Tag: Mark Ward

Six Reasons Why I Do Not Want a Revised KJV

The Young, Textless, and Reformed5 Comments

Introduction

I am in the camp of Christians who believe that Bibles should be translated into every vulgar tongue from the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text of the Reformation. I have not always been so particular over which Hebrew and Greek texts I prefer my Bibles to be translated from, however. Over the years I have made it through the NIV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and the HCSB (CSB now). I have been reading the King James Bible now for almost a year, and have found it to be my favorite translation, regardless of the issue of textual criticism. I have spent the time in the past year becoming familiar with the KJV, so I may have some valuable insight to this discussion. I’m a person who hasn’t been reading the KJV for long, and I am also a person who thinks the archaic words are not a good reason for a revision.

Since I wasn’t raised on the King James, or any Bible for that matter, I fall into the category of people who have to learn some new words every now and then as I read my Bible. This process isn’t unfamiliar to me, because it is the same thing I had to do when I read all of my other Bibles for the first time as well. It should come to no surprise to anybody when I say this, but the Bible contains words, in every translation, that do not occur often, if at all, in our daily vernacular. There are many reasons that make the effort of learning archaic words worthwhile. The King James Bible is not going to change like other Bible versions, because it is based on a stable text platform, and no publishing houses own the copyright, so nobody can profit on making light revisions every five years. It is a standardized English text that congregations can memorize together throughout their whole life. It is the text of the Protestant church from which much of our theological grammar is based on. It is the text many historical commentaries and theological works worth reading are built on. Before I really cared about textual criticism, and which Bible I read, I was actually encouraged to read the KJV at least once by my Co-Pastor Dane Johannsson, because it is the language of the Puritans, and I wanted to read the Puritans. There is a wealth of reasons to read the KJV, regardless of where you fall on the discussion of textual criticism.  

So as somebody that is open to other translations into English from the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Received Text, why am I not gung-ho about a revision to the KJV? In this article, I will provide six reasons why a revision is not a great idea, and then I will end the article with ten reasons why somebody might want a revision right now. 

1.A Revision of the KJV Will Just Add Another Translation to the Pile

In the first place, there is a multitude of English Bible translations already available, including Bibles that use the same base text as the King James Version, such as the MEV and NKJV. Most of these Bibles were not created because the KJV was too hard to read, and some of them were made exclusively because somebody didn’t want to pay money for the rights to another publishing house. The amount of Bibles available to the English speaking Christian world has split the Biblical language of the people of God in English similar to the people at the tower of Babel. In fact, it is not only common, but likely, that you have Scripture memorized in different translations, and no two Christians sound exactly the same when quoting Scripture in this day and age as a result of our modern problem. English speaking Christians are divided at the most fundamental level due to the fact that there are at least five different Bible versions that are acceptable among the conservative Christian church. This is the first reason I do not think a revision of the KJV, or perhaps a fresh translation employing the same principles is a good idea. It splits the theological language of the people of God. Further, Christians who have been reading and memorizing the KJV their whole lives will now have to make a decision whether they are going to adopt this new Bible. It is likely, if not inevitable, that this revision would simply cause further division among churches that otherwise agree on the doctrine of Scripture, introducing problems where there weren’t before. This problem already exists in churches that adopt modern Bibles, and introducing it to churches that use one text is definitely not a good change.

2.A Revision of the King James Creates More Problems Than Solutions

Even if a great revision of the KJV was accomplished, it would not be adopted immediately. Those that are familiar with their Bible will want to test it, and ensure that no liberties have been taken in translation. This is the chief problem that many people have with the NKJV and MEV. They are fine with the underlying original text, it is the translation methodology that they find problematic. Even among the modern critical text translations, not all Bibles are created equal. It is concerning that some people cannot understand this because it seems that they simply don’t read a Bible enough to know that translation methodology is important. There is a reason that people prefer the ESV over the NIV or the NASB. People are perfectly warranted in taking issue with translation methodology, even if they are okay with the text that it is translated from. It is the Bible we are talking about here, not the Iliad. It should surprise nobody that people who read their Bible daily actually care about how it was translated.

Further, let’s just say the translation was the best it could possibly be, it would take at least a generation for the change to take within churches that currently use the KJV. That is a generation of time in which churches will struggle internally over adopting this new text. The pastoral benefits of having a congregation on the same translation are immense, and surrendering unity in translation is naturally a difficult sell. In short, introducing a new translation into the marketplace will initially introduce problems that weren’t there before, and that tension of transition is something that could take years. It introduces the same problem that many churches have resolved by moving to the KJV in the first place. 

3. A Revision of the King James is Unnecessary Because of the Cost/Benefit

The only translation society suited for this task would be the Trinitarian Bible Society. They are the only organization dedicated to the “Confessional Bibliology” position as well as the conservative translation methodology of the King James. Undergoing a revision effort is completely unnecessary because there are people who still do not have a decent Bible in their mother tongue. Rather than being spoiled Americans demanding a new English Bible, it is better to support such an organization in doing the work of actually getting the Bible into every vulgar tongue. The cost of labor and time simply does not justify the alleged benefits of the effort. There are more important things to accomplish, especially since KJV readers aren’t exactly asking for an update.

