Were the KJV Translators KJV-Only?

“Were the KJV Translators KJV-Only?” is a skewed question used as a means to an end. The better question is, “What did the KJV translators claim they accomplished?”

Here is what the translators (represented by Thomas Bilson & Miles Smith) write.

There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your Majesty: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this Work, which now with all humility we present unto your Majesty. For when your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your Majesty did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

Epistle Dedicatory

Translators to the Reader

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.

What did the translators mean by what they wrote?

“A faithful student of the word of God looks up all kinds of words. The one’s they think they know, the ones they know, and the ones they do not know. Looking up ‘false friends’ falls within one of these three categories.” Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. to Mark Ward

The translators were called on to establish out of the previous translations one principal translation for the use of the English-speaking people. That was their goal they focused on accomplishing.

Early reception of the King James Bible

The claims of the slow acceptance of the KJV have been exaggerated, and some scholars are now debunking this myth.

Kenneth Fincham pointed out “the sheer number of editions indicates strong demand to own a copy” and speaks of “its broad acceptance by 1640” (“The King James Bible: Crown, Church and People,” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Volume 71, Issue 1, 2020.)

Mordechai Feingold pointed out that “as in the case of any new contribution to knowledge, a phase of acculturation was required” but that “scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start” (“Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Lose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” Chapter 1 in Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Erudition and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible, Brill, 2018).

Writing of John Bunyan and John Milton using the language of the King James Bible, Hamlin and Jones say that “One mark of the KJB’s dominance over other translations at this point is its use by writers like these, who had little sympathy with King James and his Church. Thus, even for non-conformists, radicals, and dissenters, the KJB had become the English Bible.” (The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, edited by Hannibal Hamlin, Norman W. Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Hamlin and Jones also point out “Although one might think that the Puritan Commonwealth would have been committed to the Bible most associated with English Puritans (the Geneva), even Oliver Cromwell now favored the KJB (printed by John Field, first Printer to Parliament and then ‘one of His Hignes [i.e. Cromwell’s] Printers’)...” Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB, and its domination of the English Bible market was assured for the next 250 years.”

But let’s go back even earlier. Notice in 1618, only seven years after the publication of the new translation, the Reformed Synod of Dordt held at Dordecht, Holland (now Netherlands) speaking of the 1611 translation said “honorifica accuratissimæ translationis Anglicanæ” (that is, “the honor of mentioning the most accurate English translation”). This is a group that, according to modern animadversions, should have preferred the Geneva translation over the KJV. Only seven years – and this bible is recognized outside of England and English, by people who had no pressure to think otherwise, as the most accurate English translation.

The supposed slow reception of the translation commissioned by King James is, in my opinion, an exaggeration or myth used to attack the King James Bible (or, at least in the dreams of some of the naysayers, attack King James-Onlyists). It should be revised according to the historical facts that contradict their theme.

Tyndale “firsts”

William Tyndale (ca. 1492-1536) was a pioneer of English Bible translation. Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English accomplished several “firsts.” I gleaned the following “firsts” from various sources. I think most are reasonably well-established facts.

• The first English Bible translation directly from Hebrew and Greek texts
• The first English Bible translation printed in large quantities; first printed on the printing press
• The first English Bible translation to use Iehouah (Jehovah)
• The first English Bible translation to use passeouer (Passover)
• The first English Bible translation to use scapegoote (scapegoat)
• The first English “Reformation-era” Bible translation
• The first incomplete English Bible translation completed by Miles Coverdale
• The first English Bible translation translator who was executed by the Roman Catholic Church for heresy (this one might not be a first; hard to tell for certain)

[Note: John Wycliffe, who translated the Latin Bible into English (Middle English), died in 1384. 44 years later, in 1428, the Bishop of Lincoln, England (Wycliffe having been now condemned as an heretic by the Council of Constance in 1414), ordered that his remains be exhumed (or at least they got somebody’s) and burned. The ashes were thrown into the River Swift. The Lord knoweth them that are his (and where to find their remains).]

A “Standard” Bible

Oddly, there is one body, and one Spirit, one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all … and hundreds of English Bible translations!

Though there are hundreds of translations, there are over a dozen vying to be the “standard sacred text.” How do we know? Because they tell us so by including “standard” as part of their names.

Notice all of these Bibles that use “Standard” in their names (with their most recent edition, if known):

• American Standard Version (1901)
• Aramaic English Standard Version (1987/2006) (English translation of the Peshitta)
• Berean Standard Bible (2023)
• Christian Standard Bible (2017)
• English Standard Version (2025)
• Holman Christian Standard Bible (2009)
• International Standard Version (2014)
• Legacy Standard Bible (2021)
• Literal Standard Version (2020)
• Majority Standard Bible (2022) (majority text version of the BSB)
• New American Standard Bible (1963/2020)
• New Revised Standard Version (2021)
• Revised Standard Version (1952/1977)
• Refreshed American Standard Version (2022)
• Updated American Standard Version (2022)

Additionally, some Bibles aspire to be “International” or “World” Bibles. The ISV incorporates two ideas, “International” and “Standard.” This all seems to suggest that there is a heart longing to have one standard Bible. (Or maybe it is just clever marketing.)

A number of these “standard” Bibles – far from being standard – have fallen by the wayside. Some may have never made it as far as the wayside! When all is said and done, the King James Bible is still the standard – the one that every other Bible wants to be or to replace.

