A History Of The Authorized Version

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
The King James Version of the Bible

And why it is the best translation available today. Very good read put out by the PRCA.


A Puritan's Petition
Four Puritans along with fourteen representatives of the Church of England were gathered together at Hampton Court for an ecclesiastical conference in January 1604. The Puritans had many objections concerning the English Church as it was then established. They were hoping that their new king, James I, would so guide the Church of God in England that there would be further reformation of the Church. They wanted to make the Church of England more like the Reformed Church of Geneva and the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. They had already met James on his way to London where he was to receive the English crown and had presented him with a petition stating their grievances. The petition was signed by about a thousand clergyman and therefore called the Millenary Petition. It was on account of that petition that James had called the conference to hear and determine things pretended to be amiss in the Church.

It did not go so well for the Puritans, however. Not only were they in the minority at the conference, but King James, rather than sympathizing with them, supported the cause of the High Churchmen or Conformists who did not want the Presbyterian form of Church government. In the midst of their struggle Dr. John Reynolds, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, suddenly petitioned the king, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original. This motion of the Puritan leader evidently was not something which he had planned but something that was introduced incidentally in order to keep from losing all ground at the conference.

This is confirmed by the preface to the readers entitled The Translators To The Readers which was found in the first edition of the King James Version. There we read, ...the very historical truth is that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesties coming to the crown, the conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints; when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion Book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation.

The Puritans did object to the translations of the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible which were quoted in the Prayer Book, but they did not zealously demand a new translation. They were content with their Geneva Bible and its Calvinistic notes. The motion for a new translation was incidental to them. In fact, if it were up to them, there probably would not be a King James Version of the Bible.
 

ModernPuritan?

Puritan Board Freshman
so there is no way, other folk today could meet these reasons as put forth in the article?
1) It was translated by men who are unsurpassed in their knowledge of Biblical studies.
operitive phrase would be unsurpassed at that time. to insist that there are no people equally as brilliant or learned in Biblical studies would be silly no?
2) The translators were pious men of God who believed in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?
3) It is the mature fruit of generations of English translations as well as the careful work of its translators.
~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?

4) The King James Version is based upon the Received Text rather than the critical Greek text of modern versions.

~have we at any point since the KJV, found OLDER manuscripts of Scripture? wouldnt it be important to make sure that translations reflect the oldest available? there are a lot of variants.

5) It is a word-for-word translation which faithfully and accurately reflects the originals.
~ how are the versions today that claim the same thing any different? some words have multiple meanings that would not effect the rest of the verse.
6) The language is one of reverence and respect which gives honor to the majesty of its Author.
~ there are other translations that do, please share specific proofs that support this. Using versions that most here would probably aggree with (ESV/Geneva/NASB/etc.)

8) Our spiritual forefathers thought so highly of it that they were willing to suffer and even die for it.
~ so folk are persecuted like they were. this is not a valid argument for supremecy.
---------------------------
still, it was an intresting article, thanks for sharing
 

ModernPuritan?

Puritan Board Freshman
furthermore I would have to ask, Doesnt the KJV state that language changes hence there must be changes in the KJV version? also, which KJV version to my reckoning there are more than one revisions of the KJV.


bear in mind, these are questions ive had for a while and so far no one has been able to provide a non heresay? or non conjecture? answer?? (which ever one is he said she said)
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!

I really liked this part:




God's Word To His Church
Authorized Bible
The new translation did not immediately take over all others. For some time there was a struggle with the Geneva Bible. But in the end, the people of God recognized the superior qualities of the King James Version so that it conquered all others. It has gone through hundreds and hundreds of editions since it was first published in 1611. Some changes have been made in the spelling, punctuation, italicizing, and cross references. Nevertheless, the King James Version which we have today is basically the same as that published in 1611. It is still the choice of God's people too. Even with all the competition from the modern versions, the King James Version is one of the most popular of all versions.

