the hands of godly men in bringing the Word of God on the mission field and in the pulpit.
My favorite historical preacher, C.H. Spurgeon, used the KJV almost exclusively even though the Revised Version was gaining some prominence. Yet he was not slavishly tied to it and on occasion made use of the Revised Version.
As the following excerpts articulate:
C.H. Spurgeon said:
Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.
http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/c&cl2.htm
C.H. Spurgeon said:
Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit as far as we can get it. Beyond all other Christians we are concerned in this, seeing we have no other sacred Book. We have no Prayer Book or binding creed, or authoritative minutes of conferences. We have nothing but the Bible and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found, we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, addition of human ignorance or human knowledge so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own hand. I confess that it looks a grievous thing to part with words which we thought were part and parcel of Luke, but as they are not in the oldest copies and must be given up, we will make capital out of their omission by seeing in that fact the wisdom of the great Preacher who did not speak upon cheering Truths of God when they were not needed and might have overlaid His seasonable rebuke. Although we have not the sentence in Luke, we do have it in Isaiah, and that is quite enough for me.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols25-27/chs1604.pdf
Spurgeon here speaking, of course, of the Lord’s prayer.
AMR said:
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
While I appreciate your wisdom on a great many matters I do not agree that this is true.
I think that they made good use of the very limited manuscript testimony at their disposal and did a commendable job of textual criticism with the manuscripts they had. Erasmus had a number of challenges with his work, not the least of which were limited number of manuscripts at
his disposal (between 10 and 12 very late manuscripts, probably no earlier than the 10th century), and the haste that he employed in translation to get the work done before someone else stole his thunder. Unfortunately Erasmus’ errors made in haste bled into the KJV and some of those errors are still reflected in the text today.
I won’t belabor all of them but, as I am sure you are aware, Erasmus was forced to back translate a portion of Revelation (specifically Rev 22:15-21) from the Vulgate as the transcript he had was incomplete. That resulted in Erasmus making a number of errors inadvertently and creating over 15 instances where his Greek manuscript is unsubstantiated by
any older Greek texts, Alexandrian, Byzantine, or otherwise. For example, at Rev 22:19 the KJV has “book of life” instead of "tree of life." "Book" is unsubstantiated by any Greek text we have today. It literally has no Greek manuscript support.
To be honest, why anyone would refuse to consult another translation other than the KJV when studying Rev 22:15-21 is beyond me.
AMR said:
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
Most certainly so. Although, again, translating for a monarch comes with its own political challenges.
AMR said:
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
I think there are some inconsistencies in translation that might be noted. For example, in Acts 3:19 ὅπως is translated “when.” A clear mistake, and one that was probably an error from relying on the Geneva Bible for this verse. All other translations of ὅπως are correctly translated as “that,” “so that,” “in order that” or “how.”
Now, we have to have a just balance, don’t we? No bible is perfectly translated because there are no perfect translators. So I don’t think that the modern versions avoid translation errors either. There are times when I read my ESV compared to the KJV and side with the KJV when all research has been exhausted. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to put the KJV on a pedestal and claim that it has immunity from honest, scholarly scrutiny. There is a sense in which any criticism of the choices of the KJV translators are viewed as criticism of the very word of God. The problem with that viewpoint is obvious from a reformed perspective.
We don’t believe in the inerrancy of the magisterium. The pope doesn’t speak infallibly Ex Cathedra and in the same way the translators of the KJV don’t get the presumption that they translated infallibly from their chairs either. Erasmus’ work is not covered by the umbrella of some “sacred tradition.”
Good textual criticism does not seek to criticize God’s Holy Word, it seeks to reveal it. Good textual criticism calls into question some of the decisions of godly men made in an attempt to translate God’s Holy Word because “the best of men, are men at best.”
In my opinion, when that reticence to take a second look at some of the curious passages in the KJV dissipates the KJV becomes a much more useful tool in the hands of a faithful servant of the Lord.
Spurgeon had it right, I think. “.Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.”
The rest of your listed points go undisputed in my way of thinking.
AMR said:
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;
It certainly sounds like it today, I think that in 1611 it was meant to be in common vernacular so that it could be read aloud, and understood in public which accords with your 5th point.
AMR said:
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.
I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.
Now you introduce the thought of Turretin:
AMR said:
Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original,
nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the
words and the
sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the
sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated
is inspired.
Continuing, Turretin observes,
Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say:
Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available
here.
If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith
upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views, or things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation,
if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort.
I will have to defer to your expertise when it comes to Turretin. I have wanted to be able to study his works for some time now but have not found the occasion. I am in the process now of reading “The Atonement of Christ” though I think it is an edited edition of his.
Nevertheless, I wonder to what extent the following quotes I found from secondary sources lend some help to our discussion.
Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin said:
The question does not concern the irregular writing of words or the punctuation or the various readings (which all acknowledge do often occur); or whether the copies which we have so agree with the originals as to vary from them not even in a little point or letter. Rather the question is whether they so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as a rule of faith and practice.
