KJV vs. NKJV

[One Little Nail]

I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated.

If the subordinate standard has the ability to outlast the supreme standard on which it is founded something has gone amiss.

The nourishment should be wholesome food, which comes from a right understanding of the word of God, thus placing the priority back on accuracy of translation.

I agree but the subordinate standard's original language is modern English. It never was in Greek or Hebrew as the supreme standard is. These are two different situations at play not to mention the greater complexity of the latter standard. I find myself getting stumped much more often with the language of the AV than the WCF.

This goes to show the importance that us KJB Advocates have been trying to make,there was only a
seperation of around 50 years between the production of the 2 mentioned works yet you say the
language of The KJB has a greater complexity, I take it the latter standard in your comment was
refering to The KJB, there could not have been so great a change in the English Language in half a
century or so, so what accounts for this? as you say it was from a Greek & Hebrew textual base
that the Translation was based,does this account for the greater complexity and I would answer yes
as The Translation is written in Bible English & not even the common English of the day.
thats why it is imperitive to save & hold this translation(KJB) and not dumb it down for the modern palate.
we need to educate ourselves up to it's Standard & not change The Word of God for our own convenience.

 

[KMK]

Am I misreading this or would 'modern' English not be considered our "vulgar tongue" , in English speaking countries ? As opposed to Elizabethan English ?

To the Reformers 'vulgar tongue' basically meant 'not Latin'.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Logan, I’m posting this in reply your questions in your post #60 – pertaining to the historic views of the Church concerning Preservation. Please see attached downloadable paper by Rev Paul Ferguson on the topic (he’d posted this here under the user name ThomasCartwright in 2009, but the attachment from then does not work now).

 

[One Little Nail]

while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV , there was some discussion in relation to the
underlying manuscript with the KJB being based on the T.R. Textual family & the NKJV on
some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
measure, is it possible for someone to provide links to website or articles which go into
more details into the differences of the two manuscripts,even the differences of the the two
translations, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Logan]

Thanks Steve, I've gone through most of the paper now (I found a copy online since yours is still pending) and unfortunately find he cherry-picks a lot of quotations that seem to prove his point, and ignores others. He has a clear bias, and only presents quotations that seem to further it. Nevertheless, I found some usefulness so thank you.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:1--3

I will be honest and say I have not found this discussion to be profitable or convincing. Have we each acted with humility? If I have have acted without humility, gentleness, patience, and bearing with one any of you in love then I ask forgiveness.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Joseph,

If in my post #7 I gave the impression that the NKJV NT derived from "some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text" I'm sorry. Their NT does derive from the TR; I just take exception to some translation.

Logan, thanks for your remarks. I haven't noticed any "lack of humility" in this particular thread. I tend not to contribute much to such textual discussions anymore as most of the content has already been discussed here, though newcomers don’t have the advantage of knowing this, plus they occasionally bring up new ideas.

The subject still remains of profound interest to me, however, and I like to stay abreast of new developments in the field. Yet I have other projects I am devoting my time to currently – I have already spent years in the textual stuff.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

the NKJV on
some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
measure,

This is patently false. The NKJV NT is translated from the TR and any variations are simply footnoted. Many words are translated differently in the NKJV than in the KJV, but this has nothing to do with the underlying text.

 

[MW]

while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV , there was some discussion in relation to the
underlying manuscript with the KJB being based on the T.R. Textual family & the NKJV on
some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
measure

The textual variations are in the Old Testament, as the preface acknowledges.

In the New Testament the Textus Receptus is claimed as the underlying text. Variations from the TR are confined to notes. The use of the notes is not a problem per se. The problem is that the notes reflect a very wide range of variants which are inconsistent with the adoption of the TR. When read in light of the preface's statement about the fluctuating nature of textual criticism, the notes suggest that the TR readings are inconclusive. The preface also undermines the adoption of the TR when it states "The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition."

Overall the posture of the translators towards the text of Scripture was one of uncertainty, which fails to move and induce people to an high and reverent esteem of the Scriptures.

 

[MW]

Variations from the TR are confined to notes.

I should qualify that this statement is based on what is claimed in the preface. There are alleged examples of the NKJV departing from the TR, and it appears to me that some of them at least have followed another text. The issue is complicated by the fact that the translators have not specifically clarified the "TR" they followed, and some translation choices may have only unintentionally followed a divergent text due to borrowing from modern versions.

 

[Edward]

while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV

Is the switch from KJV to KJB a new technique by KJO folks to try to impart an aura of greater legitimacy to the KJV? I don't think I've noticed that usage before.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

No one on the PB is KJV-O so that doesn't really apply here.

 

[One Little Nail]

the NKJV on
some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
measure,

This is patently false. The NKJV NT is translated from the TR and any variations are simply footnoted. Many words are translated differently in the NKJV than in the KJV, but this has nothing to do with the underlying text.

hello bill I believe that I read somewhere that The NKJV did in fact take some Majority Text readings into the
text but i don't know were, know that their choice of Old Testament text was different, i did mention in a
earlier post that there were RSV readings brought into the Translation, Matthew states that this was unintentional
in Post 99, but Thomas Nelson did exclusive rights to the RSV for the first 10 years so methinks it was a deliberate
addition.