4.A Revision of the King James is Unnecessary, Because The King James is Still in the Vulgar Tongue

This is probably the greatest disconnect among people that do not actually read the KJV. Since they haven’t read it cover to cover, or have only looked up word lists of difficult words, they are easily convinced that the KJV is simply unintelligible. If the only exposure to the KJV one has is through an article highlighting all of the difficult words, it is an easy conclusion to make. If the person who says they can’t read the KJV has a doctorate, that’s frankly quite embarrassing. I have heard that the academy is on the decline, but I didn’t realize how bad it had become. Even when I became convinced of the Received Text position of Scripture, I initially switched to the NKJV because I thought the KJV would be too hard to read. When I actually opened up the KJV, I was actually surprised to find how easy it was for me to comprehend. The Bible I read daily has alternative translations in the margin for archaic words and “false friends,” so there has yet to be a time where I’ve gotten “stuck” reading my Bible. Most of the time I do not need to use those marginal helps because the context makes the word clear anyway. This is how we read all books in English. It’s how they teach you to read in grade school. I’m forever grateful to my mom and teachers who taught me how to use “context clues,” even outside my Bible reading. 

Additionally, it’s not like there are archaic words and “false friends” in every verse. Most of the really difficult words you encounter in the text occur once or twice. If you browse many of the articles berating the archaic nature of the KJV, they often capitalize on such words to make the KJV seem harder to read than it really is. Not only is the KJV easier to read than most people might think, especially with the marginal aids, it is still modern English. Try reading Chaucer and this becomes quite clear. Even Shakespeare is more difficult than the KJV by a large margin. 

At this point, I really have to question how people are defining “unintelligible.” Until the KJV becomes as unintelligible to us as middle english, it will remain intelligible to the modern reader. You first have to read it to know that, though. There are also difficult words in every other English translation. One might even say that the difficulties between the KJV and modern versions are that of degree, not of kind.

That brings up another point, that it is unlikely the English language will evolve any time soon. Due to the fact that English is largely standardized in education curriculum and literature, modern English remains standardized in the texts that people use to learn English in school. Textbooks, chapter books, and pretty much any published work all employ the same language. As long as reading is still required in school curriculum, our language will stay mostly the same. Colloquial English and regional vernacular differences will continue as they always have, but the English we learn and read does not bend as easily as spoken language. Since the current trend of English is to devolve to the form that we see on social media (Facebook, text, Twitter, etc.), I’m not sure we’d want a Bible that reads like the average tweet anyway. Since we owe a great debt to the KJV for the formation of modern English, it is more likely that removing the KJV could even cause such a devolution which would require a retranslation in the first place! For those that still believe the KJV is simply too unintelligible to read, try reading it first. 

5.The People Who Want to Update it Right Now Are Not the People That Should Be Left Alone Near Bibles

In the recent conversations that I have seen, those that are actually arguing for a revised KJV are the same people that think the longer ending of Mark isn’t Scripture. They disagree fundamentally with the principles that make the KJV the most read Bible in the English speaking world. In fact, the person that has been most persistent in advocating this cause doesn’t think the KJV should be used at all, except for perhaps privately where nobody can see you doing it.  This alone is really the best and only reason I needed to give in this article. If somebody is going to update the KJV, it certainly shouldn’t be the crowd of scholars who advocate for different textual principles. 

6.A Revision of the KJV Does Not Profit Those That Actually Read It  

Finally, a good question to ask is, “what would be the benefit of a proper retranslation of the KJV?” As TBS has pointed out time and time again, there already exist helps in most printed editions of the KJV for the archaic words. I myself have found such aids perfectly adequate in helping me “stay in the text” as I read. I’ve actually enjoyed learning new words and connecting with the heritage of the language I still speak. It seems that the greatest advocates of such an effort are those who don’t actually have any interest in reading it. I have yet to meet somebody who has chosen to read the King James Version who also wants it revised right now. Typically, those that don’t want to deal with the early modern English simply read the NKJV or the MEV, and are fine doing so. It is because of this phenomenon that I am inclined to believe that those advocating for a revision are possibly not actually advocating in the best interest of those who read the KJV. If those that read the KJV are fine with it, and those that are not simply read another version, what could possibly be the motivation for pushing so hard for a revision? 

The List of Reasons Somebody Might Advocate for a Revision of the KJV

I’ll end this article by providing a list of reasons that might motivate somebody to push for such a revision, and even make other people believe that KJV readers want such a revision (we don’t): 

  1. They don’t want it to be the most read Bible version anymore
  2. They don’t think it’s God’s Word, or that it has errors that newer Bibles don’t have
  3. They are upset that their Bible is changing (misery loves company)
  4. They think that KJV readers are automatically fundamentalists due to the unfortunate antics of online apologists 
  5. They are frustrated that they were able to attain a doctorate and still can’t read the KJV
  6. They have never talked to somebody who has opted into reading the KJV over a modern version
  7. There isn’t a lot of money to be made from a Bible without a copyright
  8. They think that apologetics cannot be done with it (see point 2 and point 4)
  9. They genuinely like the idea of reading the KJV, but have trouble reading it
  10. They are bored or lonely, and need something to talk about

Conclusion

Common sense should tell the average person that in a world with hundreds of Bible translations, there is a reason for people still retaining the KJV, and it’s not because they think it’s going to be updated. If somebody wants a Bible that will be updated as often as the apps on their phone, there are dozens of Bible versions that fit that bill. The KJV is a standardized, stable,text. It does not bend with the trends on modern textual criticism. It does not sway to the culture. The benefits of reading the KJV far outweigh the task of learning some archaic words, or simply buying a Bible that translates the archaic words in the margin. Retranslating, or revising the KJV actually creates far more problems than it solves. In fact, it pretty much introduces a problem that would make the KJV have the same issues as all the other Bibles – it would be a changing text. 

