The article "Why KJV is the Best English Translation of the Bible" can be found at https://gethsemanebpc.com/pastoral/kjv-best-english/
The article "Why KJV is the Best English Translation of the Bible" presents a passionate case for the exclusive use of the King James Version (KJV), rooted in a specific view of biblical preservation (Verbal Plenary Preservation - VPP) and the superiority of the Textus Receptus (TR). While I share the author's deep reverence for Scripture as God's inspired Word and the vital importance of having reliable translations, I must respectfully offer a different perspective grounded in historical reality, textual scholarship, and a broader understanding of God's faithfulness in preserving His message.
1. Matthew 4:4 and the Nature of Preservation
The article rightly emphasizes Jesus' declaration that we live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4, KJV). However, using this verse to demand that every single word must be perfectly preserved in one specific manuscript lineage or translation throughout history is an interpretation, not an explicit command of the text itself.
God's Faithfulness vs. Human Mechanisms: We absolutely affirm God's promise to preserve His Word (Isa 40:8; Matt 5:18; 24:35). The question is how He accomplishes this. VPP posits a specific, miraculous mechanism of word-for-word replication in a single manuscript stream (leading to the TR/KJV). The biblical texts speak of God preserving His message and truth faithfully for His Church, not specifying the exact method of textual transmission.
The Reality of Transmission: God's providence worked through the faithful, yet fallible, work of thousands of scribes copying manuscripts over centuries. This process inevitably resulted in minor variations (spellings, word order, occasional omissions/additions) – a reality evident in the thousands of manuscripts we possess. God's faithfulness is seen in the remarkable overall stability of the text across this vast manuscript evidence, not in the absence of any textual variants. The core message of sin, salvation, and redemption in Christ remains crystal clear across all reliable textual traditions and translations. No essential doctrine hinges on a disputed variant.
The Translation Question: The article asks, "how will we know God’s Word unless He has preserved it … and then we have it accurately and faithfully translated … into English?" This is crucial. We do have God's Word faithfully preserved in the original language manuscripts (though requiring careful scholarship to reconstruct the earliest text). The task of translation is then to accurately convey that meaning into another language. The KJV is one such translation, but not the only possible faithful one.
2. The Textus Receptus (TR) and Manuscript Evidence
The article champions the TR as the "pure," "providentially preserved," "infallible and inerrant" text, contrasting it sharply with modern critical texts based on older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
The TR's Origin: The TR was compiled in the 16th century by Erasmus and others, primarily using the small number of relatively late (mostly 12th-century) Byzantine manuscripts available to them at the time. It was a monumental work for its era but was not based on the oldest available evidence.
Older Manuscript Discoveries: Since the 16th century, archaeologists and scholars have discovered thousands of older manuscripts (some dating to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries), including the Alexandrian family (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) and others. These older manuscripts are closer chronologically to the original autographs. To dismiss them wholesale as "scandalously corrupt" ignores their age and requires assuming widespread, early corruption of the text – a claim unsupported by historical evidence and contrary to God's promise of preservation.
Textual Criticism is Faithful Stewardship: Modern textual criticism isn't an attack on Scripture; it's the careful, reverent process of comparing "all" available manuscripts (including Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western families) to discern the most likely original reading. This process affirms the overwhelming reliability of the New Testament text. The differences between the TR and modern critical texts are minor and well-documented; they do not affect core Christian doctrines. The KJV translators themselves lacked access to this wealth of earlier evidence; they would likely have welcomed it.
3. The KJV Translators and Translation Philosophy
The article rightly praises the learning and piety of the KJV translators. They were indeed remarkable men dedicated to a monumental task. However, the argument for their unique, unrepeatable superiority is overstated.
Human Excellence, Not Divine Perfection: While highly skilled, they were fallible humans working within the linguistic and textual limitations of their time. Their own preface to the KJV explicitly states they did not claim perfection and anticipated future revisions as language and knowledge grew. Modern translators also include deeply devout, highly skilled scholars with access to far more resources (including those older manuscripts).
