Addressing The Intelligibility Argument

There is an argument against the KJV which says that because the translation has archaic words, it is sinful to either read or tell people to read it. This argument is presented by Mark Ward in his book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. Many people who respect and enjoy Ward’s other work are not aware that he makes this claim. It is even the case that his fans will deny that he has made this claim when it is presented. In this article, I am going to demonstrate that Ward does make this argument, and why it is incorrect.

The Argument

I have addressed this argument before in the context of my chapter-by-chapter review of Authorized, but I wanted to give it some more attention here. Ward states that while the KJV is not unintelligible as a whole, it contains words which are archaic or “false friends” and therefore violates 1 Corinthians 14. This is likened to putting a “stumbling block in your own path in order to increase your resilience and skill” (Ward. Authorized. 120). He concludes that to hand somebody else a KJV is to “stand in their way” and to put a stumbling block in front of them (Rom. 14:13). Ward’s entire premise is that these “false friends” are landmines of sorts, and that the reader is not aware of an archaic word when he encounters it. In other words, when you read the KJV or convince another to read the KJV, you are causing them to stumble because it contains words which have evolved in meaning or are otherwise archaic.

Based on the verbiage and context of 1 Cor. 14, the argument is that the archaic words in the KJV are the same as somebody speaking an unknown tongue. This is a purely novel interpretation that has never been understood from the text by anybody other than Mark Ward. If you have been around in Christian circles for some time, you know that this passage is talking about spiritual gifts and their use (or lack thereof) for edification of the saints. In fact, this passage is used as a proof text for the cessationism debate frequently. It has never been used as a proof, until now, for the intelligibility of bible translations.

Let’s for a moment grant this is the interpretation of the passage. The key word here is that the language being used is so unintelligible that it is not useful for edification. Is it the case that any word in the KJV is unknown? Clearly the answer is “no.” Every single word and phrase found in the KJV can be adequately defined and understood by people today. There aren’t any words in the KJV that have been lost to us. Therefore, even if 1 Cor. 14 was in any way applicable to Bible translations, it wouldn’t even apply to the KJV.

In order for this argument to be true, Ward would have to find a word that could not be defined in the KJV. Of course he won’t, because he’s already found all of the “false friends” and defined them for us. I have made this point before, but the thrust of Ward’s work disproves his primary thesis. That is to say, in order for his argument to work, the KJV would have to be unintelligible to the degree that 1 Cor. 14 describes. This is where the average layperson might be fooled by Ward’s apparent doublespeak. On one hand, Ward states that the KJV is not overall unintelligible (pg. 118), and on the other hand says that it is a totally different language (pg. 79). In order to understand Ward’s argument, we have to understand the soft language in which he couches a rather harsh argument.

A Harsh Argument Seated in a Soft Couch

On page 79 of Authorized, Ward articulates his argument in a list.

1. We should read the Scripture in our own language
2. The KJV is not in our language
3. Therefore we should update the KJV to be in our language, or we should read vernacular translations

He concludes, “I therefore do not think the KJV is sufficiently readable to be relied upon as a person’s only or main translation, or as a church’s or Christian school’s only or main translation” (pg. 85). I want to make this clear for my reader, Ward’s argument is that people should not use the KJV as their main translation, and that it is a stumbling block for those that read it. This is an extremely harsh perspective. Yet, you will see people online claiming that “Mark Ward loves the KJV! You’re slandering him!” It may be true that Ward has an appreciation for the KJV. We can see this in chapter two of Authorized, where he makes note of the KJV heritage. The salient point here is understanding in which way Ward loves the KJV. We have already seen that he does not love the KJV as a translation that should be used. The entire thesis of his book is to discourage Christians from reading it, after all. What we see in Authorized is Ward’s apparent appreciation for the KJV’s place in church history, and that’s all.

This is where you will see a sort of bait and switch by people defending Ward. One will say, “Ward does not think reading the KJV is sinful, he loves the KJV!” Sure, we can grant that Ward loves the KJV as an artifact or a museum piece, but certainly not as a translation that should be used. This is where many people become confused. When somebody says, “I love my ESV,” they typically mean, “I love using my ESV.” So when people hear Ward say, “I love the KJV,” they assume he means, “I love using the KJV.” We know this is not true because he wrote an entire book explaining why the KJV should not be used. Mark Ward does not love using the KJV. This is confusing, because it allows him to couch a harsh argument in soft language. He is saying, “Yes, I love the KJV, but it is a different language and a stumbling block for those that use it.” Ward is advocating for absolute abstinence from the KJV. It’s like saying, “I love drinking alcohol, but you shouldn’t drink alcohol lest it become a stumbling block for you.” The strange part is, Ward is not arguing that the KJV is a stumbling block for some, he is arguing that it is a stumbling block for all.

Of course, Ward’s argument hinges on the established fact that the KJV is a different language which is unintelligible to the English Christian. This is the point of 1 Cor. 14. Even though he says that the KJV is not altogether unintelligible, his argument demands that it is. Let’s just say we were to take Ward’s novel interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 as true, it still would not apply to the KJV. Since these archaic words are not unknown, the simple answer is to learn what these words mean just like we learn words to read any book. This is why the argument is actually incredibly dumb or incredibly dishonest. The argument really just says, “We shouldn’t have to learn new words to read the Bible. We should be able to read the Bible with the words we already know.”

Reading Comprehension, or the KJV?

This is the spirit of nearly every single author on the topic today. They say the Bible should be comprehensible by the average reader. Now, I agree with this principle, but not in the way that these men mean it. What is meant by the average reader? Are we talking about the average adult? Ward has said that it is a sin to hand a child the KJV, so perhaps he means, the average child. What reading comprehension level are we saying is the standard for a translation in order for it to be intelligible? According to the Nation’s Report Card, the average reading level in the US is between 7th and 8th grade, with over 54% reading below a 6th grade level. Nationwide, 21% of adults in the US are illiterate. California boasts the lowest literacy rates in the country, with 23% of adults having little to no proficiency in reading skills. This means that over half of the US would find every translation except the Message unintelligible by Ward’s standards, and 21-23% of the US having zero valid translations available to them. I wonder if Ward would put his money where his mouth is and break ground on producing The Golden State Authorized Interlinear (GAI) for our neighbors in California.

This highlights a strange feature of this argument, that the KJV is a stumbling block because of lack of reading comprehension. But we see that over half of US adults read at below a 6th grade level, which means the ESV is equally a stumbling block by this logic. This means that Ward, presumably, would prescribe the same antidote to them for the ESV as we do for the KJV – learn the words. This idea that we should not learn to read the Bible because it has difficult words cannot be justified by any historical or biblical principle because it is essentially saying “People shouldn’t be competent readers.” I have said this before, but most public schools teach Shakespeare, which demands the same task. That is to say that American public schools demand more from the students then Ward would demand of Christians.

The American Church is not facing a KJV crisis, it is facing a reading comprehension crisis. Ward’s solution is to hand half of America The Message and ignore the 20% who simply cannot read at all. That is why Ward’s problem is one that could only be concocted in the ivory towers of the academy. He has taken on the opposite spirit of Tyndale, who said, “I defy the pope and all his laws…If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow, shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Tyndale believed the illiterate plowboy could learn to read for the sake of God and the Scriptures. Ward believes that the words of Tyndale cannot be understood, even by the most learned men of our society. He believes such things because he thinks you are stupid. Do not fooled by such silly arguments any longer, dear Christian, we have work to do.