Improving the KJV

As I've said, I am for updating and even correcting the KJV as necessary but I wouldn't want the job of determining what those changes ought to be. I'm against the changes made in the 1881 Revision and in all subsequent English translations, even the New King James because it also went too far and also treated the W-H work as legitimate. The Revision the 1881 committee should have made didn't happen. I wish it could still be made. Perhaps there would now need to be some more changes than were needed then, but likely not many more.

I was very interested to read an interview with textual scholar Kirk DiVietro recently at KJV Only Debate blog, in which he says he uses the KJV pretty much for the same reason that I do, that although it still needs some revision he wouldn't trust today's scholars to do the job right and takes the position in the end that it really doesn't need an updating.

I would no more trust today’s textual scholars and translators to correct the King James Bible than I would trust the present politicians to rewrite the US Constitution. In my opinion, the scholarship, the knowledge, the dedication and the corporate effort do not exist in today’s academic community.

He also made a very interesting remark about the attitude of the publishers of the NKJV, that they considered it a step for people to take toward the modern versions. Enough reason right there to reject it.

Philip Mauro also discussed this issue. I don't know much about him but I much appreciate what he wrote about the Bible versions in 1924, in which he refers frequently to Burgon -- I've linked it in the margin -- and take seriously what he had to say about the possibility of improving the KJV:

It is not that the Old Version did not and does not admit of corrections and improvements. Nor is it that the Revisers did not make them; for it cannot be denied that the R.V. contains many improved readings. Yet for all that, as the experience of a whole generation has now conclusively demonstrated, the A.V. retains, and in all probability will continue to retain, its long undisputed place as the standard English Bible.

I would really like to see his list of what he considers to be improved readings in the RV. I would trust his choices and note them in my KJV.

About what the revisers of 1881 did instead of sticking to their agreement to make the most minimal revision of the KJV, he said:

...it is apparent from what has been said already that if the Revisers of the 19th century had used the same Greek Text, either as it stood, or with such corrections as might seem justified by discoveries made subsequently to 1624, they would have given us a Version having a comparatively small number of changed readings. In fact it is within bounds to say that, if the Revisers had given us simply a corrected translation of the Textus Receptus, instead of a translation of an entirely "New Greek Text," we should not have more than a small fraction, say less than ten percent, of the changes found in the R.V. And what is more, not one of those changes which are regarded as serious, and against which such a storm of protest has been raised (and that from men of the highest scholarship and deepest piety) would have been made. In that case it is likely also that the changes would have commended themselves to the majority of discriminating Bible users.

This describes the updated KJV I wish they had done. I also wish it weren't too late now to do this work. I appreciate Dr. DiVietro's stand, but I continue to wish a revision were still possible.

To this day we don't have a real Revision of the KJV, despite all the supposed "revisions" we do have. As I read the KJV I see many archaic words I would like to see changed, but, as usual, as soon as I have such a thought I am aware of the wolves lurking in the dark waiting to rip it to bits, so I hesitate, and decide once again that it has to be left as is for now. I can barely say that it needs updating, much less suggest it might even need correction because of the mentality that is only too happy to "correct" the KJV into oblivion, as Westcott and Hort were and most of the modern versions have already done.

So back to Burgon, whose work on this convinces me that he understood what Westcott and Hort did while no modern scholars on the side of the modern versions do.

=======
It occurred to me that I should give a reason why I don't support the newest KJV revisions that have been done, such as the King James 2000 and the Modernized version -- not sure that's the right name. There are others. It's because one thing I argue here is the importance of there being a STANDARD Bible that is shared by at least a majority of Christians. I consider it a problem that we each have our own chosen version, I consider it a disunifying influence in the churches, a disruptive force. Unless it were so clearly the perfect revision that I couldn't resist it I don't want to have just another version among versions to add to the confusion.

