One More Textus Receptus Critique Question

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it fair to say that the Southern Presbyterians differed as a whole on this topic from the Princeton men, or was Dabney an anomaly? I can check out this article if I can find it, but I have not read Dabney, et al on the topic.
Not sure about any consistent differences between North and South, but I will say Dabney is particularly helpful on the issue of modern textual criticism. He’s probably the main reason I think the way I think on it.
 
Actually most TR men take a very dim view of Warfield and his "capitulation" to the modernists while he was at Princeton. Ted Letis has a whole section of his book named The Ecclesiastical Text on Warfield. Sadly Warfield was squishy on evolution also.

 
Hello again, Graham,

What with all the talk of KJVO, TR, etc, I want again (as I have done in the past) to clarify my nuanced view of the Bible and its versions. I call what I hold to as KJV priority – or preferred – as being the best English translation of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It – the KJV – is not the clearest or easiest to read, but it is the most accurate in my view.

That said, please note that I deeply appreciate the modern versions, even those based on the Critical Text, such as the NIV (1984), NASB, ESV, NLT, and the older Living Bible and the Amplified.

Now that I am in Cyprus re-planting the Reformed Church I planted and pastored in 2006 till 2011, I find that I no longer have (with a couple of exceptions) native English-speakers, but almost entirely Nigerian men and women, who, although they do speak good English (having learned it in their schools), are not familiar with the English even of the modern versions. It is difficult for them to understand – perhaps it is the spiritual-theological concepts. So I have to teach and preach very carefully so as to be understood.

I now value even more the modern versions – not only the NKJV, MKJV, MEV roughly based on the TR – but the CT-based versions as well. I find myself of two minds, as it were, an academic – that is, a studied text-critical approach – and a pastoral approach, wherein I strive to have my men and women understand in the deeps of their hearts and with clarity in their minds the word of God, and His message – in all its genres, the historical narratives (including early Genesis), the poetry, the wisdom writings, the prophetic, apocalyptic, epistolary, and the historical-biographical Gospels. The modern versions are helpful to my flock in enabling them to understand. I want them to read on their own, not just me teaching and explaining.

I'm making clear my KJV/TR views so that new-comers to the Board may understand the nuances involved.
 
Last edited:
Hello again, Graham,

What with all the talk of KJVO, TR, etc, I want again (as I have done in the past) to clarify my nuanced view of the Bible and its versions. I call what I hold to as KJV priority – or preferred – as being the best English translation of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It – the KJV – is not the clearest or easiest to read, but it is the most accurate in my view.

That said, please note that I deeply appreciate the modern versions, even those based on the Critical Text, such as the NIV (1984), NASB, ESV, NLT, and the older Living Bible and the Amplified.

Now that I am in Cyprus re-planting the Reformed Church I planted and pastored in 2006 till 2011, I find that I no longer have (with a couple of exceptions) native English-speakers, but almost entirely Nigerian men and women, who, although they do speak good English (having learned it in their schools), are not familiar with the English even of the modern versions. It is difficult for them to understand – perhaps it is the spiritual-theological concepts. So I have to teach and preach very carefully so as to be understood.

I now value even more the modern versions – not only the NKJV, MKJV, MEV roughly based on the TR – but the CT-based versions as well. I find myself of two minds, as it were, an academic – that is, a studied text-critical approach – and a pastoral approach, wherein I strive to have my men and women understand in the deeps of their hearts and with clarity in their minds the word of God, and His message – in all its genres, the historical narratives (including early Genesis), the poetry, the wisdom writings, the prophetic, apocalyptic, epistolary, and the historical-biographical Gospels.