 

[One Little Nail]

while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV

Is the switch from KJV to KJB a new technique by KJO folks to try to impart an aura of greater legitimacy to the KJV? I don't think I've noticed that usage before.

Hahaha what are you implying that it is some sort psychological ploy on my part

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hey Logan,

I appreciate your irenic – if dogged – attitude.

I was wondering, what are your basic objections to the TR / AV primacy view? When I say “primacy” I mean that they represent a standard of excellence due to the accuracy of the Greek mss. Are there any other standards one can measure textual editions by? I think it has been shown by Maurice Robinson, Wilbur Pickering (chapter 5, The History of the Text, is excellent), and Jakob Van Bruggen (Bruggen’s book seems to no longer be available online, or very hard to find – and the author unlocatable – so I uploaded it to Scribd) etc, that the foundations of the Critical Text based on Westcott-Hort and Vaticanus / Sinaiticus are no longer sustainable. Apart from the Byzantine / Majority Text view the world of NT textual criticism is in chaotic disarray (see Bruggen especially for this, and also here).

I make clear that although I build on the Byz stance, I go beyond them – if you have considered my views.

Without equivocation my own view is presuppositional. Our entire Christian walk, faith, and understanding is built on God’s word. The same applies to our understanding of His word – it is self-attesting, it needs not man’s testimony, although God has provided that we have evidences to support, in the main, what we take by faith.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I would certainly agree with Steve and Rev. Winzer and others that, all things considered, the KJV is the best available version in English. I would also agree that the vast majority of people could understand the language of the KJV if the time was taken to teach them. The question then becomes, do we have the time to teach them and should we have to teach them? Unfortunately, people today simply have very short attention spans and they will not likely be willing to have to "learn" how to read a Bible before they "learn" what is in the Bible. We can lament this fact all day long, but in the end what is at stake is the gospel. I agree that the KJV is the best available version, but in light of these other factors, I also believe there are several acceptable alternatives. I believe the NKJV to the best among these, and so that is the version I use. It is fine to believe and argue that the KJV is best, but please don't slander and impugn the reputation of a fine man like the late Dr. Arthur Farstad by insinuating that the translators of the NKJV secretly inserted CT readings into the text and then lied about it in the preface. Let's be better than this.

 

[JimmyH]

Hey Logan,

I appreciate your irenic – if dogged – attitude.

I was wondering, what are your basic objections to the TR / AV primacy view? When I say “primacy” I mean that they represent a standard of excellence due to the accuracy of the Greek mss. Are there any other standards one can measure textual editions by? I think it has been shown by Maurice Robinson, Wilbur Pickering (chapter 5, The History of the Text, is excellent), and Jakob Van Bruggen (Bruggen’s book seems to no longer be available online, or very hard to find – and the author unlocatable – so I uploaded it to Scribd) etc, that the foundations of the Critical Text based on Westcott-Hort and Vaticanus / Sinaiticus are no longer sustainable. Apart from the Byzantine / Majority Text view the world of NT textual criticism is in chaotic disarray (see Bruggen especially for this, and also here).

I make clear that although I build on the Byz stance, I go beyond them – if you have considered my views.

Without equivocation my own view is presuppositional. Our entire Christian walk, faith, and understanding is built on God’s word. The same applies to our understanding of His word – it is self-attesting, it needs not man’s testimony, although God has provided that we have evidences to support, in the main, what we take by faith.

Absolutely taken by faith. That said, with the known history of Erasmus's sources for the TR how can we say it has primacy ? This quoted from Daniel B. Wallace, "History of the English Bible" on the text used by the AV translators ;

First, problems with the text.

The Greek text used by these editors was vastly inferior to that of modern translations. It was principally the Stephanus text of 1550 (third edition), which, in turn, relied essentially on Erasmus’ third edition of 1522. The Stephanus text was modified slightly by Theodore Beza who took the text through eleven editions.3 Beza’s 9th edition was used in preparation for the KJV. This Greek text, later known as the Textus Receptus (TR), misses the wording of the original New Testament in about 5000 places. Most of these places cannot be translated, but a few of them are fairly substantial. Once again, all of these Greek texts—from Erasmus to Beza—are essentially the same. They are all essentially the third edition of Erasmus.

To understand the history of the English Bible you have to know a little about the Greek text that stands behind it. Here are some of the facts about Erasmus’ Greek text.

1. With the invention of the printing press and with Greek learning returning to Europe, there was a felt need for the first Greek NT. The rush was on! And the first one done would almost certainly be a sloppy production.

2. The Roman Catholic priest and Dutch humanist, Erasmus, met the challenge. On March 1, 1516 he published the first GNT. Exactly 20 months later the Reformation would begin because Luther had read Erasmus’ Greek text. And when he read Romans in Greek for the first time, he was converted to Christ. In a very real sense, the Reformation began because of the Greek NT. Luther himself said that he never would have challenged the Pope without first reading the Greek NT.

3. Erasmus took his Greek text through five editions. All of them were Latin-Greek diglots, never Greek alone. The reason? Erasmus’ motive was not primarily to produce a Greek NT, but rather to prove that his Latin translation was an improvement over Jerome’s Vulgate (done 1000 years earlier). The Vulgate had been the authorized Bible of the western Church ever since its production.

