Tag: Reformed

Authorized Review – Decidedly Different: An Admission That Doctrine is Affected

The Young, Textless, and Reformed3 Comments

Introduction

In this review of Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, I want to demonstrate a critical error in Ward’s thinking as it pertains to the use of multiple translations. Ward claims that there are no major doctrines affected between the KJV and modern translations. 

“No major doctrines are affected. But I want to get the little stuff and the big stuff when I read God’s word, and I think you do too.”

119

Despite saying this, he goes on to say that there are translational differences between modern versions that are “decidedly different.” 

“I agree with a commenter on one of my blog posts: “I highly recommend changing versions once in a while. Nothing catches your attention more than seeing a verse you have known for a long time, and it’s translated decidedly different in your new version. There is some material for a study project.… God’s Word is awesome!””

135

In this article, I want to look at what exactly it means to be giddy about translations being “decidedly different” as well as how “bible” is being defined here. 

Decidedly Different

What does it mean for a word or passage to be “decidedly different?” It’s difficult to say if different simply means a different word, or if different means that the word is divergent in definition from the other word. It seems Ward is employing this quotation from his friend to mean the latter due to the fact that a “study project” would not be warranted for the former definition. If Ward was simply talking synonyms, his reader may need a dictionary, and that’s about it.

Let’s take Luke 14:2 for example. In the KJV and ESV, the word ὑδρωπικός is translated “dropsy,” commonly called edema today. The NIV translates the same word as “abnormal swelling of his body.” In the same passage, the KJV and ESV translate the word νομικοὺς as “lawyers” where the NIV translates it as “experts in the law.” While the NIV is unfortunately less precise here, it is easy to understand why the translation team chose those words. The five minutes it took me to reference the underlying Greek and three translations was far from what I would consider a “study project.”

So let’s take Ward’s words at face value here and find a word that actually requires a “study project.” In John 1:18, both the TR and the NA28 have the word μονογενής. The KJV translates the word “only begotten” and the ESV has “only.” The NIV translates it “one and only” and the NASB 1995 has “only begotten.” The NASB 2020 will translate it “only” and “only begotten” simultaneously. The word μονογενής is a word that contains two words, μόνος (only) and γένος (descendant). In the ESV and NIV, the translators decide to only translate the word μόνος. In Koine greek, γένος is employed to pertain to generation. Here are some examples:

Ἀγεννής – Low born 

Εὐγενής – High born 

Ὁμογενής – of the same race or family 

Παλιγενής – Born again 

Προγενής – born before 

Προωτογενής – first born 

In no case that I could find does γένος go untranslated or serve as an equivalent to μόνος. In this case, I would say that this qualifies as “decidedly different.” If it is true that Christ is the “only son of God,” what do we do with John 1:12? 



“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” 

Christ is not the “only” son, or “unique” son, he is the only begotten son. The whole doctrine of adoption becomes completely void if the γένος goes untranslated as we see in the NIV. Further, the textual variant in this passage which is selected in modern translations adds more doctrinal confusion to the matter at hand. In the ESV it reads, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side.” It translates μονογενής Θεός (only begotten God) as “the only God.” So, who is this God, that is at the Father’s side? Is the Father not God? 

If we do as Ward says, and conduct a “study project,” we find the reading μονογενής Θεός in the 2nd century gnostic work Excerpts from Theodorus. Dean Burgon notes that the first time that this reading of John 1:18 is quoted in extant literature is in reference to the gnostic arch-heretic, Valentinus. Regardless of the progeny of this textual variant, the translation “only” and “only begotten” are “decidedly different,” and the outcome is two entirely different meanings. The passage becomes infinitely more complicated when “son” is exchanged for “god.”    

What is “the Bible”? 

If it is the case that both of these translations are “the Bible,” then what exactly is “the Bible?” Since the claim has been made by Ward and his peers that “no doctrine is affected,” between the two most different manuscripts, this is an important question to answer. See this statement from The King James Only Controversy.

“The reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different New Testament manuscripts would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures!”

67 

Yet we have seen with one textual variant, and one translational difference, that there are indeed important differences that matter. If the claim is made that these differences do not matter, and that doctrine is not affected, then the definition of “the Bible” being employed by Ward and his peers is not based on the idea that one Bible has been transmitted down from the prophets and apostles. It assumes as its premise that multiple bibles have come down the line, and collectively, all of those different articulations are “the Bible.” James White confirms this in his book.

“In fact, they demonstrated a consistent transmission of a single body of material over time.”

80

Take this line of thinking to its logical end, and we must conclude that even destroyed manuscripts are a part of this “bible,” because all of our extant manuscripts came from other manuscripts, most of which are destroyed or lost to time. So “the Bible” is not a tangible thing if we assume the conclusions of the scholarly guild. It is a collection of things, which we have evidence of, that bear witness to the tangible thing that no longer exists.  The differences in this “consistent transmission” of the whole “manuscript tradition” are simply the result of the scribal process, and the differences “do not affect doctrine.”

The “manuscript tradition” is really just a testimony to the Word of God (autographs), and when viewed at a level of extant evidence, must be viewed as “the Bible” in order to maintain some semblance to the protestant doctrine of Scripture. In other words, “the Bible” is the “manuscript tradition.,” and we don’t have the whole manuscript tradition. That is why the scholarly guild has taken up the position that “we have enough” of the Bible (Dirk Jongkind & Co.), even though we do not have “exactly what the prophets and apostles wrote” (Dan Wallace). It does not matter what the prophets and apostles wrote, because “the Bible” gives us “good access” to what was originally written. In other words, “the Bible” simply bears witness to the Word of God as it existed originally. 

When we examine the above doctrine against the Chicago Statement, we find that this idea of the “manuscript tradition” being “the Bible” perfectly comports with inerrancy. 

“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy…We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical Inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”  

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article X

In order for this to not render inerrancy “invalid or irrelevant,” the above definition of “the Bible” must be adopted. “The Bible” is not exactly what the prophets and apostles wrote, it bears witness to what the prophets and apostles wrote, and according to the scholarly guild, we “have a good amount of access” to that object, but not perfect access. Therefore, “the Bible” as defined by Ward and his peers is not what the prophets and apostles wrote, just an echo of what they wrote. Those echoes, the manuscripts, form “the Bible,” which Christians have “good access” to through translation. The Chicago Statement did not defend against higher criticism, it made a way for it to enter into the church. 

Conclusion

If the scholarly guild is correct, then what is being set forth is extremely problematic. It means that Jesus Christ is both the “only God,” distinct from the Father,  and also that he is the “only begotten son” of the Father. If we compare these two theological statements, then Jesus Christ is uniquely God, and was begotten of the Father, who is not uniquely God. Both of these are in “the Bible.”

Ward is excited about this. In fact, according to him, “This is awesome!” It is awesome, apparently, that in order to maintain Trintiarian orthodoxy and the doctrine of adoption, we now have to explain the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the only God (ESV, NASB)

2. The only God is at the Father’s side (ESV)

3. The only God is in the Father’s bosom (NASB)

4. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son (KJV)

5. Jesus Christ is the one and only Son (NIV)

6. Those who believe on Christ become the sons of God (KJV)

In summary, “the Bible” teaches that Jesus Christ is uniquely God, yet he was revealed by the Father, who is not uniquely God. It teaches that Jesus Christ is the only son of God, and yet all that believe are also the sons of God. Yes, this is truly “awesome!” It should not surprise anybody that this kind of thinking allows post-Barthian and higher critical scholars to heavily influence the field of textual scholarship. 

The prominent textual scholars recognize that this doctrine does not comport with one Christian faith, it comports with different Christian faith communities. The only people who do not seem to recognize this problem are the evangelical textual scholars who will go down on the “no doctrine is affected” ship. Yet, if “no doctrine is affected,” then the liberal scholars are correct. As Jennifer Knust and DC Parker believe, there is no “Bible”, just bibles. There is no “Christianity,” there are Christianities. You can believe that Jesus Christ is both the only begotten Son and also “the unique God” and still be a modern protestant Christian.

Since it seems to be the case that “decidedly different” doesn’t just mean “synonym,” the conclusion of Ward’s argument is actually that yes, doctrine is affected. If translations use words that are distinct enough to mean something different, then it seems the only conclusion to Ward’s argument is that doctrine can, and is impacted by translational differences. I believe that I have shown that this is the case in my article.

Authorized Review – Mark Ward’s Compelling Response to Pastor Joel Beeke

The Young, Textless, and Reformed6 Comments

Introduction

In this third article examining Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, I want to take a look at Ward’s handling of Pastor Joel Beeke. It is common for opponents to address Pastor Beeke in their attacks on the King James Bible, because he is one of its most stalwart defenders. Fortunately for us, Ward’s arguments will provide us with some good, clean entertainment.

Let’s take a look at some of these high caliber counter arguments. You’ll have to let me know in the comments what you think. 

Five Arguments

Ward begins his response by describing Pastor Beeke’s statement in this way:.


“King James defender Joel Beeke, a scholar who has done valuable work for the church retrieving the works of the English Puritan writers, argues that the KJV’s elevated language was present originally”

94

Let’s examine exactly what Pastor Beeke said:

“More than any other version, the KJV sounds like the Word of God, even to unbelievers. The KJV translators aimed at this very thing. Even in 1611 the KJV sounded old-fashioned, ancient, a voice from the past. This was to command a reverent hearing, and to suggest the timeless and eternal character of God’s Word. The modern unbeliever, if he has any spiritual concern at all, is well aware that the contemporary scene really offers him no hope. He expects the church to speak in a way that is timeless and otherworldly.”

94

I’m not sure I would describe what Beeke said in the same way as Mark Ward, but I’ll let my reader decide. Ward continues by offering three “counter arguments.”

Super Convincing Counter Argument #1

Ward’s first counter argument is that

“Those who desire other-worldly timelessness in church can do little better than to grab a Vulgate and a Roman missal. This will accomplish the same goal…It’s straight Bible. But freeing straight Bible from a dead language is one huge reason we had a Reformation five hundred years ago, and why the Puritans fought to keep ‘Romish’ practices out of the English church.”

94

In other words, “You want to read the KJV because it’s reverent? Might as well just learn Latin and go back to Rome!” I’m not sure if that is a serious suggestion, but that’s all Ward has to offer in his first point. On a side note, it’s definitely a good thing Ward is here to school Pastor Beeke on the Puritans. 