I'm making clear my KJV/TR views so that new-comers to the Board may understand the nuances involved.
Steve, I appreciate your challenge, and the challenge for many of us. But for all your dabbling with the CT and modern translations it is clear that you would not hold that 1John 5:7-8, Long Mark, John 7:53–8:11 etc. are to be excluded. I would imagine that your "KJV priority" view is actually closer to what most TR folks practice. I use biblehub.com and when I want to do a deep dive into a verse I click on the verse number, then it takes me to the various translations. Rather than closing the window, I Ctrl+click the "INT" which opens the interlinear, I also Ctrl+click the "Greek" and from there go to Parallel Greek to see the TR versions. So in all that traveling, I expose myself to lots of material and discover lots of variants. But in my mind I always consider the TR to be "authentical" to use the language of the WCF. But along the way I do glean what I can. But when a variant comes up and I have to "go to the bank" as to what I am going to trust, it is always the TR. I would imagine this is close to what you do in private but the challenges for a preaching bible is difficult for you when abroad.

I do think that the KJV is the version that is most in the zeitgeist of the "aggregate public lexicon". Whenever we recite the Lord's prayer in church, or think of the 23rd Psalm or think of The Great Commission, or 1Cor 13, or the Beatitudes or a whole host of passages, we default to the KJV in our minds simply because the KJV has for over 400 years worked its way into the public consciousness. In my humble opinion, this is something we should hang onto. There is a real benefit of having a common translation for our culture rather than this confusing smorgasbord of numerous competing versions. I understand even a Mark Ward position about "intelligibility" as a starting point but not as a final destination. I think we should all aim towards being adept and comfortable in the "archaic" language of the KJV and hold it as our common translation. Why? First off, why should we leave the sheep at a 5th Grade level of development? Shouldn't we all try to elevate our game? So the KJV is admittedly challenging, but then so is trigonometry, organic chemistry, calculus, and we all should want to be adept in those even if we rarely use them. Everyone should know how to drive a manual transmission, change a tire, clean and dress a wound, bait a hook and a whole host of ordinary skills. We should all resist "the downgrade". Moreover, we will never comprehend the puritans unless we elevate our game. Isn't this forum called "The Puritan Boards"? And yet we have folks advocating that we remain at a low level where we could never read and understand them. Crazy! Their syntax, locution, vocabulary etc. are all on the same level as the KJV. Additionally, by stretching ourselves in this manner, we are able to understand the challenging syntax of the psalter and the metrical psalms. If one is determined to remain at the 5th Grade NIV/ESV level, they are robbing themselves of great riches from the puritans, the psalter and they are embracing "the downgrade" of culture and remaining at a low level themselves. Do as thou will.
 
Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871).

Graham,

Thank you for recommending this article. I went back and started reading it. I have not finished it, as it is long and gets hard to follow (the edition I have has no footnotes and a lot of references to scholars with only a last name and no other identifiers) but I hope to go back and read the whole article.

While you’re right it does have some harsh language sprinkled in, I was also presently impressed by the introduction which starts with establishing common grounds between the two camps (basically TR and CT, though he has more nuisance later). I thought these were good points on which he said we can all agree, and as someone who has moved from a Majority Text position to one where I accept as best translation work like the NASB, I found them to be good points often lost in this discussion:
  1. “No one claims the Textus Receptus” as represented “ipsissima verba” or inspired in every case.
  2. The TR contains “all essential facts and doctrines” and that even with the “most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS” that “not a single doctrine of Christianity… would be thereby expunged.”
  3. The various readings are counted by the “hundred thousand” yet are “nearly all exceedingly minute and trivial” and overall are in agreement with the TR.
  4. Criticism only slightly changes the TR, and increasingly the number of places it differs is quite small and mostly confirms the TR.
I would say I agree with these points, although he makes certain assumptions about the TR in how he phrases some points and can be a little harsh in getting the point across. Even so, he finds common ground in a helpful way, and I think many of us should be able to resonate with this as we are mostly in denominations and churches that have a mix of positions on this issue. For my part, I have been in churches that have made transitions (NKJV → ESV at the first Reformed church I was at, NKJV→ KJV at the second) and have been okay staying under the preaching of the word despite differences , mainly because of points 2 and 3 that Dabney makes.

I may go back and review the whole article and post it here on the PB but it will take a bit of time to get through.
 
Actually most TR men take a very dim view of Warfield and his "capitulation" to the modernists while he was at Princeton. Ted Letis has a whole section of his book named The Ecclesiastical Text on Warfield. Sadly Warfield was squishy on evolution also.