4. Because he was in a rush, he could find only one copy of the book of Revelation. And that copy lacked the last leaf, Rev 22.16-21. What was Erasmus to do? He decided to backtranslate those final six verses, from Latin into Greek. And as good as Erasmus’ Greek was (he was considered the premier Greek scholar of the sixteenth century), he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS (except, of course, for one that was a copy of Erasmus’ printed text). The most remarkable text is Rev 22.19: “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

But Erasmus’ text had ‘book’ instead of ‘tree’ because the Latin had ‘book’ here: “God will take away from him his share in the book of life.” Erasmus’ text was thus quite defective here. The reason that some Latin MSS had ‘book’ here was no doubt due to the fact that the Latin scribes saw ‘book’ twice in this verse and they accidentally replaced ‘tree’ with ‘book’ in the middle of the verse. This could easily happen in Latin because the words were similar (unlike Greek, which has xuvlon for ‘tree’ and biblivon for ‘book’): the Latin word for tree is ligno and the word for book is libro. Thus, a two letter difference between these two words. The KJV repeated this error, giving rise to the possibility that the Bible teaches that one can lose his salvation (since removal from the book of life would be tantamount to loss of salvation).

5. MS basis: about half a dozen, none earlier than 10th to 12th century. Today we have 5600 MSS, with some as early as 2nd century.

 

[Logan]

Steve,

I didn't really want to be drawn back into this discussion but I'd be happy to give a very, very basic overview of my view and studies. I have not spent nearly as much time on it as you have so it's possible I have some of the minor details wrong but the general history I believe I have a good grasp on.

I would also like to note that I didn't find Daniel Wallace's paper (which Jimmy quoted) to be extremely helpful, because it's clear he has a bias and makes assumptions too.

I would not classify myself as pro-critical text per se. I don't believe that older is necessarily better and I would like to see the church select texts based on slightly different criteria, balancing number of manuscripts with age and not simply "correcting" the vast majority of manuscripts based on one very old text. However, with you, I do believe Bibles based on the critical text to be the very word of God, and have no problem using the ESV or NASB for example, which I am grateful includes passages such as John 8.

At this point, some TR people will say that this makes man the judge of what is God's word and we should have a presuppositional approach. I wish that were true but the facts just don't seem to bear that out. I deeply wish I could just say "Textus Receptus" and no more texts ever should be evaluated. Now note here that I do not believe that there are still words to be discovered or that we have been without God's word until this point. This is what I see as providential preservation.

At no point do I believe God's people have been without his word. But preservation to the very word and stroke I have not been able to accept, and here is why.

textual criticism
No matter whether you are pro-CT, pro-Majority, or pro-TR, each group engages in some form of textual criticism.

The CT group says "let's look at all texts". There is some good reason for this, as one could believe God has preserved all of these texts for a reason, one very important reason is to show that his word was not altered.

The majority group (as I understand) looks at a slightly smaller subset, looking at what texts were most widely copied and disseminated, mostly Byzantine text types. I don't know of any translation based off of the majority text, but there can be problems with this approach as it just "counts noses" so to speak, and what variation has the most copies, wins, regardless of age or family. As I understand it though, there are problems with Revelation, for example, where there is no clear variation that has the most copies.

Then there is the Byzantine group, an even smaller subset, which looks at those texts that were in use in the Greek-speaking churches, under the presupposition that those that were in common use (not buried in a monastery) would be the Word that God had given to his people. There's benefits to this, certainly, but I don't think TR people are really part of this group.

There is a smaller subset of the Byzantine, that as I see it, doesn't even accept other texts that were in common use, but only those specific texts which eventually formed the basis of the KJV. It sounds great, that God preserved his word and we no longer have to do any work comparing texts, but I just cannot honestly accept this for reasons that will be explained below.

And here a legitimate question arises: why throw out thousands of manuscripts, a wealth of Scripture, preserved by God, in favor of Erasmus' six manuscripts that didn't even agree 100% with each other in places they overlapped (as is apparently the TR position)?

Some history
Starting with the Vulgate, we don't know of any Greek manuscripts that fully match this translation. Jerome may have used other sources (older Latin editions) or manuscripts that no longer exist. But people like Augustine, who was not skilled in Greek, used it to great edification.

So here a question arises for the presuppositionalist: did God not preserve his word, word-for-word in the manuscripts used to produce what was used by the vast majority of the Christian church for hundreds of years? It was, in large part, a poor translation by Jerome. Nevertheless, it was blessed and I believe it to be the very word of God, used to convert millions.

The Waldenses did not have Textus Receptus, was this people group left without the word of God? I don't believe so.

As you know, Erasmus obtained access to about half a dozen manuscripts, all incomplete copies of the New Testament that had some overlap. He used textual criticism to determine which wording he was going to include in his New Testament, although he did not have access to the last few verses of Revelation, and evidently back-translated from the Vulgate (I am aware some question this). One thing we do know: no existing Greek manuscript is identical to these last verses (though some say it must have been lost, that's conjecture). The important thing is that no one manuscript was identical to that which Erasmus produced, it was a compilation of several. The variations were minor, but they are there.