A second reason, however, is that when I've briefly looked over the different Bibles I have the impression that they all disagree with each other about what changes should have been made, so among themselves they also conflict, and I couldn't choose among them myself. As I've said, I would like a church-authorized committee to make those choices. They could run them by us all publicly, that's a good idea too, so it can all be hashed out in advance on blogs and forums, why not, especially since that's been going on for years now anyway, but then they are to make the decision. But of course the committee has to be equal in scholarship and spiritual status to the KJV translators. Not going to happen, I know, but I don't see any point in proliferating versions, even attempts at minimal revision, until there's a clear consensus, among people with the ability to judge, on what should be done.

An Amateur in Text Crit Land

I keep getting criticism for this opinion:

I don't think such amateurs should be questioning the KJV translators on such things anyway.

Am I off the wall about this? Should everything be decided by democratic vote?

Isn't a Bible translation meant to be a production of those gifted for the job and USED by the rest of us? In fact isn't this project I'm engaged in at this blog something that should never have to happen, where ordinary Christians feel a need to take on these questions at all?

I'd go further myself and say that we should never have been put in the position of having to consult a Concordance in ordinary Bible study either. We should never have had to consider getting a Bible dictionary or other Bible aid for that purpose. I know it's all supposed to merely enhance our study but I can't see it that way any more. Of course if you're inclined to do that, fine, I mean there shouldn't be this NEED to do it. We should be able to rely on pastors and teachers and our own reading of the Word alone. I once accepted the need for the study aids the way I accepted as a new Christian the whole Bible versions rationale, also accepted the recommendation of my Bible study teacher for a particular translation (which I have to say I disliked for its awful English and you might be surprised at which one that was -- not the NLT or the NIV -- perhaps it wasn't really the English but spiritual discernment, thank You, Lord if so).

All these study aids have been made necessary by the proliferation of Bible versions with their inconsistent readings and the general attitude that whatever the Greek or Hebrew says is up for grabs by the least educated of us. And there are way too many of us who do feel a need to learn something about the debate over these things, on either side. I'm not saying we shouldn't, it's unfortunately necessary. One side tells us the new Bibles are straight from the pit of Hell, the other side TOTALLY pooh poohs that idea and tells us we should relax and accept them all, it's just a matter of personal preference, it's really a great boon to the church, an overflow of riches, those other guys are just conspiracy thinkers and reactionaries. If you have any suspicion at all that the picture isn't that rosy you find yourself getting pulled into trying to learn what the real situation is. Turns out it really isn't all that rosy. It may not be quite the pit of Hell -- or it may be -- but there's definitely plenty to be concerned about.

We amateurs really don't have much choice, after all, some of us anyway, but we do have to remember that we ARE amateurs, amateur text critics, amateur translators, amateur Greek scholars or whatever, and this situation is not optimum for Christians anyway you look at it. In studying this I've come to the conclusion that the average seminary graduate is also an amateur even if he spent four or five years learning Greek. Burgon said he thinks the basic qualification for a textual critic is a LIFETIME of study of all the relevant disciplines.

Amateurs can only promote mediocrity when what we need is the BEST -- of scholarship and of spiritual fidelity and depth. I think Burgon is one who had his finger on the pulse of the best in both senses and a sharp eye for error, heresy and bad faith, and that's why he's become my hero and why I want to keep him the center of my blog.

And I'd better get back to it.

Change for the Sake of Change: Isaiah 32:17

Besides evidence for the use of corrupted Greek texts in the modern Bible versions starting with Westcott and Hort's, I also want to give examples from time to time of the changes in the English that demonstrate what can only be called a destructive attitude toward the Bible, changes that serve no purpose other than change.

In the newest versions this is probably the result of the need to make a certain number of changes in order to qualify for copyright. That's bad enough. However, Westcott and Hort made over 36,000 changes against their commitment to do the most minimal possible revision of the Authorized Version or King James.

