This critique evaluates Jeffrey Khoo's book, "Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the Doctrine of Providential Preservation." The book strongly advocates for the King James Version (KJV) as the uniquely preserved and superior English Bible, grounded in the Textus Receptus (Received Text) and the Masoretic Hebrew Text. It posits that the KJV is the result of God's providential preservation of His Word throughout history, while condemning modern English translations (such as the NIV) as "corrupt" due to their reliance on the Alexandrian/Critical Text (associated with Westcott and Hort) and their use of dynamic equivalence translation methods.
Summary of the Book's Core Argument
"Kept Pure in All Ages" argues that:
Divine Inspiration and Preservation are Inseparable: The book asserts that God, having inspired every word of the original Scriptures, has also providentially preserved these words in their purity "in all ages." This preservation is seen as extending to a specific textual lineage, culminating in the Textus Receptus for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament.
KJV Superiority: The King James Version is presented as the most faithful, accurate, and trustworthy English translation because it is based on these "providentially preserved Texts." The book champions the "formal equivalence" (word-for-word) translation method employed by the KJV translators.
Critique of Modern Versions: Modern English Bibles, particularly the NIV, are vehemently criticized. They are accused of being based on "corrupt" textual traditions (the Alexandrian/Critical Text, largely influenced by Westcott and Hort) and employing "dynamic equivalence" (thought-for-thought) translation, which the author views as interpretive rather than accurate translation. The book highlights numerous instances where modern versions omit or alter verses and passages, alleging that these changes attack vital Christian doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, eternal punishment).
Condemnation of Westcott and Hort: The scholars B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort are portrayed as "enemies of Christ" with "heretical beliefs" (denying creation historicity, sole mediatorship of Christ, etc.), and their textual critical theory (prioritizing older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is deemed "destructive" and "unbelieving."
Critique and Refutation of Problematic Assertions
While the book raises important questions about textual integrity and translation philosophy, its absolutist stance and strong condemnations of other versions and scholars present several problematic assertions that warrant refutation from a broader, biblically supported perspective.
1. The Exclusivist "KJV-Only" Stance
Problematic Assertion: The book's insistence on the exclusive use and superiority of the KJV, labeling virtually all other modern versions as "corrupt" and "perversions," fosters unnecessary division within the Christian community and can undermine believers' confidence in God's Word if they do not use the KJV.
Refutation with Correct Doctrine: While the KJV is a historically significant and beautiful translation that has profoundly impacted the English-speaking world, the claim of its exclusive superiority or that it alone represents the perfectly preserved Word of God is a theological position not explicitly supported by Scripture. God's providential preservation of His Word ensures that His truth and essential doctrines remain accessible to His people across generations and languages, not necessarily that a single textual tradition or translation is perfectly preserved in every jot and tittle of its copies.
God's Desire for Accessibility: God desires His Word to be accessible and understood by all people, in their own languages (Deuteronomy 6:6-9; Acts 2:6-11). If only one specific English translation (the KJV) were truly God's preserved Word, it would imply a limitation on God's ability to communicate His truth effectively to diverse linguistic and cultural groups throughout history. The purpose of translation is to make God's Word understandable, not to re-inspire it.
No "Re-inspiration" of Translations: The book rightly states that inspiration applies to the original writers and original languages (Page 22). No translation, including the KJV, is "re-inspired." Therefore, while a translation can be faithful and accurate, it does not possess the same inherent inspired status as the original autographs.
Nature of Textual Preservation: The existence of various manuscript traditions (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western) from early centuries suggests that God's preservation was broader than a single, perfectly unified textual stream. While the Byzantine text (underlying the KJV) represents the majority of later manuscripts, older manuscripts (often Alexandrian) sometimes present different readings. Sound textual criticism involves evaluating all available evidence to determine the most probable original reading, acknowledging that minor variations exist in copies, but the core message and doctrines are preserved across all reliable manuscript traditions. The integrity of God's Word is found in the overall harmony of the biblical witness, not solely in one specific textual family.
2. Condemnation of Westcott-Hort and the Alexandrian Text
Problematic Assertion: The book's strong condemnation of Westcott and Hort as "enemies of Christ" and the Alexandrian manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) as inherently "corrupt" due to perceived theological biases and textual omissions.