Arthur Farstad and the NKJV

This is an interesting version of the history of the New King James Version by Edwin Blum, the man who took over the Holman Christian Standard Bible project upon the death of Arthur Farstad, who was originally in charge of it. In an interview with Will Lee (December 19, 2007), Blum stated:

“[Arthur Farstad] and Zane Hodges published their own critical text. But they made a distinction between the Textus Receptus (TR) and the MT. So they published this critical text with Thomas Nelson and there were two editions done of it, so he was interested in the MT tradition, not necessarily the TR which was the translation that the KJV was based on. So when he was working on the NKJV, he wanted to change the text in about 260 places that he felt the KJV text did not represent the MT. In other words, he made a distinction between TR, the Byzantine tradition and the critical text. And they did publish an interlinear, and each time there’s a variant reading, down at the bottom it will say, ‘Critical Text,’ ‘TR,’ or ‘MT,’ so you’ll be able to tell which is which. But the people who were backing the NKJV did not want to do any textual critical changes. So he was not too happy with that.”

Blum’s comments make it sound like they got further into the translation process (than I had thought) before Farstad’s “Majority Text” aspirations for the NKJV were shut down. This seems a bit different than the general face painted on this picture. There is a comment by Farstad about this in an unpublished paper, which seems to accurately intersect with the statement by Blum.

“Originally it was planned to use the Majority Text for the NKJV, not the TR used in the KJV. This was changed near the end of the project. Strangely enough, the one who talked Thomas Nelson into not using the Majority Text was Zane Hodges himself. (He was not, however, on the translation team.) Zane argued that a version should not be based on a Greek text that had not been on the market for a few years to allow time for scholarly appraisal. Also, many felt that this updating of the classic KJV should not introduce another Greek text, like the English Revised had done in 1881 before the Westcott-Hort text (also 1881) had a chance to be evaluated.”

Arthur Farstad wrote the above statement in “Why I Became a Majority Text Advocate,” which is an “Unpublished paper by Arthur L. Farstad when he was at Dallas Seminary.” It is posted on the Dean Bible Ministries website of Robert L. Dean, Jr.

Thuesen on Mauro, Wilkinson, Fuller

Peter Johannes Thuesen, an historian of the United States and of American religion, and a Professor at Indiana University Indianapolis, offers his perspective on the battle for the English Bible, in his book In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), Here are a few excerpts.

On page 61, Thuesen relates that Philip Mauro in the 1920s “resurrected the late Dean Burgon’s arguments for an American audience. Hidebound conservatives were against not only higher criticism but also lower criticism and, in some cases, any revision of the Authorized Version. Mauro feared that modern textual critics and translators had imbibed too much German higher-critical ideology, thereby rendering even well-intended Bible revision subversive of Christian truth.”

Thuesen on page 62 notes Benjamin Wilkinson following the work of Mauro. “Wilkinson echoed Mauro when he complained that the Revised Version had been ‘built almost entirely on the Vatican Manuscript, kept in the Pope’s library, and upon the Sinaiticus, found in a Catholic monastery.’ Yet he carried the argument a step further, pointing out a number of passages where the Revised Version rendering read like the ‘Jesuit Bible,’ that is, the Rheims New Testament of 1582.” 

One page 118 Thuesen connects David Otis Fuller to the “McIntire faction” mentioning his speech at Carl McIntire’s American Council of Christian Churches in 1956, saying “‘Without a moment’s hesitation I can say that this ‘Revised Standard Version of the Gospel Perverts’ is the vilest, boldest, most deliberately devilish attack upon the holy Word of God and the holy Son of God in the past two thousand years.’ Fuller surveyed the destruction wreaked upon the Bible by modern textual criticism and thanked Carl McIntire for defending Holy Writ from its modernist assailants.”

Page 65 provides something of a summary of the conservative support for the King James Bible. “Wilkinson’s indictment of the Revised Version, published nearly a half-century after the translation itself, appeared to beat a dead horse, yet in succeeding decades new Bible battles would lend his work perennial relevance. Indeed, treatises by the Revised Version’s most colorful opponents—Burgon, Mauro, and Wilkinson—would enjoy a remarkable shelf-life as late twentieth-century Protestant conservatives reprinted them as virtual classics. Equally notable was the ecumenical character of opposition to Bible revision. Wilkinson made no reference to his Seventh-day Adventist affiliation in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, concentrating instead on issues of broad evangelical appeal. Mauro, who rejected the Episcopal Church in favor of A. B. Simpson’s Christian and Missionary Alliance, cited the Anglican Dean Burgon without compunction, as did Wilkinson. Similarly, David Otis Fuller, a minister in the General Association of Regular Baptists, during the 1970s edited reprints of works by Burgon, Mauro, Wilkinson, and others—all without apparent regard for denominational loyalties. ¶ Such pragmatic alliances among like-minded Protestants would take on additional significance in future Bible battles, for although modern critical consciousness drove conservatives and liberals apart, it also fostered intraconservative and intraliberal cooperation. The legacy of ‘King Truth’ was therefore ambiguous—as relentlessly paradoxical as the legacy of sixteenth century Protestant-Catholic disputation. The old Reformation debates over authority and interpretation would help set the terms of twentieth-century translation controversies, generating in the process rich rhetorical and ecumenical ironies.”

John Alden and the King James Bible

For some background for this post, please see Bibles at the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth.

