The Bible Version Issue and Separation
A quick detour into practical application
I haven’t posted in a while, but I’ve enjoyed the discussions we’ve had on the blog lately. Particularly since the posting of the Maurice Robinson interview, the discussion on this site has been lively, engaging, and informative. I’m impressed with how this blog has grown in a short amount of time, and happy to be a part of it.
As I read the recent posts and the ensuing comments, I’m reminded of a principle that took me away from King James Onlyism in the first place: the issue of Bible versions is complicated. No, I’m not saying the issue is too complicated to study or comprehend, but it is more technical than a simple grasping at one particular version and calling it a day. As former KJV onlyists, we can testify that, for the most part, this doctrine is presented as too simple. “If it’s good enough for Paul. . .”
Thankfully, we haven’t encountered too much oversimplification in recent days here. What is obvious is that the task of understanding the history of textual transmission is quite large and quite deep. Some base their conclusions on the church. But what church? Others on the manuscripts. Which ones? How do we know we’re receiving the right information? Who should we trust? The debate is not over. One of the characteristics of our blog that I love is that we’re not textual critics. We don’t work at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. We’re not from Bible.org or evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com. While my fellow contributors are widely read and have sharp minds, we all come to the table as analyzers of the facts that have been given, not the producers of those facts. Our practical, lay-centered understanding of the issues offers a perspective one may not find on sites dedicated solely to scholarship.
So what does all this mean? On an applicatory level, the depth of the issue of Bible versions shows that it is unnecessary, and in my opinion, sinful, to separate ecclesiastically from brethren who hold a different view of the text. In fact, debates such as we have will probably be more helpful as Christians with differing views come together to discuss rather than throw stones.
When I forsook my KJV onlyism, it became my opinion that the modern, critical texts were the most consistent and reliable. I am very comfortable in saying that may change. It doesn’t bother me to admit that. I think the majority text perspective, unnecessarily hindered by its unfortunate association with the shrill of King James onlyism, has merits that ought to be more publicized. And I don’t believe that King James Onlyists themselves offer no food for thought; they certainly do. All of this is to say that the issue isn’t completely settled in my mind and perhaps never will be, yet I’m not bothered by it. I wish to study more and watch as more light is shed on the issue over time. I believe that an approach like this, void of dogmatic declarations, conspiracy theories, and assumptions of heresy is the best approach to take on this issue. Those who oversimplify the issue, take hold of the King James, and work backwards from that position aren’t being true to the technicalities of the debate. My plea is for a continuation of good, honest, Christian discussion.
Bible, Bible Translations, Bible Versions, Doctrine, Ecclesiology, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, Majority Text, Separation, Textual Criticism
Good, honest Christian discussion is indeed what we need.
Sadly, we often get so caught up in discussing the Bible that we forget to practice what it teaches and show love.
Good thoughts, Damien.
JLS
Interesting timing Damien. I agree with your view that the issue is COMPLEX. And hence, we need charity. Now those launching grenades at the other side, don’t need our charity, to be sure. There are some versions of this thinking that are very dangerous in a carcinogenic kind of way. But overall, I think I’d be hard pressed, having once been a KJV Onlyist to advocate totally writing them all off.
Unfortunately, that is what seems to be happening in some conversations over at Sharper Iron related to Central Seminary’s statement on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.
Furthermore, I think careful, honest Christian discussion on this topic is helpful to more than just the participants in the discussion. Others read over our shoulder and are helped. It makes the effort of maintaining a site where even the authors get peeved at one another every once in a while, and don’t line up on all points exactly the same, worth while.
Thanks for a good post.
Bob
Hi Folks,
The thing about the Reformation Bible –> KJB position is that it is not complicated at all. (Except when dubious theories are built around.)
Men with great insight and tremendous Christian background, knowledgeable in manuscripts and early church writers, successfully puzzled out the dichotomy in the two principle Bible preservation lines, Greek and Latin, (and the Syriac can also be in there as a complementary corroborative element). This compiled ad accurate text, providential even, and defeated the variety pack of Vulgate positions of the RCC in the Battle of the Bible.