As I discovered some time ago from comparing the differences between different versions on the first three verses of Psalm 91 all the changes from version to version seem to have no purpose except to creat a confusion of tongues Babel-style in the Christian churches, making it impossible for Christians to quote consistently or read in unison, destroying the unity of the church in a diabolically subtle way, so subtle that some of the very best preachers have completely overlooked the deceit.

Here is another example, Isaiah 32:17: (Differences from the KJV in red and lt. blue. I bold the main words where they are the same as the KJV's.)

KJV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.

RV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence for ever.

I ask you, was there a COMPELLING NEED to change "assurance" into "confidence?" Is there some problem with the word "assurance" that escapes me? Is it an archaic word or a difficult word to understand? Or isn't this obviously change for change's sake?

ESV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever.

Footnote:
* Or security

Now we've got "effect" where "work" is in the KJV, and "result" for "effect." I checked: the Hebrew does not have the same word in those places. And now "trust" replaces "confidence" which replaces the KJV's "assurance." Is there any explanation for this except change for change's sake? AND we've got a footnote too, giving us yet another synonym, just what we need.

RSV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever. (Identical to the ESV)

ASV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence for ever. (Same as the RV)

NASB: And the work of righteousness will be peace, And the service of righteousness, quietness and *confidence forever.

A real original there, in "service."

NIV: The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever.

Another original, that "fruit."

Webster's and Darby's are identical to the KJV

I know we usually say "will" for "shall" but "shall" is correct and it isn't a strange-sounding word to us either, so why should it be changed? The RV and the ASV retain it, why shouldn't it be regarded as the standard reading?

The RV, ASV and NASB also retain the KJV's "work," adding to the impression that there is no good reason to change THAT word either. The only change they all agree on is "assurance" and that just seems silly.

Come on, you CAN see that all this is nothing but Babel, can't you?

=====

Apparently my Anonymous commenter to this post can't see it. He's at pains to convince me that these choices were all made by scholars for scholarly reasons. If so, that's a pretty sad comment on scholarship. What could be more revealing of the uselessness of scholarly work than the results shown above?

Corruptions of the Greek manuscripts: evidence from Burgon that is simply dismissed today

Burgon doesn't ascribe all the corruptions in the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts to the work of heretics, but discusses many different causes of such corruption, spending about fifty pages of Revision Revised on this topic. He even wrote an entire book on this subject. Some of it he does ascribe to heretical tampering, however.

I want to quote from a passage in which he is imagining a dialogue with a critic of his point of view and a defender of Westcott and Hort. Here he's quoting

a very ancient Father (Caius) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied the Divinity of Christ. He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time, viz. about A.D. 175-200:--"

The Divine Scriptures,' he says, 'these heretics have audaciously corrupted: . . . laying violent hands upon them under pretence of correcting them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally: then, to compare one with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is extraordinary.

Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be founmd discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men's disciples have industriously multipled the (so-called) "corrected" copies of their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but "corrupted" copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the first instance, with that which exhibits their latest perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between them is even excessive.

Of the enormity of the offense of which these men have been guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the Holy Ghost, -- in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers: or else, they account themselves wiser than the Holy Ghost, -- and what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else, let them produce the originals from which they made their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescending to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets alike.

Now, the foregoing statement is in a high degree suggestive. For here is an orthodox Father of the IInd century inviting attention to four well-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred Writings; -- complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit (being not only inconsistent with one another, but with themselves); -- and insisting that such corrected, are nothing else but shamefully corrupted copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose authors -- Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollinides -- have (all but the first) long since died out of the Church's memory. You will allow therefore (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the oldest existing copies of Scripture to be the purest, has been effetually disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS. are not derived -- remotely if not directly -- from some of them. pp 323-4 Revision Revised

He goes on at length with this argument, showing that these corruptions belong to what are known as the Alexandrian text type. I may add more eventually. Presumably it can be read and decided in favor of Westcott and Hort. I decide it in favor of Burgon. Perhaps that is the best that can be said. I find his arguments convincing throughout his book.