As far as we know the King James Version, also called the Authorized Version, was never authorized. Even thought it was appointed by the King, it was never approved by Parliament nor the Convocation, nor the Privy Council. Nevertheless, it is recognized by God's people as the Authorized Bible-God's Authorized Bible. God has so worked in the hearts of His people that it has been recognized as God's Word by generation after generation of English-speaking Christians. It has been recognized as the version which God has given to us in His good providence. There is no other translation so universally regarded as God's Word.
:up::2cents:
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jeff,

Sorry I can't take the time to answer your questions / objections above as as it is I am stealing from my sleep to be writing, but perhaps you would find some extended discussions of these very issues of value. I post here some threads where these things are delved into.

I hope some of the things you question may be answered here (I know it's a good bit of reading, but there's good info, which you may appreciate).

Steve


http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/why-do-kj-only-types-believe-westcott-hort-manuscripts-bad-14539/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/textual-manuscripts-27898/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defending-lord-s-prayer-1-a-27974/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-many-scholars-prefer-majority-text-24589/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-textual-variants-give-us-confidence-22188/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/mark-16-12-a-20445/
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
From the article:

The King James Version, although it is almost 400 years old, is still the best translation available today.

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.
 

ModernPuritan?

Puritan Board Freshman
Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.
 

ADKing

Puritan Board Junior
From the article:

The King James Version, although it is almost 400 years old, is still the best translation available today.

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.

I think you are correct is saying that this was not the author's original intent. He probably would agree that the best translation of the Bible in English is the AV (rather than saying the best translation is in English). It is my understanding that the Old Dutch Bible and the Old French (Louis Segond) are TR based and still endorsed by TR advocates although they obviously use older Dutch and French vocabulary and style. Someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken here.
 

ADKing

Puritan Board Junior
Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.
 

ModernPuritan?

Puritan Board Freshman
because God gave us his word in Hebrew and Greek period, end of that discussion.

2) many learned men from 100 AD till this very second have vast depths of learning and knowledge in the ORiginal HEbrew and greek. TO insist that the KJV is better because the folk who translated it had superior language expertise is a fallacious he said she said argument

3) God promised that HIs Original words in hebrew and greek would be preserved. Not translations.

4) if the KJV folk were inspired in the translation how can you say others arent? to say they arent is to deny GOD the ability to grant them the necessary knowledge to translate,

5) to insist that the AV is the best translation or the only "God apporoved" is erroneous. THe KJV borrows from the Geneva Bible around 60% or so??

6) there are translations errors in the KJV, As with any translation, the translation is subject at all times to human error. WHy on earth do you think the puritans were so big on teaching children the original tounges??

im not arguing against the Textus receptus at this point. Im arguing against the silly notion that the KJV is the best God ordained english translatiton.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English[/I], and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.


Poimen,

The Reina-Valera is a Spanish Bibles that :

is important to note that this translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Edition, 1525) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus' Edition, 1550). As secondary sources Reina was aided by the Ferrara Bible for the Old Testament and the Latin Edition of Santes Pagnini throughout.

In other words it is older than the KJV. By the way the Greek New Testaments (i.e.,Polyglot Bible) that Erasmus used, was from the Spain. And the Greek New Testament that the KJV translators used was the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition (also from Spain if I am not mistaken).

So you say that the KJV is the best bible translated, I think is an overstatement, since where did you think the KJV came from?

FYI, Francisco de Enzinas, of Spain, who help translate the Reina-Valera even taught Greek in Cambridge thanks to Thomas Cranmer. This Enzinas, Spanish Reformer, was also where John Foxe, author of the famous English Book, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, got his eyewitness accounts which were originally penned by Enzinas and not John Foxe. Much more can be said... but this is good enough.

Having said that, I nevertheless, when I read my Bible in English it is the KJV. :)
 

ADKing

Puritan Board Junior
A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

With all due respect, friend, I think you are missing my point. I did not assert that because I had a conviction that it was right. I asked, what about that conviction you found to be "verging on idolatry" (to use your words). I am glad we are agreed that faith derives from apostolic truth :handshake:

I just happen to believe that that truth is accessible in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (in the NT) are what we commonly call the TR. This certainly is not a Romish doctrine (the Romanists disagreed!). I think the comparision is not valid.
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

With all due respect, friend, I think you are tilting at windmills. I did not assert that because I had a conviction that it was right. I asked, what about that conviction you found to be "verging on idolatry" (to use your words). I am glad we are agreed that faith derives from apostolic truth :handshake:

I just happen to believe that that truth is accessible in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (in the NT) are what we commonly call the TR. This certainly is not a Romish doctrine (the Romanists disagreed!). I think the comparision is not valid.

