Those following the ESV/KJV debate might be interested in this post by Suzanne McCarthy, explaining why she prefers the KJV as her literal translation. I don’t find the language of the KJV nearly as attractive as she does, but that’s a matter of taste in my view.
I always love to find the occasional comments by “anonymous”–clearly the same “anonymous” every time on Better Bibles–who has a love affair with pretending that subjective factors are actually objective beauty. Weird that . . .
I’ve written a considerable amount of negative stuff, not about the ESV itself, though I do have a few complaints, but about its supporters. Thus when a friend e-mailed me a new endorsement, I thought I’d take a look at why these endorsers regard the ESV so highly. The latest endorsement is ESV: the long-awaited Palmertree endorsement. The key thing about this endorsement is that, well, there is no key thing. It’s sort of an “I waited a long time and then got comfortable with it” kind of endorsement.
He does, however, cite three other endorsements: John Piper, Philip Ryken, and Mark Driscoll. I’ve dealt with Mark Driscoll’s comments before (more recently here), though he has revised the material a bit, but the bottom line is still the same. After reading the other two, I have to say that they have added little, so I’m not going to go over them point by point.
There are three elements in these endorsements of the ESV:
Nostalgia was something that drove the KJV only movment for years. Now many people who might earlier have been sort of gentle KJV advocates are realizing they need some modern version, and the ESV has proven the least shocking option. I actually have little problem with someone using a Bible for reasons of nostalgia. If you understand the ESV, and you enjoy it, go ahead and use it. The same thing goes for the KJV.
Where I have a problem with nostalgia is in churches when its used for public reading and especially outreach. Too often church people regard something as obvious, clear, enjoyable, and downright cuddly and loveable, when most of the people who come through the door find it anything but. Consider your audience when choosing a Bible translation for use in the pews.
First, I do not mean that one must not hold any theological positions, nor do I mean a position that holds the Bible to be inspired and accurate translation to be important. I have never run into anyone who doesn’t think the Bible should be translated accurately. Disagreements are about precisely what constitutes accuracy, and how one goes about achieving it.
What I mean here, however, is selecting a Bible based on how well your favorite texts support your favorite theological positions. If you have carefully examined the source languages, and tested how the English expression would be understood, and you then regard the expression used as the best expression of the meaning (pause for breath!)–then that’s fine. But that’s not what I see argued. People simply announce that the Bible in question, especially the ESV, supports their conclusion. How about some linguistic arguments, assuming you endorsers are capable of presenting them.
I put accuracy in quotes because I think this is the great failing of this entire school of Bible translating. It’s an example of the one ended telephone cord approach to meaning. In communication, there is no “accuracy” except in terms of what the receiver actually receives. You may think “propitiation” is a wonderful word, which accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek word hilasterion, but if the hearer hears “blablabla” instead, no meaning is accurately conveyed.
Of course, ESV advocates will announce that they can explain the word propitiation, and then the congregation will understand it. Well, so can the Bible translators, by translating hilasterion into something the readers understand in the first place. You complain that those using dynamic equivalence deny the readers the chance to decide for themselves. Well, all your process does is deny them the same choice by passing it on to their pastor, who has likely determined what “propitiation” means based on his church’s doctrinal statement.
Accurate translation has to convey meaning accurately from the source language to the reader or hearer in the receptor language. I repeat what has become nearly a mantra for me: There is no accuracy in a vacuum. It’s only accurate communication if the hearer accurately hears it.
A friend referred me to this page in which there are numerous really bad KJV only arguments–what other type are there?–but there was one I wanted to note in particular, because it is an argument that is often used in weaker form, but is here carried to its logical (and silly) conclusion.