Super-Mega Convincing Counter Argument #2

Ward’s second argument is that the Book of Mormon and Qur’an “both nonetheless adopted the archaic syntactical and grammatical forms used in the KJV. Why? Because the very language sounds dignified, divine, Bible-y.” (96). In other words, “Other books copy the KJV, so we need to stop propping it up!” He says, “I’d like to stop using the Bible to prop up this style of language” (96). We wouldn’t want our Bible to sound, you know, too “Bible-y”! Thankfully, Ward says that we can retain such “Bible-y” language in our poetry, hymns, and “solemn civil ceremony” (96).  After all this is said and done, I’m really grateful that while we won’t be able to preach from the KJV, we can certainly perform a wedding ceremony or a funeral in the King’s English.

Super-Mega-Ultra Convincing Counter Argument #3


Ward brings up a good point in his third argument, that we can’t be so emotional about our Bible.

.
“Some people are pushed away from God by the KJV, some are drawn by it. We can’t make our decision about the KJV based on a statistical survey of how people respond emotionally to Elizabethan verbiage.”

97-98

Apparently that 55% statistic Ward cites at the beginning of his book is actually a survey of “how people respond emotionally” to the KJV. Clearly, this is the only reason those people read the KJV. 

More Super-Mega-Ultra-Uber Covincing Counter Arguments

(4) Ward continues by intimating that Pastor Beeke is misinformed as to why the KJV translators left some of the older vernacular in the text. Pastor Beeke states that the KJV 1611 “sounded old fashioned” when it was written. Ward goes on to say, “The KJV translators specifically contradict the idea that choosing old-fashioned language was their goal.” Ward’s response is that the reason the KJV maintained the “archaic” language because “it may not have felt worth the effort to update every last syllable of it.” (98). According to Ward, the KJV translators were as bad at following their own rules as the team that put the Revised Version together.

Ward provides his own theory as to why the 1611 KJV was not written in the exact vernacular of the day – that the KJV translators just didn’t want to deal with all of the work it would have taken. Yes, apparently 54 premier scholars working over 7 years simply didn’t want to do the work.

(5) Finally, Ward responds to Beeke’s statement that KJV English is translated in such a way that represents the original languages more closely. Ward responds, “But there are multiple ways in which this form of English diverges too far from contemporary speech and writing that I have to question whether this occasional – but undeniable gain is worthwhile” (101). He then goes on to say that the punctuation of the KJV makes it difficult to read as an example.

“And the absence of quotation marks is only one of many unnecessary reading difficulties caused by four hundred years of language change. We must think about all of the factors that contribute to readability.” (101)

I wonder if Ward has trouble with audio Bibles too.  

Conclusion

Ward’s response to Pastor Beeke doesn’t seem to be a joke, but I found it amusing. I especially enjoyed the part where Ward gave Pastor Beeke a lesson on the Puritans. Perhaps it’s possible that the premier Puritan scholar may know what he’s talking about when it comes to the Puritans and their Bible. This may come to a shock to Ward’s audience, but there are sound reasons to read the KJV other than being bound to tradition and emotions. Believe it or not, those that read the King James Bible typically have no affinity for Rome or their Vulgate. The reader should seriously consider the possibility that Ward could be wrong here. That may come as a shock to Ward, but all of those people from his anecdotes who say they can read the KJV may be onto something here.

In summary, Ward provides several arguments against Pastor Beeke:

1. If you want a reverent Bible, just read the Vulgate!

2. The reverent language was copied by Joseph Smith (quite literally actually) and the translator of the Qur’an, therefore we need to stop propping it up!

3. We can’t let emotions get in the way of deciding which Bible to read!

4. The “archaisms” are only in the KJV because it would have taken too much time to remove them!

5. The punctuation of the KJV makes it impossible to read!  

Authorized Review – Textual Criticism and the Scholarly Guild

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

Introduction

This article is the first in a series of articles inspecting several important topics not covered in my Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible review. The first subject I want to cover, that I tried to avoid addressing in my 9 article series is the issue of textual criticism. In Chapter 6 of Ward’s book, he includes a section responding to the claim that modern Bibles are “Based on Inferior Greek and Hebrew Texts.” 

In this article, I will review Ward’s perspective on textual criticism. 

The Confused & Scared Christian

Ward begins this section by painting Christians who encounter variants as confused and scared, and then appealing to a Greek professor known for his sentence diagramming that is not an active scholar working in the field of textual criticism. 

“Nonetheless, these variants confuse and even frighten many Christians, and I understand that fear. So let me offer a few thoughts from someone I trust, thoughts that were edifying to me.”

Ibid., 114

Ward demonstrates either a) that he does not know much about textual criticism or b) that he isn’t willing to give his reader an accurate picture of textual criticism. In the first place, he paints the picture that manuscripts and manuscript families are the driving source for translations. This is simply not true. All modern versions are revisions of previous translations which were made based on printed Greek texts, not manuscripts. The critical printed editions are based on manuscript evidence, but nobody is doing translation work from a literal papyri or uncial. Ward makes the argument that manuscripts must not be all that different from each other, or we would see denominations preferring one over the other.

“If there were massive, theologically significant differences between Greek manuscripts, different parties would claim the texts that advanced their theological viewpoints. But that simply hasn’t happened.”

Ibid., 115

This point is actually irrelevant, and incorrect. Many denominations do prefer specific text platforms. The Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses for example use translations made from the text platform mostly based on Codex Vaticanus (NA/UBS) or the Latin Vulgate. The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) made its own “translation” loosely based on the NA27. Calvary Chapel uses the NKJV which is based on the Traditional Text with Majority Text footnotes. Independent Fundamentalist Baptists use the KJV, which is based on the Masoretic/TR platform. Many denominations and individual churches care deeply about the translation they read, and the underlying text platform. One of the many reasons people take a stand on translation is specifically due to doctrinal differences between the texts. 

Further, Ward and the professor he references employ what I like to call “The Scholarly Dance” to minimize the importance of textual criticism in this discussion.  

“Leedy observes, “My own weaknesses as a reader expose me to far more significant misunderstanding than the manuscript differences do, so by far the greatest problems that God must overcome in order to talk to me are within me, not within the transmission process.””

Ibid., 115

The Scholarly Dance goes like this: 

  1. Highlight or imply a supposed weakness in yourself 
  2. Implicate God and His desires as a part of your theological understanding 
  3. Make an important theological point based on a display of “humility” and “God’s desires”

According to Leedy and Ward, their “weakness as a reader” is the real problem. This is the problem that “God must overcome.” Therefore, the real problem isn’t with textual criticism, manuscripts, or the transmission process, it is with the Christian. The Scholarly Dance is a great rhetorical tool to say, “If you have a problem with textual criticism, it is a humility problem and a problem with what ‘God has done’, not a problem with the conclusions of textual criticism.” In other words, if you challenge the scholarly narrative, you are in sin, and need to humble yourself. 

Notice another example of the Scholarly Dance:



“I do not believe God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of Scripture for us, even though he granted us good access to the text of the New Testament…I believe God, in his grace, preserved his Word for us but also that there is no apparent external reason to believe that the textus Receptus is in some way special or set apart from the rest of the manuscript tradition…God does not perform a special miracle to protect our collective reading and understanding of his Word from error, and likewise, he has not done so for the transmission of Scripture. There are limits to our knowledge.”

Dirk Jongkind, Introduction to the Greek New Testament, 90…103 (Quotation spliced together from two pages)

And another: 

“We do indeed have ‘access’ to these words, if not with miraculous perfection, then with an extremely high level of accuracy and certainty. And God has done this. What is good enough for the Holy Spirit is good enough for me.”

Brash, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to How God Preserved the Bible, 64

All of this scholarly posturing is to defend the narrative that the Bible has not actually been kept pure, it’s been kept “Quasi-Pure.” The purpose of it is to tell the reader that if they have a problem with an impure Bible, they really have a problem with God, and a pride issue. The scholarly narrative goes like this:


“The Nestle-Aland text, on the other hand, relies on older manuscripts that were discovered after the King James Version was released.”

Ibid., 116

If you have followed this blog, you know that the above statement is misleading, and even incorrect. Codex Vaticanus was discovered prior to the creation of the KJV and parts of it were even referenced in the making of Erasmus’ Greek text. He considered this manuscript to be a failed attempt to join the Greek with the Latin. Vaticanus was published to a modern audience in the 19th century, but it was not first discovered in the 19th century. People knew of the Vatican Codex for a long time.

Further, the NA text is based on the earliest extant manuscripts. There is absolutely no warrant for calling these manuscripts “earliest” overall, just the earliest that have survived 2000 years after the fact. The first Greek New Testament was not made in the 4th century, and there is no way to determine if the manuscripts surviving from the 4th century in any way represent the original text. 

Ward continues by saying that if you are not an expert in Greek or textual criticism, you should not have an opinion of your own. Christians should simply trust the scholars!

“Textual criticism is complicated. I think scholars should continue to debate their viewpoints, but I don’t think it’s wise for non-specialists to have strong opinions about the topic (Prov 18:13). At the very least, Christians who cannot read Greek should humbly acknowledge that their opinions about textual criticism are formed second- or even fifth-hand—that they are based ultimately on authority. It’s impossible to reach resolution in a debate when the participants think it’s about the relative merits of ancient Greek manuscripts but it’s actually about which authorities to trust.”

Ibid., 116

This is called gatekeeping, and Ward and the evangelical textual scholars engage in it all the time. If you are not in the “guild,” you cannot have your own opinion. You are not allowed to survey and study all of the subject matter on your own and form an opinion, because you are not a specialist. This is the same form of argument that is made when people  say, “You’re not a woman, you can’t have an opinion on abortion,” or “You’re not a pharmacist, you cannot have an opinion on medication.” You are not allowed to question the scholarly narrative because you are not a scholar.

Ward presents the case that the reason to abandon the KJV is due to it not being in our “vernacular” English while completely diminishing the very real concerns people have regarding the conclusions of textual scholars. If you disagree, you are in violation of Proverbs 18:13. Again, Ward makes disagreeing with him and his peers a sin issue, while at the same time presenting the information in a misleading and deceptive way. 

Conclusion

The problems of textual criticism as they pertain to Bible translation are much more important than Ward would have his reader believe. His main argument is, “There are no denominational differences between text platforms, therefore there are no doctrinal differences!” Not only is this argument irrelevant, it is simply not true. The IFB is a perfect example of a denomination that has a text platform and translation as a doctrinal distinctive. In fact, Ward and many of his colleagues have in their doctrinal distinctives that a translation (KJV) and the underlying text (MT/TR) should not be used for preaching and memorization. While Ward focuses his attention on this argument, he seems to be utterly oblivious to why people actually have concerns over text platforms and textual criticism, writing them off as “confusion” and “fear.” 

