Is the Issue Translation or the Greek Text?
We have received a good number of comments regarding Jon’s post on the KJV Onlyism and fundamentalism. 
We are not able to post every comment on the site for a number of reasons, but we do want to be sensitive to the critiques of our views. We certainly do not believe we have all the answers, and this is an issue which finds good men on both sides of the debate. As a user of modern translations, I still find myself able to preach from the King James when I am out in a church that uses this version as its preferred text. I normally ask the host pastor what version he would like me to use, and I never quibble when asked to use the King James. Frankly, it was the Bible with which I was discipled, and all of the Scripture I committed to memory was from the KJV. I have never felt the need to relearn these Scriptures from another newer version.
Bible versions are a matter of Christian liberty for me—use the version you feel is best suited to your purposes, but please allow me to do the same. When I pastored in Canada, I switched to a modern version (the NASB 95) because many of my church attenders did not speak English as their first language. Over the years we had nearly 20 different nationalities represented in the congregation. Many had only learned English since arriving in Canada, and we had a few attenders who knew little English when they started to attend! How could I in good conscience give them a Bible, translated nearly 400 years ago using Elizabethan English? Doth they understandeth what they readeth? Methinketh not! This is certainly not to disparage a translation that God has clearly used for nearly 400 years, but I wanted those under my care to understand the Word that they read.
Also, I am a Baptist. Baptists have historically wanted the Bible to be in the language of the common man. For English speakers today, that is not Elizabethan English. I currently prefer the ESV, and use it in my teaching and preaching if I have the choice. It is odd to me that today so many who contend for the KJV, ultimately contend for a translation that is no longer in the language of the average English speaker.
Some, however, have argued that the real issue is not a particular translation but the underlying text type. There are men who believe that the best Greek text is the so-called textus receptus (TR). It should be pointed out that this is not a true representative of the Majority text, although the manuscripts used are of that lineage of texts (commonly referred to as the Byzantine text-type). These brethren argue that they use the KJV because it is translated from the TR. Oddly, I have found few of these men who would permit a new translation from the TR. I have heard arguments like “Who would do it?” or “Why do we need it?” What this says to me is that, no matter how you slice it, it still comes down to a de facto KJV only position. These TR men are unwilling, for the most part, to use the NKJV, which was an attempt to update the KJV but which still followed the TR.
I have never particularly cared for the NKJV because it seems to have satisfied no one. Those who argued for the TR would never seem to grant the need for an updated translation from the KJV, and those who preferred a modern English version felt that the NKJV did not go far enough. It seemed to be a poor choice all the way around, though some churches do use it instead of the KJV.
So the question actually is—what is the real issue? Is it text types or the preservation of a particular English version? If there is a movement in fundamentalism arguing for a modern translation of the TR, I would be happy to know of it.
Jeff Straub
Jon Pratt
Daniel Brown
Kevin T. Bauder
Michael Riley
I wondered a little about your reasoning here. Are you not happy with the NKJV because of prevailing market forces, or are there issues with the translation that should remove it from consideration, in your estimation?
Greg
My primary issue is that it uses the TR. If you are going to have an updated version, the TR is not the text to use. Maybe the Majority Text (Farstad and Hodges) or something simpilar but not the TR. However, since I use the ESV, you would know that I am not committed to the MT.
Jeff
Dr. Straub,
It is interesting that you ask this question. I commented on the earlier Dr. Pratt post, contending the real “odd man out” is the one with a preference or strong affinity for the King James Version. The origin of this belief is a result of discussions on the very topic of your article today.
In the company of KJV-Only proponents I have asked “Why not advocate for a new TR translation?” This has been met with more than simple opposition, even causing an observable level of anger. My contention has always been – if the concern is for the reliability of the manuscripts, men ought to consider themselves TR-Only, therefore remaining open to an updated translation from the Byzantine text. My experience has been that most will not concede the point. Their explanation usually centers on higher textual criticism and other impossible-to-follow minutia.
On the other hand, many modern version advocates refuse to consider the arguments for a more-reliable TR text, because the people presenting them sometimes come to a wrong final conclusion. I have heard brilliant men, with measured and defensible positions on the subject referred to in all manner of unflattering ways. The implication is always that they are misguided zealots who don’t have a leg to stand on.