What happened in the 1800s –> 1871 GNT and 1881 Revision is just a blip of confusion, very easy to understand, and it was exposed right away. Although today perhaps we can see through the glass brighter. (e.g. Why the main defender of the Reformation Bible was himself a mild critic.) 1871 was only a back-door attempt to continue the earlier Rbattle with a Vulgate-and-much-worse style GNT.
The KJB position is simply the same Reformation Bible understanding with inspiration and preservation and providential guidance taken a step further.
Now, I know you will likely be upset that I am actually sharing this as a conviction, a belief, not as a bunch of wondering questions. The question I ask you is whether doubt and uncertainty is a must to talk about the Bible ?
Why not dialog with those who really believe their Bible 100% as well, the Bible in their hand, the one they read each day. Believe the Bible as inspired and preserved, pure and perfect.
As long as you do not have a vested interest in doubt and uncertainty and unclarity .. such should be a very vibrant discussion !
Shalom,
Steven Avery
You’re certainly entitled to your position, Steve, but even the comment above belies the difficulties of this discussion. Even the main defender of the Reformation Bible (I’m thinking you mean Burgon) was a mild critic. Certainly to a new believer today introduced to the differences between the Bibles, he has to be confused and when he tries to sort it out, it is inevitable that there will be some complex arguments to consider from both sides.
Of course, not every KJVO argues as you do. I’m happy if you distance yourself from those within our backgrounds who hold to a KJVO position. But please understand where we come from – the was all too often presented as cut and dry: “Psalm 12 promises the words of the Lord are preserved, and the KJV is those preserved words!” The problem with that is the gigantic gap between Psalm 12 and 1611. Within that gap, we see complications of history, of ecclesiology, of manuscripts, etc.
If I was a person who “really believed (my) Bible 100%”, but that Bible wasn’t a KJV, wouldn’t you argue with me? If Christians are supposed to have the kind of certainty you have, what of Christians in Alexandria in the 2nd century? Christians reading Syriac in the 4th? Christians reading Luther’s Bible in Germany? Christians around the world today speaking languages other than English?
As to your question, no, I wouldn’t make the claim that “doubt and uncertainty is must to talk about the Bible.” You are entitled to your certainty, but I also don’t believe that certainty is required either. In fact, as Dan Wallace once noted, it seems there has been a substitution of certainty for truth in our Christian culture. Coming out of the brand of fundamentalism I did, I wholeheartedly agree. So while I am candid concerning my own personal thoughts, I don’t think it’s fair to conclude I “have a vested interest in doubt and uncertainty and unclarity.”
How can you knock the Vulgate, when the very book you quote to defend the nonstandard phrase “Reformation Bible” includes the Douay-Rheims as a Reformation Bible? Also, if we are interested in reform, wouldn’t it be the Geneva Bible that would be the English Bible of Reformation?
Hi Folks,
Jaroslav Pelikán refers to the Rheims as a product of the Roman Catholic Reformation,which is a bit of an oxymoron, so the phrase usage is irrelevant.
Reformation Bible referring to the Geneva, KJB, Luther, Swedish, Polish and other Bibles is used in many standard scholarly discussions. This simply is the best term to describe the translations from the Received Text to dozens of languages, especially in the period 1525-1650.
Shalom,
Steven
Hi Folks,
“If I was a person who “really believed (my) Bible 100%”, but that Bible wasn’t a KJV, wouldn’t you argue with me? ”
I have a lot more respect for that position, even when mistaken than for the modern version hodge-podge. e.g. The Peshitta folks.
I gently try to show them the problems, like the five books missing and various problems with their understanding, always acknowledging respect for their position.
Beyond that .. it is hard to consider conjectural situations that do not apply in the real world.
Shalom,
Steven
Hi Bob,
And I agree that there was a little less clarity among many in 1881 than we have today. For many reasons. Before 1881, folks were simply appreciating their AV, and the critics were chirping in the background, and there was not real concern or major interest and understanding. Inspiration and preservation were not sought out deeply, the tangible nature examined, partly because all the churches and believers did at least highly respect the AV.
In a sense, that was the good point of the Revision error. Up to that point a number of solid evangelical folks were very strong for the “Traditional Text”, “the Received Text” and the “Common English Version”. Yet it was considered proper, the norm, to always have some dig or criticism. Often these smaller criticisms were individually unique, yet it was felt by the pressures of the day that a mild disclaimer was necessary.
