The King James Version

T

he King James Version! Some have ignorantly stated, “It was good enough for Paul, and it’s good enough for me!” I have even heard a preacher say to his congregation, “I hope none of you brought that New Idiots Version into this church today,” speaking negatively of the NIV. Why does the KJV of the Bible cause so much dissension among Christians?

I was in a Christian bookstore today and an entire wall was devoted to the King James Version of the Bible as if somehow that particular seventeenth century translation is the pinnacle of holy scholarship.

The KJV is the most difficult to read, much less understand, and comes from a translation of what F. H. A. Scrivener called “…the most faulty book I know,” which was the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament. The Textus Reseptus is a highly unreliable compilation of varied Greek texts hastily put together by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 A. D.

Erasmus used very few manuscripts, most of which were very unreliable and dating only to the twelfth century. And, where verses were missing, Erasmus simply translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek, translations that neither then nor now match any other Greek manuscripts ever discovered. One example, which is given attention by Metzger and Ehrman is the KJV of Acts 9:6. The KJV is the only translation that adds the words, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” These words exist in no other version, because they were assumed by Erasmus’ own interpolation of the verse in the Latin Vulgate.

What Erasmus did in five months, when compared to the latest scholarly work, is quite scary. And how someone could not listen to the wisdom and scholarship of modern scriptural translations is nothing less than frightening.

When studying our most sacred texts, including how they began and how they have developed to the forms we read today, it is of great importance to know that some of our most reliable manuscripts evaded us for centuries. It is also important to know that many of the most unreliable manuscripts have dominated churches for close to four hundred years, thanks to Erasmus.

An example of true biblical scholarship can be seen in a strange and true story of how some of our most important manuscripts came to be found.

At a time of great economic difficulty, the cost of the writing material known as vellum was so expensive that the parchment of older biblical texts were actually scraped of their ink and used by writers who needed some more writing materials.

Imagine someone today taking a fifth century Greek writing of almost the entire Bible, scraping all of the ink off of the sheepskin, and writing something completely different on the pages. These scraped manuscripts were called palimpsests, meaning “rescraped.” One of the most important manuscripts used by scholars to translate portions of every book of the Bible except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John is a palimpsest called Codex Ephraemi rescriptus. The 209 pages of manuscript were erased in the twelfth century to record 38 sermons of a fourth century Syrian Church father by the name of St. Ephraem.

Thanks to the creation of chemical reagents and ultraviolet rays, the original fifth century writing on the vellum of Codex Ephraemi rescriptus was painstakingly rediscovered by Constantin von Tischendorf.

New translations of the Old and New Testament are made because older and more reliable manuscipts have been discovered in recent history. There are more manuscripts of even higher reliability which have not yet been released for use, because the textual scholars are not finished working with them.

Christians should not be discouraged by new translations; they should be encouraged to know that real work is being done to perfect the inerrant Word of God, which has been carelessly handled by the pens of some men.

In His dust,
Johnny

Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.

References: Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 pp. 21-22, 142-145).

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament (4th ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 p. 12).

16 Comments to The King James Version

1. Thanks for this one, Johnny.
   I do not always agree with what you write but it always makes me think. However, in this case I find that a lot of Christians think of the King James Version as the be all and end all of translations. It of course is not.
   The NIV and other more modern translations are a lot easier fr 21st century people to understand the message of God’s love for mankind.
   I, who many see as a conservative evangelical (even maybe a fundamentalist) agree with you on this one.
   Keep up challenging us with your writings.

   John Stephenson
John Stephenson on February 17th, 2010

2. John,

   Thanks for your encouragement, and thanks for letting me know that you disagree. I think that it is very healthy for Christians to disagree on theological subjects.

   As Paul told is, we see through a dark glass right now, which means none of us really know as much as we think we know. And biblical research is a wonderful means of discovery and discussion, even when we disagree. I think of my writings as an on-going research, never a dogmatic conclusion, just for the record. And I enjoy the dialogue, especially when others offer opposing views.

   Blessings,
   Johnny
Johnny on February 17th, 2010

3. I think this is very poorly written.

   While I am not an advocate for any particular transalation, your hastily conceived note ignores a number of critical areas. What about the roots of the Old Testament, specifically the compulation of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Lennongrade Codex? What about the textual criticism on the Dead Sea Scrolls? What about a discussion about the Alexandrian School and Antiochian Schools of thought on this subject.

   It looks like you have ignored the roots of the Westcott Hort compulation as well. Please do your research before your post. Happy to discuss this further, but review your facts.

   Ron Farr
Capt Ron Farr on February 17th, 2010

4. Well Captain,

   I appreciate your passion for my scholarship correctness, and I would love to dig a little deeper. The facts of the hastily written article are facts,and written for the purpose of providing support to those who wonder what all the fuss is about concerning the KJV, not the full history of the book.

   Sure, there is much more to add, so won’t you consider adding that for us?

   I’m sure we’d all love to see the research that I have missed, and you sound like just the man to give it to us.