Some ubiquitous KJV critics think they have found the smoking gun to discredit Mayflower passenger John Alden and his King James Bible. My, my, did not only the Geneva Bible come over on the Mayflower! Urban myths tell us so. The Pilgrim Hall Museum allows that they cannot prove that any Bibles were on the Mayflower – in the sense that there exists no log or record of the items that were on the Mayflower. However, they are reasonably sure of two of them. “Among the books in Pilgrim Hall are four Bibles of unusual interest. One belonged to Governor William Bradford, the Pilgrim Governor, and one to John Alden. These are among the very few objects existing today which we feel reasonably sure ‘came over in the Mayflower.’” Those who have some expertise in this area of history are “reasonably sure” these Bibles came over on the Mayflower. Yet for the purpose of Bible version arguments some anti-KJVO people become unreasonably unsure and overly obstinate about Alden’s King James Bible not coming over on the Mayflower.

Anti-KJVO folks such as Rick Norris will argue that John Alden was not a Pilgrim, and also suggest that he did not bring the Bible with him. I guess they want to cover all bases. He didn’t bring the Bible with him, but ordered it later and had it shipped over. Even if he did (to the antis) it does not matter since he was not one of the Pilgrims.

Here are some facts about John Alden:

• He was hired as the ship’s cooper, a job of maintaining and repairing the ship’s barrels.
• He was initially a member of the ship’s crew rather than a New World settler.
• He became a signatory of The Mayflower Compact, signed while the travelers were still on the ship, November 1620.
• He was at the time of his death the last surviving signer of The Mayflower Compact.
• He signed a political and religious covenant, unto which the signers promised under God “all due Submission and Obedience.” From that time Alden would have been a part of the Pilgrim group.
• There is a surviving 1620 KJV Bible in the Pilgrim Hall Museum that belonged to John Alden – and the museum is reasonably sure it came over with him on the Mayflower.

Those who take the “and/or” argument (that Alden was not a Pilgrim and/or did not bring a King James Bible with him) eventually are impaled on the horns of their own dilemma. After signing The Mayflower Compact, John Alden at that point became a covenanted member of the Pilgrims. John Alden owned, used, and passed down in his family a King James Bible printed in 1620. Here are the two horns of their dilemma.

• Either

1. If John Alden brought this King James Bible with him initially as a “non-Pilgrim”, he did not throw away his 1611 translation when or after he became a Pilgrim.

• Or

2. If John Alden did not bring this King James Bible with him, then after he became a Pilgrim and as a Pilgrim John Alden ordered a 1611 translation and had it shipped over to him.

Understanding these two options takes the edge off the claim that the Pilgrims passionately hated the King James Bible and only used the Geneva Bible. This “separatists-hated-the-KJV” argument is broken down and needs to be taken out of service!

The Pauline Subscriptions in Vaticanus

Below are the subscriptions to Paul’s epistles as found in Codex Vaticanus. I have looked previously at these notes as they appear in some manuscripts, the Textus Receptus, and traditional-text English translations, such as the Geneva and King James Bibles.

Be aware:

1. Codex Vaticanus does not have the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, neither the end of Hebrews. Therefore, there are no subscriptions for these.
2. The information reflects my attempt to (1) slog through the Majuscule writing (all caps all jammed together), and (2) translate what I thought I saw. They may need to be taken with a grain of salt!
3. I did not readily find a list of these subscriptions re Vaticanus, so I looked at the manuscript on the Vatican Library (DigiVatLib) website. Better transcriptions and translations may exist elsewhere.
4. The general consensus is that the subscriptions are not original to this manuscript, but added by a later scribe.

The Vaticanus Subscriptions of the Epistles of Paul.

• Romans - Unto the Romans written from Corinth
• 1 Corinthians - Unto the Corinthians (first) written from Ephesus
• 2 Corinthians - Unto the Corinthians (second) written from Philippi
• Galatians - Unto the Galatians written from Rome
• Ephesians - Unto the Ephesians written from Rome
• Philippians - Unto the Philippians written from Rome
• Colossians - Unto the Colossians written from Rome
• 1 Thessalonians - Unto the Thessalonians (first) written from Athens
• 2 Thessalonians - Unto the Thessalonians (second) written from Athens

Subscription from 1 Corinthians in Vaticanus

Subscription from 1 Corinthians in the 1519 Erasmus TR

[Note: this is not a recommendation of Vaticanus or its subscriptions. This is a matter of research and comparison.]

Wordsworth on Authorship of Hebrews

With the status and trends of modern scholarship, many times you have to go back to older writers to find defenses of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The following quotes are from 19th-century author Christopher Wordsworth, “On the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in “Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the Original Greek: with Introductions and Notes, St. Paul’s Epistles (Fourth Edition), London: Rivingtons, 1866, pp. 361-374.

“The Epistle was addressed to the Hebrews of the East, especially of Jerusalem and Palestine.”

“Although the author of the Epistle writes anonymously, yet those persons, to whom the Epistle was primarily and specially addressed, were acquainted with the name and person of the Author.”

“These [13:18-19, 23, rlv] and other similar expressions bespeak an individual well known personally to the friend whom he addresses.” He asserts that the Christians of this region addressed, who knew the author, themselves ascribed the writing to Paul.

There were more doubts in the West than in the East about the authorship. According to Wordsworth, “The doubts of the West were dispersed in the fourth century, and did not appear again till they were revived by one or two persons in the sixteenth.”

“The author, whoever he is, in writing anonymously, deviates not only from the usage of St. Paul, but from that of the other writers of the Epistles in the New Testament.”

“The Epistle was designed primarily for the Jewish Christians of Palestine, who were tempted to relapse into Judaism, and for other Jewish Christians, and also for the benefit of Jewish readers throughout the world, and lastly for universal use.”

“It was designed for enemies as well as for friends, for Judaizing Christians, and for unchristianized Jews.”

