Authorized:
the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. Mark L. Ward, Jr. Bellingham,
WA: Lexham Press, 2018. $12.99, 168 pages. ISBN 9781683590552. This book is
available in digital or paperback from Amazon,
Lexham
Press and others. Mark L. Ward, Jr.
received his PhD in New Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University in
2012. He is the author of multiple high school Bible textbooks for BJU Press,
and now serves as a Logos Pro[i]
for Faithlife. In
addition to Authorized, he is co-author
(with Tom Breeden) of Can I Smoke Pot?:
Marijuana in Light of Scripture. He blogs at By Faith We Understand.
Just out in late January 2018, Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King
James Bible by Mark Ward comes highly recommended. It says so right on the
front cover! The book has garnered a very impressive array of endorsements. In
addition to D. A. Carson on the cover, there are Kevin Bauder, John Frame, John
McWhorter, Mark Minnick, Tom Schreiner, and Mark Strauss. Surely a book with
these recommendations is worth reading, whether one agrees or disagrees with
the premise.
I intended to excoriate the book and its author –
just ‘cause – but the author is immensely likable and even made a few good
points! On a more serious note, Mark Ward’s Authorized
is short, well-written, and engaging. It is long enough to make and sustain its
points, yet short enough that the reader doesn’t feel the needle. (Authorized would be almost as easy to
read as the NIrV
if it weren’t for all the King James jargon he included in the text!)
Survey
The book divides into 9 parts – an introduction, seven chapters, and an epilogue. In his introduction Ward gives a quick overview of the King James Bible, Bible translation, the trend away from the KJV,[ii] and the burning question in the minds of many – “what do we do with the KJV?” Chapter 1 demonstrates Ward’s view of the KJV, of which he speaks respectfully and never disparages as a poor translation. Here he acknowledges and laments five things we lose as Christians move away from the King James Bible.[iii]
In chapter 2 Ward presents a weighty reason to
move away from the KJV – trying to share the gospel only to meet the objection,
“I can’t understand this language.” This
will play better in Peoria than in Predestinarianville. (I suspect that the
author perceives the majority of his audience as Peorians.) I find this perspective interesting in light of this –
most of the more laborious
“soul-winners” that I know are IFB near-rabid KJV-Onlyists! The KJV doesn’t
seem to hinder them. Moving into the heart of the book, Ward deals with dead
words,[iv]
false friends,[v] reading levels,[vi]
and “the value of the vernacular.”[vii]
At heart of Ward’s writing, his discussion is never about whether the KJV is a
bad translation. It is always about the vernacular – what modern people speak
and understand. He roots his case in certain biblical examples – the
Great Commission, Nehemiah
8:8, 1
Corinthians 14 and within-the-text translations of “not-so-very-old,
or merely foreign, words.”[viii]
He makes one point with which it is hard to argue – you don’t know what you
don’t know!
After establishing the need of a Bible in the
current tongue of the people, Ward answers ten objections to using new Bibles
in the vernacular in place of the KJV. The objections are not concocted
strawmen. The author engages objections from Joel
Beeke to the Trinitarian
Bible Society.[ix]
He follows this with chapter 7 – “Which Bible Translation is Best?” As you
might expect, his answer is not the King James Bible. But his answer is not as
you might expect. According to Ward, picking a “best” translation is a faulty
idea. He argues “that the major evangelical English Bible translations are both
usefully different” and “substantially similar.” The value placed on the
vernacular ultimately means to choose any version other than the KJV for
preaching, evangelism, and discipleship.
Ward’s epilogue contains a call to action – buy and
read a new translation you’ve never read before.[x]
Take advantage of comparative study Bibles and Bible software.
Three Quibbles
No index. An index would be nice for reviewing
parts of the book after the fact. The endnotes are good, just in the wrong
place. Those of us who actually read them love to have them at the foot of the
page. On pages 77 and 78 the “heat maps” of Luke 14 in the KJV and ESV are too small and obscure
to be functional. These old eyes could hardly make heads or tails of them.
Recommendations
Mark Ward falls nowhere within the “KJVO”
spectrum, but in his writing reveals a respect not found among many who promote
moving to new Bible versions, and sometimes not found among certain KJVOs and
KJVPs.[xi]
I found this approach refreshing, and better for the blood pressure. My
recommendation of Authorized is a qualified yes. Yes, because the book is
well-written, a clear and reasonable presentation of the rationale to move from
King James to a modern translation. Qualified, because my recommendation does
not convey agreement with the premise. My reading of this type book is not
extensive, but does include Carson
and White.
I rank Ward’s book higher.
A challenge is good. I recommend the challenge.
With the recommendation comes this advice:
- If you are KJVO to the max, on steroids (e.g. Hylesite, Ruckmanite), read the book. It won’t hurt you, and might provide some anti-biotic for what ails ya’.
- If you are KJVO regular, read the book. We need to be conversant in the arguments put forward for modern versions versus the King James Bible. It will sharpen your mind.
- If you are KJV-lite, before reading, take several doses of vitamins K, J, and B. Read Dean Burgon, David Otis Fuller, and writings about the King James Bible on my blog. After reading Ward’s book, follow up with several more doses of vitamins K, J, and B. If you’re too “lite,” go on a diet – just don’t read the book – or if you don’t take my advice, then don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.
- If you are anti-KJV, read the book. Ward’s respectful tone towards the KJV is an antidote you need for your bad attitude.
[i] Which is outside my field
of knowledge, but must have something to do with Logos Bible Software.
[ii]
I use the name “King James Bible,” but when abbreviating use the more common
and better-known initialism KJV (King James Version).
[iii]
Here Ward does not go into issues such as underlying texts or faithful
translation, but, for example, in losing the KJV “We lose Scripture memory by
osmosis.”
[iv]
Words no longer in common use.
[v]
A “false friend” is a word in one language that looks or sounds similar one in
another language and is wrongly assumed to have the same meaning. Loosely, to
Ward, it is a word that you expect to mean something that it doesn’t. I have
previously complained about his “false friends” HERE.
Nevertheless, KJV readers should be diligent to ferret out words we don’t know,
and even ones we think we do. The anti-KJV crowd are often fooled by so-called
false friends as well, often complaining about mistranslations in the KJV when
it is they who misunderstand the meanings of the words.
[vi]
I am in general agreement with Ward concerning readability tests, which I have
written about HERE
and HERE.
I find “which Bible does the computer say is easier to read” to be a waste of
time argument. In Flesch-Kincaid
results, foreign languages, I point out that the Flesch-Kincaid can
read any language easily, and proves little about human ability to read any
given material tested.
[vii]
By which the author means the everyday language spoken by people. My wry sense
of humor is here delighted by the use of a word that is probably not commonly
used by many modern Americans. In my imagination I view them either passing over it, or looking it up in the dictionary. How fitting the topic!
[viii]
For example, Mark 5:41, “And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her,
Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” In
my view, such an example does not prove – and may even contradict – Ward’s
conclusion. Rather than an example of the “translator” (i.e., writer) putting
words in easy vernacular, which is what is advocated, this shows the writer
using a word the readers might not understand and then explaining it!
[ix]
Ward’s attention to the T-V
distinction becomes somewhat of a distraction. The tu/vous
informal/formal distinction is not the same as the thou/ye distinction in
the KJV, which is a singular/plural distinction. The argument that this
singular/plural distinction is only an odd occasional help has sent me on a
mining expedition that I will hope to share with my readers in the future. (Within
a couple of hours, I had listed a couple dozen incidents.)
[x]
He proposes seven possibilities – CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, and NLT.
No comments:
Post a Comment