I understand that the TR guys would not appreciate Warfield as much on this topic. I was wondering if the divide was present among the conservative/orthodox Northern Presbyterians versus the Southern Presbyterian theologians as whole.

The APC is an interesting denomination, and not only because of their view of Warfield whom they attack quite a bit on their site. I guess being a result of several splits down from the OPC they don't take kindly to some of the mainstream views in the denomination. Probably the only denomination to ever be teetotalers, a custom version of the Westminster Standards friendly to premillenialism and even that tends towards dispensationalism, TR-onlyists, and strict on RPW. I'm not sure if they still exist.
 
Last edited:
Hello Graham,

I find nothing at all to disagree with in your post. In fact, I seek to mold the young men I'm discipling in my own style, retaining the TR-based Bibles (one of them uses the NJKV – and yes I'm aware of its flaws) as the "gold standard", and using the modern versions for clarity via shades of meaning, yet holding to the AV for accuracy.

When I read or study the Scripture on my own I refer to the Hebrew or Greek, lexical aids, commentaries, etc, as well looking at how the modern versions deal with a word or turn of phrase. Always, for verbal accuracy I adhere to the AV. (I don't have such wide choices of aids to choose from as my library is back in the states, though I have some Bibles, lexical aids and commentaries on my computer. If we can sell our home in NY we will relocate here and I will bring my books, DV.)

As I said above, I find myself wearing two hats, one as scholar, the other as pastor and shepherd. In other churches I have co-pastored or taught in – churches that already used a variety of Bible versions – I had to walk this careful line between scholar and pastor, not tearing down the CT-based Bibles many used (their very life-lines to their Savior!), yet speaking truth to them. How did I do that? By looking at the variants (when they occasionally came up) – are they true or are they false? – and examining each one in turn. Affirming their Bibles in the main, but disputing the variants. Having a knowledge of the textual issues pertaining to each I was able to do this. I was determined not to be a divisive element within the churches I sought to nurture and disciple.

In today's church situation it is not always easy to both nurture and guide souls in the truth.
_____

Jake, I gather from the points you derived from Dabney you assert the TR has errors, and that even with the divergent CT and TR views there is "not a single doctrine of Christianity [that] would be thereby expunged". Re this latter, I would say that the doctrine of the divine providential preservation of Scripture in the minutiae is "expunged".
 
Would it be possible to explain why the KJV is the best and not something like the NKJV? The NKJV is based more on the schrievner TR and as far as I can tell, is the preferred TR. I don't believe using a more modern English text (just talking about TR texts now) is akin to being at a 5th grade level. Are there special powers imbued within the old English, is it just a preference, or is there something legitimately better about the KJV translation? When Dr Riddle was going through the schrievner TR and giving examples on the differences between it and the KJV, in almost every case the NKJV matched up with it. Also, the KJV has errors in it like talking about Easter before that was even a thing and I would argue as a reformed Christian is still not a thing. The NKJV does not have these issues.
 
I would hasten to add that our conversation states that the word should be translated into the vulgar language of the people. There will come a day and I think it might already be here where the language of the KJV is no longer in line with that. Unless we reform society and that type of English is what starts being readily taught again.

Also with the NKJV, if the reason it is not as good is because it has textual notes, so does the KJV in the 1611 edition I have. I think there are other editions that have these notes as well. Regarding the 1611 edition, I wonder why this isn't the edition being pushed for rather than the 1700 version. Some may not be aware but the English used in the newer KJV editions are different with the 1611 being even more archaic.
 
Last edited:
For some of these reasons Jason, while I am KJV "preferred", I am not KJV "only". My commitment is to the TR.

But I do love the KJV, and I seem to love it more and more each day. Personally, I find Scripture memorization to be so much easier for me in the KJV. I also seem to preach better from it and find thoughts and phrases in it that I glossed over in my NKJV (for whatever reason), I also like being able to distinguish thou/you, etc. But I used the NKJV for the better part of a decade as my only Bible.