“Of all the Apostles or Apostolic men of the primitive age, no person would be better qualified, and no one would be more desirous, to write such an Epistle to such parties as these, than St. Paul.”

“But if he had prefixed his name to the Epistle, he would have run the risk of marring his own labor of love.” Why? His name was offensive to Judaizing Christians and unchristianized Jews.

“…the non-appearance of the Author’s name in the Epistle to the Hebrews does not diminish, but rather increases, the probability that the Author was St. Paul.” Why? He deems there are good reasons for Paul to suppress his name, which would not exist for other proposed writers such as Apollos, Barnabas, or Clement.

“Let it be remembered that there was a special token by which his Epistles were to be discerned by his friends.”

“Each of the Thirteen Epistles, to which St. Paul’s name is prefixed, contains near its close his Apostolic Benediction, ‘Grace be with you.’ And, in one of the first Epistles he had written, he had announced that this would be the token in every Epistle, and that so he would write [2 Thess. 3:17-18, rlv]. And no other writer of Scripture uses this token during St. Paul’s lifetime. It was reserved to him as his special badge and cognizance.”

I am not claiming to agree with everything Wordsworth wrote about Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but it is a good resource available online. You can read it on Google Books at the link above.

Straining at a gnat and not swallowing a camel

In a post in 2023, I took notice of Dan Wallace’s claim that “strain at” in Matthew 23:24 is a translation error. I addressed the usage and whether it is an error (and James Snapp, not a KJV defender, really “cleaned his (and others) clock” about the usage, in the essay Straining at a Gnat). However, in a different article, I noticed Wallace made an additional claim not included in what I addressed. This claim by Wallace is that the 1611 printing of the King James Bible originally had “strain out” rather than “strain at.” That is false.

“Another well-known error is found in Jesus’ discourse against the religious leaders of his day, recorded in Matthew 23. In v. 24 the KJV reads, ‘Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.’ The Greek verb διυλίζω means ‘to strain out.’ I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording, but inexplicably changed it later to ‘strain at.’”

To be fair, Wallace presents “the KJV of 1611 actually had [strain out], but inexplicably changed it” as what he believes rather than what he knows. Obviously he did not check and did not know, because what he believes is wrong. Checking a scan of a 1611 Bible printing makes it obvious that the original printing has “at” rather than “out.”

This may not be a very large camel in the grand scheme of things – and Snapp has already rebutted this – but I want to add it to my blog. Perhaps someone will stumble along and find this post, and learn that the urban myth perpetuated by a highly esteemed doctor is just that, an urban myth camel to be strained at and strained out of our minds. It is false. Or, as James Snapp concluded, “Those who have promoted that theory (and especially those who have presented it as a fact) should stop doing so.”

We do not allow Dallas doctors to prescribe phony pharmaceuticals. Hopefully Wallace has learned better by now, and has stopped, but his error still adorns the pages of Bible.org to dupe unsuspecting readers.

Christian Standard Bible

There are so many English Bible translations, the weary Christian reader may well ask, “Why do we need another Bible translation?”[i]

Here is a bit of the history of the “why” of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) and Christian Standard Bible (CSB) came into existence. The current CSB was a major revision, including a name change, of the 2009 edition of the HCSB. The CSB was copyrighted in 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers, a division of Lifeway.[ii] Its forerunners, the HCSB New Testament, was published in 1999 and the whole HCSB Bible in 2004. In August 2023 Christianity Today claimed that the CSB was the second best-selling English Bible translation.

The origin of the HCSB is found in a two-pronged history. One prong was the desire of Arthur Leonard Farstad to create an English Bible translation based on the Majority Text.[iii] The other prong was the desire of the Southern Baptist Convention to have copyright control of a Bible for use in their publications. These two met together in 1998.

Arthur Farstad had been the general editor of the New King James Version, published by Thomas Nelson. He had hoped to help create this as an English translation based on The Majority Text, a Greek text edited by Farstad and Zane Hodges.[iv] However, Thomas Nelson publishers did not want to proceed in that fashion with the NKJV. After this project was over, Farstad began an independent translation of the Majority Text.

Prior to the creation of the HCSB, the Southern Baptist Convention had an exclusive contract to use the New International Version (NIV) in their Sunday School curriculum and other educational literature. This was an expensive and restrictive agreement with the copyright holder of the NIV. As the time of the end of this contract neared, they began plans to create their own Bible version. The money previously going to others could stay in SBC coffers. The headache of dealing with copyright restrictions would be relieved. Additionally, there were also considerations and concerns about an upcoming revision of the NIV. With their entity holding the copyright, the SBC would not have to worry about Bible revisions made by another entity. Of particular concern was the issue of gender-neutral language.[v] The SBC tried to negotiate the purchase of the copyright of the New American Standard Bible and others, but these efforts failed. 

After this, either Farstad, knowing about the plans of the SBC, pitched his idea to them; or, the SBC, knowing of Farstad’s work, approached him to help them further their plans. Maybe some of both.[vi] It was a match made in ..... Nashville, probably.

It seems the initial plan of action was to follow Farstad’s desire to use the Majority Text as the basis for the New Testament translation.[vii] However, Arthur Farstad died at age 63 in September 1998 – five months after the initiation of the project. Holman brought in a new editor, Edwin A. Blum, and the changed the translation’s basis to the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek Text. Promotional material says that “a team of more than 100 top conservative scholars from 17 denominations” worked on this translation.