So here a question arises for the presuppositionalist: did everyone up to this point not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God? Or did somehow Erasmus, with his incomplete manuscripts, perfectly (providentially) recreate the exact same text that was in manuscripts used by the church previously but which since have been lost?

Luther used the second edition of Erasmus for his German New Testament. Erasmus made some corrections to the third edition, including adding the Johannine Comma. So for the presuppositionalist, here a question arises, did God preserve his word in the second edition that Luther used or in subsequent editions that were part of the basis for English translations? One or the other groups does not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God.

Estienne (Stephanus) produced his editions based on Erasmus', and they are, I understand, almost identical, with just a few variations.

However, Beza also produced editions based on Erasmus' and they did have changes in the readings. Beza had access to two additional texts, both Western type (not Byzantine), and one of which he had discovered, unused for many years as I understand it. Now he primarily followed Erasmus, but there were a few variations.

So for the presuppositionalist, which one was now "jot and tittle" the word of God? Luther using Erasmus' second edition? Others using the third and subsequent? Or those using Beza's?

Calvin (as I noted earlier) even would make comparisons between Erasmus' text and other texts, commenting on the variations and how older manuscripts would not have certain things. Yet he certainly believed in God's preservation.

Then we come to the King James Version. According to Scrivener, the translators used no one source (though some dispute this because the records were burned). No manuscript in existence ever was completely 100% what underlies the KJV. Scrivener noted places where it used Beza against Erasmus, Erasmus against Beza, or Stephanus against both. Apparently the Vulgate was also used as a source as there are some that don't use any. So at this point we can't say the KJV uses Textus Receptus, but rather that it uses some TR "family" of manuscripts, none of which reflect any one Greek manuscript.

It wasn't until the late 1800s that Scrivener compiled a Greek manuscript based on what underlay the KJV. This is what many people consider the "Textus Receptus" today. Note that this does not 100% follow any other Textus Receptus. There are only several hundred variations I understand.

But once again, the question has to be asked of the presuppositionalist: did any translation using the earlier TRs not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God?

So at some point or another, there will be some people group who did not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God. To assume that God did so in English seems to be very self-aggrandizing. Because of this, I don't believe that God had preserved his word by the stroke. I believe (as do commentators such as Calvin and Henry) that this passage referring to "jot and tittle" meant all of the law would be fulfilled, not the least of God's principles would pass away, and I believe this promise has been fulfilled, even when translations differ on wording, the idea is the same. We do not have corrupted Scriptures.

But this is only a certain subset of presuppositionalists. Others will agree and say "no, not 'jot and tittle'" but he did preserve it in a certain family of texts, the family of Textus Receptus. Some of the issues I brought up earlier remain though, specifically those using the Vulgate and the Waldenses, for example.

conclusion
So basically, I would class myself as a presuppositionalist in that I accept that God preserved his word, keeping it pure from corruption, and that his people have never been without his precepts.

I cannot however accept "jot and tittle" preservation of strokes, words, sentences presuppositionalism. To believe so would be to say that no one has God's true word except English speaking countries (or some other country).

I also cannot accept TR-family presuppositionalism because it also says that we don't have "jot and tittle" the word of God, but that variations between different manuscripts are okay. Why accept Beza's variations and use of Western-type texts but not other Byzantine texts? Once again, what about Luther who used an earlier version of the TR? Did God not preserve his word for the Germans 100%?

And the TR that is really in use is based on the KJV, not any one Greek manuscript or even one TR. This is why it seems that most TR-preservationists really, in the end, are KJV-preservationists.

Do I believe that pro-TR folks are missing out? No! Certainly not. It has stood up to scrutiny and the few places it varies even from other Byzantine texts are not important in my mind. Those using it are not without God's word. But likewise I see many other reliable translations that also do not leave us without God's word. And I'm glad the translators don't use the critical text "uncritically" and just accept whatever it says but look at the notes and reasons why certain readings are preferred.

And I believe I am in line with the Westminster Confession and what the Reformers understood of God's preservation of his word. They were familiar with the variations between various TRs and I don't find evidence they advocated any one but utilized any they could. It is my understanding that at least several of the Westminster divines owned ancient Greek manuscripts which were highly prized. These of course varied from Textus Receptus.

So why can't I be a TR-exclusivist? Primarily because, once you understand the facts (it varies itself) and history (one people group or another did not have it or had slightly different versions), it seems to necessitate a view that God preserved his word perfectly for English speaking nations, and no one else for the prior 1500 years and conscience dictates that this is not the case. Does the CT go too far? Undoubtedly so. Do translations based on it go too far? Not all of them, in my estimation, for which I am grateful.

 

[Logan]

The Confession says the translation should be made into the national language, not translated differently to suit each sub-cultural lingo.

A bill was actually brought into the long Parliament, shortly before its dissolution in 1653, to appoint a committee to review and revise the "new translation," as the King's or authorised version was then termed....It was alleged to be a common stumblingblock to the weak, and a subject of cavil for scoffers, that, in sermons preached and printed, people heard or found it said, "the original bears it better thus and thus." It was accordingly proposed that the committee appointed by Parliament should carefully consider all translations, annotations, and marginal readings that they knew of; and give their approbation to what, "after seriously looking up to the Lord for his gracious assistance in so weighty a work, and advising together amongst themselves, they should judge to be nearest to the text, and to the mind of the Lord."...