Rather than simply trusting the opinions of haughty scholars, I encourage my reader to take Scripture as the final authority. 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Every Christian has the tools to evaluate spiritual matters, and the Bible is a spiritual matter. When somebody says that the Bible has not been preserved, or that changes in the words of the Bible “do not affect doctrine,” you absolutely have the right to challenge this position. God has given His people His Word, and if Ward actually believed that, he wouldn’t be telling Christians to sit down and be quiet. You do not need a degree from Cambridge to know that this theological statement is not Biblical:

“We do not have now – in our critical Greek texts or any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain”

Gurry & Hixson, Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, xii (Dan Wallace)

You do not need to know all of the nuances about the CBGM to know that this statement regarding its effect on the text is not Biblical:

“Clearly, these changes will affect not only modern Bible translations and commentaries but possibly even theology and preaching”

Peter Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism, 6

You do not need to have a thorough understanding of manuscripts or Greek to know that this statement regarding the Bible by a textual scholar is not Biblical:

“Books and the texts they preserve are human products, bound in innumerable ways to the circumstances and communities that produce them. This is also true of the New Testament…Even if the text of the Gospels could be fixed – and, when viewed at the level of object and material artifact, this goal has never been achieved.”

Knust & Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone, 15

Christian, you absolutely have the right to question what these scholars are saying, and in fact, you should. 

Edit: I have changed “Scholarly Handshake” to “Scholarly Dance“. The Scholarly Handshake is the introduction ritual that includes praising your opponent prior to doing the Scholarly Dance.

Authorized Review – Chapter 6: Reading the KJV is Sinful

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

In chapter 6 of Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, Mark Ward responds to 10 common objections to abandoning the KJV. Ward opens by stating that “The major theme of this book” is,

“How changes in English over the last four hundred years make it nobody’s fault that contemporary readers miss more than we realize when all we read is the KJV.”

Ibid., 88

He then claims that his intention in writing this book is “not in a quarrelsome spirit but in a spirit of servanthood.” He takes on the mantle of being the man to “burrow deep inside English” to report “what’s there.” While I can appreciate Ward’s stated intentions, the reader should be wise to what Ward is advocating for, and assess for themselves whether or not his mission is truly as upstanding as he describes. He makes this appeal at the end of the chapter, 

“I appeal directly to the 55 percent: Because you love the Lord, seek all the tools you can to understand his words, including contemporary English Bible translations. And because you love others, don’t stand in their way when they want to use those tools themselves.”

Ibid., 120-21

The reader should note that the above statement is “loaded.” Ward is implying that loving the Lord is connected to seeking “all the tools you can” which includes reading “contemporary English Bible translations.” Further, loving the Lord is connected to not standing in the way of others “when they want to use those tools themselves.” According to Ward, reading the KJV or advocating that others do the same is an issue for those that “love the Lord.”

The discerning reader may do well to ask, “Am I not loving the Lord if I read the KJV and advocate that others read it too?” The evidence for this is strong, considering he compares reading the KJV to a “stumbling block” and that it “adds difficulty” to reading God’s Word. In opposition to how he views himself in the opening words of the chapter, he is being extremely quarrelsome, even divisive. Despite saying, “I’m not doing what 1 Timothy 6:4 is talking about,” that is exactly what he is doing. The whole premise of his book so far is quarreling about words. 

In my review of chapter 6, I will make note of Ward’s primary arguments and respond to them. 

Responding to the Gainsayer

The difficulty with clearly offering a response to Ward is his constant use of anecdotes and conflicted messaging to support his arguments. If you strip out the anecdotes, there is not a whole lot of substance to his case against the KJV. He states that the KJV is deceitful due to the outdated language, and yet continues to emphasize that,


“The KJV is not unintelligible overall. As I said earlier, the fact that 55 percent of today’s Bible readers are reading the KJV suggests that the KJV is not impossibly foreign and ancient.”

Ibid., 118

He continues, 

“First, I say gently that it’s not clear to me that everyone who reads words they don’t understand notices that they’re not understanding. That’s why I told the story of the 10,000 people who memorized “fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.” I would suggest that until exclusive readers of the KJV read a contemporary English Bible translation like the ESV all the way through, and until they study in depth some individual passages, they won’t realize how much they’ve been misunderstanding. In my own experience, it took me many years of such reading to realize how much I had been missing.”

Ibid., 118

According to Ward, people believe that the KJV is intelligible because they simply do not know that it is not. He again appeals to his summer camp anecdote to support this point. He then makes an interesting claim when he says that the only people who do know that they cannot understand the KJV, are those that have read a modern version. I have personally seen this point parroted by others. What the reader should take note of is that Ward frequently pads his sentences by inserting, “I say gently” or that he has a “spirit of servanthood” while essentially telling his reader that they are too dense to read the KJV. This is why KJV readers have trouble trusting what Ward says about anything pertaining to the KJV and those that read it. An insult is still an insult even if you claim to be saying it “gently.” 

Even worse, Ward again continues to conflate an English speaker’s ability to read Latin to their ability to read the KJV, and to compare the Vulgate to the KJV. He actually claims that if the goal is a reverent translation, reading Latin “will accomplish the same goal.” In an attempt to employ rhetoric, Ward is actually arguing that English speakers would do better just to learn an entirely new language, Latin. Apparently it is better to learn an entirely new language than to understand the various “False Friends” found in the KJV. It is somewhat humorous that this is exactly what the scholarly types advocate for as it pertains to Greek and Hebrew. In any case, it appears as though Ward is attempting to convince non-KJV readers that the KJV is literally another language. I say “non-KJV readers” because anybody who has actually spent some time reading the KJV knows it is not in a foreign language. Ward appeals to 1 Corinthians 14, regarding speaking in tongues, to make the appeal that reading the KJV is a violation of the Scriptures. In Ward’s words, the KJV is both intelligible and also an “unknown tongue.”  

Ward argues that, 

“And literary peak or no literary peak, at some point English will have changed so much that the KJV will be entirely unintelligible. At what point between now and then should we revise or replace it? Even if our English is inferior (an if I don’t grant), the Bible ought to be brought out of someone else’s English and into ours.”

Ibid., 106-107

I do not agree with Ward, that such terms as “Apropo” and “snelbanjaloo” which he employs in his book are superior to the language found in the KJV. It is true that there will come a time when modern English is as far from the KJV as the KJV is from Middle English. That time is not now, and will not likely happen for some time unless English professors allow the grammatical conventions of Twitter to score A’s. In Ward’s typical manner of presenting two conflicted messages at once, he says initially that what he is advocating for has not been done, “The Bible ought to be brought out of someone else’s English and into ours.” He then goes on to say that, 

“This has, in fact, been done in the New King James Version. It uses precisely the same Greek New Testament text as the KJV, but it uses contemporary English. (The same is true for the KJV 2000, the World English Bible, and the Modern English Version, among others.)”

Ibid., 117

Despite the fact that other translations are available, Ward again makes reading the KJV a sin issue when he says, 

“Third, even if you do understand the KJV just fine, it’s not in vernacular English—and that means something for how you treat others, not just yourself. Don’t stop Cody and Javante and Jiménez (real names of precious teens I served in outreach ministry for many years) from hearing the Bible in words they can immediately understand. Don’t make them memorize “you hath he quickened”—even if you take time to explain quickened, which not all youth workers do—when they could memorize “he made you alive” (Col 2:13 CSB). Don’t step in the way of your own children or grandchildren inheriting what is their birthright as Protestants—no, as Christians: the unadulterated words of God translated into the vernacular. You have liberty to read whatever translation you want and, as far as I can tell, no ecclesiastical authority has the power to stop you. I certainly don’t. But I urge you to set aside your privileges for others’ sake when it comes to Bible teaching and other discipleship work (1 Cor 9:1–12). Children and new converts should not be given copies of the KJV. Paul said no to that option when he tied intelligible words to edification in 1 Corinthians 14.”

Ibid., 119-120

This statement is the rhetorical equivalent of a temper tantrum. After spending several chapters trying to convince people that they cannot read the KJV and that it is literally another language, he effectively says to those that disagree with him, “I don’t care if you say you can understand it, other people cannot, and therefore you are sinning.” This kind of exegesis is the foundation for spiritual abuse. Ward is arguing that the continued use of the KJV is a stumbling block and a violation of Scripture itself, and therefore using the KJV is a direct violation of Scripture. He says this plainly in his own words, 

“You may wish to put a stumbling block in your own path in order to increase your resilience and skill—like linguistic resistance training. But we have a direct biblical command that is relevant here: don’t put stumbling blocks in someone else’s way (Rom 14:13)…I appeal directly to the 55 percent: Because you love the Lord, seek all the tools you can to understand his words, including contemporary English Bible translations. And because you love others, don’t stand in their way when they want to use those tools themselves.”

Ibid., 120

Conclusion

In chapter 6 of Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, Ward presents one way to use the KJV, and offers what he believes to be “misuses” of the KJV. The only use Ward has offered so far in this work is to be used as a reference to determine the difference between the singular and plural “you.” According to Ward, the misuse of the KJV includes reading it as a primary translation and using it to teach and evangelize.

He has stated that while most Bible readers read the KJV, that the real problem is that these people simply do not know that they cannot understand it. His solution is an updated KJV, which according to his own words, has already been done in the NKJV, KJV 2000, and MEV. This being the case, an updated KJV is not what Ward is arguing for, he is arguing that people who read the KJV must stop. He appeals to Scripture to state that those who do read the KJV are in violation of Scripture’s teaching, and that they are causing themselves, and others, to stumble by reading it. 

It is becoming more and more clear that what I have identified as “conflicted messaging” is really a subtle rhetorical strategy to communicate his actual point – that practically speaking, there are only “misuses” of the KJV. Ward says that the KJV is intelligible, but not actually. He says that he loves the KJV, but those that use it are sinning by doing so. He says that all he wants is an updated KJV, but also that that has already been done. He establishes his primary argument, that people don’t actually know how to read the KJV, based on his own personal difficulty reading it and other anecdotes. He tells his reader that if they do not know Greek, they should “humbly acknowledge that their opinions about textual criticism” essentially do not matter. 