The promotion of the CSB Bible states a goal to create “optimal equivalence” in translation (accurate yet readable), and to stay up-to-date with advances in biblical research. When the history of the HCSB/CSB is told, it usually does not include these background details, especially the financial and theological considerations behind its rise. I thought the parts left out were worth telling.

---

[i] Simply put, I would say we do not. Information for this article was gleaned in bits and pieces across the World Wide Web, with a good bit of debt to the review of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, by Michael Marlowe.
[ii] Lifeway is what used to be the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
[iii] The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers 2nd edition, 1985).
[iv] The independent project of which Farstad was translator and general editor lives on in the New Testament, or at least the Gospel of John, translation called Logos 21. Some sources state that Logos 21 was the first English translation of the Greek Majority Text.
[v] Interestingly, however, the CSB update of the HCSB itself moved in the direction of gender-neutral language.
[vi] I could not get a clear sense of which came first. In this article, Mark L. Strauss says that SBC representatives from Holman and Lifeway approached Farstad.
[vii] There are some unclear statements that suggest he had to agree with Holman to use the Critical Text. Mark L. Strauss says Farstad planned to use the Majority Text. He also says that Edwin Blum had been working with him on the independent project of translating the Majority Text into English

Some praise for old Bancroft

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues...honour to whom honour.

At the time the King James translation was made, Richard Bancroft (1544-1610) was Bishop of London and then in 1604 made the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bancroft was the supervisor and overseer of the translation project. He died before the finished product was published. Much of what I hear and read about Bancroft is negative (and some deservedly so). For that reason, I was pleasantly surprised when I came across a short piece about Bancroft by Paul V. M. Flesher, a professor in University of Wyoming’s Department of Religious Studies. Writing about the discovery in 2016 of the remains of Bancroft in a crypt beneath the St. Mary-at-Lambeth Church, Flesher included this tribute to his connection with the translation authorized by King James I.

“Bancroft was perhaps the most important figure in the creation of the King James Bible…

“James convened the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604 to address their concerns. It was not a success for the Puritans. Bancroft, who was then bishop of London, was widely known as a fierce opponent of the Puritans. He helped persuade the king to reject the Puritan calls for church reform.

“But, James shared one desire with the Puritans, which he granted. That was their request for a new, ‘authorized’ translation of the Bible. Even as he acceded to their request, he added a twist: James put the anti-Puritan Bancroft in charge of the project…

“Archbishop Bancroft pioneered a new approach to Bible translation, one which helped the translation overcome the political and religious conflict in which the project was conceived.

“Earlier translations had essentially been done by individuals, without consultation or review. Bancroft brought together 47 experts in biblical studies from Oxford, Cambridge and London. Here, he was surprisingly even-handed, bringing in the best scholars whether they were establishment or Puritan…

“And, by all accounts, the King James Bible succeeded. Within 50 years, its ‘majesty of style’ made it the widest circulating English Bible. It traveled to the American colonies, where it was frequently reprinted. For more than 300 years, it was the main Bible used in the English language, and no other Protestant Bible could compete with it.

“Archbishop Bancroft, whose burial site we now know, was a partisan bulldog for the Church of England establishment. Yet, he guided the creation of a new Bible translation that lasted for more than four centuries and was accepted by most branches of Protestant Christianity.”

The Coffin of Archbishop Bancroft and the King James Bible, by Paul V. M. Flesher, professor in University of Wyoming’s Department of Religious Studies.

Stop Misusing William Tyndale

Christopher Yetzer posted the following article (see below) on the Facebook group Textus Receptus Academy, October 11, 2024. Brother Yetzer is a Baptist missionary, a native Ohioan, preaching in Milan, Italy. In addition to his missionary work, he is doing excellent research and writing concerning the traditional texts and the King James translation of the Bible. The writing below is from Brother Christopher Yetzer, posted with his permission.

Stop misusing Tyndale: A response to Nathan Deatrick’s article My Plea for the Plowboy

While I appreciate Bro. Deatrick’s passion and do not question his sincerity or integrity, I do see some issues in his history. The number one problem with the article is Deatrick’s faulty Wardinian premise: Tyndale translated into the plowboy’s English and so should we.

“[Tyndale’s] heart yearned to translate the Bible into such a simple vernacular that the plowboy of England could read and understand the very words of the living God. My plea is that Tyndale’s passion would ignite my generation to such a degree that the plowboy of today can have God’s Word in the English of his day.”[1]

This thought is based on a quote attributed to William Tyndale found in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs: “If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost.”[2] But did Tyndale say this, and if so, what did he mean?

A 2016 research article by Jan J. Martin concluded, “the source of the ploughboy anecdote cannot be substantiated. Moreover, Foxe’s amplifying editing of the story creates suspicion that the conversation between Tyndale and the learned man may be a fictional construct designed to further Foxe’s particular interpretation of English history and Tyndale’s role in it.”[3] Even if one were to grant the words to Tyndale (not at all out of the possibility given the widespread use of the plowboy allegory during the time), we still ought to carefully consider the context. Would Tyndale have meant that he translated the Bible at the plowboy’s reading level and is that what he did?