But do you hold the the TR (i.e that particular manuscript) or do you believe that similiar manuscripts (i.e. non Alexandrian) can be examined in order to ascertain what the original form of the underlying text was(i.e. MT)?

The problem with the TR position is that to say that one particulat text was providentially preserved is a "because it is argument" and that is problematic. It is like saying that a particular translation is providential and must have supremacy be that the KJV or the Vulgate.
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English[/I], and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.


Poimen,

The Reina-Valera is a Spanish Bibles that :

is important to note that this translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Edition, 1525) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus' Edition, 1550). As secondary sources Reina was aided by the Ferrara Bible for the Old Testament and the Latin Edition of Santes Pagnini throughout.

In other words it is older than the KJV. By the way the Greek New Testaments (i.e.,Polyglot Bible) that Erasmus used, was from the Spain. And the Greek New Testament that the KJV translators used was the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition (also from Spain if I am not mistaken).

So you say that the KJV is the best bible translated, I think is an overstatement, since where did you think the KJV came from?

FYI, Francisco de Enzinas, of Spain, who help translate the Reina-Valera even taught Greek in Cambridge thanks to Thomas Cranmer. This Enzinas, Spanish Reformer, was also where John Foxe, author of the famous English Book, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, got his eyewitness accounts which were originally penned by Enzinas and not John Foxe. Much more can be said... but this is good enough.

Having said that, I nevertheless, when I read my Bible in English it is the KJV. :)


I am not sure I understand your post. I didn't say that the KJV is the best bible translation, the author of the article that was cited did.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
From your post you wrote:

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I was informing you that there are other languages such as Spanish with a fine translation of the Bible.

And I was trying to answer your below question;

As I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue?

I guess I misunderstood what your wrote, sorry.
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.


I have to prepare for my lesson tomorrow evening, so I don't have time to get into anything tonight.

First, would you please indicate where the author or anyone in this thread has asserted that "the KJV is an inspired English translation?"

Second, the textual issue is the heart of the debate, and primacy rests first there, secondarily upon the Authorized Version as a five fold revision of English Bibles beginning with Tyndale and ending with the Bishops Bible.

Third the Authorized Version is the fountainhead through which the English language itself, and the divine foundation upon which English common law countries rests. It shouldn't be silly to argue for the primacy of the Declaration of Independence unto the political institutions of the United States, should it? Nor should it be perceived as silly to argue for the primacy of the Authorized Version as the binding tie between law and gospel in the sociological foundations of American society, it's just a matter of historical facts.
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.


Well, sir, it is evident you are arguing from a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding of our Reformed heritage. May I suggest you read through some of the links provided by Elder Rafalsky? The Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is a reference to the Mastoretic Hebrew and Received Greek text. It is quite silly to propose that these divines placed their sanction upon any hypothetical text whatsoever before seeing it and approving of it.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Blueridge, thanks again for the article. A couple of great quotes from the article really caught my attention -

"Many tell us that the King James Version is no longer useful because its language has become obsolete, but what they do not realize is that its language is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. Oh, it was such that the people could understand it, but it was, nevertheless, a particular language deliberately chosen to make the King James Version a version that reflects the reverence and respect which is due unto its Divine Author. In that respect, they succeeded too, for there is no version that even comes close to the beauty and majesty of the King James Version."

"Therefore, Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva, a great Reformer himself, was a leading influence upon our King James Version."

"Indeed, we find fountains of living water in the King James Version of the Bible. It is the living Word of the living God. Do not despise it and reject it for the unreliable modern versions as so many do today. Do not let anyone take this great Bible away from you. This version is the Bible we ought to use in our homes and churches. It ought to be the authority for both our faith and practice. We ought to stand up for and defend this Bible which has been given to us by the good providence of God."

Beza! Who can forget that Beza himself had a hand in it?

And from the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (although unofficial), Sigh, I wish I wasn't in this liberal wasteland, and could find a reformed church that uses the KJV. I think that using the KJV keeps Church's from going down the liberal/modernist/barthian path.