But for me the commitment is to the TR. I have no interest in what might be found in a trashcan tomorrow and if John 1:1 will be expunged in the "oldest and best" manuscript that someone might find.
 
After I made the change from CT to TR I started doing homework on the translations available and that research showed the KJV to be the best option. I still use others but the KJV is my main. TBS has some articles on the NKJV. The KJV is not old english but still of early modern english. The thee’s/thou’s are not even found in the letter to the king written by the KJV translators, they are included to better keep the sense of the original languages by having distiction between plural and singular “you”. For that reason I now prefer them, not because they are old or sound holy but rather they are accurate (John 3 is an example of where this can matter a bit).

TBS NKJV Pt 1

TBS NKJV Pt 2

To be clear I still use an NKJV at times as well and am aware of the flaws. But as I use the KJV the more those things that intimidate folks have become some of my favorite bits! I will admit though, there are some old words that could be updated though they are still understandable and able to be looked up in a dictionary. Perhaps its just me but I used a dictionary a lot when reading the ESV as well. All of the modern printings of the KJV I have used have the lesser used terms defined right on the page. Some of those terms turn out to be great fun to look up and see why they chose that particular word.

The TBS articles I think do take issue with some of the notes being present but I find them helpful. so although they make a principled point, I think for most- real life is a bit more nuanced. They are useful especially in bible studies when both traditions are in use.
Would it be possible to explain why the KJV is the best and not something like the NKJV? The NKJV is based more on the schrievner TR and as far as I can tell, is the preferred TR. I don't believe using a more modern English text (just talking about TR texts now) is akin to being at a 5th grade level. Are there special powers imbued within the old English, is it just a preference, or is there something legitimately better about the KJV translation? When Dr Riddle was going through the schrievner TR and giving examples on the differences between it and the KJV, in almost every case the NKJV matched up with it. Also, the KJV has errors in it like talking about Easter before that was even a thing and I would argue as a reformed Christian is still not a thing. The NKJV does not have these issues.

I would hasten to add that our conversation states that the word should be translated into the vulgar language of the people. There will come a day and I think it might already be here where the language of the KJV is no longer in line with that. Unless we reform society and that type of English is what starts being readily taught again.

Also with the NKJV, if the reason it is not as good is because it has textual notes, so does the KJV in the 1611 edition I have. I think there are other editions that have these notes as well. Regarding the 1611 edition, I wonder why this isn't the edition being pushed for rather than the 1700 version. Some may not be aware but the English used in the newer KJV editions are different with the 1611 being even more archaic

Also Easter shoud be understood as passover - the issue was the word for passover didn’t exist way back when and so some of the old translations used the word Easter. These usages were replaced throughout the KJV (as the references these older translations) but seems to have been missed in one spot.

Not sure why the quotes went to the bottom nor how to move them to the top of the post while on my phone - sorry haha.

Also for fear of muddying this thread - Ill not reply further in this vein of thought here.
 
I suppose maybe all you TR guys should get together and put together the definitive TR text in modern English. That might be a good endeavor.
 
Jake, I gather from the points you derived from Dabney you assert the TR has errors, and that even with the divergent CT and TR views there is "not a single doctrine of Christianity [that] would be thereby expunged". Re this latter, I would say that the doctrine of the divine providential preservation of Scripture in the minutiae is "expunged".
Here is the full quote from Dabney. His 2nd point is considerably shorter than points 1, 3, and 4 so I can quite it in full. The source I found is on a sectarian site that I don't think is allowed to link here, but I'm sure it can be found elsewhere.

"But, second: This received text contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers; for if it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS. or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact, would be thereby expunged."

Here Dabney does not address the doctrine of preservative directly, and starts with the premise of assuming the TR to be the best text. As I read on I'll let you know if he addresses this topic.
 
Is there demand for tbs to have their own translated version of the tr? Just update the archaic words which by definition are those they themselves define in their Westminster reference bibles or their own word list.
 