The sudden dissolution of the long Parliament put an end to this scheme. It is evident, however, that the scheme was something more than a pedantic project of some whimsical layman's, which had no countenance either in the Church or country. It was fostered, if not devised, by some of the leading divines of the age. On the proposed committee of review and revision stood the names of Dr. John Owen and Dr. Ralph Cudworth; and on the proposed committee of supervision, the names of Dr. Thomas Goodwin and Mr. Joseph Caryl. On the committee of review there was the name of a Scotsman also, Mr. John Row, Professor of Hebrew at Aberdeen. This Mr. John was son of the more famous John of Carnock, but was one of the unstable zealots who in those days of ecclesiastical revolt deserted the Presbyterian Church of their fathers and adopted the principles of congregational independence. So ready was he to undertake the duties proposed for him in the bill brought into Parliament, that he had a programme of his committee's procedure, cut and dry upon paper. "For ye bettering of ye Inglish translation of ye Bible (first printed A.D. 1612) . . . five things are to be endeavoured," said Mr. John. These five things are, "a more proper, rational, and dexterous" division of chapters, verses and sentences; an amendment of " needless transposition of words or stories, pretending to Hypall or Synchyses"; the excision of all useless additions "that debase the wisdom of the spirit"; the reparation of " all sinful and needless detractions "; and the introduction of certain specified "mutations and changes." Under several of these heads, detailed explanations and instructions were given. The useless additions to be removed from the Bible were, all the apocryphal writings; all popish prints, plates, and pictures; all prefixes of saint to evangelists and apostles; and all spurious subscriptions of particular epistles. Among the mutations and changes recommended, were, the printing of God's names and titles in capital letters ; magisterial correction of all misprints; an "idiomatization" of English words not understood in Scotland; a substitution of English for Hebrew, Greek and Latin terms

Since it was proposed to make English "idiomization" understandable for those in Scotland by revising the translation, perhaps those who framed the confession did consider it important that it be understood in the "sub-cultural lingo" that is spoken where it is read, without need of such things like dictionaries? It's at least possible?

 

[thbslawson]

I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?

One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.

If the English-speaking world would simply officially adopt the use of "y'all" we'd resolve this issue

 

[JimmyH]

I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?

One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.

If the English-speaking world would simply officially adopt the use of "y'all" we'd resolve this issue

I don't see the 'issue' ever being resolved since both sides are thinking "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Seems we are entrenched in our opposing positions ....... In my humble opinion.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?

One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.

If the English-speaking world would simply officially adopt the use of "y'all" we'd resolve this issue

 

[ZackF]

Hey. I am just thrilled that we have been able to civilly keep a KJV thread open. This is a record no?

 

[MW]

Since it was proposed to make English "idiomization" understandable for those in Scotland by revising the translation, perhaps those who framed the confession did consider it important that it be understood in the "sub-cultural lingo" that is spoken where it is read, without need of such things like dictionaries? It's at least possible?

This was a national legislative body, although just the shadow of its former self. I can't think of a fitter body to recommend a "national" project. The aim and spirit of the proposal was very commendable. This is true in the main, although some of the specific revision criteria might have reflected some of the "radical" ideas prevalent at that time, and may have hindered the success of the revision.

The proposal was not to divide the English Bible into many inferior ones, but to revise this national translation in order to make it even better. I consider this to be a much better plan than the "biblical pluralism" which sadly prevails today.

The Scots belonged to a distinct "nation," although subjugated at that time. There was nothing sub-cultural in proposing to give the Scots a Bible in their own language.

 

[Logan]

The Scots belonged to a distinct "nation," although subjugated at that time. There was nothing sub-cultural in proposing to give the Scots a Bible in their own language.

As I understand it, it was not a proposal to put it in the Scots language, it was to alter English idioms to be understood by Scots (in English). As opposed to handing out dictionaries.

 

[MW]

As I understand it, it was not a proposal to put it in the Scots language, it was to alter English idioms to be understood by Scots (in English). As opposed to handing out dictionaries.

I certainly don't read anything which opposes the use of dictionaries.

 

[Logan]

I certainly don't read anything which opposes the use of dictionaries.

I'm glad you don't, that would be strange literature.

 

[MW]

From B. F. Westcott, A General View of the History of the English Bible, 124-125:

Some steps indeed were taken for a new version during the time of the Commonwealth. The Long Pariament shortly before it was dissolved made an order (April 1653) that 'a Bill should be brought in for a new translation of the Bible out of the original tongues,' but nothing more was done at that time. Three years afterwards the scheme was revived, and Whitelocke has preserved an interesting account of the proceedings which followed.

'At the grand committee [of the House] for Religion, ordered That it be referred to a sub-committee to send for and advise with Dr [Brian] Walton, Mr Hughes, Mr [Edmund] Castle, Mr [Samuel] Clark, Mr Poulk, Dr [Ralph] Cudworth, and such others as they shall think fit, and to consider of the Translations and impressions of the Bible, and to offer their opinions thereon to this Committee; and that it be especially commended to the Lord Commissioner Whitelocke to take care of this business.'

'This committee often met at my house,' writes Whitelocke, 'and had the most learned men in the Oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers [made] excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the Translations of the Bible in English; which yet was agreed to be the best of any Translation in the world. I took pains in it, but it became fruitless by the Parliament's Dissolution.'