First let me note that while the author of the article waxes enthusiastic on the semantic range of “epi” in Greek, he fails to discuss the semantic range of “in” and “on” in English, which, according to my Webster’s IIIrd International actually overlapped in Jacobean times. I didn’t make a particularly thorough study of that. Perhaps someone with an OED handy will comment. He should also have done further research on the semantic range of “charagma” though he probably didn’t because he really bases his conclusions on the following argument:
The modern Greek student is little more than a babe compared to these men who learned the language long before the dumbing down of education took its toll on today’s academy. They spoke the language, were able to write prose in it, and were entrenched in it. There are a few universities with classics departments like Bryn Mawr and Berkley in modern times that have standards of Greek scholarship that are truly outstanding, but few truly well-rounded students of the language are produced on the whole, and none on the level of the great scholars of the 17th century. . . .
The normal form of this argument goes like this: My expert is smarter than you, therefore my argument is true. I see this quite regularly. Some young earth creationist finds someone with a PhD who supports their argument and then asks me who am I to argue the Dr. X, PhD? For someone like me who is not a scientist, the simple answer is, “I see your PhD and raise you several hundred PhDs.” Or something like that. (I don’t play poker–don’t bother to correct the form!) More than one person can play the “expert” game. Quite often, one will find that the person citing the expert hasn’t even understood what the expert said.
In this case, however, we have taken a step further. Bible translators in the 17th century knew more Greek than anyone today, thus any translation they produce must be better than one produced by modern translators.
If this were a valid argument, all cases of disagreement would be settled by simply referencing the one person with the best credentials. Argument over. Of course, we don’t do that, because even the person with the best credentials can make mistakes. New people get their reputations by overturning the tried and true theories of previous generations of experts.
But even if the folks in the 17th century were head and shoulders above all modern academics in the area of Biblical languages, would that mean their translation was the best? Even if they conversed and wrote in Greek themselves (though Latin was more common), they did not converse in Koine Greek, and thus are no more native speakers of that language than I am. I do agree that there is a considerable problem with the education of pastors in Biblical languages. The increase in the number of people who are trained to some extent has resulted in a crowd of people who are supposedly expert enough to have an opinion, but who really know very little. I’ve often commented that when you hear the phrase “what the Greek/Hebrew here really means is . . .” you’re about to be misinformed. But none of that means that the 17th century scholars should be given the final word.
They also lacked a few things:
The idea that the 17th century had the final say on this subject is simply ludicrous. The translators of the KJV may have been excellent scholars, and I believe they were. They may have done the best they could with the resources at hand and the conditions under which they had to work. I believe they did so. But there were many things they simply could not know because they had not been discovered yet. They were so far from the time at which the source texts were written that they gained no benefit from proximity of time, as we might suppose the early church fathers had, but they also came before much of the textual evidence we have today had been discovered. The situation only becomes bleaker in terms of the Hebrew scriptures.
I’m not certain this is the silliest KJV only argument, but it certainly is an excellent candidate!
I have heard many good things about Mars Hill Church in Seattle, despite some theological disagreements (with whom do I not have such disagreements?) so I was disappointed to receive the following via e-mail from a friend: Theological reasons for why Mars Hill preaches out of the ESV.
This isn’t intended as an attack on the ESV. I put the slogan “the best Bible version is one you read.” If you find your Bible reading life lighting up when you read the ESV, then by all means use it for reading and study. If the carefully gender accurate language of such versions as the NRSV grates on your nerves, then by all means use it, but admit that it’s because of your language tastes, and not because of theology. If you’re reading the ESV because you think it is theologically more correct, or because it more accurately and clearly conveys the message of scripture to the populace in general, then I urge you to think again.
This is in the “I just couldn’t resist” category. Stating that Gail Riplinger’s “New Age Bible Versions” is poorly researched is to cast aspersions on shoddy research everywhere. Today as I was preparing a post on Isaiah 26 for this blog (which will be in the next entry), I recalled her use of Isaiah 26:3, so I took a quick look on the internet to see if there was anything more recent.
(There’s no particular reason to actually track Riplinger’s work in any detail. The errors are too widespread and pervasive to merit serious discussion.)