I suppose maybe all you TR guys should get together and put together the definitive TR text in modern English. That might be a good endeavor.
I remember something very helpful re: a new translation of the TR from Rev. Matthew Winzer who used to be on the board (MW, worth looking up his thoughts also on old threads). He explained that any new translation should arise out of times of reformation. The sense is, that there is the greatest spiritual unity, wisdom, and faithfulness in the church in those times, and generally the blessing of the magistrate in providing/allowing rather extraordinary opportunity; the KJV came out of such times given by God, and we ought to pray for and wait for the wind of the Spirit to blow and bring again such a time, and for the sake of the unity of the church and the good of God's people we should continue using the common Bible and Psalter (translated faithfully into other languages of course) compiled in those times of blessing.
 
I have given a lot of thought to the question of the archaic language of the KJV. I have found throughout my Christian life many misunderstandings about early modern English. I remember sitting down and explaining to a native English speaker, raised in a PCA church who had attended private Christian school how some of the features of Early Modern English worked so that he could more easily memorize WSC questions. He did not know what the "-th" endings meant or what the different pronoun forms related to "you" meant. I have a family member who is KJV only that I've discussed Scripture with a lot, but he's not very well educated and frequently make mistakes related to the language of the KJV which he does not understand. And I've found many who have neglected Bible reading because of the difficulty of the KJV. This is not to mention those who are not native English speakers who will struggle. Overall, I strongly believe that "therefore [the Scriptures] are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come" (WCF 1:7), while noting an irony that when I quote this statement to many they get confused on what vulgar means as the word has changed considerably in common usage since the mid-17th century. I think at some point the KJV is not truly in the vulgar language and it starts to interfere with understanding and use of the Bible.

I agree that we would be in a better state if we had a standard Bible translation in use in our language and society. As mentioned, many well known passages are frequently used in the KJV even in churches which use newer versions (though I'll note that the version of the Lord's Prayer starting with "Our Father who art in heaven" used by many seems to date from a BCP version rather than the KJV). We now have so many versions in use that it's hard to find agreement.

I also agree we should be teaching up and preparing to read other great literature and theological documents created during the early modern English period, including our Standards and Puritans. That said, I still think slightly edited versions of these are helpful, such as Banner of Truth and others slightly updating the language of the Puritans or the OPC's modern language version of the Standards.

The KJV also was a Bible of its time. We can point to ways in which it transcended time, such as including some archaic language for the 17th century. We can all be thankful that the Bible was updated since 1611. I have a 1611 re-print of the KJV and it is very difficult to read between the archaic spelling and the Gothic type, not to mention other updates which were made. It also includes idioms of the day that were not the most literal translation like "gave up the ghost," "God save the king," and "God forbid."

When my church in the FCC switched from the NKJV to the KJV on recommendation of the presbytery, my pastor was hesitant because he found the language difficult and knew we had many people who were not well educated in early modern English in the congregation. He frequently would re-read the passage as he exposited in the NKJV after doing the public reading in KJV, which I think was a good enough solution.
 
Is there demand for tbs to have their own translated version of the tr? Just update the archaic words which by definition are those they themselves define in their Westminster reference bibles or their own word list.
TBS is producing an updated version of the 1909 Reina Valera Bible in Spanish, with one main reason being to address language change in the last 100 years in Spanish. Here is an article from someone at TBS explaining why: http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Trinitarian_Revision_1909.html

"The overwhelming majority of changes being made to the RV 1909
Bible, however, do not involve translational changes, but rather involve
changes in syntax (the order in which words are placed in a sentence) and
grammar that reflect the norms established by the Real Academia Española,
the universally recognised body governing the Spanish language and its
usage."
 
If such an undertaking were to be done, it ought to be done by the Church not random peoples...
That would make the most sense to me. However, even within the church, I believe you would want to focus on finding the best of the best when it comes to the biblical languages and making sure the person is orthodox.
 