The KJV may need a revision when modern English evolves again, though I think that time is much farther away than people realize. Until then, there are two simple solutions: Learn some vocab, or pick another translation. The problem that creates the need for a retranslation or revision actually has two easily attainable solutions that can be employed immediately by any person who is interested. If you’re in the small camp of people who want to read the KJV, but find it too difficult and therefore want a revision, I highly recommend a Bible with marginal aids. The effort of revision introduces many of the problems that are solved by switching to the KJV in the first place. 

Are KJV Onlyists Asking the Same Questions as Mark Ward?

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

In an article posted on the website “By Faith We Stand,” Mark Ward addressed an article published by the Trinitarian Bible Society called, “Five Questions about the Authorised (King James) Version.” If you haven’t read Ward’s article, I recommend reading it before continuing here. I wanted to offer a response to his response in this article. In the opening paragraph, Ward applies the term, “KJV-Only,” to the Trinitarian Bible Society. As a side note, the reason they are charitable is because the people at Trinitarian Bible Society are Christian, not because they are British. I’m sure you can find as many unpleasant Brits as you can Americans. In any case, Trinitarian Bible Society is not a “KJV-Only” organization. In fact, in the “About” section of the website, they list six objectives of the society which demonstrate as much.

  1. To publish and distribute the Holy Scriptures throughout the world in many languages.
  2. To promote Bible translations which are accurate and trustworthy, conforming to the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament, upon which texts the English Authorised Version is based.
  3. To be instrumental in bringing light and life, through the Gospel of Christ, to those who are lost in sin and in the darkness of false religion and unbelief.
  4. To uphold the doctrines of reformed Christianity, bearing witness to the equal and eternal deity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, One God in three Persons.
  5. To uphold the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
  6. For the Glory of God and the Increase of His Kingdom through the circulation of Protestant or uncorrupted versions of the Word of God

It is clear by the first objective listed that “King James Onlyism” is not their purpose. If this were their purpose, point one would read: 

  1. To publish and distribute the Authorised Version throughout the world

The Trinitarian Bible Society does not promote “King James Onlyism” as it is defined by most people. Here is a quote directly from the TBS on the matter:

“The Trinitarian Bible Society does not
believe the Authorised Version to be a
perfect translation, only that it is the best
available translation in the English language”

Cited from the Quarterly Magazine, Q1, 2007, Page 8

In fact, they just completed the task of translating the Bible into Farsi, which is not the King James Bible. The fact that the society uses the same base Hebrew and Greek text as the Authorised Version does not make them King James Onlyists. That would be like a publishing house using the same underlying text as the ESV to make a new translation, and calling that a new translation of the ESV. In fact, most recently published Bibles use a printed edition of the modern critical text as a base text. In any case, it should be clear that a Farsi Bible is not an English Bible. The Reina Valera is not an NKJV. A simple question can be used to demonstrate this category error: 

“Can a King James Onlyist advocate for, sell, and read other versions than the King James and be a King James Onlyist?” 

If the answer is no, than Trinitarian Bible Society is not “KJV-Only.” If you answer yes, then this definition of “KJV-Only” applies to versions other than the Authorised Version, and the term is being employed incorrectly. If somebody wishes to insist on calling people who distribute and read other versions than the King James a “KJV Onlyist,” well, there’s not much we can do about that.

It should be clear that by producing, printing, and distributing other versions of the Bible than the KJV, TBS has proven themselves to be unabashedly not KJVO. In addition to this, the godly men and women at Trinitarian Bible Society do not claim to be King James Only nor advocate that one must be reading a King James to be reading the Bible. I understand that Ward’s ministry is to help retire the use of the AV and apparently all Traditional Text Bibles, but name calling and miscategorization are the signs of a failed argument. It is also important to remember that the Trinitarian Bible Society was founded in part due to certain other Bible Societies allowing Unitarian and Jesuit heretics to be members who sought to produce and distribute corrupt translations, not to advocate for “King James Onlyism.” Such an idea didn’t even exist during that time. 

These miscategorizations and rhetoric employed by Ward should be enough to discredit the article altogether for the discerning reader, but if you want to see a response to some of his points continue reading. Ward’s stated goal in writing his response to TBS seems to be to convince the TBS to revise the AV by trying to demonstrate that people who advocate for the AV have trouble reading it. He does not provide any testimonials or data within his response to support this claim, so it is purely anecdotal. He states that,

“This TBS article’s mere existence is a powerful argument against its viewpoint”

Part of the problem is that we live in a culture that believes the KJV is as confusing as Chaucer or Shakespeare, and won’t open it as a result. I encourage those who think that to go and read some Chaucer and Shakespeare, and then read some passages from the Old and New Testament in the AV. Those same people that do not read the AV then go around and tell people that the AV is unintelligible and should not be read. There is certainly a need for an article like this from the TBS. The people that are the most loud about how difficult the AV is to read, are those that do not read it. I found myself perplexed at this perspective. It seems he is saying that people who read the AV, love the AV, and advocate for others to do the same, cannot understand it. Though the response to the TBS has many mischaracterizations and lacks the data to support Ward’s claim that TBS supporters believe the AV to be incomprehensible, there are some points that I have not addressed on this blog that I think will be valuable to my readers nonetheless. 

Response to Point One

Ward begins by answering TBS on the question:

“Why update other translations and not the KJV?” 

Ward gives a response to the TBS article before saying he’s “not willing to chase down an official answer to that question right now,” so I’ll avoid answering his points until he chases those answers down. He then asks a question that, according to Ward, has gone unanswered. I myself have heard this question answered plenty of times, so it could just be that Ward hasn’t engaged with those who actually read the AV, or he’s simply never heard the conversation take place. The question is: 

“At what point will our English have diverged far enough from Elizabethan English to justify a revision or replacement of the KJV?” 