Leland Ryken: Celebrating the King James while accepting the modern versions as well

Since the Moorman-White debate I've been gathering information on this subject from so many directions it's becoming a scattering influence for me. When I originally began my blogs I expected to link to other blogs as well as to acquire as much information as possible, but I quickly found that to be beyond my ability to keep in any kind of order. That is what is happening now. It's not a bad thing in itself, I'm glad to have all the new links and information, but it's going to take me a while to be able to make use of it for my own purposes.

Just to restate it -- sorry to repeat myself so often but it seems necessary -- what occupies me primarily in the Bible versions controversy is the effect of the work of Westcott and Hort on today's Bibles. I'm not KJV-Only, meaning I don't believe the King James Bible is perfection in itself; I do believe any translation is to be updated as language changes, and to be corrected as better sources become available.

The problem in this case is that what happened back in 1881 seriously interrupted that normal flow of things, and inaugurated such a cavalier attitude toward Bible translation that it brings any thought of revision NOW under well-deserved distrust. The committee that was dominated by Westcott and Hort went way beyond their commitment to produce a minimal revision of the King James Bible, instead substituting Greek texts that seriously change the text, and making over 36,000 mostly unnecessary changes in the English.

This is all documented and discussed by Burgon and I still haven't done enough to bring out his evidence for that.

Instead of taking Burgon's warnings seriously, the Revision that came out in 1881 and the corrupted Greek text on which it was based, have been accepted to one degree or another as the basis of all translations since then. The Alexandrian Greek Text promoted by W-H is incorporated in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Critical Texts which underlie the new translations, and a comparison of the English texts of the various new translations with the KJV and prior translations shows indefensible changes based both on the corrupted Greek texts and on the changes-for-change's sake in the English that can be traced back to Westcott and Hort.

This amounts to what Burgon called a "mutilation" of the English Bible, and to one extent or another all the modern versions are mutilated in the same way, giving changed meanings, false readings, as well as bad English.

This is really where I should be putting all my efforts and I hope I'll soon get back to it.

Their work also seems to have inspired the rather casual multiplication of translations and editions of the English Bible over the last century as well.

Discussions of anything concerning the Bible these days, such as the reliability of its transmission from earliest times, treat the corrupted Greek texts as just another family of texts, and in fact treat them as better than the texts behind the KJV. Arguments against the KJV-Only position often spend much time trying to prove the KJV is flawed, or focusing on the error of believing any translation could be inspired by God or perfect in itself, even spending whole books on this error while slighting or completely ignoring "the elephant in the living room" which is the corruptions of the underlying texts of the modern versions.

Ignoring this problem is also the case in this next example, an interview with Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College. Professor Ryken wrote a book in celebration of the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible, available of course at Amazon.

Here I'm going to post an audio of the interview with him about the book. It's a very inspiring description of the making of the King James Version, no KJVOnly could ask for more as far as his admiration of it goes. He does a wonderful job of describing its manifold superiorities in every possible way, from its translators to its use of language to its effect on literature and the culture.

However, Professor Ryken accepts without criticism some of the modern Bibles, particularly the ESV but also the RSV and the NKJV, even comparing them favorably with the KJV in some respects. He rejects some others on the basis of their translation philosophy or philosophy of style, but he says nothing at all against the underlying texts, accepting them uncritically as so many others do these days.

With that caveat, for his wonderful appreciation of the King James AND some interesting information about it that was clarifying to me and probably new to many, he is well worth hearing, so here is the interview, Celebrating the King James Bible on its 400th anniversary.

Moorman-White Debate comments from Pastor Snapp

This is a comments page from KJV Only Debate on the White-Moorman Debate with some especially good posts by Pastor James Snapp. I just want to post this much now and will probably come back and quote a few of his statements later.

Nitpicking the KJV to death / one English word for one Greek word?