TBS is producing an updated version of the 1909 Reina Valera Bible in Spanish, with one main reason being to address language change in the last 100 years in Spanish. Here is an article from someone at TBS explaining why: http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Trinitarian_Revision_1909.html

"The overwhelming majority of changes being made to the RV 1909
Bible, however, do not involve translational changes, but rather involve
changes in syntax (the order in which words are placed in a sentence) and
grammar that reflect the norms established by the Real Academia Española,
the universally recognised body governing the Spanish language and its
usage."
Seems like the KJV could benefit from this treatment as well if the NKJV and MEV are considered inferior. I personally feel the NKJV is the solution.
 
Hello Graham,

I find nothing at all to disagree with in your post. In fact, I seek to mold the young men I'm discipling in my own style, retaining the TR-based Bibles (one of them uses the NJKV – and yes I'm aware of its flaws) as the "gold standard", and using the modern versions for clarity via shades of meaning, yet holding to the AV for accuracy.

When I read or study the Scripture on my own I refer to the Hebrew or Greek, lexical aids, commentaries, etc, as well looking at how the modern versions deal with a word or turn of phrase. Always, for verbal accuracy I adhere to the AV. (I don't have such wide choices of aids to choose from as my library is back in the states, though I have some Bibles, lexical aids and commentaries on my computer. If we can sell our home in NY we will relocate here and I will bring my books, DV.)

As I said above, I find myself wearing two hats, one as scholar, the other as pastor and shepherd. In other churches I have co-pastored or taught in – churches that already used a variety of Bible versions – I had to walk this careful line between scholar and pastor, not tearing down the CT-based Bibles many used (their very life-lines to their Savior!), yet speaking truth to them. How did I do that? By looking at the variants (when they occasionally came up) – are they true or are they false? – and examining each one in turn. Affirming their Bibles in the main, but disputing the variants. Having a knowledge of the textual issues pertaining to each I was able to do this. I was determined not to be a divisive element within the churches I sought to nurture and disciple.

In today's church situation it is not always easy to both nurture and guide souls in the truth.
_____

Jake, I gather from the points you derived from Dabney you assert the TR has errors, and that even with the divergent CT and TR views there is "not a single doctrine of Christianity [that] would be thereby expunged". Re this latter, I would say that the doctrine of the divine providential preservation of Scripture in the minutiae is "expunged".


Well it appears you have decent access to an internet connection so I'd recommend BibleHub.com for almost everything. Language tools, Strong's etc. several versions, lot's of commentaries and more such as maps. It also appears that we practice the same approach. I dare speculate that after a season of a few years you try to elevate the reading level of your members one by one so that they may be able to read the puritans profitably. And getting them to read the KJV, alongside modern versions at first, is a way to teach them how to use a site like biblehub and to learn how to do word and grammar studies on their own.
 
If such an undertaking were to be done, it ought to be done by the Church not random peoples...
The KJV was commissioned by the Civil Magistrate, though it was translated by churchmen. It would be nice to have a Bible with an official status that did not try to limit Puritan influence like was instructed of the KJV, since there were concerns about the Geneva Bible.
 
I suppose maybe all you TR guys should get together and put together the definitive TR text in modern English. That might be a good endeavor.


I understand the appeal to such but it is my opinion, and just an opinion, that there should be one translation that is considered the standard in the culture for memorization, citing and most preaching. Why toss away all that the KJV has achieved as a cultural standard in literature and the impact it has had on our default lexicon? No one tosses away the KJV when it comes to the 23rd Psalm or the Lord's Prayer and each have their peculiarities. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death... the "shadow of death" is the place/age where "death reigns" until the immortality of the general resurrection (Rom 5:14). And "Hallowed be thy name" is a word/phrase/concept that will drive every early student to the dictionary and more to get the full flavor of it.

So I want to maintain and, um, er, "preserve" all those gains into culture that the KJV has achieved. Even Richard Dawkins, who in The God Delusion denies the God of the Bible but insists we should remain acquainted with KJV phraseology and imagery in order to understand our cultural past, cites more than 100 expressions to underscore its pervasive presence.



____________________________________________________________________________


All that I just wrote above is getting to the outer limits of this thread. But as long as we are on the topic of translations, and Steve might find this particularly interesting, I'm going to advocate for the "formal equivalence" method of translation over the "dynamic equivalence" method that many have lapsed into without much thinking on the subject.