First, it is important to point out that if the 1769 AV is Elizabethan English, Shakespeare might as well to us be as archaic as Chaucer. While the AV retains some of the prose of Elizabethan English which gives it the majestic feel that Ward claims to enjoy, it is not purely Elizabethan if Shakespeare is our guide – it’s closer to modern English actually. Take this passage of Shakespeare for example: 

You shall find of the king a husband, madam; you, good must of necessity hold his virtue to you; whose sir, a father: he that so generally is at all times worthiness would stir it up where it wanted rather than lack it where there is such abundance.

It is true, that if the 1769 AV was written in Elizabethan English as is found in Shakespeare, it would indeed be quite difficult to understand for many readers. To a modern reader, Shakespearean word order may seem more random than calculated. It seems like figuring out the word order of the AV would be a simple task for somebody who has a basic understanding of the word order of Spanish, and especially easy for those that can diagram sentences in Greek. Children seem to figure it out without issues, anyhow. It also stands to reason that somebody who has taken such an interest in defining many of the “false friends” in the AV would, after some time, have a good handle on the vocabulary of the thing. In any case, the simple fact is that the syntax and vocabulary is in between Elizabethan and modern. Take a look at Psalm 119:86-87.

All thy commandments are faithful: They persecute me wrongfully; help thou me. They had almost consumed me upon earth; But I forsook not thy precepts

It should be evident that while the AV is beautiful, it is not written in the Elizabethan English of Shakespeare, so the identification of the AV as “Elizabethan” English seems to be more of a rhetorical device than anything else. For those that have trouble with the “thou” and “ye,” in English: if it starts with a “T” it’s singular, and if it starts with a “Y” it’s plural. Funny enough, the distinction between singular and plural “you” in the AV is actually quite a great reason to retain it because it adds clarity!

Now I’ll give my not-so-short answer to the question: At what point will the AV need to be retranslated?

If we take the most colloquial version of American English and lowest average reading comprehension level, one could easily make the case that now is the time. Though I imagine the same case would have to be made for the ESV if we apply that standard across the board. If the requirement for a Bible to be adequately intelligible is that it must be perfectly comprehensible at every word at a fourth grade reading level, I suppose we’re all stuck with the NLT. Even the NIV has words like aloes, dappled, filigree, forded, galled, offal, portent, and retinue. Pretty much every English translation of the Bible is off the table at this point. This is one of the challenges of Ward’s claim, that he hasn’t defined how much of the AV is unintelligible compared to other versions. I get the picture from Ward that every verse has a “false friend,” when some of the words he lists only occur once in the whole Bible. Two of the other words are words for livestock. Are there more difficult words in the AV than the ESV? Of course. Are there so many difficult words that it needs to be revised? I think not. 

At what point will the AV need to be retranslated?

I’d like to point out the fact that this question itself is a bit beggy. Tucked away behind the scenes of this question seems to be the assumption that people cannot understand the AV now. This stands against common reason, as many, many people read and enjoy the AV. In fact, the polls show that of those who read their Bible, the AV enjoys a great percentage of these readers. Since Ward has not given us any data to evaluate, we are stuck going on his word that his “KJV Only” friends don’t seem to understand their Bible. This provokes an interesting question. What percentage of words do you need to understand for comprehension? What if somebody falls below that threshold for the ESV? Is it the case that the ESV must be retranslated, or that somebody needs to learn some new words? What is the most simple solution for those that actually desire to read the KJV? If the problem is with difficult words, is it simply not the case that Ward prefers a Bible with a smaller quantity of difficult words? The question also seems to assume that people cannot learn how to read the AV. I grew up in a family of teachers, and from a pedagogical standpoint, it’s sort of a chief blasphemy to tell somebody not to learn. This being the case, it does not stand to reason that the AV is so incomprehensible at this point in time that somebody with an average reading level cannot read it. This seems to be more of an issue with English pedagogy and language learning than an issue of translation. That may be a worthy thought to explore some time. Is the “incomprehensibility” of the AV a matter of an outdated translation, or poor pedagogy, or perhaps people are just unwilling to learn new words?

I get the sense that it may be the last option. In a world where Twitter is a chief means of communication, that really shouldn’t surprise anybody. In any case, I can offer a response that may serve the church well. It is not outlandish to think that even if somebody with an average reading level who has trouble with some of the words in the AV cannot use a dictionary to help them learn as they go. In fact, Ward says that such a solution has worked in his life! Most printed editions of the AV come with an archaic word list, and many even have difficult words rendered more easily in the margin. Most KJV text blocks quite literally have helps on every single verse, where it isn’t even necessary. Ward has actually provided a valuable resource in defining so many “false friends” in the AV in his attempt to prove it incomprehensible. If anything, he has provided an adequate solution to his problem, which requires much less time and effort than revising the AV – learn some vocab. 

Since this doesn’t seem to be as much of an issue with translation as it is with English, humour me for a moment on this tangent. We all learn words in order to speak. We learn words as we go through life. We learn words in our Biology and maths classes in order to graduate school. We learn even more words as we enter the workforce. We even learn words in church,  like “propitiation,” a word found in the ESV. Life is a constant exercise of expanding our vocabulary, and most of the time it’s accidental. I learned as many words working in the kitchen at Chipotle as I did in my psych 101 class at university. This particular jab at the AV could easily be confused for an attack on English pedagogy and even the ability of people to learn new words. 