Ward does in this chapter what many Christians are growing weary of – speaking down from the scholarly high tower. He is the expert, not you. If you disagree with Ward, then you are literally sinning. If you, a “non-specialist,” have an opinion on textual criticism that goes against the academic meta, it isn’t wise to comment in the discussion. He then advises those of his readers to subvert the authority of their KJV reading pastors by instructing them to ask their pastor to recommend a Bible “In their own language.” Not only is this divisive, it is misinformed, and offensive, especially to myself, who recognizes the KJV as a beautiful articulation of the English language. This chapter solidifies my thought that Ward’s problem is one only a scholar could have.

Authorized Review – Chapter 4: Learning Words is Difficult

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

This article is the fifth in a series reviewing Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible.

Introduction

Thus far in Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, the reader is being introduced to the idea that the King James Bible is more difficult to read than people may think. The problem with the KJV, according to Ward, is the “False Friends,” which give the illusion to the reader that they understand what they are reading while in reality, they do not. Though he admits that these “False Friends” do not occur that often in comparison to the whole of the KJV, the reader is presented with the reality that they are seriously problematic, despite not affecting doctrine. My reader should get the impression so far that much of Ward’s messaging is conflicting and paradoxical. In Chapter 4, Ward addresses the topic of the comprehensibility of the KJV is as a whole by responding to the claim that many KJV readers make regarding its reading comprehension level. 

This of course needs to be addressed by Ward, because if the Flesch-Kincaid tool is used to assess the KJV’s readability against the ESV’s readability, the KJV apparently wins. Ward argues that the tool is not suited for the English of the KJV, and therefore this line of reasoning is null. I tend to agree with Ward here, though it is fair to point out that the computer tool that assigns reading comprehension level presents the KJV as far more intelligible than Ward has tried to argue. What the reader might take away from this is that Ward has presented another piece of evidence in favor the KJV. Since I agree that computer tools are not an absolute rule for determining readability, I instead want to use this space to again comment on Ward’s rhetorical strategy. 

Rhetoric 

After four chapters, Ward reveals what seems to be a key motivation for writing this book. 

“I do not believe that competent speakers of contemporary English should be required to look up English words in a Bible translation when commonly known equivalents are available.”

Ibid., 55

The problem does not seem to be the KJV, the problem is that Ward takes issue with people needing to look up words while reading their Bible. He goes on to say that computer models should not be used to gauge readability, people should.

“So how can we determine the reading level of the KJV? I suggest that av1611.org passed right over the best measure: people. If reading difficulty is the number one reason people set aside the KJV in favor of modern translations, then perhaps they know better than their computers. In fact, it’s a little odd that some would presume to tell numerous Bible readers, “No, you can read the KJV just fine. My computer says so.””

Ibid., 59

So now the foundational premise of Ward’s argument is again presented as something that must be established upon anecdote and personal experience. Further, he seems to have misunderstood the entire purpose of KJV readers producing a computer based model for the readability of the KJV. It is not to tell KJV readers that it is readable, it is to demonstrate to KJV critics that it is readable. KJV readers already know it is comprehensible because they read it daily. This being the case, Ward relies heavily on anecdotes to support his point, since the data he could appeal to does not work in his favor. The reader is introduced to Ward’s friend who is doing mission work in South America. 

“And yet a KJV-Only acquaintance of mine who is a missionary in the lone English-speaking country in South America told me, “I have found that people living in the jungles of Guyana are having no problem reading and memorizing passages of the King James Version.” I know my friend is not a liar, but I also have a hard time accepting that what he’s saying is true—not because a computer told me the KJV was harder to read than the NIV, but because I’m a flesh-and-blood reader. I know when something is easy or hard to read, and so do you. I have regular trouble following the KJV. I think you and the jungle dwellers of Guyana do too.”

Ibid., 59-60

At this point the reader has to ask, “Okay Mark Ward, you say that ‘people’ are the best gauge for determining readability, but when a person tells you that people living in jungles can understand it, you don’t believe him?” Ward continues to prop himself up as a “language nerd” and a “flesh-and-blood reader,” but I am beginning to question the reliability of Ward’s self-praise. Even if we place the KJV at a college reading level, which is an exceedingly high evaluation, Ward has a doctorate. How is it that a textbook author, doctor, and self-proclaimed “language nerd” have “regular trouble following” a book that is commonly accepted as being between a 5th and 12th grade reading level? My common refrain holds true, that Ward’s messaging is very confused, and at this point, difficult to believe.

Ward continues his argument by saying that,

“In my judgment, the KJV isn’t at any recognized “reading level.” Not fifth grade, not twelfth grade, not grad school, not age eighty-six. The whole concept of “reading level” assumes that we’re talking about more or less contemporary language.”

Ibid., 60

This is where the chapter utterly unravels. Ward insists that the KJV simply cannot be classified into a reading level because apparently it’s not a contemporary language. If this is the case, what language is Ward proposing that it is? Are those that enjoy the KJV bilingual? I really do not think so. There are pre-existing categories for English which fall into Old, Middle, and Modern. Ward admits in a previous chapter that the KJV is early modern English. If the argument is that the KJV cannot even be classified into a reading level, I’m afraid we’ve ventured into the realm of absurdity. The timeline of this chapter is truly a wild ride. Ward, when faced with computer analysis that disagrees with his assessment, advocates against the tool that disagrees with him by simply saying it’s irrelevant, and then proceeds to argue that the KJV cannot even be assigned a reading comprehension level. It reminds me of somebody who loses a board game, and instead of admitting defeat, flips the table and scatters the pieces all over the floor.

Conclusion

Ward ends the chapter by offering a solution that already exists in many KJV text blocks. 

“I could imagine that footnotes (“halt here means limp”; “commendeth here means showcases”) would allow us to have our KJV and read it too.”

Ibid., 60

There is an important point to note here. Ward indicates in this chapter that the KJV cannot be assigned a reading level because apparently it’s not a “contemporary language.” I have argued that the KJV will need an update when today’s written literature is as far from the KJV as the KJV is from middle English. A quick search of a section of Chaucer will give my reader insight as to just how far that gap must be. The discerning reader should see past the rhetoric of Ward’s argument and recognize how absurd it is to suggest that the KJV is so archaic that it cannot even be assigned a reading level.

The most interesting observation I have about Authorized thus far is that every single one of Ward’s arguments is contradicted by his own words. He says that the KJV is difficult to read, while most people who read a Bible read it. He says that the KJV has “False Friends,” but not very many in comparison to the whole book. He says that “False Friends” deceive the reader, and at the same time do not affect doctrine. He says that the readability of the KJV should be established by what people say, but if they do say it’s readable we shouldn’t believe them. The amount of confused messaging in this book is staggering. 

If it is true that Ward’s issue with the KJV is that people shouldn’t have to look up difficult words when an easier one exists, it should be noted that this problem is solved in many KJV text blocks, most notably the Westminster Reference Bible sold by Trinitarian Bible Society. If this is our approach to the Bible, it is also important to ask the question, “How colloquial do we want our Bible to be?” Even more importantly, I have yet to determine why this book was even written. So far, Ward introduces problems, explains how the problems aren’t actually problems, and then offers a solution which already exists.

Authorized Review – Chapter 3: Not so Difficult to Read

The Young, Textless, and Reformed7 Comments

This article is the fourth in a series reviewing Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible.

Introduction

So far in this review series of Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, Ward has communicated to his reader that the King James, while being mostly intelligible, has many places that will trip the reader up, often times without the reader knowing they have been confused about the meaning of a passage. In this review, I have tried to highlight the central premise of the book and the audience, namely that a) the KJV is difficult to read and b) that Ward seems to be primarily trying to convince people who do not read the KJV. I have also pointed out that Ward’s arguments are often contradictory and he tends to undermine his own arguments. The reason I have chosen to also bring attention to the rhetorical elements of Ward’s writing is an attempt to draw out what seems to be the intended purpose of the work. 

Prior to reviewing chapter 3 on “False Friends,” I want to show my reader why I have chosen to focus on the rhetoric so much in my review. Take for example these three quotes:

“So if the KJV is indeed too difficult to understand for modern readers, we’ve got a significant problem—the most significant problem a translation can have: What’s the point in using a translation in old English that people can’t understand anymore?”

Ibid., 18-19

“I thought I knew what the KJV was saying, but over the years I’ve discovered that, far too often and through no fault of anyone I can think of, I did not.”

Ibid., 28


“The KJV is not unintelligible overall. As I said earlier, the fact that 55 percent of today’s Bible readers are reading the KJV suggests that the KJV is *not* impossibly foreign and ancient.”

Ibid., 118

The reader should take notice of the conflicted messaging in Ward’s book exemplified by the quotations above, which is why I’ve decided to highlight the rhetoric so heavily. Early on in the book we are introduced with a problem – that the KJV is too difficult to read, and that Ward discovered he had difficulty reading it. Yet all throughout the book the reader is told that the KJV is intelligible, and that most people can allegedly read it. One of the goals of this review series is to comment on this conundrum. Does Ward believe that the KJV is readable, or does he not? Is Ward arguing that while most people read the KJV, they cannot understand it? More importantly, does Ward offer any solutions to this problem other than “get rid of it”? 

In chapter 3, Ward introduces his reader to what I consider his pinnacle argument – dead words and false friends. He continues to develop his narrative, which is that his reader, and the readers of the KJV, are seemingly unaware of the difficulties of reading the KJV.



“There are two major ways language change affects individual words in the KJV. One we all know; the other, I’m convinced, most of us don’t recognize—through no fault of our own.”

Ibid., 29

Ward’s point is that there are many places in the KJV that seem intelligible, but are actually not, due to the change in language over time. So the reader of the KJV may believe that they understand the text, but actually do not.

Dead Words and False Friends

It is true that there are words in the KJV that are no longer used today. It is also true that there are words which have evolved in meaning since the 17th century. Ward argues that this is the “biggest problem in understanding the KJV.” He spends the chapter analyzing six examples of what he considers to be “False Friends.” This builds on the narrative that the KJV, while seemingly intelligible, is actually not.


“And each one of them will mislead you through no fault of your own—unless ignorance of the subtleties of an English no one speaks anymore is a fault. And I don’t think it is.”