Thanks! It's nice to hear people stand up for the best Bible ever! - Grymir :judge:
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jeff,

You spoke (in post #2) about the quality of the translators of the AV – and other versions as well – and that is an issue, but you also brought up in that post and #13 the matter of the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the various versions, and that I would think, along with you, the foremost issue.

Perhaps it has been made clear in the posts above that Authorized Version defenders – at least here at PB – do not claim “inspiration” for the translation. Inspiration pertains to the original writings of the Old and New Testament documents alone.

Your claim Mike (post #9), that “KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolatrous” – as well as Jeff’s (#8) that it’s “rather silly” – bespeak a lack of familiarity with the bases of the King James Bible and Textus Receptus defenses, and likely also an indoctrination in those views, such as Dr. James White’s, which look askance at the AV/TR position, or in some cases even ridicule it.

The primary issue in this entire matter centers on the Hebrew and Greek text-forms used, and as pertains to the Greek, there are – arguably – only two: the Byzantine and the Alexandrian (note, please, that the TR 1894 [which is the Greek underlying the King James translation] is one of a number of editions of what may generically be called the Textus Receptus, and the “Eclectic text” [say, that which purportedly underlies the NIV] for all intents and purposes is Alexandrian in its variant readings; and there is no printed edition of the so-called “Western text-form”; it is but a theoretical construct).

The Hebrew is a different matter, and can be discussed at a later time, if desired.

Now the qualities of these two respective text-forms, the Byzantine (or Traditional – for it existed before its appearance in the Byzantine Greek churches) and the Alexandrian are open to inspection. Much labor has been exerted on analyzing the merits or demerits of these text-forms. It is readily granted that in terms of mere age the Alexandrian documents are the oldest, but when we look at their characteristics other factors enter in. I refer to the discordance between the two primary exemplars – in legal terms, witnesses – of this text-form, codices Vaticanus or B, and Sinaiticus or Aleph ([size=+1]a[/size]). It is well known that there are 3,036 differences between these two witnesses in the Gospels alone (according to the careful collation done by Herman C. Hoskier, in his two-volume, Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment).

It also should be noted that the age of these exemplars may well not reflect as ancient a text-form as the younger documents of the Traditional text, which latter comprise at least 90% of the extant Greek mss.

In the Alexandrian text-form, which I will henceforth generally term, the “Critical Text” or just CT, there are numerous omissions (a phenomena which characterizes the CT throughout), which, when examining the evidences for omission, are found wanting, that is, without warrant (pardon my understatement here, please). Much work has been done in this area.

So we have in the CT a text-form which is considered corrupt by accomplished text critics, both of the Majority Text (MT) schools (also called the Byzantine Text schools) and the AV/TR school. These scholars have compiled massive evidences to support their views, to the point where there is a shift among many critics and scholars from the CT to the MT.


I submit a pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:

Both schools [the TR and the CT –SMR] interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text?​

He closes the essay with these words,

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204). [From, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.]​

If it is brought to my attention that the CT can also claim the providence of God in preserving their manuscripts, then we move to hand-to-hand combat, as it were, in the trenches of examining specific readings. To list but a few: Mark 16:12-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 1:7, 10. What are the evidences pro and con for retaining these readings in the AV/TR as the original readings? On what bases does the CT seek to omit or alter them?

One will see that to allege “silliness” or “idolatry” to the position of KJV primacy – which is based not only on the presupposition that God has preserved His word, but on close examination of textual transmission (the history of it), and specific readings – is not a responsible allegation.

Thus far we have really spoken only of the Greek text, and not concerning the translation of it into English, which is another matter. But until we settle the matter of the authentic Greek text as providentially preserved by God, it is almost pointless to go on to discussing the English translation.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Dr. Rafalsky,

You've don it again! I accepted the arguments of CT reflexively frrom the time Bob Gundry taught them to me in beginning Greek back in 1971. Since then, I have only studied, preached, and taught from CT translations. But, every time you post on this topic, it shakes to the core my predispositional preference for the CT that was simply accepted uncritically as a college freshman.