Just like a lawyer has specialized vocabulary, so does a plumber and a key maker and an insurance adjuster. We learn words all the time, so it should not be a difficult ask that we learn words for the most important aspect of the Christian life – hearing God’s voice. In fact, if you’re reading this article, I’m sure you, at one point, had to learn words like propitiation, justification, sanctification, inspiration, and so forth. These are all words we use frequently in a Christian context, and much of our Christian theological grammar is more complex than the archaisms of the AV. Many people even jump into Latin to better understand theological grammar. No matter which version one reads, he has to learn new words to read it. The real issue here seems to be that Ward finds the difficulty curve too steep for the AV.

The question also completely ignores the demographic of KJV readers the article is apparently pointed to, those that read it daily and raise their kids reading it daily. The simple reality is, that if you read the KJV growing up, you’ll likely learn all the words by the time you hit adolescence. If Ward is actually looking for solutions to this apparent problem, there is a simple one – catechism, not retranslation. That seems to be the straightforward Reformed answer, anyway. At what point are we going to ask the question, “Does Mark Ward have a problem with the AV, or just a problem with people learning English words?” 

To respond to the initial question directly, the answer is simple: the AV will need to be retranslated when we are as approximately far from it linguistically as we are now from Chaucer. The AV wasn’t the colloquial form of English even when it was printed, and the plow boy certainly didn’t mind. Ward may be right that there will never again be a time where the church is united enough to produce a successor to the AV. I suppose that’s just another one of life’s happy accidents (and, yes, surely a plan of providence). In a spell of British humour, it seems Ward has produced an argument from providence in favour for the KJV.

Response to Point Two 

“If it’s okay to put modern words in the margins, why not the text?” 

The argument being made by the TBS is that the AV isn’t archaic enough to need a revision just yet. It is being made by people who know the meaning of, or can find the meaning of, leasing (Psalm 4:2;5:6; deceiving), kine (Deut. 28:18; Cattle), prevent (2 Sam. 22:19; hinder, obstruct, intercept, confront), besom (Isa. 14:23; broom), chambering (Rom 13:13; Sexual immorality; coitas), bewray (Isa. 16:3; uncover, reveal), beeves (Lev. 22:19,21; Num. 31:28-44; plural for beef, or cow), bolled (Ex. 9:31; budded, in bud), and so forth. Listing off archaic words doesn’t exactly speak to how we understand language either (though I suppose it is a decent rhetorical device). Context is just as important as vocabulary, especially in English. Again, this seems to be more of a confusion over how to learn and read words than a problem with the AV. At this point, I’m genuinely having a hard time understanding why somebody who loves the King James Version so dearly and has spent so much time learning all the difficult words wants it changed. 

Ward proceeds to split his response into three sub points.

In sub-point one of Ward’s response, he addresses this question: 

“How do you know what counts as archaic?”

TBS responds with a perfectly reasonable answer – it’s difficult to determine where the threshold is for archaic. In other words, it’s probably just easier to produce a new translation than revise the old. To see the TBS’ full response to the question, “Why Not Produce a Modern Version for the 21st Century?”, see this link. Ward responds with what seems to be some rather uncharitable jabs at the problems with “KJV Onlyists”, namely that they are ignorant of just about things pertaining to language and translation. He then provides a two links to online dictionaries. This may serve as a gentle reminder to the audience that he is the one saying the KJV is incomprehensible, not the people who, you know, read it. The real question that must be asked is, “Does a translation containing difficult words need to be retired?” I argue that no, this is not a good justification for retranslation. That is not to say that people do not struggle with words in the AV at all, they do. A major disconnect, is that the people who typically struggle with the AV are often times educated people. In other words, this problem of unintelligibility is expressed most loudly by those who are able, but simply unwilling to learn new vocabulary. Pastor Pooyan Mehrshahi, comments on the demographic who struggles most with the language of the AV:

Coming back to something I started with, the problem is not with the young; the problem is with our elders. Have you ever heard a child complain about the complexity of the language of the Authorised Version? They may say they do not understand; and then you explain it and they accept it. An educated Englishman, however, says he does not understand this Elizabethan language and even if you explain it, he still says he does not understand it. The difference is what is happening to a child or a young person: their English, their vocabulary is growing, and they are learning the language. A person coming from another culture, like myself, in learning the language, simply accepts it. I must learn the vocabulary of the Word of God, that is all! So it is that a child does not complain about this book. It is always, in my experience, adults, who are well educated, white, English, men and women, who complain about this book.

Pastor Pooyan Mehrshahi delivered a sermon on the topic of the relevance of the AV in a young and multicultural society, published in the TBS magazine, and is well worth a read.

At this point, I have a really hard time believing that a person who knows what the word bewray means has any trouble reading the AV, but we’ll take Ward’s word for it. If I’ve learned anything, the people he calls KJV Onlyists are people that occupy a very slim demographic – those that aren’t aware of online dictionaries. Ward then offers his services to TBS to help them identify archaic words – an offer that might be received a little bit better if he didn’t spend an entire article miscategorizing them and then linking an online dictionary to help them understand the Bible they read and sell. Keep in mind, this article is addressed to “KJV Onlyists” who read and support the TBS. I think it’s a fair assumption to say that this particular audience can read the AV. Ward hasn’t yet provided any poll data or substantial evidence that they cannot, so let’s let common reason guide us.