Ibid., 32

According to Ward, the readers of the KJV are unsuspecting victims. I want to take a moment to highlight that this is a strange rhetorical strategy as it seems to indicate that an entire subset of Christians are being fooled by the translation they read. That perhaps they are not intelligent enough to know when they are reading an archaic word. One thing I will point out, is that even in the case where a “false friend” is misunderstood, reading a text in its context resolves almost all of these issues. This is how English, and most languages work. Let me demonstrate by commenting on an example in Authorized. Ward begins by using the word “halt” to demonstrate that this word is employed to mean “limp” rather than “stop.” His point is that if you interpret “halt” as “stop,” you are being tricked by the KJV. Yet, the sense of the passage is not lost, even if the reader takes the modern definition of halt. “How long will you pause between two opinions?” The reader does not miss the point of the passage, even if they read it incorrectly. More importantly, this highlights the flaw in the approach of using “False Friends” to demonstrate that the KJV is unintelligible in places. Context is just as important as vocabulary in reading comprehension, and even when a reader doesn’t know a word, the context supplies the meaning. American children learn this as early as grade school.

The average reader is not taught to read by atomizing every word in a sentence, defining each word, and putting the whole sentence together after defining each word. A sentence is not a puzzle, it is a thought. We read by first reading the whole sentence and surrounding sentences, and use context clues to understand words that we didn’t understand, or words that were employed in a way that is not typical in colloquial English. This is largely how children learn new words growing up, by reading above their skill level. The problem of false friends disappears if the reader simply reads the KJV like they would any other book. Ward uses “Filthiness is not convenient” as another example of a false friend. The context helps supply the meaning. And if the reader is even a little bit ambitious, a simple internet search of the word “Convenient” yields the very definition that is apparently unintelligible – suitable, appropriate, or fitting as adjectives. If we consider context as an important part of understanding a language, the average reader will easily catch this.

Ward argues that the KJV reader simply won’t know this unless they have an Oxford English dictionary on hand. This sort of sounds like the “You’ll never have a calculator in your pocket everywhere you go” argument that your grade school math teacher said in school. Assuming the reader doesn’t have a cell phone, in our example above, context tells the reader that Paul doesn’t mean “Favorable to one’s comfort,” and even the list of modern adjectives include the definition that was originally intended by the KJV translators. The only reason false friends would trip somebody up so badly is if they read the Bible word by word, rather than in complete sentences. Perhaps this is the fruit of New Testament exegesis classes in seminary, which train pastors to do exactly that. The “experts” in Greek and Hebrew are trained to read in a way that nobody has ever read. They are taught to make elaborate diagrams and to split each word out into its own organism. To demonstrate this point, Dan Wallace did his PhD work on the word “The”. The average reader knows that this is not how English, or any language, works. At this point I might invite my reader to consider the possibility that Ward’s entire thesis is aimed at addressing a problem that only an academic could have.

Conclusion

Ward uses “False Friends” to tell his reader that “you are not expected to keep track of all the changes English has undergone in its long lifetime” (43). That of course is not the expectation put on the KJV reader, and it is not even required to read the KJV. The KJV is written in early modern English, and anybody who speaks and reads modern English will be able to understand it. They will also be able to identify when they do not understand it, if they read the Bible normally. Ward even notes that,

“To be clear, I don’t think any Christian doctrines are affected by the undetectable (or the detectable) shifts in English that have occurred in the last four hundred years.”

Ibid., 43

This quote is imperative to understanding Ward’s argument from a theological perspective. If our doctrine of Scripture generally states that one of the purposes of Scripture is to be “profitable for doctrine” (2 Tim. 3:16), and none of these so called “false friends” and archaisms impact doctrine, Ward’s thesis has no theological basis at all. Again, I will highlight that Ward dismantles his own argument in the very chapter he introduces it. The reader is presented with a problem, the problem is described and supported, and then Ward seemingly details how the problem isn’t really a problem. The KJV is too difficult to read, but most Christians can read it. The KJV has deceptive “False Friends,” but these do not affect doctrine. The KJV has false friends, “but not very many given how large the Bible is” (49).

The largest problem for Ward seems to be that he believes the average reader simply will not know when they encounter a “False Friend.” Perhaps if they read the Bible word by word, this is true. Yet the average person does not read anything this way, they read sentence by sentence. Ward readily admits that “Many Christians simply disagree over whether archaisms in the KJV are truly a big deal.” Time and time again, the reader is presented with problems that Ward cannot demonstrate to be actual problems, except for him and the friends from his anecdotes.  

As a KJV reader, from the first page of Authorized, I have noted the conflicted messaging, and the fact that the whole picture has not been presented to the reader. If the KJV is intelligible, and false friends are not as prolific or problematic as people think, what exactly is the problem with the KJV? The reader should be asking themselves if there is more to this story than difficult words. Why is a self-professed “language nerd” seemingly advocating against the most beautiful expression of the modern English language? As I read this book the first and second and third time, I had to ask myself, “What is Ward trying to say here?”

Authorized Review – Chapter 2: Jokes & Anecdotes

The Young, Textless, and Reformed3 Comments

This article is the third in a series reviewing Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible. 

Introduction

In the last article, I addressed Ward’s evaluation of what is lost if the King James Bible is retired. In this article, I will review Chapter 2 of Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, where Ward readies his audience for the pinnacle of his argument – false friends. If you follow Ward online, you know that the thrust of his work is identifying false friends and making the case that this is a primary reason to put down the KJV. He begins chapter 2 by proposing that the NIV is the probable successor to the KJV based on sales figures for the popular translation. The reader should note that sales figures are not a reason to adopt a translation. Christians should be concerned with whether or not the translation accurately translates the providentially preserved text from the original into a target language. Ward begins to develop his case for retiring the KJV in this chapter further by saying, “we’d better have very good reasons for giving it [KJV] up” (Ibid., 17). This gives the impression to the reader that Ward is about to present an argument that justifies all of the downsides to retiring the KJV. According to Ward, this reason is that people cannot understand it. It is “foreign and ancient.” As I noted in the introduction of my book review series, Ward’s own research and anecdotal experience seems to contradict this fact, but we will see how he develops this thought as we get further into the review. Throughout the work so far, this continues to be his driving argument. 

“So if the KJV is indeed too difficult to understand for modern readers, we’ve got a significant problem—the most significant problem a translation can have: What’s the point in using a translation in old English that people can’t understand anymore?”  

Ibid., 18-19

Ward introduces his primary argument with a huge “if”. He proposes that if it is the case that the KJV is too difficult to read, then we should retire it. As the reader will see, support for Ward’s argument is entirely dependent personal experience and anecdotes. He even admits that the KJV “falls in the same category, broadly speaking, in which our English belongs.” So far the reader has learned that 55% of English Bible readers use the KJV, Ward grew up reading the KJV, and that the King’s English falls into the same category of English that we speak today. The KJV is not old, middle, or Elizabethan English – it is early modern English written in a syntax and vocabulary that matches closely with the original languages. That is why the Trinitarian Bible Society has labeled it, “Biblical English.” Ward again drives home the point that, “I could not only understand but reproduce the major features of KJV diction as a young child.” Despite writing this multiple times in the book so far, Ward introduces his reader to yet another paradox, which I will highlight below. In this chapter, Ward discusses his transition from advocating for the KJV to advocating against the KJV. I will organize my review of chapter 2 into Ward’s anecdotes, his narrative, and his problem. 

Anecdotes

According to Ward, two major life experiences led to his shift in thinking. The first is that Ward has spent more time than the average Christian studying the Bible in various translations. The second is that he has spent years sharing the Gospel. In his experience, he argues that learning the English of the KJV is not a reasonable expectation to impose on the average Christian. Here’s the plot twist: He then admits that he actually has trouble reading certain passages in the KJV. After repeatedly stating that he understood the KJV growing up, he now says he actually cannot. He recalls an experience at a summer camp, where not one person of 10,000, pastors included, could understand the phrase, “fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.” This is a perfect example where Matthew Henry could have helped Ward understand this “cryptic” passage. “Do not envy them their prosperity.” 

Ward attempts to convince his reader, with anecdote, that the passage is impossible to understand in the KJV. Gill, Calvin, and Henry all share the same opinion on the verse, so perhaps that is more of a testimony to the quality of modern scholarship than anything else. I’m more concerned that there were seminary trained pastors and college students at this camp that couldn’t understand this passage. It seems that somebody at that camp should have had access to a commentary, at least. Ward ends by presenting his reader with a strange hypothetical conversation between a child and an adult, where the child is presented as a guru of sorts by saying, “Well why didn’t the KJV translators just use the word I think they should have used?” This all contributes to the narrative that drives the primary argument of Ward’s book – that not only is the KJV too difficult to understand, the KJV translators could have used easier words and syntax. Even a child knows that much! In this chapter the reader begins to see the contradictions in Ward’s anecdotal evidence. This being the case, I encourage my reader to reflect on the value of such evidence as it pertains to Ward’s thesis.

Narrative

The narrative that Ward presents is that while most people can understand the KJV, there are verses that require a second look, and that many readers will not understand certain verses the first time around, if they ever do understand them. This is the entry point to Ward’s primary argument. Upon first glance, this standard could also result in every translation being considered for retirement if applied equally. The reality is, there are verses in every translation that require explanation. The NIV, for example, contains words such as “aloes,” “odious,” “stadia,” “sistrums” and so on. There are difficult concepts and words in the Bible that do not appear in our common vernacular. If we step outside of Ward’s narrative for a moment, it is plainly evident that the Bible isn’t easily understood in every place. 

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood”  

2 Peter 3:16

The quoted material above is one of the Biblical proofs Ward uses to support his argument. The reader will see later that Ward will call upon Scripture to make the claim that if something can’t be understood, it cannot be of value to the people of God. It is important to recognize that Ward has relied heavily upon anecdotes to develop his narrative up to this point, and now he is beginning to invoke Scripture to support these anecdotes. In effect, Ward is saying, “These people I knew once didn’t understand this verse.” He is beginning to make the case to his reader, that while most people read the KJV, many of them don’t even know they can’t understand it.

Problem

The problem that Ward presents to his reader is that people that read the KJV cannot understand it, and sometimes don’t even know they cannot understand it. As a KJV reader, this feels extremely condescending. It assumes that the average Bible reader doesn’t try to understand difficult passages, or is too dull to know when they cannot understand a passage. Ward offers his reader some perspective on himself, which may help understand his book in addition to how Ward can make these types of claims about other Christians who read the KJV:

“I was a somewhat intellectually arrogant kid.”

Ibid., 25

This is in effect to say, “The only reason I thought I could understand the KJV was because I was arrogant.” While this is a very strange thing to say, I believe Ward has missed the point entirely. The problem he is presenting as a reason for retiring the KJV is simply a description of learning something new. Every Christian has to learn new words, no matter which translation they read. There are times when you are a child where you will misunderstand words and get them wrong, and not just in the Bible. This happens as easily reading a Goosebumps novel while you are learning to read. Getting words wrong is a part of the learning process.

