****SOUND DOCTRINE (303) 680-7209 8,N,1 300/1200BAUD 24HRS****
"GIMME THE BIBLE THAT PAUL USED"
A Look at the King James Only Debate
====================================
by Eric Pement (3/87)
I confess that my natural tendency leans toward King James. A few
years ago one of my great desires was to find a T-shirt inscribed with
the words, "1611 -- Straight from Heaven."
But favoritism aside, the King James Version is not perfect. Some
folks would argue with that statement, and many churches have divided
over the "King James only" issue. In brief, the "King James only"
stance asserts that no other translation is truly the Word of God.
THE BIBLE: GOD'S WORD TO MAN
In discussing in what respect the Bible -- or any translation of it
-- can be the Word of God, we must distinguish between the inspiration
of the text of the original manuscripts and the inspiration of the
wording chosen by a translator working with another language.
The apostle Paul declares that "All scripture is given by
inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). The English word "scripture" comes
from the Greek word GRAPHE, meaning "that which is written." The term
"is given by inspiration of God" actually comes from a single Greek
word, THEOPNEUSTOS. Literally, THEOPNEUSTOS means "God-breathed" or
"breathed [out] by God." The terminology used here emphasizes that the
written text originated from (or out of) God. The Holy Bible is a
revelation from God, not merely a collection of human insights.
While God has conveyed His message to us through human thoughts and
words, nowhere does the Bible imply that the languages used in the Old
and New Testaments are somehow the languages of Heaven. Hebrew and
Greek are human tongues, with both the limitations and the richness
that these languages possess. In giving us His word, God used two very
different languages (and the thought-forms which underlie them),
instead of one language only, which should protect us from the trap of
ascribing perfection to any human language.
INTRODUCING THE KING JAMES VERSION
Probably few people know it, but the King James Bible we
universally accept today is not an exact copy of the edition released
in 1611. The Bible which circulates as the "Authorized" King James
Version is actually the fourth revision of 1769. A simple way to
verify this is by reading John 3:7 in your KJV. The 1611 text read as
follows: "Marueile not that I saide vnto thee, Ye must be borne
againe." Similarly, the spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and use
of italics have been changed throughout.
In addition, the original 1611 edition contained marginal notes
offering more precise or alternate translations. (For example, it
indicated that "a worshipper" in Acts 19:35 is literally "the temple
keeper" in Greek.) Also, verses which had poor manuscript support were
noted, such as Luke 17:36. All the marginal notes and alternate
readings have been removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with
the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy
introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."
ARGUMENTS FOR THE SUPERIORITY OF THE KJV
Those who argue for the superiority of the King James Version
usually stand on one of three platforms:
(1) KJV is better because it is more memorable, popular, etc.
(2) KJV is better because it relies on a better textbase for the NT.
(3) KJV is better because its translation was inspired by God.
The first platform appeals to the beauty of the KJV, the felicity
of its cadences and rhythms, its rigorous faithfulness to the original
languages, the way the text lends itself to memorization, and to the
desirabilty of having a single version among the English-speaking
people.
There is something to be said for this viewpoint. If you can
appreciate Shakespeare, you can appreciate the English of the KJV. On
the other hand, there are several spots where the KJV could bear
improvement. The KJV translation often confuses HADES (the realm of
the dead) with GEHENNA (the punishment of fire); likewise TEKNON
(child) with HUIOS (son), and DUNAMIS (power) with EXOUSIA
(authority). The deity of Christ is obscured in the KJV rendering of
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. And at several points the KJV contains
interpolations where there is no corresponding text in any known Greek
manuscript.
DOES THE KJV USE A BETTER TEXTBASE?
The second platform concerns the Greek textbase used by the
translators of the KJV. Please note: this is strictly a debate over
the best manuscripts to use in translating the New Testament. There is
usually little objection to modern translations of the Old Testament,
because the Hebrew (Masoretic) text used in 1611 is still considered
the standard today.
Many people defend the King James because its translators relied in
large measure on a printed edition of the Greek New Testament now
known as the Textus Receptus (or "Received Text"). The TR can be
traced back to Desiderius Erasmus. In 1516 Erasmus published the first
Greek New Testament, based on half a dozen Greek manuscripts and the
Latin (Vulgate) translation of the NT. Later, Stephens (1551) and Beza
(1598), employing a dozen more manuscripts, still produced
fundamentally similar texts. It was their texts which were used by the
translators of the Authorized Version.
From the immense body of New Testament material (5,366 Greek
manuscripts; over 2,200 lectionaries; over 36,000 citations from the
church fathers), scholars have adopted a means of categorizing the
various manuscripts. This provides assistance in determining which
wording and spelling should be preferred in cases of disagreement. New
Testament scholars have arranged the manuscripts into four main
families (or textbases), based on similar phraseology, spelling and
grammatical peculiarities, and other common features.
The Textus Receptus is derived from the Byzantine family (which
represents about 95% of all Greek manuscripts). However, it does not
truly represent the Byzantine textbase, mainly because the
sixteenth-century scholars examined so few of these manuscripts. Most
contemporary translations (RSV, NASV, NIV, etc.) rely on manuscripts
from the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean families in addition to
the Byzantine texts. Manuscripts from these families are often more
ancient, but there are fewer of them than those of the Byzantine
tradition. (For a detailed study of this subject, I strongly recommend
"A General Introduction to the Bible", by Norman Geisler and William
Nix [Moody Press, 2nd ed., 1986].)