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. - WCF 1:5

In my humble opinion, the only way to maintain "the majesty of the style" is to use formal equivalence. Rhythm, cadence, idioms, sequence of thought (not word order), reverence and loftiness are usually lost in translations based on dynamic equivalence.
 
Another thing on the "difficult language" of the AV...

It is part of the calling of preachers to explain/interpret the scriptures and often this presents an opportunity to go a little deeper into the text and grammar during a sermon. Often we can profit greatly when asking ourselves "Why did they translate it that way?" For instance, the AV translators (and the NASB, ASV) kept the idiom "lower parts of the earth" intact in Eph 4:9 to clue us in to Ps 139:15. The ESV and the NIV completely miss this and hence the reference to Christ's incarnation in Mary's womb is never made in the minds of the reader.
 
I understand the appeal to such but it is my opinion, and just an opinion, that there should be one translation that is considered the standard in the culture for memorization, citing and most preaching. Why toss away all that the KJV has achieved as a cultural standard in literature and the impact it has had on our default lexicon? No one tosses away the KJV when it comes to the 23rd Psalm or the Lord's Prayer and each have their peculiarities. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death... the "shadow of death" is the place/age where "death reigns" until the immortality of the general resurrection (Rom 5:14). And "Hallowed be thy name" is a word/phrase/concept that will drive every early student to the dictionary and more to get the full flavor of it.

So I want to maintain and, um, er, "preserve" all those gains into culture that the KJV has achieved. Even Richard Dawkins, who in The God Delusion denies the God of the Bible but insists we should remain acquainted with KJV phraseology and imagery in order to understand our cultural past, cites more than 100 expressions to underscore its pervasive presence.



____________________________________________________________________________


All that I just wrote above is getting to the outer limits of this thread. But as long as we are on the topic of translations, and Steve might find this particularly interesting, I'm going to advocate for the "formal equivalence" method of translation over the "dynamic equivalence" method that many have lapsed into without much thinking on the subject.



In my humble opinion, the only way to maintain "the majesty of the style" is to use formal equivalence. Rhythm, cadence, idioms, sequence of thought (not word order), reverence and loftiness are usually lost in translations based on dynamic equivalence.
I don't see why the KJV has to be the standard. Other translations that came before it achieved greatness as well. I think sometimes the KJV still has some mythology around it where there is something super special about it (I am using colorful language here and not trying to insult people). There will come a time where the language cannot be understood anymore (100-200 years from now perhaps). As confessional Presbyterians (thinking about the confession that talks about translating the Bible into known languages) we have to be willing to recognize this and plan for the future rather than holding to a specific translation. I am sympathetic to the TR position and have no issue if that is to be the standard, but as the years roll on, there has to be a willingness to continue to translate the TR into an understandable format for the people in the pews. I am not saying we need to get rid of the KJV. It is a valuable part of our history. However, we should not be afraid of new translations either (based on the TR in the context of this thread). The church should not have it's own special language that cannot be understood by the general population. Isn't this the same thing the Vulgate eventually was/is guilty of?
 
All that I just wrote above is getting to the outer limits of this thread. But as long as we are on the topic of translations, and Steve might find this particularly interesting, I'm going to advocate for the "formal equivalence" method of translation over the "dynamic equivalence" method that many have lapsed into without much thinking on the subject.

In my humble opinion, the only way to maintain "the majesty of the style" is to use formal equivalence. Rhythm, cadence, idioms, sequence of thought (not word order), reverence and loftiness are usually lost in translations based on dynamic equivalence.
Graham, I can assure you that modern translators have done a great deal of thinking on the subject of how best to translate works from one language into another - far more, surely than the translators of the KJV ever did!