It seems the argument that Ward is making is that the average Christian must learn more words to read the KJV than they would with modern translations. Yet as Ward loves to say, this seems to be more of a problem of quantity, not kind. The problem of Christians misunderstanding the Bible is not unique to KJV readers. There are many times where Christians believe they understand a passage, but then a pastor or friend comes along and informs them that they do not. If we again step outside of Ward’s narrative, it should be common sense that Christians do not understand the Bible perfectly in a vacuum. 

I will pause my review for a moment to make a point. Every Christian needs to study and be taught. What I have a difficult time understanding is why one would argue that this should be done to a lesser degree. We have seen Ward admit that reading the KJV improves literacy among other things, so why advocate for its retirement on these grounds? It is true that KJV readers must learn more words than modern Bible readers, but that is not a convincing argument for the KJV being put behind glass in a museum. In fact, it seems like a huge positive that our children would be raised with a higher reading comprehension vocabulary. And if this principle were truly adhered to among the academic types, why do these scholars constantly advocate for learning multiple languages to read the Scriptures? The same scholars who claim the KJV is too difficult to read also recommend learning the original Biblical languages to “go back to the Greek and Hebrew.” In any case, Ward’s argument takes the anecdotal experience of the few and projects it to the many. As we have already seen, and will see more later in this review, the case that Ward is building contradicts itself to such a degree that he presents and refutes his own thesis within the cover of his own book.

Conclusion

It is clear that so far in Authorized, Ward relies heavily upon rhetoric, anecdotes, and narrative building to convince his reader that the KJV should not be read. In this chapter, his primary argument is that KJV readers may think they understand what they are reading, but actually do not. The reader is led to believe that Ward’s difficulty must be a problem for everybody. Again I will highlight that the people who are likely to be convinced by these arguments are people that do not actually read the KJV. He uses an anecdote of a summer camp where not a single person, pastors included, could understand Psalm 37:8 to support this point. Ward uses personal experience and anecdotes to establish his premise to build a narrative that the KJV simply cannot be understood. What Ward seems to miss is that the average Bible reader cares deeply about the words in the pages of their Bible. They study the Bible. They try to understand the Bible. It is not prideful to have a sound working knowledge of Scripture. I tested all of Ward’s example passages against some commentaries that are available online for free and all of them provided helpful and thorough explanations of the passages in question.

The most off-putting part of Ward’s book so far is the juvenile tone he takes. He inserts poorly placed and in my opinion, inappropriate jokes and commentary in the middle of a very serious topic. In a piece of persuasive writing, Ward discusses his failed attempts at impressing girls and his “smug satisfaction” of being intellectually superior than his peers in grade school, among other things. His premise for chapter 2 is also incredibly demeaning and insulting to the people who read the KJV. Ward discusses how smart he is, how much he has studied, and his self-proclaimed expertise in linguistics in order to make the concluding point: that God broke him of his pride and showed him that he didn’t actually understand the KJV. Ward seems to be making the point that if he, in all of his learning, cannot understand the KJV, neither can his reader. Thankfully he clarifies that,

“just because I was arrogant and ignorant doesn’t mean all other KJV readers are the same.”  

Ibid., 27

Authorized Review – Chapter 1: A Strange Start

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

This article is the second in a series reviewing Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible. 

Introduction

In the first article of this series, I highlighted several key observations from the introduction of Mark Ward’s book, Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible. Notably that most people who read a Bible read the KJV (55%), that Mark Ward can read the KJV, and that the audience for this work seems to be those who do not read the KJV. The goal of this work seems to be to bolster the narrative that the KJV should be retired due to its lack of readability. In chapter 1 of the work, Ward gives the reader five things we lose as “the church stops using the KJV.” 

He opens the chapter by listing some of the English Bibles leading up to the KJV to demonstrate that retiring Bible translations is a normal part of the Bible translation lifecycle. What he does not tell his reader is that these Bibles which were retired leading up to the KJV were extremely similar to the KJV, and presented to the reader the same text form as the KJV. The largest shift from these Bibles to the KJV was spelling and typesetting. In other words, these Bibles really weren’t all that different from each other. What is described as a normal process doesn’t offer the kind of analysis I would have hoped for. The KJV was produced at the end of a technological advancement – the printing press. It would have been nice to see more thoughtful analysis on what technological or scholarly change resulted in the “translation lifecycle” being kicked off the second time. Considering how long the KJV ruled supreme, the sudden advocation for it’s retirement is not what I would consider a normal process.  

The shift from the KJV to modern translations isn’t as simple as updated spelling and syntax. It involves changing and removing verses from the underlying text and applying different translation methodologies. This is a huge gap that is completely ignored in Ward’s analysis. Ward says, “I don’t think many people have carefully considered what will happen if we all decide to let the KJV die and another take its office” (Ibid., 5). This signals that Ward believes he is writing to an audience who has not considered these issues, which points again to the reality that his audience are those who are not familiar with the KJV and its history and impact. Those that have not made such considerations are likely in the camp of people who have already adopted a modern translation. In this article, I will review Ward’s take on the “what we lose” discussion by evaluating his commentary on each of the five things. 

We Lose Intergenerational Ties in the Body of Christ 

Ward begins this section by appealing to an anecdote where his Grandma gifts his children their first Bibles due to, by his own admission, indecisiveness. 

“I spent an inordinate amount of time before marriage considering which Bible translations I would hand to my children (inordinate because I didn’t even have a girlfriend at the time). I dithered so long in this decision, even after marriage and the birth of my three children, that Grandma ended up deciding for me by buying the kids Bibles. And one of the reasons I struggled so hard was that I knew that if I didn’t hand my kids KJVs I would be severing some rich connections between them and their heritage.”  

Ibid., 6

Ward rightly notes that if he rejected this gift, he would be “severing some rich connections between them and their heritage.” Ward makes many powerful points here. The KJV connects Protestant Christians to their heritage, helps them become “skilled readers”, gives them easy access to the theological works of the Puritans and other post-Reformation divines, helps them understand the theological lexicon of English Christianity, helps them understand the hymns and psalms sung in churches today, and even provides a connection to the older generation who grew up on the KJV. 

Despite this powerful argument for retaining the KJV, Ward ends this section by stating that while the strings that connect Protestants to the past are important, “we can’t keep all the strings. Some of them must or even should be cut. But let’s at least be aware of what we’re doing” (Ibid., 8). This section exemplifies the paradoxical nature of Ward’s thesis. In one breath, he gives great reasons for retaining the KJV, and at the same time argues that modern Christians should cut ties with it. This is, as I’ve come to recognize it, is a trademark of Ward’s rhetorical strategy. What the careful reader will notice is that Authorized offers many strong arguments to actually retain the KJV while simultaneously dismissing these reasons as unimportant.

We Lose Scripture Memory By Osmosis 

This section does a great job demonstrating the the damage that has been caused by the inundation of Bible translations into the Christian church. 

“When an entire church, or group of churches, or even an entire nation of Christians, uses basically one Bible translation, genuinely wonderful things happen.”

Ibid., 8

If it is wonderful for the church to share a translation, what word should we use to describe a Christian church that does not have a unified text? Awful? Dreadful? There is tremendous value in a church sharing the same translation, which Ward highlights in this section. In addition to Ward’s point, which is that much of Scripture is memorized in community, I will add that theology can be done more effectively in a community with one Bible. Unlike the Bibles leading up to the KJV, modern Bibles take different textual and translational choices which change the meaning of passages. In the best case scenario, competing translational choices add an additional step of exegesis into the church by forcing members to decide which translation is better, rather than simply being taught by the same text. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve sat in a Bible study that devolved into debates over which translational choice is the “best.” Here is yet another example of where Ward provides a powerful argument against his own thesis, which we will see later is to read a plethora of translations.

Ward then makes one of the most compelling arguments from God’s providence in favor of the KJV.


“But no other translation seems likely to serve in the role [of a unified translation]. If indeed the King is dying, it is just as sure that none of his sons or cousins have managed to become the heir apparent.”

Ibid., 9, brackets added

In other words, the Christian church had unity under one translation for centuries, now they do not, and it does not appear that this will happen in the age of modern translations. This is a point often presented by KJV advocates – that it will not change, and the church can rally around it. If there is no hope for unification around a single modern translation on the horizon, it seems to make more sense to rally around a translation that most of the church already reads.

We Lose a Cultural Touchstone 

Ward opens this section by again comparing the shift from the KJV to modern versions to the shift from the KJV predecessors by using the Coverdale Bible as an example. The KJV is a polished and refined pinnacle of the translations produced during this time in history, which explains the dominance of the KJV during that time and beyond. The largest difference between the Coverdale and KJV is updated spelling and typesetting, and the modern reader would have a much harder time with the Coverdale for this reason. See John 1:1-2 as an example.


“In the beginning was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the beginning wt God.” 

The Coverdale is actually a great example of a Bible that needed an update for standardized spelling, and the KJV was a perfect successor. It was also based in Tyndale’s New Testament, which the KJV retains up to 95%. Comparing the Coverdale to the KJV is like comparing a red delicious apple to a honeycrisp apple, whereas comparing the KJV to the NIV is like comparing an apple to a grapefruit. It is important that the reader understands the rhetorical tool Ward is employing here. 

It is interesting that Ward then employs Dawkins and Hitchins, infamous critics of Christianity, to rebuke himself and the modern Christian church. Here is Hitchins on the importance of the KJV:

“A culture that does not possess [the KJV’s] common store of image and allegory will be a perilously thin one. To seek restlessly to update [the Bible] or make it “relevant” is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare.”

Ibid., 11

Even the heathen can recognize the importance of the KJV. Ward finishes the section by making a theological blunder. He states that Hitchens is “confusing ‘the Bible’ and translations of the Bible.” Here is a reminder to the reader that an accurate translation of the original languages is the Bible. The Scriptures were immediately inspired in the original languages, and accurate translations of these texts are mediately inspired and are equally the Bible (WCF 1.8, LBCF 1.8). This theological mistake is often used against people who advocate for the use of a single translation. What most people who make this argument don’t realize is that it sets a precedent for an undefined Bible.