If you keep this up much longer, you will make me a devotee of your "quaint," "old fashioned," "unscholarly," "tendentious," "dogmatic," "tunnel vision," etc. views . . . which, after reading your pieces, seem none of the above! Thanks!

About a hundred years ago I read Pickering and Carson (in that order). My vague recollection is that Carson succeeded in knocking down the ideas Pickering raised. Assuming that I am masochistic enough to want to scramble my brains with another dip in the chilly waters of textual criticism, what would you advise?
 

ModernPuritan?

Puritan Board Freshman
Thus far we have really spoken only of the Greek text, and not concerning the translation of it into English, which is another matter. But until we settle the matter of the authentic Greek text as providentially preserved by God, it is almost pointless to go on to discussing the English translation.

I thank you for your response Blade. But so we are clear- I see it in two ways:

I see the greek NT text (text recept)

I see translations of the text recept

Im not arguing against wether the Original greek TR is the best. Im fine with the assertion that the Origianl greek TR is the best and most complete NT.

My only argument is with those that would say the KJV is the best/only "acceptable" translation of the TR. I find no reason that a group of Godly men couldnt accurately translate the TR today, using current, professional, scholarly english (none of the "yo man/dude trash) version.

so again, im arguing against a the primacy of a translation of the TR, NOT the primacy of the Actual Greek Textus Recepticus

but thank you for your response and the effort you put into it!

see, the KJV borrows heavily from the GEneva Bible and another translation.

Id like to see how a ESV/NASB would have any negative effect on Doctrine, reproof, Instruction, etc.. as far as I can read the ESV/NKJV/NASB all use the TR as the primary ORigianl greek.
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.


Well, sir, it is evident you are arguing from a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding of our Reformed heritage. May I suggest you read through some of the links provided by Elder Rafalsky? The Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is a reference to the Mastoretic Hebrew and Received Greek text. It is quite silly to propose that these divines placed their sanction upon any hypothetical text whatsoever before seeing it and approving of it.


I have read quite alot around this subject and will continue to do so. While I disagree with some of Elder Rafalsky emphasis I agree or at the very least can see merit in nearly everything that he says. In particular that it is perfectly respectable to reject the CT and hold to the corruption of Alexandrian manuscripts.

The problem is that if we hold that God providentialy preserved the TR why can we say that? is it beacuse we use the TR and want confidence, what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparantly decided not to providentailly provide with his word?

To say that one particular text has been preserved because it is the one we use is a circular argument. To say that the Byzantium texts were not corrupted after an examination of those texts and the Alexandrian texts can be a logical conclusion.
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
And from the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (although unofficial), Sigh, I wish I wasn't in this liberal wasteland, and could find a reformed church that uses the KJV. I think that using the KJV keeps Church's from going down the liberal/modernist/barthian path.

Thanks! It's nice to hear people stand up for the best Bible ever! - Grymir :judge:

Timothy -- I know that Davenport is not exactly next door to Des Moines, but you might be interested to know that the Presbyterian Reformed Church, which has a Des Moines congregation, and does stand up for the KJV:

The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

That congregation is also home to the widow of Edward Hills, a notable scholar who wrote The King James Version Defended and other such works.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Thanks VirginiaHuguenot! Both for the church and book. Des Moines is about a three hour drive. I wish it was closer, because I would be there. My wife and I are getting together a list of good Reformed church's together, so this summer we can go on day trips and visit some. I've added the Des Moines Congregation to my list for sure! By that time I'll have read the book you've linked to too. Maybe I'll get to meet her.

There are a few KJV-Only Fundamentalist Baptist Church's in my area. When I first saw them, I thought it would be a match made in heaven! Little did I know how arminian they were when I went. And don't you dare mention Church History or Calvin! They almost threw me out because there was a Liberal Episcopalian (an ex-bishop) who also came the day I did. In the Sunday School class, a Young-Earth view was being taught, and he was bringing up Greek words and church historical views to debunk the young-earth view, and make a case for evolution, which was going right over the pastors and teachers heads. I spoke up and showed what the Greek really said (from my KJV, which is one of the many reasons I like it.), and showing the correct church history. After my second visit, the Pastor accused me of being in league with him and that we came together to overthrow his church. I was quite disheartened. And didn't go back.