In sub-point 2 of Ward’s response, he addresses this statement:

“Updates would be clumsy compared to the KJV”

Ward here seems to assume that the men and women at TBS believe that “God is incapable of speaking in modern English.” The AV is early modern English, if we’re being specific. Perhaps Ward is intending to say, “Modern Colloquial English.” In any case, the question is not whether the KJV is inspired, the question is, “Does it need an update?” The view of myself and TBS, is that no, it does not. Ward again seems to make another assumption in this short paragraph, that the folks at TBS believe that the “KJV is perfect” in the sense that it cannot ever be improved. Again, the question is not, “Is it possible to be improved?” it is “Should it be improved?” To the first question, it is possible, just not necessary. I’d be curious to see what entity could pull off the feat of revising the AV and getting people to adopt it on a massive scale. One of the reasons to retain the AV is that it is a standard English version that churches can memorize together. Introducing another translation simply adds more discord. To the second question, the view of myself and TBS is emphatically, no, not now. Ward and his colleagues seem to often miss the point that those in the “Confessional Bibliology” camp do not believe you have to be reading an AV to be reading God’s Word. The AV is simply, by our standards, the English version that should be used because it is an accurate translation of the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Received text, and the best version in English that meets that criteria. Those are two entirely different discussions than the one being presented in this article by Ward, however. If I remember correctly, the discussion is not over the underlying text or the accuracy of the translation, it is over the intelligibility of the archaisms. Categories are important, dear reader. 

The third and final sub-point under this section is an answer to the question:

“What do you do about spelling?” 

Ward basically talks about how he prefers British spelling because the AV is the product of the crown, and how archaic spellings are “an unmistakable part of the character of the KJV.” It may be wise to point out here that people aren’t interested in the value of the AV as it exists in a museum, as an artifact of history. It is an accurate translation of God’s Word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and is therefore God’s Word – not a museum piece to admire from afar. 

Response to Point Three

“What about other translations of the Masoretic Text/Textus Receptus?” 

In the final leg of Ward’s response, he details the intricacy of the Bible translation process to a Bible translation society. At least Ward seems to have a sound grasp on British humour at this point. I’ll address the only real point made here, that Ward claims TBS falsely calls the NKJV a “Critical Translation.” Ward, in scholarly fashion, employs the rhetorical strategy of saying two things at once – that the TBS told a lie and that they didn’t tell a lie. Ward certainly has a right to disagree with the TBS, but I think he missed the point of what the TBS was saying. What the TBS did not mean is that the NKJV is based on the amoebic blob that is the modern critical text. What they were saying is that it employs modern translation philosophy, different from that of the standards set forth by the TBS.

The NKJV has a critical apparatus which details various readings from different text platforms. This is a question of translation philosophy, and TBS disagrees with the philosophy employed by the NKJV. Somebody reading their Bible should not have to choose a text like an RL Stein Goosebumps novel, especially if the critical notes associated with those variant readings are more befuddling than anything. I agree with Burgon, that these kinds of critical notes in a translation only serve to sow doubt to a reader. If a translator isn’t sure what the text is supposed to be, perhaps it’s wise not to force that uncertainty upon the person who is completely unequipped of making textual decisions with the limited apparatus of an English translation. And if Ward wants to advocate that Bible readers learn to use a critical apparatus to read their Bible, I can think of a more productive way to spend some time – learning a few vocab words. It may be a good conversation for another time to discuss the differences between the kind of notes in the 1611 AV and the NKJV, but perhaps it may be profitable to read some of the articles published by the TBS on the matter. The men and women at the TBS do know a little bit about translation methodology, after all.  

Conclusion

*Incoming Rhetorical Device*

The response article ends with Ward expressing how disheartened he is. Somewhere in the distance I’m sure somebody is playing the world’s smallest violin. He then makes a heartfelt appeal to the TBS, after shamelessly mischaracterizing them, to stop what they are doing. So I will join with Mark Ward. TBS, I’m talking to you. Please stop translating the Bible and distributing it to the world. Please stop selling those beautiful calfskin Westminster Reference Bibles. Instead, rededicate your time to retranslate the AV so that men like Mark Ward can finally sleep easy at night. We need another English Bible! The church cannot spend another minute teaching their children English words and how to read their Bible, it is simply too arduous of a task. It is clear that the KJV is completely unintelligible and needs to be retired to a museum where we can love it properly. I also love the KJV with all my heart, I just cannot understand it! Restore the Word of God to the temple, TBS! 

A Response to Brother Mark Ward

The Young, Textless, and Reformed10 Comments

Introduction

First I want to acknowledge and commend the irenic spirit of Dr. Mark Ward as he presented a refutation of the position which he calls “Confessional Bibliology” in his lecture posted on September 27, 2019. For those that are readers of my blog, I have referred to this position as “The Confessional Text Position”, and I believe that Confessional Bibliology is an appropriate and charitable label, over and above “Textual Traditionalism” or “KJV Onlyism”.[EDIT: Ward has decided to call this position “KJV Only” anyway. We can’t all be winners.] It is important to remember that this is an intrafaith dialogue. I hope that my handling of his lecture will rise to the same level of integrity as brother Ward. Dr. Ward’s presentation is thorough, scholarly, and is befitting of a Christian, unlike many similar presentations. This is evident in that he freely discusses Pastor Jeff Riddle and Pastor Truelove without character defamation, misrepresentation, or name calling. I do acknowledge that some have treated Dr. Ward uncharitably in various groups, and I want to point out that I have had nothing but positive interactions with him (though brief). It is clear that he is a dear brother in the Lord, despite our disagreement in this one area. 