   Thanks, friend.

   Johnny
Johnny on February 18th, 2010

5. If you have more Bible history knowledge than your brother, but you don’t have love, then you have nothing.

   Comments that add and build up are much more edifying than comments that smack down.

   I’m not concerned about Johnny, he’s a big boy. I am concerned about others, and I include myself in this group, who are discouraged by this kind of bashing. Jesus told us that our most effective testimony to the world around us is the love that we show one another.

   Where’s the love?
wayne Rumsby on February 18th, 2010

6. The Codex Leningradensis is a Hebrew Codex used to translate the Hebrew Bible. Erasmus only used Greek manuscripts, of which he used the Byzantine family (the least reliable).

   As far as any critisism of the Dead Sea Scrolls being used in the Textus Reseptus, those scrolls would not be discovered for another 350 years after the KJV was written and printed. Also, Westscott Hort was not born until 1825. I really don’t know what you’re getting at with your criticisms and poor choices of sources for the creation of the KJV.

   As far as the Antiochian and Alexandrian school of thought on the King James Version of the Bible, you will have to educate me.

   This is all very strange, but I am willing to learn and teach.

   Johnny
Johnny on February 18th, 2010

7. There is much to be said on this subject. More than I could possibly put into one post but let me begin by speaking of the Old Testament and English Translations.

   The King James Version of 1611 (and there have been a number of revisions) is a masterpiece of literature. Earlier English Bible Translators were burned at the stake for providing vulgar translations that might “pervert the people”. With that said all translations are flawed.

   Just one example Genesis 3:4 KJV States Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: the original states ויאמר הנחשׁ אל־האשׁה לא־מות תמתון׃. There is an ongoing debate in the Talmud about why the word “Die” is used twice in the original yet we as English readers make not mention of it. It might seem like a minor point but in reality it is a significant theological debate. There are thousands of Hebrew subtleties that are missed in English. Why? It’s called lost in translation.

   In short without a knowledge of the Original Languages, all translations are flawed and slanted toward the translator. So long before we discuss which families of manuscripts, schools of translation, which are more accurate, is older better, we must come to the conclustion that we “look through a glass darkly” when it comes to the English text.

   Most Christians have assumed that the Masseritic text is and always has been the standard for the Old Testament Scriptures. If fact just like the Westcott Hort, Nestle, Textus Receptus Stephanus for the New Testament, the Messeritic text is a compilation of text and fragments from different schools of thought. With the advent of the Dead Sea Scrolls the debate of Psalm 151 inclusion in the text (as it is in the Septuagant) is now back on the front burner; and yes the jury is still out on that one.

   My points are these. Firstly, it is an error to rely on any translation to the exclusion of all others because the English text, based on manuscript evidence is fluid and relative. Secondly, we place a level of faith in the translators, who all have there own bent. Thirdly, we need the whole council of scripture, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and a superior command of the languages to enter into this debate.

   My last point (for now), and it’s about the KVJ. It is a work of Art. A masterpiece of literature. By it the western world has been changed. It should not be set asside or belittled because some have difficulty navigating the language, nor should we set asside passages simply because someone has placed a footnote there saying that “some older and more reliable manuscripts…” Who is determining reliability and defining weight of manuscripte evidence? Where is their bias?

   Just some point to ponder.

   Capt. Ron Farr
Capt Ron Farr on February 18th, 2010

8. One final comment for today. I only speak these comments out of a loving desire to seek truth spoken among believers. A critical comment is not an attempt to bring anybody down but to see truth raised up.

   1Tim 2:7 (KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

   Ron
Capt Ron Farr on February 18th, 2010

9. A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
   John 13:34-35

   “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
   Matt 22:36-40

   Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
   1 Cor 13:4-8

   A loving desire to seek the truth is important, but never more important than the tone that you take with another, especially in a public forum.

   Shalom
wayne Rumsby on February 19th, 2010

10. Let me continue by speaking of the New Testament and English Translations. In the same spirit as Gen 3:4, John 1:1 reads in the original Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Let me draw you attention most importantly to καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. “and God was the Word” (capitals are my addition. The NIV and KJV translates it “and the Word was God.” Again it might seem like a small point, but the order of words in Greek does suggest priority. I would suggest that it is this lack of detail in understanding the language that has led the Jehovah’s Witness astray on this point, and has perhaps left some unprepared to give and answer to those who distort this passage.

    Now to the family of manuscripts themselves. History tells us that at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, Christians left the city. Two major centres of Christian thought developed; One in Antioch, one in Alexandria. Hence the beginning of different schools of thought.

    Are we to assume just because Textus Vaticanus and Texus Siniaticus are more accurate simply because they are thought to be from the Alexandrian school, older and more well preserved do to climate? Are we to assume that older is better? Are we to assume that Coptic or Byzantine families of manuscipts are of greater weight simply because of their quantity or age? Again we place faith in the translator who has their own bent.