I admit I use the KJV partially because I feel more comfortable with TR reliability. Contrary to popular opinion, perhaps even your own, there are well-reasoned, legitimate concerns on that side of the issue. Those concerns are merely opinions. Views to the contrary are also just opinions.
My biggest concern is that learned Christians on both sides often refuse to admit their position is based on subjective historical judgment. They (we) would rather believe that they are verifiable facts that cannot be disputed. I would assert again that this is the chief problem in the debate.
My answer to your question? Yes, I have concerns about textual reliability and yes, I would support an updated translation from the TR.
Chris Harper
Fairbanks, Alaska
Chris:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As you can see from my comment to Greg that I am neither a TR man nor a MT or Byzantine man. I do think that the MT is a defensible position, though it is not my position.
Blessings from MN
Jeff
I would like to see a modern translation that uses the MT, but I am not aware of anyone tackling this at the moment. I think it is probably the best text type out there, but I would not necessarily be dogmatic on that.
Dr. Straub,
For what it is worth, the NKJ does use the TR. I’m sure that it was in Arthur Farstad’s mind to use an MT text; however, Farstad and Hodges didn’t finish/publish their Greek manuscript until 1982. NKJ was first published in 1975. Robinson/Pierpont did not finish their MT until 1991. However, according to the preface of NKJV, it appears as if the editors of the NKJV believed that the MT and TR were related, although not identical (Wallaces counts over 1800 differences between the two). In their introduction, the comittee decided to “retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes.” The reason they decided to retain the traditional text was that their translation was not seen or viewed as a new translation, but as “the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts.” They were not making a new translation based upon new texts, they were simply updating an old translation.
I’m also not sure that the KJ was based on the “TR” per se. If I remember correctly (although our library does not have a copy of Scrivener’s GNT underlying the KJV), the translators of the TR based their work off of the TR, Bezae, and a number of other mss (many of which were either lost to history. Scrivener had found more than 250 differences between Stephanus’ text and the text underlying the AV.
I myself prefer and use the ESV. I do know of some churches who preach from the KJV and give new believers the NKJV. I know that Fourth uses NKJV (although I’m not exactly sure why).
David, the problem with creating a reliable translation (and by reliable I mean by a committee of scholars, not by some lone gunman) off of the MT is that it no publisher would actually attempt the feat. It simply costs too much to do a translation that very few churches would adopt, and fewer people would read and buy.
C A Watson
PS. Dr. Straub, why do you think that the MT is a defensible position?
Chris:
Let me try to answer you very briefly. I am not suggesting that the MT has the best argument or even a good one. Only that it has one. The TR position on the other hand is based on a couple of misunderstandings.
First in the TR, Erasmus used textual criticism or textual comparison. It is a well know fact that he had a handful of manuscripts that he used to make his text. Erasmus deserves credit in that he got the ball rolling (so to speak) when it came to looking at the manuscripts.
Second the TR position is built off a faulty view of perservation. That God preserved His Word most all of us would agree. Just how He did that is the matter at hand–miraculuously or providentially. Any one who has ever preached more than a handful of sermons knows how easy it is to misread the Bible when reading it publicly. We skip a line here or there, omit a word, cite a different word. I am not preserved in the reading of the Word. Neither are my students preserved in the writing of the Word when it comes to exams. Mistakes are made. So, what does this have to do with the issue at hand? The fact of the matter is that there are something like 5300 Greek manuscripts, either in whole or in part. No two agree with each other on every detail. So our KJVO friends argue that God miraculuously preserved His Word in the TR. How do we know that the TR is the preserved Word? Because they affirm it to be. The only evidence that can be offered is misunderstood and misapplied biblical texts.
Oddly, why could the Nestles 27 not also be a miraculuous act of preservation? Because it differs from the TR. But the TR differs from so many other manuscripts, even in the MT
tradition. At least with a true MT position, there is a willingness to admit the need for textual criticism. With a TR only position, there is a naivety that seems to think that textual criticism is inherently evil because man is made to be the judge of the Bible. It worked for Erasmus, why not for Metzger? There is an unwillingess to recognize that Erasmus (likely an unbeliever himself) used textual criticism. The TR men are willing, if tacitly, to admit that textual criticism was good in the 16th century but today it cannot be trusted. The only way that the TR can be defended is by rhetoric and misinformed faith. The evidence cannot sustain a reasoned argument for it.