This is the appreciation phenomenon .. you do not appreciate your health until a bad day, the prophet is not honored in his home town, the pure Bible is not given full honor and respect when there is a version dark nipping at the heels.
Even to 1950 … Wilkinson, e.g. never specifically defended the heavenly witnesses and Hills had his three sort-of errors in the Received Text.
We now see the glass brightly, and realize that the problem was one of perspective, and every Reformation Bible –> KJB verse is very beautiful and majestic, the pure word of God.
We look at the hundreds of attacks on the pure Bible and see how strained they are, we look at the verses themselves like Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses and see how beautiful are both the verses and how strong the textual history support.
So we assert, KJB defenders, that we are in a different position today. The insight of our pure Bible is greater in 2010 than it was on 1881. We hugely appreciate the incredible efforts of Dean Burgon, he walked in the light of his time .. yet we see his own little criticisms were really piddles, nothings, in terms of textual theory, simply a minor weakness he had.
There is no complexity per so, no huge complication.
If you really look to ‘debate’ with full KJB defenders, those who will examine with you textual paradigms, compare evidences, explain translation skills compared, show modernist downhill tendencies in text and translation .. then the critical position is the one that fully defends the tangible, readable Bible in hand as the pure and perfect word of God.
And such a position is by definition non-complicated spiritually, and only mildly complex technically.
Shalom,
Steven
As early as 1831 Daniel Webster, thought the original sense of the KJV had been impaired by language changes and began working on a revision – a mere 62 years after the Blayney revision.
Hi Folks,
That was Noah Webster’s Bible (correction from Daniel) which is available online and is 100% the same underlying text as the KJB, so it is only involving translational issues.
Webster largely left the KJB alone but had some quirky grammatical and vocabulary ideas, and he wanted some verses more sanitized for delicate ears, and he had some of the more standard supposed corrections that we discuss today.
Shalom,
Steven
Yeah – *Noah* Webster! Thanks.
So, I’m confused here. You are not a KJVO – you are a TRO? Is that correct?
Damien,
Why do textual critics engage in NT textual criticism? Some, perhaps, do so in order to quietly answer questions they have about the message of the original text. But the main practical goal, historically, has been to provide a Greek text to be used as the base-text for translation. And that adds an interesting factor to the work: although the objective of textual criticism is to recover exactly the original text, the goal toward which that objective is a stepping-stone is the conveyance of the meaning of the original text.
If the conveyance of the meaning of the original text is the primary goal of textual criticism (and the exact determination of differences without a meaningful effect is secondary, and a working base-text can be compiled without ever becoming definitive), then – poof – the main subject of the work of NTTC is greatly simplified. All the variants that do not affect meaning may be set aside. Many of them are certainly interesting, and they may be important pieces of evidence by which we might be able to reconstruct a model of text-transmission. But the main subject is reduced to meaning-affecting variants. And among those meaning-affecting variants, there are some variants which everyone recognizes as anomalies that cannot possibly be original, and thus the size of the main subject shrinks a bit more.
It shrinks to a size that a normal individual can fathom, if he is willing to put in a few months of careful study. As you stated, “the issue of Bible versions is complicated,” but even a complicated knot can be unwound by someone with the patience to study it and attempt to unwind it. The alternative is to write and write about the knot, and never attempt to unwind it.
So I encourage you all to become textual critics if you seek to explore and hope to resolve text-critical questions. If you don’t want to explore and resolve text-critical questions and approach the textual issues scientifically, there is an easy solution: slice the knot by having your elders endorse a specific translation, as a point of expediency. But if that does not sound entirely satisfactory to you – if you feel that you would still like to explore and resolve text-critical questions – then you have to become textual critics.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I appreciate the thoughts, James. If I read this post, not having written it, I would have latched on to a few things I said as well. But my personal engagement with these issues (and lack thereof) is not really the point. For textual critics, it’s one thing, but I’m speaking more on a practical, ecclesiological level. I believe it is unnecessary to separate based on the Bible version debate. Not everyone is going to be a text critic, and as you point out, it takes serious study to untie this not.
Hi Folks,
Damien
“critical texts were the most consistent and reliable.”