    So again my points are these. Firstly, it is an error to rely on any translation to the exclusion of all others because the English text, based on manuscript evidence is fluid and relative. Secondly, we place a level of faith in the translators, who all have there own bent. Thirdly, we need the whole council of scripture, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and a superior command of the languages to enter into this debate.
Capt Ron Farr on February 19th, 2010

11. Ron,

    I disagree with most of your points, except for the fact that we do need to have a fairly strong command of the original languages. Which my MDiv studies have greatly prepared me for.

    I still stand by the conclusion of Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman that the KJV is the most faulty translation of all Bible translations. I don’t care it it’s printed on gold pages, it is still faulty due to the merely 5 months of labor that Erasmus put into placing the NT of this beautifully written book together.

    The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is far superior to the Textus Receptus, and so is Kurt Aland’s Greek New Testament, especially considering that Erasmus only used 1/2 dozen Byzantine manuscripts and his own translations from the Vulgate of any missing texts. He was also bullied into adding the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), which doesn’t exist except from a quickly made-to-order manuscript from the Fransiscan friar named Froy who insisted that it be put into his Greek text whether it could be found in any known manuscript or not.

    I refuse to allow any fundamentalist the freedom to choose a translation and give it credence based on the so-called “beauty of it’s writing.” The KJV is not superior to any other translation, nor is it helpful to most English readers in this day.

    For all of those who are reading this spat, please forgive me for sounding argumentative.

    Many blessings,
    Johnny
Johnny on February 19th, 2010

12. Psalm 151:1 I was small among my brothers, and the youngest in my father’s house; I tended my father’s sheep.

    Johnny, I hold no degree. I am simply one who seeks to understand. While I am not a fundamentalist, I take no offence in being thus slotted. I would consider myself a little less definable. I hope as be dialogue you will see that. I though we were engaged in a healthy exchange of ideas.

    I stand by my first supposition that, it is an error to rely on any translation to the exclusion of all others because the English text, based on manuscript evidence is fluid and relative. Were the Eastern Orthodox Church, The Vulgate and The Septuagint right to include Psalm 151? If we had been asked pre-Qumran the Western Church would have said they were obviously wrong. Are you willing to stand on Psalm 151’s exclusion today?

    Commenting on Shemot שמות (Exodus) 33:7 the Talmud asks the question, “How tall was Moses?” An ongoing debate in Chumash, Midrash, and Rashi has raged for centuries. Some have commented on Moses’ physical height, others on Moses’ spiritual stature. My point being that it’s often a matter of perspective, timing and a review of all the evidence.

    I stand by my second supposition that we place a level of faith in the translators, who all have there own bent. There are those who accept the KJV and its source texts, and those who place faith in the work of Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman and others. Each family of manuscripts is just that, a version of the text. Was Paul wrong in quoting the Septuagint, a translated document differing from the Hebrew text of the day? Should we disregard these passages in English because they are clearly a translation, of a translation, of a translation? I chose to remain open as new manuscript evidence is reviewed, discussed, comparing document to document.

    I stand by my third supposition that we need the whole council of scripture, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and a superior command of the languages to enter into this debate. As the King James puts so clearly

    1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    Ron
Capt Ron Farr on February 20th, 2010

13. Ron,

    It was brought to my attention that the statement about fundamenalists sounds as if it was directed at you. I should have been clearer. I wasn’t calling you a fundamentalist; I am referring to those who choose the KJV based on the belief that it is “THE” authorized version.

    I should have said that.

    I apologize.

    Johnny
Johnny on February 20th, 2010

14. First of all I need to say that I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now that there is shalom in the midst. Perhaps now I will dare to venture into the discussion.

    The first, and perhaps main point made by Johnny was that the KJV doesn’t deserve the bench mark status that it often carries in certain circles.

    What follows, next from both Ron and Johnny is a truck load of information that many of us may never have the opportunity to study. I completely agree that to rely on only one version is a mistake. I also agree with the whole council of scripture and the guidance of Holy Spirit. It concerns me though, that to enter the discussion one must have a superior command of the languages. Personally I only have a limited command of the english language, which as languages go is perhaps one of the worst.

    My approach to bible study is to use an online bible service which currently offers twenty different translations. I can’t tell you which ones are better than the others, I’ll leave that to the scholars. I can tell you that I have gained new understanding by reading difficult passages, or even just passages that I want to meditate on, from four or five different translations.

    By the way, until about the age of twenty, there were only two reliable translations, KJV (Schofield) and Darby.

    I offer Shalom (a beautiful word that can’t be translated into a single english word).
Wayne Rumsby on February 20th, 2010

15. I think that God has put the message he wants us to follow in our hearts at birth. We all know what is right and wrong. Good and bad. We do not need a bible to tell us what we already know. God is apart of use all and he sent his son to die for our sins.
Jill on March 3rd, 2010

16. Jill,

    Not to be sarcastic by any stretch, but you wouldn’t know any of that, if it wasn’t for the written Word.

    Johnny
Johnny on March 6th, 2010

Leave a comment