From the KJV to the ESV

[Robert Truelove]

In the past we have used the KJV in our family devotions and my daughter (she is now 8 years old) has been reading from it for as long as she could read. I had an understanding that I wanted my children to grow up on the KJV so they could become familiar with it and not struggle with the language by becoming familiar with it. Besides the fact that I was a Traditional Text adherent, I also had no confidence in where the modern translations were ultimately going to go (gender inclusiveness for example) so I figured that it was also 'safe' to raise them on the KJV as that honorable translation is fairly well 'fixed in stone' for all time.

We home school our kids and part of their schooling is to read scripture. My wife has my daughter (my son is just starting to read) read a chapter each day from the scriptures and then in the evenings I ask her questions about what she read. For the most part, she could hardly remember anything she had read and she rarely had any questions (though she could read the text well out loud to my wife). I figured it was because she was only 7 and that her reading skills needed to improve (though she is about 3 grade levels ahead in her reading curriculum).

Then an amazing thing happened, I had a change of understanding about the Critical Text and was studying the ESV as a potential replacement for my KJV as my pulpit Bible. I bought my daughter an ESV and had her start reading from it. After the first day, when I sat down in the evening and asked her what she read I was completely blown away. She had read John 4 about the Samaritan woman and she had a very solid understanding of the text. She knew the whole story and told me all about it (and I do mean all about it, she remembered all the details). Then she had some really good questions for me.

I read the KJV like it was the newspaper because I am very familiar with it. In the past, I haven't had much patience for people who say that they 'can’t understand the KJV'. This experience had changed me. The question struck me, "do I want children who can read Elizabethan English, or children who understand their Bible?"

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Robert,

Welcome to PuritanBoard. Thank you for your thoughts re the CT & KJV.

Here are a few of my own: Understandable English is indeed one important issue in the decision as to which version we choose, and especially for our children. At least equally important, however, is the accuracy of the version, both to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used, and of the Hebrew and Greek texts themselves to the prophets' and apostles' writings.

Let me show you a few things about the ESV I have problems with. In Matthew 1:7 and 1:10 respectively, the psalmist Asaph and the prophet Amos are listed in the verses as ancestors of Messiah the king instead the correct names Asa and Amon. If Matthew made such a blunder then this would be proof that the apostolic writings themselves contain errors. We know this is not so. The ESV is one of the few that go this far in their translation, though most other modern versions admit in their margins that their Greek base has Asaph and Amos, on the basis of the CT. This anomaly is discussed in the thread "What is the authentic New Testament text?"

In addition, one is still left to deal with the notorious omissions of the CT. Are we to allow the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel to be hijacked and trashed? Or the Pericope Adultera of John 7:53-8:11? Or "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16? To name just a few of thousands!

Admittedly, 1 John 5:7 is a difficult verse to defend, but it can actually be done quite well. "CalvinandHodges" does a good job of it, as did "Kaalvenist" in some of his earlier threads (discussing it with Dr. White). These men did not only draw attention to the "internal evidences" but to historical ones as as well. The dust has not settled on the battle over this verse. I am doing research on the Bible the Waldenses and Albigenses used (currently plowing through Peter Allix's The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont and of The Albigenses), which Bible emerged in Europe prior to the Reformation. Presbyter Frederick Nolan did long research into these histories. Quoting from a work of my own in which I look at Nolan's work:

To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his preface:

Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate.* [emphasis added]​

In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, “It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.”** [emphasis added]​

------
* from, An Inquiry Into the Integrity of The Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, pages xvii, xviii.
** Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix.
------

In sum, Robert, I would say we have some people here who are examining these textual issues (including 1 John 5:7) with no little astuteness of scholarship.

There are alternatives for the reading of our children, such as Jay Green's MKJV, and the NKJV -- though I prefer the older KJV for myself.

Respectfully, in Christ,

Steve

 

[Robert Truelove]

This is an excellent point. The 'ye' in the KJV makes it clear that she is referring to the Jews whereas the 'you' in modern versions make it appear she is referring to only Jesus.

This is one of the great strengths of the KJV, an accurate translation of 2nd person singular/plural. This is one of the reasons that I think every English speaking student of the Bible should read from the KJV; even if they use another translation as their primary.