This is a bit hard to follow .. could you give some examples of where you see “consistency” and “reliability” in the “Critical Texts”. Are you talking of the underlying theories, translational elements, the fact that the texts won’t change much till NA-28, internal harmony ?
One aspect is very clear, the Critical Texts tend to clash with their English translations, so that you do not even know if the resurrections account in the Gospel of Mark is supposed to be scripture. (And other major variants.) That perplexity confounding the word of God and the tampering of man is hard to see as “consistent”.
====================
Damien
“Those who oversimplify the issue, take hold of the King James, and work backwards from that position aren’t being true to the technicalities of the debate. ”
This always perplexes me when it is supposed to represent my KJB views. I used the NAS and NIV until I studied the issues. The first book involved was called The Search for the Word of God by Daniel Seagraves and it specifically emphasized many aspects of modern textual criticism theory, showing the deficiency of the theories. I am currently rereading it decades later.
Thus I moved to the Reformation Bible .. as a result of new textual understandings. From this new position .. the KJB position came out of a similar analysis of specific variants like the heavenly witnesses and combined with studies about the promises of inspiration and preservation.
So why am I supposed to have worked backwords ???
And, beyond my situtation .. isn’t it true that if the Reformation Bible and/or KJB position are true, any proponent can easily be accused of working backwards ? (This is the most common accusation I find.) Is that proper if the position is sincerely held and consistent ? Is not the proper question whether it is true or not, not whether you would prefer it to be reached by B-A rather than A-B ?
Aren’t you trying to diss a textual position by wrongly implying that those that hold the position have not done so with eyes open, logic belts tightened, etc.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
The consistency and reliability of the critical texts appeared to me as a studied my way out of KJVOism, as I said above. When I was taught that the TR was based on a majority of witnesses, yet there were late, minority readings contained in the text, I wondered how one could have a consistent standard. Then I began to read some textual apparatus notes and saw that there were at least justifications for the readings selected in the newer texts. Now before you try to refute that as I’m sure you’re able, realize I’m just sharing the story of my own personal study-journey. That is not the point of the post.
Secondly, if I said “Those who. . .take hold of the King James and wok backwards. . .aren’t being true to the technicalities”, and you claim that you haven’t done so, then logically, the “those who” isn’t about you.
And no, I’m not dissing any position by those things, otherwise they’d be said in the post. Please see my comment bellow so we can discuss the main point.
Gentleman, thanks for the comments so far. I went back and emboldened the main point of the post because that’s where I wanted to focus the discussion. Should churches/Christians separate from one another based on this debate? My argument is obvious: the debate is too complex to do so. But can we keep it to that point?
Most of us who contribute come from the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist world, which practices separation on this basis. Perhaps, Steve and James, you guys have not. Maybe this isn’t an issue for you. Your commentary is still welcome, of course.
Hi Folks,
You may well be involved with a church with depth of covenant, or mostly sound doctrines, where there is a spot of confusion on the Bible issue. Such is unfortunate, but I would not set a personal standard that the pure Bible is an absolute foundation of fellowship.
And I would not chastise those who divide on the issue, since often it reflects a deep difficulty, and it is proper to split on sound doctrine, and it is easy to see that the foundation of doctrine is part of doctrine.
And I would not chastise those who have, at least for a season, a combination of pure Bible conviction and the multi-version approach. If a person is in Christian covenant in such a church, they may perhaps sublimate the pure Bible issue, if they believe to be led by God to do so.
Shalom,
Steven
I do not believe it is necessary to separate over which Bible is used. I do have a problem if someone attempts to dictate to me which Bible or which Greek text to use. I recently looked into helping a group plant a church in a distant suburb of the Twin Cities. They already were working on some of their documents. Their doctrinal statement took a hard TR line. I was wanting to preach holding an ESV (and preaching my own translation). I offered to the families that they could keep their position, but not in the doctrinal statement, as I would not be able to agree with that position due to my training in textual criticism. I was immediately told that I was not the right fit for the church. However, we departed with no animosity between us.
There is natural separation in this position. I probably couldn’t work with Bob in a worship service unless he was willing to allow me to pick the music. I can preach from the King James if I am a visitor in a church. If, however, I am the pastor of a church, don’t tie my hands. I can have limited fellowship with a KJO proponent – as long as he remains amicable.