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 worshiper" 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 desirability 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); and "The Truth
About the King James Version Controversy", by Stewart Custer (Bob Jones University
Press, 1981).
Computers for Christ - Chicago