For those who may not be aware, in a chart (she loves charts) on page 455 of my edition (identified as 5th printing) Riplinger quotes the first part of Isaiah 26:3 in the KJV and the NASB. She then supplies a period where there is actually a comma in both versions. This prevents one from noticing either that the verse is only half quoted, or that the point of her chart is completely destroyed if the entire verse is quoted.
Her claim is that the NASB is saying that it doesn’t matter who one trusts in, that it is the steadfastness of mind that results in peace. She goes so far as to claim that people would not seek psychologists so much if the translators of the NASB had not translated as they do.
Now look at the two translations of the full verse, side by side:
| NASB | KJV |
| “The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in You. |
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. |
Now notice that the claim that the “steadfastness of mind” is somehow presented as adequate for perfect peace is completely false. The fact of dependence on God is made clear by two factors: 1) God is the one who keeps the person in perfect peace, and 2) the reason for the peace is that the person trusts in God. Of course these very plain statements are removed in Riplinger’s deceptive chart.
Now on the internet today I find her response to White. This isn’t terribly recent, but it just caught my attention. The response is just as deceitful as the original:
White hopes his readers are as weak in grammar, syntax and theology as he is. He tells easily noted outright lies, which only the “simple” (Rom. 16:18) will swallow. He begins his lambast, storming:
“[T]he rest of the verse actually contains the ‘key words’ she alleges are missing!…This kind of actual miscitation of the modern versions is rampant throughout the text of her work.”
If White can find the missing words “on thee” in that verse in his NASB, I’ll give him $1 million dollars. He is lying, the rest of the verse does NOT “actually contain the key words she alleges are missing!” His accusations fall under the category of “false allegations” (not “fair comment”) in the courts.
Actually, as I’ve pointed out, those words are there. But Riplinger apparently believes that by blustering and using strong terminology she can intimidate people into missing them. Of course they are not in her chart. But they are in the NASB.
After ranting about psychology in the church (you can read the whole thing here), Riplinger continues:
One cannot pretend, as White does, that because the words “in Thee” are a part of the next subject (he), verb (trusteth), and prepositional modifier (in Thee), that they have any grammatical connection to the earlier sentence and its syntax. The KJV has BOTH “on thee” in part one AND “in thee” in part two. The NASB omits one, thereby changing the meaning. White misses, not only the grammatical differences and hence the factual differences here, but he misses the basic biblical distinction between the heart, which trusts in God, and the mind which thinks on God. The “because” phrase tells WHY it works; it does not tell WHAT works.
Considering how much she rants about White’s English comprehension, Riplinger should perhaps study a bit of literature herself. In poetry, words can pull double duty, but even that is not the point here. The NASB correctly translates the Hebrew phrase “in you” precisely the number of times it occurs. It carries additional freight in this verse because of the Hebrew parallelism, but that is very clear in any of the major versions.
This is a case of misrepresentation, and that misrepresentation is stubbornly maintained down to the present by Riplinger. James White is correct in his analysis of the passage.
Note: Updated 3/30/08 to place blockquotes around this section. I respond to the issue of italics elsewhere. These words are quoted.
The KJV uses italics when the theological sense of a verse demands the insertion of English words to accurately complete a Hebrew thought. It is the only translation that is honest in this way. Both the NIV and NASB insert 1000’s of words, but give the reader no clue as to which words are inserted. One NIV editor’s article “When Literal Is Not Accurate” gives expression to the frequent use (6000 in the NIV) of such insertions.
The veracity of the italics in the KJV have been proven true to such a degree that this author feels no need to pick them out and set them apart as uninspired. The ten words in italics in 1John 2:23 have since been vindicated by ancient manuscript discoveries. Note the following ‘miraculous’ coincidences:
* The italics of Ps. 16:8 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Acts 2:25.
* The italics of Is. 65:1 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Rom. 10:20.
* The italics of Ps. 94:11 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 3:20.
