The King James Version Debate
In this issue we give you article number four of a very
scholarly work by Theodore Letis, which is a reply to a work by
D. A. Carson, "The King James Version Debate."
We will present this work in four installments; the entire
work may be obtained by writing to Theodore Letis, Box 4302,
Springfield, MO., 65804, and students and teachers who wish to
have light on the Greek Receptus should obtain the work.
by Theodore P. Letis
Copyright-July, 1979
Concerning Carson's theses, I have chosen only to address
myself to thesis nine, which I find to be the pivotal issue at
stake: "The charge that the non-Byzantine text-types are
theologically aberrant is fallacious."
Unfortunately, Carson restricted himself in arguing that the
modern translations based on the Westcott and Hort text-type do
not alter any tenet of orthodoxy. By making reference only to
examples afforded by Victor Perry's "chart," he feels he has
demonstrated that the passages noted in this chart show the
modern translations uphold the deity of Christ as clearly as, or
clearer than the K.J.V. The fact of the matter however, is this
chart only demonstrates that there is much ambiguity with regard
to what these passages say, which should be evident when it is
realized there are no two translations that completely agree on
how to render these passages. And if someone would like to be
convinced further of this ambiguity they would have only to read
the explanatory notes at the end of the Kingdom Interlinear
Translation of the Greek Scripture (which is the 1948 edition of
the Westcott and Hort Greek text), published by the Jehovah
Witnesses. The one passage however, which unambiguously states,
in a dogmatic formula that Jesus Christ was in every sense of the
word deity (and is, therefore, the pivotal passage, of sufficient
clarity, by which the other ambiguous passages must be
understand, and without which, we have at best, ambiguity
concerning this doctrinal issue) was not treated by Carson,
namely, 1 Tim. 3:16.
I will not attempt to defend the majority text reading since
this has been done in admirable style by Burgon.36 The
traditional reading is as follows:
"and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: GOD
was manifest in the flesh..."
The Westcott and Hort text,--which is the text-type underlying
all modern translations--has in the place for the technical term
for deity (theos) the grammarically inappropriate pronoun, he
(os), so that the explicit quality of this dogmatic formulation
has been completely negated in all modern translations, in accord
with the Jehovah Witness's New World Translation.
For example:
K.J.V.: ...God was manifest in the flesh...
New World Translation: ...He was manifest in the flesh...
N.E.B.: ...He who was manifested in the body...
T.E.B.: ...He appeared in human form...
The Jerusalem Bible: ...He was made visible in the flesh...
R.V. (1881): ...He who was manifested in the flesh...
A.S.V. (1901): ...He who was manifested in the flesh...
R.S.V. (1946): ...He was manifested in the flesh...
N.A.S.V.: ...He who was revealed in the flesh...
N.I.V.: ...He appeared in the body...
By recognizing the manuscript tradition that altered this
confession of the apostolic church, the modern translations have
endorsed a form of Christianity that was considered outside the
pale of "the faith once delivered," on the part of
Nicean/Chalcedonian tradition. Burgon recognized this when the
Arian reading was adopted by the revisers of 1881, and he likened
the change unto a strong characterization penned by the Apostle
Peter:
"May we be permitted to say without offence that in our humble
judgment, if the church of England, at the revisers bidding, were
to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred
page--with which the church universal was once well acquainted,
but which in her corporate character she has long since
unconditionally condemned and bandoned--she would deserve to be
pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to
have that <P>openly said of her which S. Peter openly said of the
false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors
which they had already abjured. The place will be found in II S.
Peter ii:22."37
Burgon had good reason to accuse the Church of England of taking
up the ancient error of Arianism, unwittingly perhaps, because
Eusebius gives us clear testimony that it was heretics, of an
Arian persuasian, who were altering the manuscripts, in the Pre-
Nicean period, to substantiate their position.38
So there is a clear line of demarcation, because of this
passage alone, which puts the majority text/T.R./K.J.V/. in the
Nicean/Chalcedonian tradition while all modern translations from
1881 on, are clearly aligned with the Arian position. A telling
demonstration of this is found in the fact that our modern-day
Arians, the Jehovah Witnesses, and their Bible, guard their
understanding of Christ's "subordination" to true God, at this
passage; but queerly enough, all Bibles used by Evangelicals,
which are not the K.J.V., read like The New World Translation at
this point. That the K.J.V. offers the reading the Reformers
recognized (and they did have the optional reading in Erasmus's
notes on this passage), as "received," is clear from the
following quotes from the historic editions of scriptures, used
by the Protestant churches:
Luther's (1522): ...Gott ist offenbaret im fleisch...
Tyndale's (1525): ...God was shewed in the fleshe...
Coverdale's (1535): ...God was shewed in the fleshe...
Matthew's (1537): ...God was shewed in the flesshe...
The Great (1539): ...God was shewed in the flesshe...
Geneva (1560): ...God is manifested in the flesh...
Bishop's (1568): ...God was shewed manifestly in the
flesh...
Some will fault me for not answering every point of
objection offered by Carson, but in order for my answers to have
any weight with the opponents of the majority text, so much
requisite information is necessarry on their part, that I feel
that they would be better served by going to the primary sources.
Burgon is now in print again; Hill's works anticipate most of
Carson's objections. Besides, as Holmes has noted, "Prerequisite
to confident belief is a valuation of the truth that inclines the
will in that direction."39 The majority-text defenders can offer
this in their works.
Finally, I do not feel that Carson's book will have much of
an affect on many, since to show the deficiencies of a document
that is recognized by all as the "noblest literary work in the
Anglo-Saxon language,"40 is an enigmatic cause. And especially
since all the serious objections to the K.J.V., few as they may
be, and as often as they may have been alluded to by whatever
translation was trying to get a market, at any given time, have
been tended to in the supplementary help just published by Thomas
Nelson, entitled the New King James Version.41
Christians have much to be thankful for especially in light
of God's immutable promise to providentially preserve His Word.
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the
flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof
falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever."
1 Peter 1:24, 25a, K.J.V.
----------------
36 Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501. Also, see
Terence H. Brown's, God Was Manifest in the Flesh, (London: The
Trinitarian Bible Society, n.d.); Hills' King James Version
Defended, pp. 137-138; and Federick H. A. Scrivener's Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2 vols.,
(London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 390-395, where
he affirms, "I dare not pronounce theos a corruption."
37 Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 105-106. The passage
reads: "But it is happened unto them according to the true
proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow
that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
38 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, translated by Chrisitan
Frederick Cruse, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974) 5:28, pp.
213-216.
39 Holmes, All Truth, p. 113.
40 Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 113.
41 Burgon viewed a revision of the A.V. in such terms: "As a
companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of
reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of
difficult and controverted passages: --we hold that a revised
edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible (if
executed with consummate ability and learning) would at any time
be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance,
whether by marginal notes or in some other way, we forbear to
determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired.
As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we
are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival translation
is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we
deprecate it entirely. Revision Revised pp. 113-114.