Joined briefly in a discussion at KJV Only Debate , where I quickly discovered I really have no place in such a debate. They seem to be focused on taking apart the KJV, which is very far from my interests and beyond my abilities to answer.

The question that was raised in this case involved the KJV translators' use of three different English words words for the Greek "eis," asking how we are to understand their choices, suggesting it would be better to have just one English word for one Greek word.

For example, when reading verses about baptism, John baptized unto (eis) repentance and preached the baptism of repentance for (eis) the remission of sins. Peter preached that people should be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins. Paul said we are baptized into (eis) Christ, and that Israel was baptize unto (eis) Moses.

So I pondered it and came up with the following thoughts on it:

Being baptized UNTO repentance suggests that the baptism is because of the repentance. I said something more vague on the debate site but I now think there's something of fulfillment implied in the "unto" -- repentance is the reason for the baptism.

There isn't a really good parallel between this use of "unto" and that for Israel's being baptised UNTO Moses, though, except to say that "unto" must be allowed its nuances just as "eis" must.

The baptism of repentance FOR the remission of sins seems to be saying it's for the sake of / for the purpose of / for the cause of the remission of sins.

Same with baptism for the remission of sins.

Being baptised INTO Christ is probably the easiest one to understand as it reflects the believer's unity with Christ, and the idea that we are baptised into His death.

As for Israel being baptised UNTO Moses, they certainly weren't baptised INTO Moses as he isn't the Savior, or FOR Moses as if it were somehow for his sake, but UNTO him as their representative and leader.

The meanings would no doubt have been more easily understood in the time of the translation, but even if I'm not quite in tune with them it seems to me that using just one English word in all those places wouldn't work. I can't think which one of the three would do the job at all.

This is a question for the KJV translators themselves or for someone with their degree of expertise, who most likely doesn't exist today. It's not a question for a bunch of amateurs who can only guess at such things, and I don't think such amateurs should be questioning the KJV translators on such things anyway.

The very idea that only one English word should be used for one Greek word shows a lack of understanding of language. Languages hardly ever have a one-to-one correspondence of meaning between them like that. A word in one language may have so many nuances it requires many words in another to convey its various senses. This is no less true of tribal languages that have no literature than the languages of civilization. Forcing subtle differences of meaning into one arbitary term doesn't serve the needs of a translation. Yet apparently this is what Westcott and Hort did, according to Burgon. The word "sophomoric" comes to mind.

I believe the first thing that needs to be addressed in the Bible versions debate is the disaster brought on the Church by Westcott and Hort's use of corrupted Greek texts, along with their substitution of English terms chosen clearly with a desire only to distance their Bible from the KJV -- change for change's sake as Burgon recognized. Only after the disaster is fully recognized should the KJV's faults be considered at all. And then this should be the job of people qualified for the task and appointed by the Church, not a bunch of amateurs. It should be done by men who have really SOAKED in the languages involved, preferably all their lives, who've read all their literature etc. etc. Unfortunately there probably aren't any such qualified men these days.

===========
Follow-up comment: As I've continued discussing this with Pastor Jason S I've become clearer that his main concern is a pastoral one -- how to teach his people from KJV texts that are hard to understand, which he thinks in some cases is the fault of the translation. That may be so, or it may just be the expectable problems with difficult texts that no translation could ever be perfect enough to eliminate -- and there are some texts it even seems that God WANTS us to struggle with. Even if a translation was done faithfully to every conceivable standard it could nevertheless still not be completely easy for everyone to understand; in fact given the nature of God and the variety of human minds that seems a lot to ask. Nevertheless it could be something that should be changed in the KJV, I just think there isn't anyone around with the qualifications, the right authority and the undoubted trustworthiness these days to do that so it's up to the individual to make of it what he will, even using a modern version for comparison if necessary of course.

In any case, this is really a completely different concern from mine which is about the qualifications of the different Bible versions as such, whether the Greek texts were corrupted, whether Westcott and Hort violated their commitment to do the most minimal revision, and so on.