We Lose Some of the Implicit Trust Christians Have in the Bibles in Their Laps 

It is difficult to understand at this point why Ward has argued to sever ties with the KJV. Not only has he made several compelling arguments for it’s retention, he has eviscerated any case that can be made for adopting a modern translation. 

“It follows on from the second point: as the KJV fades, so does at least some of the trust Christians have in their Bible translations.”

Ibid., 11

“Bible translations succeed or fail based on Christian trust, because only a vanishingly small percentage of Bible readers can, and even fewer do, go through the laborious process of checking their English translations against the Greek and Hebrew. The vast majority of Bible readers simply take—they have to take—the word of others that the translations in their laps are faithful. When scholarly Christians and ministry-leading Christians go to battle over Bible translations, in dog fights far above the it’s-all-Greek-to-me heads of people in the pew, some of the flak falls on the flock.”

Ibid., 12-13

Not only does Ward point out that ever-evolving translations diminish trust that Christians have in their Bible, but also that the modern method of Bible reading imposes a gate keeping process that pressures Christians to be bound to a lexicon while reading so that they can understand what “it really says in the original.” The layman is encouraged to learn Greek and Hebrew to understand the “true” meaning of their English Bible, rather than simply reading what’s on their lap. I have argued before that this establishes a neo-papacy with the academics as pope. You can’t read your Bible for yourself, the scholars must tell you how to read it, what verses to read, and how those verses ought to be translated.

We Lose Some of the Implicit Trust Non-Christians Have in Scripture 

The title of this section speaks volumes to the damage that has been done in the last 100 years. I recall a recent debate where a belligerent atheist held up a KJV, tried to throw it in the trash, and then held up a blue Nestle-Aland text to his Christian opponents and mocked them for not having a Bible. While I do not think the critiques that Atheists have of Holy Scripture are particularly important, it demonstrates how devastating the current state of the English Bible is to Christian apologetics. Ward takes notice of this as well.

“The more Bible translations we have, and particularly the more Christian fur they see flying over them on the Internet, the less reason non-Christians will have for believing that the Bible speaks with one voice. A rising tide can sink all boats, at least a little.”  

Ibid., 13-14

He again quotes Hitchens:


“Not to over-prize consensus, it does possess certain advantages over randomness and chaos. Since the appearance of the so-called “Good News Bible,” there have been no fewer than 48 English translations published in the United States. And the rate shows no sign of slackening. Indeed, the trend today is toward what the trade calls “niche Bibles.” These include the “Couples’ Bible,” “One Year New Testament for Busy Moms,” “Extreme Teen Study Bible,” “Policeman’s Bible,” and—somehow unavoidably—the “Celebrate Recovery Bible.” (Give them credit for one thing: the biblical sales force knows how to “be fruitful and multiply.”) In this cut-price spiritual cafeteria, interest groups and even individuals can have their own customized version of God’s word.”

Ibid., 14-15

Ward ends this section with a powerful retort to the atheist’s critique when he says,

“As it is written in the prophets: ‘Ouch.’”

Ibid., 15

We often hear that the Modern Critical Text is necessary for apologetics, yet in Ward’s own words we see that this is not the case.

Conclusion

In the first chapter of his book, Ward makes a compelling argument for the benefit of retaining the KJV, and highlights the damage that modern versions have had on unity in the church and Christian apologetics. Ward lightens the mood by presenting his reader with what seems to be a poorly placed joke.



“Should we permit the KJV to slide into disuse, when we lose so many things of value along with it? Okay, maybe the bath water is getting a bit tepid, but the babies—think of the babies!”

Ibid., 16

Yes, after demonstrating the serious problems modern versions have caused and the opinions of prominent atheists on the matter, Ward feels it is appropriate to offer his reader some light-hearted humor. He ends the chapter by asking, “What do we do with the KJV?” I think a more appropriate question is, “What do we do with Mark Ward?” How is the reader of Authorized supposed to reconcile his paradoxical thesis?

Thus far in Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, Ward has shown his reader several important realities: The first is that of the people who read their Bible, most read the King James Version. The second is that there is a tremendous benefit to the unity of the church and to Christian apologetics in retaining a unified translation. The third is that there is no other translation that has taken the spot of the KJV or can take the spot of the KJV. Despite this, it seems that Ward is working towards telling us why we should cut ties with the KJV. As a KJV reader, Ward has done a great job in reassuring me that my decision to put down my ESV was the right call. 

A Disputation on the Modern Doctrine of the Text of Holy Scripture

The Young, Textless, and Reformed6 Comments

Introduction

There are many times where a theological position is presented, and it either has to be absolutely correct, or absolutely not correct. There are Scriptural realities that are clear, and there are other areas where external proofs drive an argument outside of the Scriptures. Where a Scriptural teaching is clear, the consequence of that teaching must necessarily conclude obedience in faith and practice.

There are a number of theological positions where the Scriptures are plainly clear, and yet Christians believe them to be unclear. A great example is the Scriptural proof from 2 Tim. 3:16 which demonstrates the foolishness of continuationist theology. If all Scripture is sufficient for instruction in subjects pertaining to faith and practice, then everything that is not Scripture is not sufficient for faith and practice. The scope of things that are not Scripture include words of knowledge, prophecies, and so on. There is a clear teaching from this Scripture that demands that Scripture and applications thereof, not ongoing revelation, be the only standard for instruction, encouragement, correction. 

The problem is that many Christians, when faced with this Scripture, will ignore it, and provide another unrelated text to justify the continuationist doctrine. This kind of rhetorical misdirect is often the source of much frustration when it comes to the arguments presented in support of the Received Text position. A proof is presented that necessitates the rejection of one position and the adoption of another, and instead of accepting the necessary consequence of that Scriptural proof, another unrelated argument will be presented in a rhetorical attempt to avoid being compelled by a clear Scriptural reality. In this article, I will present such an argument, and reveal that any meaningful defense of preservation must end in the defense or adoption of the Masoretic Hebrew, and Greek Received Text as the providentially preserved and delivered original language Scriptures. 

Framing the Discussion

God immediately inspired the text of Holy Scripture in the Old Testament in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the New testament in the Greek language. This is necessary, as the language used to write the Scriptures during the time of the people of God of old was Hebrew, and in some places Aramaic, and the language used to write the Scriptures during the time of the people of God in the church age was Greek. Translations of such languages may be considered mediately inspired insofar as they represent these original texts. 

It is often the case that modern “conservative” Christians refuse to make the distinction between immediately and mediately inspired, and the result is that many Christians believe there is no Bible available today that is perfectly inspired. They say the Bible is inspired, while also saying that there is not a text or translation that contains that text perfectly. This necessitates that a distinction must be made between “The Bible” and the printed versions Christians actually read. “The Bible” is perfect and inspired, we just don’t have it.

The modern doctrine of inspiration teaches that only the original autographs were perfectly inspired, and what is remaining of the manuscripts today are only inspired insofar as we can prove with evidence that these texts are original. Paradoxically, none of the scholars responsible for this task are trying to find the original, or believe they can find the original. They may maintain that the original may be found, but simultaneously affirm that there is no way to verify that the original has been found, even if we actually had it. This in itself is nothing new, but it is clear that most Christians have not considered that the theological foundation of the modern doctrine of inspiration, reflected in the Chicago Statement, is propped up on the assumption that the original can be found by modern textual criticism. The flaw with the modern doctrine of inspiration can be summarized in this statement:

The Bible is inspired insofar as individual texts can be proven original by textual criticism. Textual criticism is not trying to find the original nor can the methods prove that a text original, and therefore the Bible is not inspired. 

Since the mechanism of authenticating the Scriptures in the modern doctrine of inspiration is textual criticism, this must be the case. Until the axioms of modern textual criticism walk back from the language of “initial text” or rewrite the Chicago Statement, it doesn’t actually set forth a meaningful doctrinal position on inspiration. It actually demonstrates that the Bible isn’t inspired, because it cannot prove any text original. 

In order for the Scriptures to be preserved, these original texts must be preserved materially and in substance, and available to the people of God today. This concept of materially and substantially means that every word that comprises every thought is preserved. If any word has fallen away which results in the change or loss of meaning, then the Scriptures have not been preserved. The mainstream, “conservative” view is adequately represented by Daniel Wallace. 

“We do not have now – in our critical Greek texts or any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain”

(Gurry & Hixson, Myths and Mistakes, xii).

Here is the Big Lie of what is called “Evangelical Textual Criticism”: that the Bible can be inspired and preserved, while at the same time not existing in any original language text or translation. In other words, “The Bible” is inspired and preserved and perfect, we just don’t have it, and never will. This reality is very frequently avoided by employing rhetorical misdirects, ad hominem attacks on Erasmus and Beza, and reinterpretation of historical theology. The majority text and Received Text views on inspiration and preservation are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to resolving the contradictions with the modern view represented by the Chicago Statement. The fact is, the modern critical position on the text of Holy Scripture is untenable, and its logical end is that there is a “Bible,” we just don’t have it. 

This is not Scriptural. Any theological position that says that we do not have a Bible, is plainly, and clearly, heterodox.  

The Scriptural Case for Scripture

“GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son”

(Heb. 1:1)
  1. God has spoken objectively in two ways, first through the fathers and the prophets in the Old Testament, and secondly by Jesus Christ in the last days
  2. This way of speaking was recorded in writing in the Old and New Testament

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

(2 Tim. 3:16-17)
  1. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God
  2. The Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation
  3. All Scriptures are profitable for all matters of faith and practice 
  4. Thus, all Scripture is given by God, and is purposed for the use of the salvation of men and for the further training of righteousness – all matters of faith and practice

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

(Mat. 5:18)
  1. All is not fulfilled yet because Christ has not returned
  2. One jot or one tittle shall not pass until all is fulfilled
  3. Therefore the mechanism of such fulfillment in the last days, the Scriptures, will not pass away until all be fulfilled (Heb. 1:1)

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

(Mat. 24:35)
  1. Christ’s words will not pass away
  2. Christ’s words are the way that God has spoken to the people of God in the last days
  3. Therefore, the manner of God speaking in the last days, Christ’s words, will not pass away

      “The words of the LORD are pure words:

      As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

      Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,

      Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

(Ps. 12:6)
  1. The words of the Lord are kept by the Lord, and shall be preserved forever

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

(Jn. 10:27)
  1. God’s people hear his voice
  2. God has spoken in these last days through His Son, Jesus Christ 

There are two necessary conclusions that must be accepted by this argument and the supporting proofs. The first is that Christians must accept the doctrinal statement that the Scriptures are inspired, perfect, preserved, available, and identifiable. That means that any theological position which affirms that a) any part of the Scriptures has fallen away or b) that we do not know what those Scriptures are is a heretical position on the text of Holy Scripture. In the first place, to reject that the text of Scripture is not preserved is to affirm that the Scriptures are fallible, that God has lied. In the second place, to affirm that we do not know what those Scriptures are is to say that the way that God saves and sanctifies men is fallible, and God has failed in His purpose to save and preserve a people in every generation. 