Before proceeding further, I should emphasize that these four text-
types are not in great opposition to one another. In over 90 percent
of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless
of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences
between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord
"Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the"
before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the
meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any
of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a
dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The
other 99.5% we all agree on!
IS THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION DIVINELY INSPIRED?
The third level takes us into another dimension. At this stage, we
hear people saying that the English wording used by the KJV
translators was chosen by God.
One way to recognize people coming from this platform is that they
totally reject all other English versions of the Bible, even those
which rely on the Textus Receptus, because they believe the King James
translation is perfect. For example, Tyndale's translation (1535), the
Bishops' Bible (1568), Young's Literal Translation of the Bible
(1898), the King James II Version (1971), and the New King James
Version (1982) are all based on the Textus Receptus. But a true
fanatic will reject all of these translations, even if he's never seen
them, because he presupposes that only the 1611 Authorized Version is
true.
If you want to argue for the superiority of the Textus Receptus
over the Alexandrian manuscripts, fine. That's Level 2, and we are
still talking about the TEXT being the standard, while the job of the
TRANSLATION is to reproduce the thoughts of the text. But in Level 3,
the TRANSLATION is the standard, and if the translation doesn't agree
with the text, it's because the Greek is in error. This is the
OPPOSITE of Level 2. On Level 3, the Textus Receptus has mistakes in
it, but the KJV translation is perfect.
One well-known defender of this view is Peter S. Ruckman. For
example, in "A Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence", Ruckman
has a chapter entitled, "Correcting the Greek with the English." He
claims, "Where the majority of Greek manuscripts stand against the
A.V. 1611, put them in file 13" (p. 130). "When the Greek says one
thing and the A.V. says another, throw out the Greek" (p. 137).
In Acts 19:37, every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS,
"robbers of temples," which the KJV incorrectly rendered as "robbers
of churches." Ruckman defends the KJV reading, saying, "Mistakes in
the KJV are advanced revelation" (p. 126). In other words, the Greek
has errors, but the KJV doesn't.
MOTIVATION FOR KING JAMES ONLY
The average believer might wonder how such an extreme defensiveness
for the King James Version could come about. I think one of the chief
reasons people are unwilling to admit even a speck of error in the
King James Version is to prevent the man in the pew from being at the
mercy of the "textual critic." Too often, they've heard lines like
this: "Well, you believe XYZ because it says that in your version of
the Bible. But you don't know (a) the subtle meaning of the original
Greek word, or (b) that we've discovered new manuscripts, and a
different word was used there."
Thus, a number of people from conservative Christian persuasions
have decided that "the buck is gonna stop RIGHT HERE," with the
universally distributed KJV. I suspect this is the real reason for
their insistence on the perfection of the King James Version.
Rather than respond by pointing to a "flawless" KJV, however, a
better solution is to teach the man in the pew how to prove and defend
his beliefs from Scripture. In the first place, no major Christian
doctrine hinges on one or two verses. The fundamentals of the faith
appear repeatedly throughout the body of Scripture, in principle and
presupposition as much as in explicit statements. There should be no
need to rely on one or two prooftexts to prove your point.
Second, if there is a need to go to the Greek or Hebrew, we must be
willing to take the time to learn how to use study helps (lexicons,
concordances, encyclopedia, interlinear Bibles, etc.). Make the effort
to telephone an instructor at a Bible college or seminary to settle a
dispute. Most of them are glad to answer questions from non-students,
so don't be afraid to look for outside help.
Third, remember that the greatest barrier to doctrinal agreement
among Christians is not caused by textual uncertainty ("what does the
text say?"), but by hermeneutic and presuppositional issues ("what
does it mean?"). In other words, the main reason for conflict is due
to interpretation, not translation.
Finally, every major belief of Christianity can be just as easily
proven from the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard
Version, or the New International Version, as from the King James. Any
major translation is sufficiently accurate to enable a person to
believe in Jesus Christ and receive the new birth through faith in
Him. Moreover, most translations accurately convey the character of
God, the nature of man's fall, our need for redemption, the signs of
the Christian, and the foundational things we ought to do and ought to
avoid to please God.
Bible scholars tell us that the accuracy of the text of the New
Testament (excluding spelling variations) is greater than 98 percent.
The NT is far more accurate than ANY other ancient writing. In fact,
there is more evidence for the integrity of the New Testament than
there is for the works of Shakespeare or any 10 other pieces of
ancient literature COMBINED.
On a foundational level, we can be assured that the everlasting and
incorruptible truth of God's Word has been preserved for us in the
Scriptures. The real argument for inerrancy, far from being the
opinions of backwoods country bumpkins, rests on the promise of the
Lord Jesus Christ and verifiable historical evidence. Accurate and
authoritative, the Word of God is a "lamp unto our feet" as we walk
the Christian path.
# # #
NOTE: For further reading on the King James controversy, I recommend
the following:
"The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism", by D. A. Carson
(Baker Book House, 1979)
"Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the King
James Version of the Bible," I.B.R.I. Research Report No. 3, by
Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman (Biblical Theological Seminary,
Hatfield, PA, 1979)
"The Truth About the King James Version Controversy", by Stewart
Custer (Bob Jones University Press, 1981).
Computers for Christ - Chicago../