In a previous post, I talked about our willingness to discuss possible translations of the original words of the Scriptures. In many passages, everyone agrees on the originals. When we are grappling with the meaning of the text, we are willing to consider alternate translations suggested by commentaries for added insight into meaning. If anyone looks up a word in a dictionary, in a sense, he is discussing the translation of that word in his own mind. He wants to come to a better understanding of the word, a clearer understanding of what the Scripture means.
When it comes to the manuscripts and which words are the original words, I am sure you are well aware of exceeding great controversy. The reality is, the actual words under disputation are relatively small — I’ve seen various estimates of the number of variants in the New Testament, and even the most ardent King James Onlyist (KJO) typically admits that the vast majority of words are under no dispute at all. (See the KJV Parallel Bible Project for vivid examples: verse after verse is identical in both major Greek New Testament texts.) There is even less dispute over textual matters in the Old Testament.
Now please understand me — I do not intend to debate whether such and such a minuscule should be preferred over a certain papyrus or a couple of majuscules sitting in the Vatican or the British Library. I don’t have the patience for it, don’t know much more than what I’ve read about it, have never attempted to collate or parse out the variations in any text, I wouldn’t know where to start if you pointed a gun at my head and said, “Start text criticizing now!” I can read the arguments some make on various passages, but that’s about it. I suspect that the same is actually true of you, as well.
In this post, I want to move on from our openness to consider translation differences (at least in the study), to the challenge the KJO movement faces as they adhere to their version. Some KJO adherents admit to the notion that an updated King James Version, based on the “right text,” would be acceptable. At least, they make this admission in theory. Most of them won’t accept the New King James Version and the Modern English Version, though they use the same Greek text as the KJV. Despite this, they claim these versions use the “wrong text” and thus are corrupt. ((The validity of the claim might be a subject for another post.))
Some years ago, I was following a now-defunct KJO blog. The blog was a team effort by three or four Independent Baptist pastors who produced some fascinating content. I recall one of them making the admission that a new version based on the “right texts” would actually be acceptable. What!? Suddenly pandemonium erupted in the comments section. The pastor’s friends and fellow-bloggers tried to nuance their way around his admission. The furor was so intense that the author ultimately had to retract his original statement. For many in the KJO movement, you dare not change the words of the KJV.
The reason: “How can you change the word of God?”
On another occasion, a couple visited our church. They seemed sincere, had recently moved to town, and were looking for an independent Baptist church. When they arrived in our services, they were shocked that I used the NASB. We met for coffee afterward. The wife challenged me about one of the differences between the KJV and the NASB in the Acts 6.10. Her concern was over one word (“they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” [NASB] vs. “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” [KJV]).
“Why would you change the word of God?” the lady asked. I recall researching the text later. I discovered there was no textual variant; it was just a vocabulary choice by the translators. The two words mean essentially the same thing in the context. One version chose one word and the other chose another word. In the context, both communicate the same idea. But… “Why would you change the word of God?”
These stories have an additional common thread. The couple I met with assured me, “We are not Ruckmanites.” (That is, they don’t believe the King James Version is inspired, the Ruckman position.) The protesters at the KJO blog, at least many of them, affirmed that they weren’t Ruckmanites either.
Recall the question: “Why would you change the word of God?”
At this point, the real crux of the problem comes to the fore. There are many who understand that words can have more than one legitimate translation in a receptor language. They will not get too excited when a commentary suggests a “better translation.” However, propose a new translation of the Bible, even based on the “right texts?” Man! The fur flies! “Why would you change the word of God?”
When you ask that question about the King James Version, there appears to be something of a reference to the passage quoted in our previous post:
Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Especially for any readers who are of some sort of King James Only or Preferred persuasion, I’d like you to consider seriously these questions:
When John was talking about changing or adding to the “words of this book” was he talking about the Greek originals or the English translations?
When you refuse to allow any change to the words of the English translation, what are you saying about the translators?
Have the words of the translators somehow become as unchangeable as the words of the apostles? Are the translators apostles? Do KJOs really believe it is permissible to update their version?
In doctrinal statement after doctrinal statement you will find words like these, “We believe the King James Version is God’s preserved word for the English speaking people.” Well, if it is the WORD of God for English, were the translators of the KJV apostles?
Further, does that mean inspiration didn’t end about AD 95 (when we think John wrote Revelation), but instead re-occurred in 1611? Or possibly 1769?
The challenge the KJO adherent faces is actually a problem with a fundamental doctrine, the doctrine of inspiration. If it isn’t permissible to change the words of the KJV, why not?
We will take up the implications of these questions in a future post.
— Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Previous Posts in this Series
Why Can’t We Update the Words?
Switching Tools in the Translation Debate – Brent Niedergall
Comments