Refutation with Correct Doctrine: While Westcott and Hort's personal theological views and certain aspects of their textual methodology have been subject to legitimate scholarly debate and critique, their contribution to textual criticism was significant. The Alexandrian manuscripts, though fewer in number, are often older and thus closer in time to the original autographs. Modern textual criticism is far more nuanced than simply adopting Westcott and Hort's conclusions wholesale. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of all manuscript evidence, early versions, and patristic citations.
The "omissions" cited in the book (e.g., John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, 1 John 5:7) are well-known textual variants. Many scholars, even conservative ones who affirm biblical inerrancy, conclude that shorter readings are often more likely to be original, as scribes were more prone to adding explanatory notes or harmonizing passages than to deliberately omitting them, especially in significant theological contexts. These textual decisions are based on complex manuscript evidence, not necessarily a "scissoring out" driven by malicious intent to attack doctrine. Even where these passages are absent or bracketed in modern versions, the essential doctrines of Christ's deity, the Trinity, and the virgin birth are abundantly clear and affirmed elsewhere in Scripture.
Scholarly Discernment: Christians are called to "test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This applies to scholarly methods as well. While caution is warranted regarding scholars with questionable theological stances, their academic contributions should be evaluated on their merits, not dismissed outright due to personal beliefs. The overall body of evidence and scholarly consensus, even among conservative scholars, often finds value in the Alexandrian text type.
Preservation of Doctrine: The core doctrines of the Christian faith are not dependent on a few disputed verses. The deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, and eternal punishment are clearly taught throughout the Bible in numerous undisputed passages. For example, the Trinity is clearly taught in Matthew 28:19 ("Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") and 2 Corinthians 13:14 ("The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.").
3. Interpretation of Biblical Preservation (e.g., Psalm 12:6-7)
Problematic Assertion: The book interprets Psalm 12:6-7 ("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.") as a promise of word-for-word preservation in a specific textual lineage (TR/KJV), and criticizes the NIV's translation of this verse as removing the doctrine of preservation.
Refutation with Correct Doctrine: While Psalm 12:6-7 indeed speaks of God's commitment to His words, the interpretation that this guarantees a perfect, verbatim preservation of every single word in a particular textual stream or translation throughout history is a specific theological interpretation. Many biblical scholars understand "preserve them" (referring to "the words of the LORD") to mean that God will preserve His truth and message through His people, ensuring its availability and authority, even amidst minor textual variations in copies.
The NIV's translation of Psalm 12:7 ("O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever") is a plausible alternative reading of the Hebrew, focusing on the preservation of God's people from the wicked mentioned in the preceding verses (Psalm 12:5). The Hebrew pronouns can be ambiguous in some contexts, allowing for different interpretations. Both interpretations (preservation of words or people) are biblically sound, but the exclusivist interpretation of this verse to demand a specific textual form for all ages is an overreach.
God's Enduring Word: Scripture affirms the eternal and unchanging nature of God's Word (Psalm 119:89: "Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven"; Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away"). This speaks to the divine authority and enduring truth of God's revelation, which is indeed preserved and accessible to believers today through faithful translations, even if they draw from different manuscript traditions. The core message of salvation and righteousness remains clear and powerful across various reliable versions.
Conclusion
"Kept Pure in All Ages" serves as a passionate defense of the King James Version and the doctrine of providential preservation, offering valuable insights into the history of the KJV and the Textus Receptus. However, its uncompromising stance that only the KJV is a "pure" and "preserved" Bible, while condemning virtually all other modern translations as "corrupt" and based on "heretical" foundations, is a significant point of contention.
A more balanced and biblically sound perspective acknowledges the KJV's historical and literary significance while affirming that God's providential preservation of His Word is broader than a single textual tradition or translation. Many modern translations, while differing in their approach and textual base, are the result of diligent scholarly work and faithfully convey the essential truths and doctrines of Scripture. Christians are encouraged to use discerning judgment, study the Word, and choose a translation that best aids their understanding, knowing that God's immutable truth is accessible through various reliable English Bibles. The focus should remain on the transformative power of God's living Word, rather than an exclusive adherence to a particular translation.
No comments:
Post a Comment