That being said, I do see some potential problems with his presentation that I would like to address. My goal is to emphasize, like Dr. Ward seems to do, that this conversation primarily finds its application pastorally, and not text-critically. This is not about being right and defeating each other, it is about giving confidence to Christians that they have God’s Word. As a pastor, my pure intention is to provide a position that can accomplish that goal. All of the text-critical work in the world is without use if our hearts are not in the first place focused on instilling men and women with confidence in their Bible, reassuring them that every word they read is “Thus saith the Lord”. The main focus of my critique is that the presentation proceeds backwards. It begins at a surface level and then stays there, brushing over the fundamental issue which divides the two camps so definitively.

Do the Minor differences between the CT and TR Give Cause for Abandoning the TR?  

In Dr. Ward’s presentation, there was a major effort to highlight the differences within the printed editions of the Received Text, rather than discussing the major differences between the Received Text and Critical Text. These major differences result in the form of the two texts being entirely different. I will argue that downplaying the difference within the Received Text and the Critical Text does not frame the discussion in its proper place, and that makes it difficult to interact with the nuances of the presentation in a meaningful way. That is because the problem is not initially about the minor differences within printed texts, it is about the fact that these two texts represent entirely different Bibles and two different methodologies.

Dr. Ward’s approach neglects to highlight the implications to the doctrine of preservation by focusing on the “jot and tittle” component of the Confessional Text position, which certainly deserves to be fleshed out further down the line. He rightfully comments that the missing sections at the end of Mark and in John 8 are a “serious threat” to the critical text. This seems like an appropriate problem to tackle prior to getting into the minutiae, which Dr. Ward carefully does in his presentation. Given that we both believe God has preserved His Word, it seems imperative to answer how one can uphold a meaningful doctrine of preservation while affirming two text platforms which disagree in major ways. If both sides can cross the bridge and agree that this poses difficulties to even the most loose definitions of preservation, there may be a great opportunity for a fruitful discussion about minor variations at some point from a believing perspective. 

Which is to say, that it is problematic to Dr. Ward’s critique to insist that God preserved two forms of the Bible. I argue frequently that the only reason there is so much tension in this discussion is the fact that modern critical text advocates continue to present the smattering of Alexandrian manuscripts as “earliest and best”, despite no evidence for such a claim other than they are the oldest surviving manuscripts. Even modern textual scholarship has demonstrated that original readings can indeed present themselves in later manuscripts.

If the handful of these idiosyncratic texts are viewed as tertiary within the manuscript tradition (or not properly seated within the tradition at all), this conversation becomes much more simple. The rise of modern textual scholarship has introduced this problem to the church by allowing for manuscript types which have been rejected historically to be valued so highly. It is important to acknowledge that the Received Text did not introduce this problem, modern scholarship did when they declared that the Reformation era text needed to be thrown out. A consistent application of Dr. Ward’s presentation should conclude in the Received Text and the KJV being dismissed wholesale, as it represents an entirely different text form. 

Since Dr. Ward did not suggest that, it is important to understand that textual decision making is done from a completely different perspective between the Confessional Bibliology group and modern textual scholarship. It is easily demonstrated that the base manuscripts from which the modern eclectic text and the Received Text are built on represent a different form altogether. So the difference is not in the amount of data necessarily, but in the methodology itself which accepts this data into the manuscript tradition. Much time is spent discussing whether or not the Post-Reformation Divines would have accepted this new data, and here is where Dr. Ward and I disagree fundamentally. I do not believe that the Post-Reformation Divines would have adopted the modern critical perspective, even if presented with the new data.

Francis Turretin comments on what Dr. Ward presents as a chief problem for the Confessional Text position – the problem of variants as it pertains to “every jot and tittle”. 

“A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal)” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol.I, 111). 

So it is not chiefly a problem with variants, but the actual text form and the modern perspective that certain passages have been totally corrupted. Turretin continues. 

“There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senensis acknowledges: “they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles” (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ” (Ibid. 115). 

Turretin explicitly mentions “several copies in the time of Jerome”, which happens to be the time that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to have been produced. Whether he is explicitly referring to these two manuscripts or not, the unavoidable reality is that these two copies represent the form of text he is talking about – namely those missing those three variants. The minor variants discussed in Dr. Ward’s presentation are not that of a mutilating nature, but the two variants he lists as problematic certainly are.  So to accept manuscripts and readings from manuscripts bearing this form is to depart methodologically in a major way. The conversation of which jots and tittles may be profitable if this can be admitted, as the amount of jots and tittles to be discussed would shrink massively. 

Does Confessional Bibliology Reject Decision Making? 

In short, no. Those who advocate for this position do not balk at the “Which TR?” question, because it fundamentally misses the point of the argument itself. I will acknowledge, however, the validity of the question from his perspective. While Dr. Ward provides a thorough presentation of the 11 types of variations between the printed editions of the Received Text, the conclusions of his argument do not demonstrate that the effort of modern textual scholarship is in the same category as Reformation era textual scholarship.

He is absolutely correct in saying that variations exist between printed editions of the TR, and points out that there are just as many editions of the Nestle-Aland text (with many more to come!). The most important point to interact with however, is his critique that the KJV is not its own form of the TR. Dr. Ward wrongly assumes that ultimately, when the conversation is stripped down to its bare components, the Confessional Bibliology argument is the same as the KJV Only argument (Excluding Ruckman). I will note that I do not consider this to be any sort of serious error, just a matter of nuance that I believe was overlooked. Confessional Bibliology advocates read other translations than the KJV, so it is a bit of a misrepresentation to call them KVJO. It would be the same as calling somebody who prefers the ESV and reads the ESV an ESV Onlyist, despite viewing the NASB as a fine translation of the critical text.