The reality is that no translation is ever completely formal in its equivalence since words have different semantic ranges in different languages, each language has its own word order, etc. There is a range of positions that may be adopted, and every translation (except perhaps an interlinear, which isn't really a translation) chooses at times to adapt the word order, syntax and translation of particular words to achieve dynamic equivalence. The alternative is "dynamic inequivalence", where the words in the target language misrepresent the sense of the source language even though they are a "literal" translation. For example, rendering "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" into Russian as "The vodka is excellent but the meat is rotten" (this may be an apocryphal example, but it makes the point. That's why interlinears are so dangerous in the hands of those with little linguistic knowledge. The CSB, of which I was part of the translation team, aims not for formal or dynamic equivalence but "optimal equivalence", recognizing that the approach needed may vary from verse to verse.

Different points on the equivalence spectrum have different advantages and present different challenges for the preacher. If he is using a more formal equivalence translation like the NASB, he will more often have to say, "Now the Greek here really means, [quote dynamic equivalence translation here]". If he is using a more dynamic translation, he will find himself saying more often "The Greek here literally says [quote formal equivalence translation]." With the KJV, you simply multiply the necessary explanations for the preacher, since the preacher has to be concerned not merely with translation from Greek to English but translation from KJV English to contemporary English in addition.

I have preached from all kinds of translations, including a paraphrased NT with an 850 word vocabulary in Africa to people with very limited English; it doesn't get much more dynamically equivalent than that. The Spirit works through his Word and a good preacher who knows his people knows what needs to be explained and what doesn't. But it is undoubtedly easier for some people (many people in some contexts) to read the Bible for themselves from more dynamic equivalent translations. And we should certainly give thanks to God that we have such a plethora of versions in our own language, when so many of his people have few Bibles available to them in their own tongue.
 
Graham, I can assure you that modern translators have done a great deal of thinking on the subject of how best to translate works from one language into another - far more, surely than the translators of the KJV ever did!

Can you provide proof of this assertion?

Different points on the equivalence spectrum have different advantages and present different challenges for the preacher. If he is using a more formal equivalence translation like the NASB, he will more often have to say, "Now the Greek here really means, [quote dynamic equivalence translation here]". If he is using a more dynamic translation, he will find himself saying more often "The Greek here literally says [quote formal equivalence translation]." With the KJV, you simply multiply the necessary explanations for the preacher, since the preacher has to be concerned not merely with translation from Greek to English but translation from KJV English to contemporary English in addition.

I think this is a major assumption. Based on my experience from preaching from the ESV for many years, then the NASB for many years, then the NKJV for 2 years, and now the KJV for the last 2 years... from ESV > NASB > NKJV > KJV over that time I have needed to make less and less comments about Hebrew/Greek to the congregation. I rarely have need to explain KJV words to the congregation. My children (9 and 13 now) read from the KJV (and have for the last couple years) and understand it as any children reading the Bible would be expected to understand, it is actually surprising to me how well they did at first. Perhaps we look at KJV language and think it is so hard when it really isn't.
 
I think this is a major assumption. Based on my experience from preaching from the ESV for many years, then the NASB for many years, then the NKJV for 2 years, and now the KJV for the last 2 years... from ESV > NASB > NKJV > KJV over that time I have needed to make less and less comments about Hebrew/Greek to the congregation. I rarely have need to explain KJV words to the congregation. My children (9 and 13 now) read from the KJV (and have for the last couple years) and understand it as any children reading the Bible would be expected to understand, it is actually surprising to me how well they did at first. Perhaps we look at KJV language and think it is so hard when it really isn't.
This may be true of individuals brought up in a church that regularly preaches from the KJV, but I don't believe this is true for the society at large, especially with the public schools the way they are and some individuals being functionally illiterate. The Bible should be a book that anyone should be able to pick up, read, and understand the gospel at a minimum. Once in church, I believe the standard can be changed for what is expected, but there needs to be some considerations for evangelism to the population at large, even if it is just someone picking up God's word on their own.
 
Last edited:
Can you provide proof of this assertion?
P1: The more languages one has to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew requires more thought.
P2: Modern translators have had to translate into many more languages than the translators for the KJV.
Therefore, modern translators have put in more thought.

This is not a difficult thing to discern.

It's not stating that the KJV translators were lazy. It is only noting that they had one linguistic context in which they translated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top