With this notice the external history of the English Version appropriately ends. From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jimmy, I have interacted with an essay of Dr. Wallace on this topic extensively here and also here (some repeat of the previous material, but more succinct). Perhaps you know that Dr. Wallace does not hold to the doctrine of Scripture being providentially preserved, which is problematic, as Scripture does promise that. Here are some “myth busters” re Erasmus by David Cloud:

Myth # 1: Erasmus Was A Humanist

Myth # 2: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence

And there will be more on Erasmus below. Sorry, Jimmy, to send you to other places via links, but it wouldn't do to bulk up this thread with such.


Logan, thanks for going to the trouble to write out how you see things. A slight nuance I would introduce regarding a statement of yours – “However, with you, I do believe Bibles based on the critical text to be the very word of God, and have no problem using the ESV or NASB for example” – I could affirm they are “the very word of God” insofar as they translated accurately from an intact Greek text that had no omissions or changes from the preserved edition. For example, when the ESV says in Matthew 1:7, 10 that Jesus Christ was descended from Asaph and from Amos rather than Asa and Amon it is decidedly not the “very word of God”! This kind of error in the very first page of the NT is not an auspicious beginning!

When you say, “At no point do I believe God's people have been without his word. But preservation to the very word and stroke I have not been able to accept”, I would agree with you that not all had this. And more on it in a moment.

When you talk about the Byzantine Text (which is virtually synonymous with the Majority Text, as this latter is comprised almost entirely of Byz mss) it is important to have an idea of its transmission history, the best treatment of which I have found here in Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II (taken from his chapter 5).

When you talk of Erasmus’ access to only “half a dozen manuscripts” you are repeating a myth perpetuated up through the halls of sloppy scholarship! I think the link I posted for Jimmy above on the myth that “Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence” would speak to that! And an informative post here: Concerning Erasmus.

You ask a pertinent question on the availability of a perfectly preserved text: “did everyone up to this point not have ‘jot and tittle’ the very word of God?”

The question has also been put in these terms, “If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different text-type – did they not have a preserved and adequate Bible?” And I would answer:

There is a preserving of the text, and there is a preserving of the text — the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James translation) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an adequate preservation as distinguished from preservation in the minutiae.

As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word. When the Lord prophesies, does it have to come about instantly? Is there not sometimes progression, as in the development seen in the Olivet discourse of events from the time Jerusalem fell till the time of the end?

Concerning the statement in the Westminster Confession, 1:8

The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​

there is the issue that Benjamin Warfield introduced a new understanding of this section differing from that of the framers, but this is not pertinent at this point. What I want to address concerns what this “kept pure in all ages” entailed. Does it mean that there was a pure text – intact in the sense of the autographic documents – in all generations and all locales? Does it mean every generation and geographical area had an equivalent of an autographic copy? I do not believe so. I believe this means that the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages; when in certain textual traditions (I am thinking of the Greek here) some readings were removed they were retained elsewhere – and later restored to the Greek by His providence. The Hebrew and Greek copies – the apographs – the WCF divines had in hand exemplified this.

What you said about Paul Ferguson "cherry picking" his quotes I wonder at. Of course he will find those who illustrate his point, and he contends they are by far in the main; can you counter that with opposing quotes from those time periods?

A view that has come to my attention is the verbal plenary preservation view (VPP). Upon initially hearing of it I thought that as regards the NT it could only have been accomplished through the Waldenses, something which needs further investigation. I have written before (here on PB) of Frederick Nolan and his investigation into the old Italick version. I have studied the Waldensian history before, and this is interesting. From this post (which includes the citations) on Frederick Nolan’s scholarship – and his hunt for ancient mss containing 1 John 5:7 – I excerpt re the Waldensian text:

“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. [5] [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] [6]”​

There have been scholarly studies done on topics such as, When The KJV Departs From The “Majority Text”, by Jack Moorman, and, Where the King James Bible Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598, by Kirk DiVietro. These are available from Bible For Today, along with many other rare studies.

Let me end the post with this thought:

As though there were anything unscholarly or wrong with asserting that the Lord will preserve His word, seeing as man does not live by bread alone, but by “every word” that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matt 4:4). As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many aeons since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world!

Consider this: In eternity past in God's omniscience He knew you before ever He created you; fast forward through the creation, the fall in the garden, the long centuries of mayhem and destruction, the toxins introduced increasingly with the advent of the industrial age, the havoc wrought in the human gene pool — and yet through all this, He preserved those molecules and atoms, those strands of DNA and genetic information, that would eventually comprise the person you now are, and all other human beings! From His eternal vision of you to your creation and development in time, you are the very person He envisioned before the creation of the world. Talk about providential preservation – down to very molecules and genes! Is this not far more complex a feat than preserving a Book of writings intact through around three millennia? Okay, there was a concerted effort to destroy this Book by the prince of demons, so that made it more complex; but the thought still stands: if He could bring the exact you into being, could He not bring His Book?

If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?

As though it were a far-fetched thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children (Matt 11:25).