However, to then throw out modern versions because 2nd person singular/plural is no longer in modern English (unless you are in the South, rather than dropping 2nd person plural we have retained it as "y'all" but I have doubts changing Ye to y'all would produce a modern version that would sell well ) would be a mistake.

If I were going to compare translations, I might point out that the ESV is vastly superior to the KJV in the translation of Greek and Hebrew verb tenses. On the flip side, this does not mean that I think we should throw out the KJV. Rather, every good translation has strengths and weaknesses.

Prespastor,

Could you ask your daughter to read again verse 20, and without giving her any hints, ask her who said that Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship? One could do this exercise in literally thousands of places of the Bible in order to show the lack of clarity in modern versions.

 

[Pilgrim]

NKJV "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

NASB "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."

NIV "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

HCSB "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, yet you [Jews] say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem."

ESV "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship."

The ESV is the only one of these versions that is unclear here, and I would submit that the others are clearer than the "ye" in the KJV. I think this also proves Prespastor's point that one need not master Elizabethan English (although that would of course be a good thing, as is reading the KJV provided the reader is able to read with comprehension) to understand the Bible. Following up with a previous post of mine, I would say "ye" here is not the "vulgar" tongue of today, whatever merits it may have WRT accuracy. The renderings in the other modern versions are clearer, in my opinion. It also points out that the warmed over RSV that is the ESV is not without its problems. Indeed, even the much maligned NIV is more accurate in this case than is the ESV. (Will prominent Reformed evangelicals produce a warmed over TNIV in a few decades and proclaim that it is the must have version? Of course a handful endorse the TNIV as it is.) I have found a number of passages where the ESV is more difficult and less clear than the 1995 NASB.

I think this passage also shows the utility of the practice of translators occasionally adding a word for clarity and italicizing it to show that it is not in the original. I believe this was first introduced with the Geneva Bible but was abandoned with the RSV and the ESV regrettably follows the RSV here as well.

Interestingly, Jay P. Green's LITV and MKJV render this verse the same as the ESV.

 

[SRoper]

At the end of the day, we are saying modern English lacks certain conventions for the proper translation of the Word of God, and so we are bound to use a strange convention in our language in order to be faithful to the Word God has given us. That point alone negates the argument against the AV's use of dated language. There is no point giving people a Bible they can understand, when what they are going to understand is NOT what God has written.

This line of reasoning seems to destroy any attempt to make a translation in the common tongue.

 

[Pilgrim]

The other versions are only clearer because they have added to the Word of God, and then one must ask whether their additions are clearer, or whether by adding their own interpretation they might have skewed something broader.

In so doing, they (namely the NKJV and NASB) are only following a long established practice in our English Bibles that is also employed in the AV in numerous places, where italicized words are added to provide clarity. (Regrettably the RSV and the ESV as well as of course the NIV do not do this, so the reader doesn't know where translators have added words not in the original). But, with all due respect, (and please correct me if I misstate or are misrepresenting your position here) if you do not see that it is the same practice and say it's ok when the AV translators did it but illegitimate when done by the ASV, NASB and NKJV translators then it seems to me that you hold to a position that the AV IS the very Word of God and are to the point of essentially advocating that the AV translators were themselves inspired by God as were the biblical writers when they added words that are not found in the Greek when it would otherwise be unclear to the English reader.

 

[New wine skin]

There have been some well made points about ESV passages, however this entire debate of bashing ESV vs KJV unwarranted in this situation. No one worth his salt will build a system of theology off one translation. That makes a caricature of hermeneutics. A child doesn’t read or study a bible in a bubble. The parent, pastor and elders play a role in educating that child using the scripture as a standard. I think it’s Anabaptist mentality and an overreaction to not let a child read an ESV because a few verses are vague or do not carry a perfect translation. Besides, when it comes to difficult exegesis, a person ought to have a working knowledge of the original languages if they are to have a qualified opinion and take a dogmatic stance of interpretation on certain passages or sections of special revelation. In an ideal world, every pastor or elder would be educated in original languages, theology and biblical studies etc, thus providing families with reliable sources upon which to guide them in the less perspicuous areas of the Word.

I think any father who would have his child read the ESV should be perfectly content to do so.