ESV editor Leland Ryken argued that the vast majority of those who use this supposed Tyndale quote actually abuse it. “The statement about the plowboy is not a comment about Tyndale’s preferred style for an English Bible. It is not a designation of teenage farm boys as a target audience for a niche Bible. Those misconceptions are the projections of modern partisans for a colloquial and simplified English Bible.” He goes on to explain that, “It is instead a comment about how widely Tyndale wanted the English Bible to be disseminated in English society. Tyndale was not making a bow to farm boys. He was using a particular example to make the general point that he wanted the whole cross section of the English population to have access to the Bible.”[4]

Looking at Tyndale’s translation, we can see that Ryken was right. According to Nikolaos Lavidas’ 2021 book The Diachrony of Written Language Contact: A Contrastive Approach published by Brill, he states, “Tyndale’s texts, translations and polemical texts, contains examples of syntactic archaisms, that is, borrowings and re-introductions of obsolete forms from an earlier period of the language—what one would characterize as evidence of a type of written contact with earlier forms of English. One such example is the use of the early/archaic second person singular and plural pronouns in Tyndale’s texts: the second person plural pronoun had begun to appear in all, singular and plural, contexts in Early Middle English. Tyndale used the verbal forms for second singular and plural number productively, as well as the distinction between the subject pronoun ye and the object pronoun you, following earlier texts. However, the first attestations of the nominative you, instead of ye, appeared in the 14th century and was productively used in the literary language by the 1540s.”[5]

David Norton’s book The English Bible as Literature, published by Cambridge, notes that Sir Thomas More jibed at Tyndale’s deficiencies in producing comprehensive English vocabulary, saying, “all England list now to go to school with Tyndale to learn English” and “Tyndale must in his English translation take his English words as they signify in English, rather than as the words signify in the tongue out of which they were taken in to the English”.[6] Tyndale knew that his translation would not be comprehensive to everyone: “In time to come (if God have appointed us thereunto) we will give it his full shape, and put out if aught be added superfluously, and add to if aught be overseen through negligence, and will enforce to bring to compendiousness that which is now translated at the length, and to give light where it is required, and to seek in certain places more proper English, and with a table to expound the words which are not commonly used and show how the Scripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common people, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not another; and will endeavor ourselves, as it were, to seeth it better, and to make it more apt for the weak stomachs; desiring them that are learned and able, to remember their duty, and to help thereunto, and to bestow unto the edifying of Christ’s body (which is the congregation of them that believe) those gifts which they have received of God for the same purpose.”[7]

Tyndale saw the need to create words like “scapegoat” and “Passover”. Thomas More also complained about some of Tyndale’s word choices. One example was the French word “seniors” in substitute of the common English word “priests”. Tyndale humbly replied, “of a truth senior is no very good English”.[8]

Modernly, the conjunction “but” is used to express contradiction; however, in early English, it was used as another way of saying “except” or “unless”. The book I Never Knew That Was in the Bible! says that this sense of ‘but’ was “beginning to be archaic when Tyndale made his translation.”[9] In Mark 6:5 where Wycliffe had used the word “save” Tyndale chose to use the moderately out-of-date form of “but”.

The 16th century scholar John Cheke insisted in English words being used in English books. “In writing English none but English words should be used, thinking it a dishonour to our mother tongue to be beholden to other nations for their words and phrases to express our minds. Upon this account, Cheke seemed to dislike the English translation of the Bible, because in it were so many foreign words.”[10]

Just to be clear, I am not trying to take away anything from what Tyndale accomplished or to suggest that he was aiming at incomprehension. In his 1530 preface he clearly stated: “Which thing only moved me to translate the New Testament. Because I had perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to stablish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text.”[11]

Targeting “lay people,” however, isn’t quite the same as Foxe’s “plowboy”. Translating into English does not by default mean translating for the most ignorant English reader in the country. Everything we have shown historically to this point coincides with Tyndale’s desire that people might read the Bible in English, but it also shows that he did not translate on the lowest level.

I would personally argue that comprehension and accuracy are not the only objectives of a translator. While I disagree a lot with Dr. Wallace, he has noted that the main error of the Revised Version was the lack of beauty, “the scholars who produced it were far more interested in a literal translation than in a beautiful translation. In spite of all the scholarly clamor for this new translation, most people—including clergy—still preferred the King James.” He says today that a good translation should aim to “be as accurate as the formal equivalent translations, as readable as the dynamic equivalent translations, and more elegant than either.”[12]

John Selden, a friend of several KJV translators, in reference to the language of English Bibles (which indirectly would include Tyndale), said, “There is no Book so translated as the Bible for the purpose. If I translate a French Book into English, I turn it into English Phrase, not into French English [Il fait froid] I say ’tis cold, not, it makes cold, but the Bible is rather translated into English Words, than into English Phrase. The Hebraisms are kept, and the Phrase of that Language is kept: As for Example [He uncovered her Shame] which is well enough, so long as Scholars have to do with it; but when it comes among the Common People, Lord, what Gear do they make of it!”[13]

David Norton summarizes the situation in the 1500s well, “The English people of the sixteenth century were learning a new English. However simple the language of the Protestant translators may now seem (archaisms apart), it had much in it that the people had to learn before they could understand and appreciate it.”[14] Oh, the irony that anyone would present Tyndale as a contrarian to modern use of the KJV because of the English language. As I have discussed in other places, overall the KJV is possibly more intelligible to you today than it was to the average non-university man in the 1600s.

I welcome conversation on this topic. I intend to respond to other arguments in the article in the future (D.V.).

---

[1] https://pleadingfortheplowboy.com/

[2] Ryken, Leland. Worldly Saints. 1990, p.138

[3] Jan J. Martin, “William Tyndale, John Foxe, and the ‘Boy That Driveth the Plough’,” Religious Educator, 17, no. 2 (2016): 86–105.

[4] Ryken, Leland, The ESV and the English Bible Legacy. p. 21.