About the “English” you mention: It is now pretty much the universal language – and the language of scholarship in most countries around the world. The Greek TR that was the basis for the English KJV was used to translate God’s word into many languages so that the English missionaries could bring the glory of the Gospel of God’s grace to vast multitudes. God used the English-speaking peoples and their Bible to great effect.

More concerning The Waldenses and the Bible (caveat: some of the material was written by Benjamin Wilkinson, who was a Seventh Day Adventist and published Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in 1930, though I would venture to say he was more sound that the apostate Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort, and if his history is accurate, that is what counts).

 

[One Little Nail]

Hey Logan,

I appreciate your irenic – if dogged – attitude.

I was wondering, what are your basic objections to the TR / AV primacy view? When I say “primacy” I mean that they represent a standard of excellence due to the accuracy of the Greek mss. Are there any other standards one can measure textual editions by? I think it has been shown by Maurice Robinson, Wilbur Pickering (chapter 5, The History of the Text, is excellent), and Jakob Van Bruggen (Bruggen’s book seems to no longer be available online, or very hard to find – and the author unlocatable – so I uploaded it to Scribd) etc, that the foundations of the Critical Text based on Westcott-Hort and Vaticanus / Sinaiticus are no longer sustainable. Apart from the Byzantine / Majority Text view the world of NT textual criticism is in chaotic disarray (see Bruggen especially for this, and also here).

I make clear that although I build on the Byz stance, I go beyond them – if you have considered my views.

Without equivocation my own view is presuppositional. Our entire Christian walk, faith, and understanding is built on God’s word. The same applies to our understanding of His word – it is self-attesting, it needs not man’s testimony, although God has provided that we have evidences to support, in the main, what we take by faith.

Absolutely taken by faith. That said, with the known history of Erasmus's sources for the TR how can we say it has primacy ? This quoted from Daniel B. Wallace, "History of the English Bible" on the text used by the AV translators ;

First, problems with the text.

The Greek text used by these editors was vastly inferior to that of modern translations. It was principally the Stephanus text of 1550 (third edition), which, in turn, relied essentially on Erasmus’ third edition of 1522. The Stephanus text was modified slightly by Theodore Beza who took the text through eleven editions.3 Beza’s 9th edition was used in preparation for the KJV. This Greek text, later known as the Textus Receptus (TR), misses the wording of the original New Testament in about 5000 places. Most of these places cannot be translated, but a few of them are fairly substantial. Once again, all of these Greek texts—from Erasmus to Beza—are essentially the same. They are all essentially the third edition of Erasmus.

To understand the history of the English Bible you have to know a little about the Greek text that stands behind it. Here are some of the facts about Erasmus’ Greek text.

1. With the invention of the printing press and with Greek learning returning to Europe, there was a felt need for the first Greek NT. The rush was on! And the first one done would almost certainly be a sloppy production.

2. The Roman Catholic priest and Dutch humanist, Erasmus, met the challenge. On March 1, 1516 he published the first GNT. Exactly 20 months later the Reformation would begin because Luther had read Erasmus’ Greek text. And when he read Romans in Greek for the first time, he was converted to Christ. In a very real sense, the Reformation began because of the Greek NT. Luther himself said that he never would have challenged the Pope without first reading the Greek NT.

3. Erasmus took his Greek text through five editions. All of them were Latin-Greek diglots, never Greek alone. The reason? Erasmus’ motive was not primarily to produce a Greek NT, but rather to prove that his Latin translation was an improvement over Jerome’s Vulgate (done 1000 years earlier). The Vulgate had been the authorized Bible of the western Church ever since its production.

4. Because he was in a rush, he could find only one copy of the book of Revelation. And that copy lacked the last leaf, Rev 22.16-21. What was Erasmus to do? He decided to backtranslate those final six verses, from Latin into Greek. And as good as Erasmus’ Greek was (he was considered the premier Greek scholar of the sixteenth century), he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS (except, of course, for one that was a copy of Erasmus’ printed text). The most remarkable text is Rev 22.19: “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

But Erasmus’ text had ‘book’ instead of ‘tree’ because the Latin had ‘book’ here: “God will take away from him his share in the book of life.” Erasmus’ text was thus quite defective here. The reason that some Latin MSS had ‘book’ here was no doubt due to the fact that the Latin scribes saw ‘book’ twice in this verse and they accidentally replaced ‘tree’ with ‘book’ in the middle of the verse. This could easily happen in Latin because the words were similar (unlike Greek, which has xuvlon for ‘tree’ and biblivon for ‘book’): the Latin word for tree is ligno and the word for book is libro. Thus, a two letter difference between these two words. The KJV repeated this error, giving rise to the possibility that the Bible teaches that one can lose his salvation (since removal from the book of life would be tantamount to loss of salvation).

5. MS basis: about half a dozen, none earlier than 10th to 12th century. Today we have 5600 MSS, with some as early as 2nd century.

Ah Jimmy,Jimmy,Jimmy I got to disagree with you, misses the wording of the original New Testament in about
5000 places what so you have a copy of the Original Autographs by your side do you? hahaha give me break
by the way what manuscripts are you claiming to be the originals Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or some other?

That Erasmus had only a few manuscripts to work with is a bold face Lie espoused by The Alexandrian Cult
Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts?
http://biblefortoday.org/Articles/reply.htm
sorry steve double posted your link, hadn't got to your post yet, David Clouds got some good info!
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/textsversionsheader.html
Steve you've got a lot of good stuff on the translation issue defending the Received Text, you should seriously
consider collating it & putting it into print.