* The italics of Deut. 25:4 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 9:9.
* The italics of Deut. 8:3 are quoted by Jesus in the Greek text of Matt. 4:4.I miscited nothing; my allegations regarding the NASB’s omission are true. White’s wrong again.
Update 3/30/08: Note that even though I did not respond here at the time I wrote this post, this issue of the use of italics, and the very suggestion that the italics are quoted in Greek is ludicrous.
One frequent accusation I hear because I prefer modern translations over the KJV for most purposes is that I hate the KJV. Presumably, the people who say such things think that they honor the KJV by means of their doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe that the KJV was probably the single greatest achievement in Bible translation. It provided a sold English Bible for use by the church. It was a Bible written in language that the people could understand. Its translators developed substantial ideas in translation theory which they expressed in their document, The Translators to the Reader. Amongst their accomplishments was the understanding that the same Greek or Hebrew word need not be translated by the same English word each time it appeared.
In addition, this group of men developed some of the basics of a committee produced translation and performed their job exceptionally well. They managed to eliminate much of the polemic from the notes, something that had been a major barrier to general acceptance of prior translations. They worked from the source languages throughout, though comparing existing translations and using the wording of the Bishops’ Bible wherever it expressed the thought of the original well.
Now the KJV-Only camp wants to deny their accomplishments in an attempt to continue the use of the translation they made at a time when it was not appropriate. While they searched for the best translation, KJV-Only advocates try to defend whatever they found ad-hoc. The KJV-Only camp has no theory of translation, no understanding of textual criticism, no understanding of linguistics, and no respect for the accomplishments of the translators.
The KJV translators used the best scholarship they had available. Scholarship has advanced since that time. We now have additional resources. A modern translator producing a translator using less than the best materials and scholarship available would be failing in his mission. He would be shirking his responsibility to the word of God. And yet this is precisely what the KJV-Only advocates want modern readers to do. They think to honor people who put out heart, soul, and mind in order to produce a wonderful new translation of the Bible to be satisfied with the old, to accept less than the best.
It does not honor good translators to use their work in the promotion of ignorance. It does not honor them to expect people to read a Bible version that is not in their common, everyday language. Their memory is not honored by stubborn ignorance.
I love the KJV, I just don’t recommend it to modern readers unless they are proficient in its language and anxious to read it either for its literary beauty or because they are familiar with it. I honor it as what it is–I don’t insult it by claiming it’s something it is not.
(For more information, see the pamphlet What about the KJV?.)
Recently I’ve talked a fair amount about using numbers as a means to dress up lies and make them look more respectable. I even discussed the issue in a Sunday School class I was invited to teach last Sunday, using the various ways in which grocery (or any) prices and sales can be stated and how those various ways can be used to deceive the consumer into buying something more expensive while thinking he’s getting a bargain.
(As an exercise, if you’re not sure you understand this idea, make a list of all the ways in which prices and specials on particular items are stated. Your list should include things like 1/2 off, 20% off, $x.xx off, 2 for the price of one, buy one/get one free, and so forth. Then think about how these numbers might be used to make the price of any particular item look better. The bottom line is that you have to bring all prices into relation to a single standard by calculating a price per unit, thus comparing the actual value you’re getting. You do have to be careful with the units used as well. I found myself comparing the price on two rolls of packing tape, one was $3.47 for 54 yards, and the other was $2.38 for 60 meters. You should be able to do that one on sight! Now consider that when people present statistical arguments to you, they have more ways even than the grocer does to make the numbers appear the way they want them to, all without actually telling a direct lie.)
It’s interesting that just as I’m writing about numbers, I get an e-mail in response to my Bible Translations FAQ that brilliantly illustrates precisely the type of misdirection and lying with numbers that I’ve been talking about.
The e-mail consisted of a text, badly abused, followed by a table of numbers, followed by a paragraph containing his challenge. I’m going to look at the last paragraph first. The correspondent identified himself simply only by his initials, so I’m going to call him C, for correspondent.