That book looks great. Thank you so much. It's nice to see scholarly work on the subject. The Chapter on the history of unbelief is excellent work. And to trace it in the philosophies is so easy to understand. Edward Hills speaks my language! This will be an enjoyable and applicable read.

Mega Ditto's again VirginiaHuguenot!! - Grymir
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
2) many learned men from 100 AD till this very second have vast depths of learning and knowledge in the ORiginal HEbrew and greek. TO insist that the KJV is better because the folk who translated it had superior language expertise is a fallacious he said she said argument

You yourself said that the puritans trained their children in the original language. I trust the translation of someone who grew up in a godly home and was reading and writing in Greek and Hebrew from an early age more than I would trust most ministers' abilities today. I've only had a year of Greek and I've found on several occasions that I can explain grammar better and even read some passages of the NT better than some ministers I've come across. Frankly it scares me. I guess the guys who have done the newer translations know their stuff, though.
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have read quite alot around this subject and will continue to do so. While I disagree with some of Elder Rafalsky emphasis I agree or at the very least can see merit in nearly everything that he says. In particular that it is perfectly respectable to reject the CT and hold to the corruption of Alexandrian manuscripts.

The problem is that if we hold that God providentialy preserved the TR why can we say that? is it beacuse we use the TR and want confidence, what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparantly decided not to providentailly provide with his word?

To say that one particular text has been preserved because it is the one we use is a circular argument. To say that the Byzantium texts were not corrupted after an examination of those texts and the Alexandrian texts can be a logical conclusion.

Hello Sir,

Thank you for your kind response and please forgive the abrupt tone of my initial post, it was late and I was way behind in my preparation for today, so I hurriedly replied.

As Elder Rafalsky correctly points out the heart of the issue is the textual priority of the RT vs the CT, for the two main positions supporting the Authorized Version and modern translations, respectively.

To begin grasping the historicity of this issue one must comprehend the basis and foundation upon which the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was championed against the Roman Magisterium and the textual basis for that development.

The issue of the authentic edition of the Scriptures enters Reformed theology by way of the polemic with Rome. Failure to understand that and simply presume that one is standing upon neutral ground in this debate, and one is able to just pick and choose however one may wish, is an incorrect understanding of the historical situation. Contrariwise, the orthodox argued for an authentic and legitimate textual tradition, this then eliminated private or obscure copies in the evidentiary debate.

Following that, one must learn of the historical position of Rome at the Council of Trent and its formal Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura - which was raising the issue of variant readings. Hence, Rome countered the Protestant doctrine of Authority by simply demonstrating that the variant readings in the manuscripts were so numerous that no one could possibly know what the original autograph was, hence, there is no certainty for faith or theology without the tradition of the Roman Church and Authority of the Magisterium.

Leigh, then summed up the issue quite well:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or ortherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ asking "How is it written," and "How readest thou," is now either of none effect, or not sufficient." Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (pp 102-103)

This, of course, was precisely the position of Rome - although Scripture was truly the Word of God, it cannot stand as Authority on its own outside of the Roman Magisterium and its tradition.

Hence, for the Protestants the issue of Providential Preservation and the development of that doctrine comes by way of the polemic with Rome and it rests upon the textual tradition of the Received Text as the authentic and legitimate text of Scripture. This is precisely the type of language you will find in the Westminster Confession of Faith - not a concept of some hypothetical text that may be extrapolated from the manuscripts, but an actual text received from Greek Churches and that was in use and authority for centuries and merely changed from a manuscript form to a printed form in the work of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.

This is not, as you say, a circular argument - but a linear one in the development and apologetical defense of Sola Scripture. Hence, we receive from our Protestant fathers, use and defend the Received Text because it is the Providentially Preserved text, not that it is Providentially Preserved because we use it.

This is a very brief sketch of the outline of the main issues simply to provide you a simple basis to comprehend and answer to your question, hence it is not to be considered an exhaustive presentation, which I simply don't have time for at present. However, if you wish to study this more there are numerous threads that carry these arguments forward and numerous books that also explain it better than I can. In this line I would recommend "The Ecclessiastical Text" by Theodore Letis.

Cordially,

Thomas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top