[5] https://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2022/05/tyndales-biblical-archaism.html

[6] Norton, David. A History of the English Bible as Literature. 2000. p. 22.

[7] http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndale2.html

[8] Norton, David. A History of the English Bible as Literature. 2000. p. 10.

[9] I Never Knew That Was in the Bible! p. 60.

[10] Strype, John. The Life of the Learned Sir John Cheke. 1821. p. 163.

[11] http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndale2.html

[12] https://www.biblicaltraining.org/learn/foundations/ch201-history-of-the-english-bible/ch201-04-why-so-many-versions

[13] Selden, John. Table-Talk. E. Smith. 1689, p. 3.

[14] Norton, David. A History of the English Bible as Literature. 2000. p. 27.

Also, see the essay “Bibles and Plowboys” by Bill Fortenberry at Increasing Learning.

The Brief History of Korean TR/KJV Translation

I think my readers might enjoy this history of Textus Receptus Bible translation in South Korea. It was written by 방성진 (Daniel Bang) and posted on the Textus Receptus Academy Facebook group on July 27, 2022. Used by permission.

The Brief History of Korean TR/KJV Translation

(Updated in 7.28)

When the missionary John Ross translated the Bible into the Korean language in 1884, he used WH Critical Text for translating the NT. Thus, Korean Churches started with CT-based Bible. Through several revisions, most Korean Churches have been using the Korean Revised Version and New Korean Revised Version, and a few Korean Bible believers are using KJV-based translation.

The Word of God Preservation Society

Dr. Song Lee (1939-2022) was a leader of The Word of God Preservation Society and a pastor of Bible Baptist Church (Gimpo, Korea). After he was saved (1978.7.23) and studied Theology, he realized that TR-based Korean translation is necessary. He individually translated TR ‘Interlinear English translation (English literal translation under Greek TR of Interlinear Greek NT)’ into Korean, and called it ‘새성경 (New Bible-NT)’ in the early 1990s.

In 1991, Dr. Song Lee met Peter Ruckman and had a deep fellowship with him. He followed Ruckmanism (including Double-Inspiration) and his ‘attitude,’ so this attitude became a negative trigger in Korean Presbyterian churches. After meeting Ruckman, he firstly published Korean KJV in 1994 with his fellow translators. Though he included KJV OT and NT (based on TR-interlinear English translation) and titled it Korean KJV, this was the start point to spread TR-based Korean translation in South Korea. Until his death, his Korean KJV was revised and corrected many times.

Though Korean Baptist believers disagree with Calvinism, insulting Calvinism with rudeness is not proper. However, Dr. Song Lee strongly criticized Calvinism, and he regarded the Korean Revised Version as a Satanic Bible. Because of his rude attitude which comes from Dr. Ruckman, ‘The General Assembly of Presbyterian Church in Korea’ and ‘The Presbyterian Church of Korea’ hereticated Dr. Song Lee and Word of God Preservation Society in the late 1990s (the former Assembly hereticated him in 1998.).

Dr. Song Lee certainly played his role as a pioneer, but due to his self-righteous nature, the translators who were with him left him, and a few years later, they joined Pastor Jung and translated another Korean King James Bible.

In Christ Jesus Publications / KeepBible

Dr. Jung Dongsoo is a pastor of Charity Baptist Church (Incheon, Korea), and an administrator of KeepBible website. He is the main translator of the Korean KJV. He learned the fundamental doctrine of Christianity in the U.S. and had an interest in KJV. Later, Dr. Jung had a close relationship with Dr. Waite, and Dr. Waite sent him to Korea. [http://www.biblefortoday.org/idx_Pages/idx_missionaries.htm]

Dr. Jung started translating KJV into Korean in 1992. When he was in the process of translation, Pastor Jack Kim (One of the Korean KJV translators) contacted him for the accurate translation of the Korean KJV, so some pastors (who set themselves apart from the Word of God Preservation Society) and other IFB pastors helped Dr. Jung to translate it accurately. The first edition was printed in 2000. 11 years later, The 400th Anniversary edition of the Korean KJV (5th edition) was sold by many Korean Christians. The logo ‘Spiritus Gladius’ was used for this edition. However, Dr. Jung’s translation was corrected again for improving grammar and readability, so the recent edition was printed in 2021 which title is called ‘Majesty Edition (6th edition).’

Sadly in 2016, Dongwoo Kwon (a Korean Bob Jones student in the past) criticize Dr. Jung that he is KJVO. Dr. Jung states that he is KJVO but he does not follow Ruckmanism. Kwon’s work was like the low rank of Mark Ward. He has criticized Dr. Jung for about 4-5 years. To this effect, The General Assembly of Presbyterian Church in Korea stated that “Dr. Jung’s bibliological aspect is dangerous, and he does not follow Korean Presbyterian church tradition.” Because most Korean churches are Presbyterian, this could happen.

Though many trials passed him, Korean IFB churches are still using Dr. Jung’s Korean KJV. I also have used and read his translation.

Difference Between Each Translator

The main problem of Dr. Song Lee was his contradictory attitude. He had kept in contact with Dr. Ruckman, but he did not follow that KJV is the final authority. The Word of God Preservation Society has translated many books written by Ruckman. In fact, he defended Ruckman for getting commercial gains by translating Ruckman's books.

Because Dr. Song Lee studied NT Greek at first, he could not give up his NT translation from TR-English Interlinear Bible. Therefore, he could not state that English KJV is his final authority, and he emphasized that his translation (Dr. Song Lee’s Korean KJV) is the final authority (more than English KJV). His society still teaches this wrong confession. Finally, his wrong perspective brought division.