While there are some within the Confessional Bibliology group that believe that some form of textual criticism is still necessary, most, as Dr. Ward points out, agree that the Scrivener edition of the Received Text, which represents the textual decisions of the KJV translators, is “the” Received Text. This is due to the nature of the argument from God’s providence, as well as exposure of the text to the people of God as it happened in history. This argument does not seem as far-fetched given that it is not hedged within the context of modern critical scholarship, though I am fully aware of the critiques of this position. It’s not as though the KJV translators were moved along by the Holy Spirit, or reinspired, but that their textual decisions represented a century’s work of scholarship, dialogue, and corporate reception of certain texts within the Received Text corpus. This is made plain and evident in the vast number of commentaries and theological works which use the Received Text of the Reformation.

In short, the Scrivener text is not the best representation of the Received Text by virtue of the King James Translation team, but rather by virtue of the reception of those readings by the people of God. Were it the case that those readings were rejected, like readings Erasmus examined from the Vatican codex, we might be right in following the argumentation of Dr. Ward. The fact stands, that not only did Erasmus reject those readings, but all of the Reformed textual scholars and theologians who came after him did so as well, even commenting on manuscripts missing the ending of Mark. Jan Krans notes the fundamental difference between modern textual scholarship and the method of Beza in his work, Beyond What is Written.

“In Beza’s view of the text, the Holy Spirit speaks through the biblical authors. He even regards the same Spirit’s speaking through the mouth of the prophets and the evangelist as a guarantee of the agreement between both…If the Spirit speaks in and through the Bible, the translator and critic works within the Church. Beza clearly places all his text critical and translational work in an ecclesiastical setting. When he proposes the conjecture ”  (‘wild pears’) for (‘locusts’) in Matt 3:4, he invokes “the kind permission of the Church” (328,329).

The point is this – it is not that the Confessional Bibliology group rejects textual decision making, they reject textual decision making in the context of modern textual scholarship. Within the Confessional Bibliology camp, there are vibrant and healthy discussions on this matter which has resulted in the mass adoption of the Scrivener text. The problem occurs when this is conflated with Reconstructionist Textual Scholarship, which, when applied to a text, results in its complete deconstruction and devaluation. The conversation simply cannot happen in a healthy way in a context that takes 15 miles when given an inch.

This is chiefly exemplified in the fact that a decision made on a variant that does not affect meaning is compared to removing 11 verses from Scripture. Categorically, those are not the same thing. I appreciate Dr. Ward’s care in presenting the minor variations, but those are not the problem at a fundamental level (Unless one chooses to make it a problem unnecessarily). That is also assuming that a decision cannot be made, or has not been made on the handful of significant variations that exist within the editions of the Received Text. Had the KJV translators made a printed edition of the textual decisions they chose, this conversation likely would not be happening. The claim that the text as it is represented by the 1881 Scrivener text is an “English Greek New Testament” would not be taken seriously. This was the conclusion of Dr. Hills as well, that the textual decisions of the KJV can be rightfully considered its own “TR”, which Dr. Ward acknowledges, but seems to disagree with. 

Conclusion

I appreciate that Dr. Ward has seated the conversation within the context of the believing church. This is a huge upgrade from the vast majority of the discussion which exists in the world of secular scholarship. The goal of this article is not to slam Dr. Ward or say that I have refuted him necessarily, but rather to point out that there is a major stumbling block standing in the way of bridge-crossing. I will argue that a simple critique of Dr. Ward’s argument is that it fails to recognize the two distinct text forms held by each respective position. If we were dealing with one text form, with minor variations, we might be able to readily understand Turretin and Owen’s commentary on the text better, and Dr. Ward’s presentation might be more applicable to those who subscribe to Confessional Bibliology. But since during that era, the church rejected manuscripts like Vaticanus, and in the modern era the Bibles are all built on top of Vaticanus, the effort of bridge-crossing may be more tedious. Until the people of God seriously consider the direction of modern textual scholarship and its wholesale abandonment of the Original Text for the Initial Text, it may be difficult to find the kind of agreement Dr. Ward desires in his presentation.

At the end of this analysis, I hope that all can see that while there is a fundamental disagreement that may stand in the way of bridge-crossing, it is not so great that we cannot treat each other with brotherly kindness and respect which is fitting for those who claim Christ. The fact stands that not all Bibles are created equal, and despite modern Bibles generically looking like Bibles made from the Received Text, they depart in major places which do indeed effect doctrine, like John 1:18 and Mark 16:9-20. It would also be a different conversation if both forms of the text were stable, but the modern text is not. The direction of the modern text-critical effort is only speeding up in the direction of uncertainty as the ECM is implemented (see 2 Peter 3:10 and the number of diamonds in the Catholic Epistles of the NA28). I’ll end with this quote by textual scholar DC Parker, which I find to accurately assess the nature of the modern critical text.  

 “The text is changing. Every time that I make an edition of the Greek New Testament, or anybody does, we change the wording. We are maybe trying to get back to the oldest possible form but, paradoxically, we are creating a new one. Every translation is different, every reading is different, and although there’s been a tradition in parts of Protestant Christianity to say there is a definitive single form of the text, the fact is you can never find it. There is never ever a final form of the text.”

For more resources:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/text-and-canon-conference-tickets-58685137827

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&includekeywords=&exactverse=&keyword=Word+Magazine&keyworddesc=Word+Magazine&currsection=&AudioOnly=false&SeriesOnly=true&SourceID=crbchurch&keywordwithin=james+white&x=0&y=0