 

[Logan]

Steve,

Thank you for your response. I'm only going to reply to a few things and leave it at that.

When you talk of Erasmus’ access to only “half a dozen manuscripts” you are repeating a myth perpetuated up through the halls of sloppy scholarship! I think the link I posted for Jimmy above on the myth that “Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence” would speak to that!

I read the paper you posted and didn't find it very convincing. It essentially says "when people say Erasmus used only a few manuscripts, that is a lie" and then cites other people who said something similar, but no one attempted to put a number to it. On the other hand, you have W.W. Combs who says Erasmus used specifically 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817, (and where he got them) and Scrivener, who says in "A Plain Introduction to the criticism of the New Testament" vol 2, page 183

while the only manuscripts he can be imagined to have constantly used are Codd. Evan. 2, Act. Paul. 2 and Paul. 7, with occasional reference to Evan. Act. Paul. 1 and Act. Paul. 4 (all still at Basle) for the remainder of the New Testament, to which add Apoc. 1, now happily recovered, alone for the Apocalypse. All these, excepting Evan. Act. Paul. 1, were neither ancient nor particularly valuable, and of Cod. 1 he professed to make but small account. As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six verses, Erasmus turned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made version,
which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) in no one known Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text.

Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in his Annotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course of his travels (e.g. on Heb. i. 3; Apoc. i. 4; viii. 13), yet too indistinctly for his allusions to be of much use to critics. Some such readings, as alleged by him, have not been found elsewhere (e.g. Acts xxiv. 23; Rom. xii. 20), and may have been cited loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3; Heb. iv. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Apoc. ii. 18).

Both Scrivener and Combs are/were KJV proponents.

There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

So the progression of purity occurred from Erasmus to the KJV translators and came to culmination with Scrivener's Textus Receptus in 1894? Why was the Bible preserved (in minutiae) in English but not in Greek until 1894?

What you said about Paul Ferguson "cherry picking" his quotes I wonder at. Of course he will find those who illustrate his point, and he contends they are by far in the main; can you counter that with opposing quotes from those time periods?

Ferguson begins by talking about those who seek to " discredit and overthrow" the Bible's influence, "apostate textual criticism", that the KJV has the "authentic text" etc. He has an agenda, that's not bad, but it certainly colors how he presents the argument. He first quotes people who agree with him

He then goes on to quote from Reformers who are talking about Sola Scriptura and how our final appeal is to the Scriptures and argues from there that they must have believed in the perfect preservation of the TR. I don't see them holding to the TR, but to the Greek in general.

He talks about the Alexandrian texts being corrupted and cites Calvin saying of Origin that he and others had "seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense." But Calvin is talking about the sense, not actually altering the words.

He cites Calvin's comments on Isaiah 59:21 to show he believed in perfect preservation, yet that is putting words in Calvin's mouth. Elsewhere (as I cited earlier) Calvin comments on passages as not being consistent with "older manuscripts". If he really was for perfect preservation, he would have outright rejected them, no?

He cites Tragelles as saying "After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based." Which is pretty vague and really proves nothing.

But mostly, everything he cites sounds to me like the Reformers answer to Rome that one must appeal to the Greek and Hebrew as opposed to the Vulgate. I have a problem with then making the leap to using these quotations to show they believed in perfect preservation of the TR. They only seem so to one already convinced they believed it.

Even the KJV translators including marginal notes with variant readings, which doesn't seem to support the notion that they believed only in the TR (and since they used multiple sources, not just any one TR, that is also indicative).

I also quoted earlier from Matthew Henry, who argues on the inclusion of the Johannine Comma, but not because of preservationist arguments.

As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many aeons since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world!...If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?

I do not believe that the Almighty cannot preserve his word. The question is not "could" the Almighty preserve his word in the minutiae, but "did" he? The fact is that he allowed many variants. Why? I don't know, but he did. He could have given us thousands of perfect copies that do not differ from each other at all, instead we have thousands of copies which show minor variations but no two are exactly alike.

As though it were a far-fetched thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children.

So it all comes down to accepting, by faith, that God has preserved his word in the English KJV, which was then used to reconstruct the perfect Greek. The rest of the world had the preserved Scriptures, we have the perfectly preserved Scriptures. I see nothing that requires me to take that leap of faith and not assume that Erasmus had the perfectly preserved Scriptures, or Beza.

No argument can be convincing for that viewpoint, except to say that since God can preserve his word in the minutiae, then he must have, and since the Puritans used the KJV, that is where it must lie.

Could not the Papists say the same of the Vulgate and that all the other Greek manuscripts that did not reflect it must have been corrupted?

If I am incorrect then please correct me, but as this time I do not plan to respond as I don't think either of us could bring anything to the table that would be significant to the other. I believe I have a reasonable grasp of your position and just simply do not agree with it or find it convincing, nor do I think this preservation in the minutiae reflects the view of the Puritans. I'd be happy to change my views on that if I can be shown conclusive quotes, rather than general "purity of the Scriptures" quotes. I've been searching but I'm limited since I'm on travel and don't have my library with me!