C states:
So, as you have so aptly put it in some of your responses to others, “Them’s just the facts”.
Well, no, them’s just the lies, as I will show below. Claiming something is a fact doesn’t make it one.
Let’s see you include this e-mail to your web site section on “KJV Bible Translations FAQ”;
I’ll include a link to this blog entry. How’s that?
if you truely don’t have a hatred for the KJV (as you’ve stated), then you would have no problem presenting the facts as they stand, without your commentary, and let the reader decide for themselves based on the factual evidence!
My rejection of your arguments has nothing to do with hating the KJV; it has to do with the fact that your “facts” are wrong, and your logic incorrect. You would, of course, like me to post your table without my commentary, because falsehood hates the light. You know that any commentary on your table will show it to have no evidentiary value whatsoever. The only hope you have for such arguments to work is that people who don’t know better will read it quickly and think the numbers and your assurance in presenting them is impressive in themselves. You absolutely can’t afford to have anyone think about your little number table.
I sure hope this e-mail contains enough “substance” worthy of your response!
Actually, your argument is simply a repetition of the argument I answered in my Bible Translations FAQ, #12, based on the majority of the manuscripts. The only reason I’m responding to it is because you provide such an excellent example of abuse of numbers in making an argument.
Concerned for the lost,
Bluntly, I doubt it. If you were concerned for the lost, you would likely be more interested in the gospel message and less interested in the support of a nearly 400 year old Bible translation that now more often than not stands in the way of people who want to understand the Bible. The KJV Only position is not a position that honors the word of God. It is not “Bible believing.” It is man serving in two ways: First, because it elevates the work of human beings–a translation–into the position of God’s actual word, and second because it serves primarily to support the positions of spiritual power of its advocates over others. It is destructive spiritually and intellectually.
Now, let’s look at the table:
The KJV Greek Text Attested by the Evidence
Manuscripts
Total
WH/TR
%MSS
WH/TRPapyrus
81(88)
13/75
15%/85%
Uncials
267
9/258
3%/97%
Cursives
2764
23/2741
1%/99%
Lectionaries
2143
0/2143
0%/100%
Totals
5255
45/5210
1%/99%
Now let’s consider this chart briefly. I’m not going to deal with the actual numbers, though there appear to be some errors there. For example, it is quite doubtful that the editors of the Textus Receptus actually consulted 2143 lectionaries. But even if all of these numbers were correct, the chart as it is would convey a lie. Numbers require a context; they do not have independent meaning. In this case, the numbers are tabulated so as to suggest that many less manuscripts were used in producing the Westcott & Hort text than in producing the Textus Receptus (TR), and the TR is inturn equated to the KJV Greek text. In some way, not stated, this is supposed to convince us that the KJV text is correct.
No reference is given for these numbers, but one is quite easy to locate. A google search provides us with The Bible Believer’s Baptist web site has their Bible Tidbit #65: Westcott & Hort which is itself a disgusting ad hominem attack, contains such a chart, and they reference it to THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY without providing further information. This tactic is used by KJV Only advocates to make their arguments look more respectable–after all, the source is an encyclopedia. But a little more checking leads us to the encyclopedia web site, The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity. Here we discover of this “encyclopedia” that:
“It is the only Bible dictionary/encyclopedia that is written by a Fundamental Baptist and based strictly upon the King James Bible.”
and
It does not correct the Authorized Version of the Bible . . .
So it is a KJV Only advocates encyclopedia, giving them a respectable sounding reference for misinformation–and this chart is definitely misinformation.
Here are the issues with the context and presentation of these numbers:
All this chart does is wrap the respectability of numbers around a much repeated lie. If you stop and examine the numbers, and consider what they actually mean, you will find that these “facts” do not convey what their author has dressed them up to convey. That is what you need to do with all deceptive numbers.