"Verbal Equivalence" vs. "Dynamic Equivalence": The article strongly favors "verbal equivalence" (word-for-word) as the "only" acceptable method, criticizing "dynamic equivalence" (thought-for-thought). While formal equivalence (like the KJV and ESV, NASB) has strengths, all translation involves interpretation. Languages don't map perfectly word-for-word. Sometimes a more dynamic approach (like the NIV, NLT, CSB) can convey the meaning more accurately and clearly to a modern audience. The KJV itself occasionally uses dynamic renderings. Both philosophies, when done faithfully and transparently, aim to accurately convey God's Word. Accusing modern translations of "adding to" or "subtracting from" God's Word (Rev 22:18-19) based on differing translation philosophy or textual choices is a serious charge requiring specific evidence, not blanket condemnation.
Team Technique: The KJV's collaborative process was excellent. Modern translation committees (like those for the ESV, NIV, CSB, NRSV) also involve extensive peer review and collaboration by teams of international scholars across denominations.
4. Theology and Modern Versions
The article claims modern versions, using critical texts, undermine key doctrines (Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, Blood Atonement) and are based on the "diabolical" work of Westcott and Hort.
Doctrinal Fidelity: This claim is demonstrably false. All major modern evangelical translations (ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, NLT) unequivocally affirm the Virgin Birth, the full Deity and sinless humanity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement through His blood, and His bodily resurrection. Passages central to these doctrines (e.g., John 1:1, 14; Luke 1:34-35; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Heb 9:12-14; 1 John 1:7; 1 Cor 15:3-4) are clearly present. Differences in wording (e.g., some debated passages like 1 John 5:7-8 or the ending of Mark) do not negate these core truths, which are taught throughout Scripture.
Westcott and Hort: Portraying these 19th-century scholars as "diabolical" is uncharitable and inaccurate. While their theories can be debated, they were devout Anglican scholars seeking the most accurate text based on the evidence available to them. Their work, refined by over a century of subsequent scholarship and manuscript discoveries, forms the basis for modern critical texts because they sought to utilize the oldest evidence. Their personal theology, while perhaps more broad than some evangelicals prefer, does not negate the scholarly value of their textual work.
5. The "No Reliable Alternative" Claim and Readability
The article dismisses modern versions as unsafe due to "diluted and adulterated doctrines" and suggests concerns about KJV's archaic language are a smokescreen.
Doctrinal Clarity: As stated above, major modern translations faithfully teach core Christian doctrine. The proliferation of versions often serves different purposes: formal equivalence (ESV, NASB), balanced approach (NIV, CSB), or functional equivalence for clarity (NLT). This allows believers to choose based on study needs or reading level.
The Readability Imperative: The claim that KJV's archaic language (e.g., "thee/thou," "prevent," "suffer," "conversation," "charity") is easily understood is simply not true for most modern English speakers, especially new believers or those without a strong literary background. Obscure language can hinder understanding, which is the very purpose of Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17). Faithful translation requires conveying God's message clearly to the target audience. Modern translations aim to do this without sacrificing accuracy.
Conclusion: Defending the Message, Not Just One Medium
The KJV is a magnificent historical landmark, a literary treasure, and a translation God has used mightily for centuries. Its translators deserve our respect. However, the arguments for its exclusive supremacy based on the perfection of the TR and VPP are not supported by the full scope of historical and textual evidence or by the Bible's own teaching on preservation.
We defend God's Word best by affirming:
1. Divine Inspiration: The original autographs were breathed out by God, inerrant and authoritative (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21).
2. Providential Preservation: God has faithfully preserved His Word sufficiently through the ages in the manuscript tradition, ensuring the Church has always had access to the life-giving message of the Gospel. This preservation is seen in the overall stability of the text across thousands of manuscripts, not in the perfection of one specific line.
3. The Task of Scholarship: Textual criticism is a God-honoring discipline that seeks, using all available evidence, to recover the text closest to the originals. Modern critical texts represent the best efforts of faithful scholars to do this.
4. The Goal of Translation: To accurately and clearly convey the meaning of God's inspired Word into the language of the people. Multiple faithful translations, based on the best available texts and using sound principles (both formal and functional equivalence), can achieve this goal for different audiences today.
Our faith rests ultimately in the God who spoke and who preserves His truth. We have His Word reliably in many faithful English translations, including the KJV, but not exclusively so. Let us focus on proclaiming the unchanging Gospel message found within them all, trusting in the Holy Spirit to illuminate hearts through His Word, however it is faithfully rendered.
No comments:
Post a Comment