The Disconnect Between the Scriptures and the Big Lie

The disconnect between this argument, the underlying Scriptural proofs, necessary conclusions, and the modern articulation of the doctrine of Scripture is that the modern doctrine affirms that a) parts of Scripture have fallen away, b) that the Scriptures are still preserved, and c) that this does not affect doctrine. Where the disconnect occurs is when both a) parts of Scripture have fallen away and b) that the Scriptures are preserved because c) this does not affect doctrine. C) cannot logically follow if a) and b) are both true. Therefore, those who adopt a), b), and c) adopt such a position in spite of the reality that c) cannot logically follow if both a) and b) are true. 

If it is true that the Word of God is inspired, perfect, and preserved, then it must follow that the preserved Scriptures are in fact available and identifiable to the people of God because the Scriptures are the means that God uses to save and sanctify men. Thus, the Scriptures are inspired, preserved, available, and identifiable. The Scriptures cannot be inspired and preserved and not available or identifiable, or they do not serve the purpose which God gives them, the salvation and sanctification of men. All of these must be true, or none are true. 

Now I will apply this argument that the Scriptures are inspired, preserved, available, and identifiable to the textual reality of manuscripts, printed original language texts, and translations of the Holy Scriptures. I will then demonstrate that the modern doctrine of Scripture is incompatible with this proof. 

The Demonstration

If a Christian believes that the Scriptures are inspired, preserved, available and identifiable, then he cannot hold to a position that affirms the modern doctrine of Scripture, which affirms that, “We do not have now – in our critical Greek texts or any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain” (Myths and Mistakes, xii). 

This doctrinal position is affirmed by all of the top scholars in Evangelical New Testament Textual Criticism including Dan Wallace, Peter Gurry, Elijah Hixson, and Tommy Wasserman, to name a few. This doctrinal position is also affirmed by other scholars in textual criticism, including Bart Ehrman, DC Parker, and Eldon J. Epp. There are no textual scholars, to my knowledge, that would not affirm this theological statement, or affirm it with some additional nuance. 

This directly applies to manuscripts, printed original texts, and translations because it demonstrates the reality that modern evangelical scholars do not believe that the text of Holy Scripture is available or identifiable. If the Scriptures are not available or identifiable, they are not preserved. And if the Scriptures are not preserved, then they are necessarily not inspired, as the argument and proofs above demonstrate. Therefore, the modern doctrine of Scripture, as articulated by the evangelical textual scholars and associated apologists, is incompatible with Scripture. This being the case, it is clear that the text that these scholars and apologists argue as “best”, is necessarily not inspired, preserved, available, or identifiable. Thus, any Christian who adheres to such a doctrine and text must a) adopt the reality that “The Bible” is not preserved or b) argue that it is preserved despite the underlying theological position that it is not preserved. 

This is how this theological position is justified. In the modern doctrine of Scripture, “The Bible” is simply the pile of extant manuscripts, not one particular text. Since the differences between the manuscripts “do not affect doctrine,” this must be the case. 

The necessary conclusion of this position is that not only is a) the modern critical text(s) inspired and preserved, but b) that the Received Text is inspired and preserved. If the text of Holy Scripture is preserved but not totally available, and the texts that are available “Do not affect doctrine” between the two most different manuscripts, then one cannot both affirm that a) the text of Holy Scripture is inspired and b) the Received Text is not inspired. Theologically, Christians adhering to this position must defend the TR as inspired if they wish to defend the critical text as inspired. Since the entire critical text position is founded in the Received Text being fallible, those in the critical text camp cannot logically affirm both a) the critical text is inspired and b) the Received Text is inspired, or they have fundamentally undermined their own position and must admit that the Bible is not inspired, preserved, available, or identifiable.  

The major dilemma then, is that those in the critical text camp must paradoxically contend against a text that they must theologically affirm as inspired. Ironically, by affirming against the Received Text, critical text advocates are actually rejecting the inspiration of their own text. By continuing to argue against the Received Text while advocating for the critical text, one must admit that doctrine is changed, or the case for the critical text falls apart. The entire substance of the critical text argument is that the underlying manuscripts of the critical text are better. If these manuscripts are better, they must be better in material and substance. They must be better in meaning, or they are not better. The act of arguing for the supremacy of the critical text is an open admission that doctrine has been changed and that the Bible is not inspired, preserved, available, or identifiable.

If the critical text is based off of better manuscripts, a better doctrinal foundation, it must follow that the doctrine of inspiration and preservation must be rejected. The text of the church was flawed, now it’s better. In other words, God failed formerly, but is in the process of fixing His mistake over the last 200 years, and is not finished yet. 

Conclusion

The Scriptural and logical realities of adopting the Critical Text are severe for the modern church. It means that a great multitude of Christians have rejected inspiration by necessity of adopting the critical text while also rejecting the Received Text. Most Christians have done this simply because they trust the word of their favorite critical scholar or apologist. The reality of this modern doctrine is that one cannot Scripturally adhere to inspiration while also rejecting the Received Text. In other words, to reject the TR is to reject inspiration. In order to logically adopt inspiration and the critical text, one must also adopt the Received Text as equal to the critical text, or admit that doctrine has been changed, and thus admitting that the Bible is not inspired or preserved. Some side step this argument by saying, “The Received Text is inspired where it can be proven to be original”. This is not a logical response because the method of authentication that is being appealed to is not capable of identifying the original, nor does it claim to.

“We do not have now – in our critical Greek texts or any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain”

(Gurry & Hixson, Myths and Mistakes, xii).

The practical reality is that there is no justification for this doctrine, nor is there a justification to attack the Received Text. In fact, when critical text advocates attack the Received Text, they are attacking their own doctrinal foundation for the text of Scripture. Critical text advocates can attack Erasmus, they can use the term “fundamentalist” and “KJV Onlyist” pejoratively, but these are not cogent arguments, they are rhetorical devices. Current articulations of the critical position on the text of Scripture cannot justify using the terms “original”, “inspired”, or “preserved” without redefining those words. 

This being the reality, modern scholars, apologists, and advocates will continue using the words “original”, “inspired”, and “preserved”, despite not having a theological framework that actually supports the use of such terms. This is the fundamental problem that needs to be solved. The problem with the critical text is not Erasmus, nor is it “fundamentalists”, nor is it “KJV Onlyists”. The problem is with the critical text theology itself.

The Theology of the Text: What is Biblical Translation Methodology?

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

This article is the twelfth in the series called “The Theology of the Text,” designed to cover the topic of the text in short, accessible articles.

The Theology of the Text: What is Biblical Translation Methodology? 

This is arguably the most practical question to ask and answer as it pertains to the Bible that Christians read. Unfortunately, it is the least considered topic. Typically, the conversation over “Which Bible” centers around the underlying text and the ease of readability. The most important factor in translation, however, is whether or not the translators have accurately set forth the original languages into various common languages. It is unfaithful to pick a translation that uses easier words, if those easier words are simply not accurate. A common problem in modern translation methodology is that translators often include their interpretation of a word in the translation. That means that in a certain sense, the translation committee has done exegesis for the reader, and is forcing the reader to take their interpretation of what the word means rather than the plain meaning of the word. 

A great example of this is Galatians 5:12, though there are countless examples in modern versions. The passage reads this way in the ESV and KJV: 

“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! “ (ESV)

“I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” (KJV)

The word in question is αποκοψονται (apokopsontai), which is a form of a word which simply means “To cut off” or to “cut away.” There are two ways to take Paul’s meaning. The first, is that he’s expressing that these people would castrate themselves, and the second is that he is expressing that these people would excommunicate themselves from the church at Galatia. It is also possible that he is using this language to communicate both in one sentence. The point is that a translation should set forth the original, and the reader should then be responsible for understanding the meaning based on the plan translation of the original word. The problem is that, when interpretation is done in the translation, the reader doesn’t have the opportunity to do proper exegesis without consulting the original languages, and thus setting forth the requirement that every average Bible reader be at least a little capable in the original languages. This interpretive translation methodology is one of the leading causes for people to distrust their translations, and rightfully so. In photography terms, this kind of translation methodology is like a forced perspective, where a person sees a photo from the perspective that the photographer wants them to see.

If you watch the videos of the ESV translation committee making translational decisions, they discuss the theology of the words more than what the word actually means. This should concern everybody involved, because it means that such a translation will have built into it the theological interpretations of the translation committee in the translation itself. This is not a Biblical approach to translation. The Scriptures were immediately inspired in the original autographs and preserved in the apographs by God’s providence. It should be the objective of translators to set forth accurately into every vulgar tongue what those languages said, without adding interpretation into the translation. Even if the translation committee gets the interpretation correct, they still have not set forth the original, and thus have obscured the text. 

Conclusion

There are many valid arguments in support of formal equivalence (“Word for word”) and dynamic equivalence (“Thought for thought”) in translation. The reality is, no translation is entirely formal, or entirely dynamic. In order to set forth one language into another, both are necessary and should be used to communicate smoothly what the original languages are saying. In most cases, formal equivalence is more appropriate, and in some cases, dynamic equivalence is more appropriate. In both styles of translation, the goal should be translation, however, not interpretation. This interpretive translation methodology is also the cause of the gender inclusive language in the modern Bibles. Many have attributed this shift, rightly, to the increasing amount of liberalism in evangelicalism, but the problem is ultimately with the translation methodology, not the translators. 

The translation methodology can, and should, constrain the translation committees from their editorialism in translation, and thus prevent translations from carrying the theology of the translator in it. Conservatives engage in the same style of interpretive translation methodology, they are just conservative, so their interpretive translations are often received better in evangelical circles. It is not the job of a translator to add his or her theological spin in the translation itself, it is the job of the exegete to pull the meaning out of the text. This interpretive translation methodology has been practically harmful to the church, because it has caused the average Bible reader to believe that they have to “Go back to the Greek” to rightly understand the text. The problem is, you cannot adequately understand a language by simply having a lexicon, and Christians who go back to the Greek almost always butcher the text by doing so. The fruit of such translation methodology is exegetical chaos.