The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages. Are there real and true, and not merely apparent, contradictions? We deny the former.
The reasons are: (1) The Scriptures are inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16). The word of God cannot lie (Ps 19:8-9; Heb 6:18); cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mat 5:18); shall endure forever (1 Pet 1:25); and is truth itself (John 17:17). For how could such things be predicated of it, if it contained dangerous contradictions, and if God suffered either the sacred writers to err and to slip in memory, or incurable blemishes to creep into it?
(
Marlowe quoting Turretin)
I agree with Turretin here. I agree that there are no “incurable blemishes” in the text and I also agree that God did not suffer the sacred writers to err. But the question that must be asked is where does one start?
Do we start with the assumption that the KJV is the standard?
Why the KJV?
Why not the Geneva Bible, or the Tyndale or the the Wycliffe text? Why English?
Why not start with the Luther’s translation?
These were all godly men who transformed the world with their fidelity to Christ’s kingdom. And yet we saw fit to improve upon their work. Why should we not do the same with the KJV?
Should we not honor the work of the men whose labor changed the world, and yet endeavor to improve upon their work?
AMR said:
Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the
things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the
very word of God, supra
WLC-Q.157.
I agree entirely that we cannot improve upon the Word of God, but even Turretin was willing to question the English text of his day.
For example:
Textual Criticism in the Writings of Turretin said:
This [i.e. that Cainan in Luke 3:36 is spurious] is plainly proved: (1) by the authority of Moses and of the books of Chronicles which, in the genealogical records formed in three places (Gen. 10:24; 11:13; 1 Chron. 1:18), make no mention of him; (2) the Chaldee paraphrases which uniformly omit Cainan in the book of Genesis and Chronicles; (3) Josephus does not mention him, nor Berosus guided by him, nor Africanus whose words Eusebius quotes in his Chronicorum (cf. 1.16.13 [PG 19.153-54]); (4) the sacred chronology would thus be disturbed and brought into doubt in the history of Moses, if the years of Cainan are inserted between Arphaxad and Sala. Abraham would not be the tenth from Noah as Moses asserts, but the eleventh. (5) It does not exist in any of the Codices. Our Beza testifies that it is not found in his most ancient manuscript (Annotationes maiores in Novum ... Testamentum, Pars prior [1594], p. 262 on Luke 3:36). Ussher ("De Cainano Arphaxadi filio" in Chronologia Sacra 6; cf. Whole Works [1847-64], 11:558) asserts that he saw the book of Luke written in Greek-Latin on the most ancient vellum, in characters somewhat large without breathings and accents (which having been brought from Greece to France was laid up in the monastery of St. Irenaeus in the suburbs of Lyons; and being discovered in the year 1562 was afterward carried to England and presented to the University of Cambridge), and in it he could not find Cainan. Scaliger in his prologue to the chronicle of Eusebius ("Prolegomena," Thesaurus temporum Eusebii .. chronicorum canonum [1606/1968], 1:ii) affirms that Cainan is lacking in the most ancient copies of Luke. Whatever the case may be, even if this passage proves to be a mistake, the authenticity of Luke's gospel cannot be called in question on that account: (a) because the corruption is not universal; (b) this error is of little consequence and a ready means of correcting it is furnished by Moses, so that there was no necessity for that learned man Vossius to throw doubts upon the purity of the Hebrew manuscript in order to establish the authenticity of the Septuagint. 3
(
Marlow Quoting Turretin)
So, yes, Turretin appeared to argue, quite ardently, that the Word of God cannot be improved upon. But it also appears that Turretin did not think that the translators were infallible and that there was cause to question the choices of the translators when evidence presents itself. It appears that here Turretin thinks that there is still work to be done by the servants of God in uncovering the Word of God.
Here Turretin exemplifies that he is willing to look for wisdom as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure.
Now, I happen to think that Turretin turned out to be wrong here. Codex D is the only manuscript that omits “Cainan” and so the KJV is right. But it does well illustrate that Turretin's passion for the Word of God did not preclude him from asking questions about the choices of translators.
I wonder, AMR, if you might agree with Marlowe's assesment of Turretin's view of textual criticism.
Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin
Nevertheless, the thing to be noticed here is that Turretin's concept of providential preservation in no way prevented him from calling the commonly received text "corrupt" in some details, and he points to the oldest available manuscripts as a superior authority. In addition to these, he also refers to the evidence afforded by ancient versions (the "Chaldee paraphrases" or Aramaic Targums) and to patristic quotations (Eusebius). In short, the question is to be resolved by referring to ancient copies, versions, and fathers, the same sources favored by textual critics today. Turretin supposes that by the preservation of these oldest witnesses, from which the more recent copies may be corrected, God has provided the means for the restoration of the text — and in this indirect way he has preserved every detail of the true text. Presumably, Turretin would say that God then makes use of text-critical scholarship to bring about the necessary corrections in due time.
(
Marlowe, 2003)
In any event, I have enjoyed reading your post in this thread.