However, Dr. Jung and proven translators commonly agree that KJV is the final authority for Bible believers. They directly translated KJV into Korean without any impurities. Moreover, various experts helped for improving translation and readability. In many ways, their coherent path gives credibility to Dr. Jung’s translation.

I recommend Dr. Jung’s translation because it was not biased by Ruckmanism, and reliable Bible Believers helped for accurate translation, and it has been widely spread.

“Ellipsizing” in a point

“Baptists and the American Standard Version of the Bible” by Doug Kutilek was first published in As I See It, Volume 19, No. 3.[i] It has been republished at Sharper Iron, and Kutilek (on 16 Feb 2024) republished it to the Baptist History Preservation group on Facebook. Doug Kutilek is a very active anti-King James Onlyist promoter of modern versions.

This curious excerpt from his post obtained perhaps more notice and discussion than the rest of what he wrote about the ASV.

“In a book written around 1967, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, founder of Central Baptist Seminary of Minnesota and Pillsbury Baptist College, and widely recognized during his lifetime as a ‘Fundamentalist’s Fundamentalist,’ wrote:

“Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits.[ii] ... We know of no Fundamentalists ... that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation.”[iii] The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

The excerpt is curious in what it asserts and what it leaves out. The quote below includes a bit more material from before and after what Kutilek shared, plus a full sentence on page 199 without the ellipsis.

“One mark of scholarship at Central is that the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is never given praise or blame over the ‘straw man’ of the Authorized Version, either orally or in writing as some schools have delighted to do to impress people that they are up-to-date. Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits…We know of no Fundamentalists except the Carnell variety that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation. We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.” The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

By means of ellipsis (... three-dot punctuation to indicate material passed over, omission of words, admitting alteration of a direct quote), Doug Kutilek would have Richard Clearwaters say that no Fundamentalists thought the the KJV was better than the ASV. Additionally, Clearwaters himself creates some “plausible deniability” for his comment by later using the phrase “the mainstream of Fundamentalism,” thereby simply writing out of “the mainstream” those who disagree with him about the ASV!

However, we could take for example Philip Mauro. Mauro was a contributor to the original fundamentalist series The Fundamentals: A Testimony to The Truth. Surely one of that pedigree could not be written out of “the mainstream.” He wrote Which Version in 1924, defending the King James Version over and against the English and American revisions, as superior in underlying text, the quality of translation, as well as in its style and composition.

While Clearwaters touts the ASV as the Bible of “The” Fundamentalists, the editors of The Fundamentals: a Testimony, and particularly the author James M. Gray (then dean of Moody Bible Institute), criticizes the English Revised and ASV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 – noting the superiority of the King James translation.

“As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It there reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter.

“But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James rendering of the passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the change.” The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth, Volume II, R. A. Torrey, editor. Los Angeles, CA: BIOLA, 1917, pp. 16, 21[iv]

When Richard V. Clearwaters writes “the Carnell variety” of Fundamentalists, he means the type of Fundamentalist mentioned by Edward John Carnell, a Baptist preacher and president of Fuller Seminary, in his book The Case for Orthodox Theology. Clearwaters is not identifying Carnell as a Fundamentalist. Rather, in his book Carnell complained of Fundamentalists clinging to the King James Version, writing:

“The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant, and doctrinaire…The fundamentalists’ crusade against the Revised Standard Version illustrates the point. The fury did not stem from a scholarly conviction that the version offends Hebrew and Greek idioms, for ideological thinking operates on far simpler criteria. First, there were modernists on the translation committee, and modernists corrupt whatever they touch. It does not occur to fundamentalism that translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship. Secondly, the Revised Standard Version’s copyright is held by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. If a fundamentalist used the new version, he might give aid and comfort to the National Council; and that, on his principles, would be sin. By the same token, of course, a fundamentalist could not even buy groceries from a modernist. But ideological thinking is never celebrated for its consistency.” The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 114

“The intellectual stagnation of fundamentalism can easily be illustrated. Knowing little about the canons of lower criticism, and less about the relation between language and culture, the fundamentalist has no norm by which to classify the relative merits of Biblical translations. As a result, he identifies the Word of God with the seventeenth-century language forms of the King James Version. Since other versions sound unfamiliar to him, he concludes that someone is tampering with the Word of God.” The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 120

So, Clearwaters is not trying to make an accurate historical statement, but rather a polemical point, to distance himself from the Fundamentalists that Carnell criticized – and in doing so to assert that the “true” Fundamentalists are those who do not hold such a position. Carnell knew better, Clearwaters knew better,[v] and we know better. Kutilek should know better. This claim cannot be considered a completely valid historical statement of the relationship of the Fundamentalists (or Baptists) to the King James Bible.

Ellipses serve a purpose. When we quote authors there is not usually room to reproduce everything they said. Brevity has its place. However, we should not “ellipsize” out the facts in order to make our point – most especially when that point contradicts the original source.[vi] Too many “Bible version arguers” of all stripes do just that. Let us resolve to do better!

---

[i] Probably published in March 2016, though I have not seen the year clearly given anywhere I have looked. As to Clearwaters’ book, The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, it is hard to date as well. It is a mix of writings from various times. Chapter 12 was written in or after 1965, for at the time Blain Myron Cedarholm had served his 18 years as General Director of the Conservative Baptist Association (1947-1965; p. 180); it also mentions receiving a letter dated November 17, 1967 (Compromise, p. 184). So after 1967.
[ii] 290 is the number of years from the King James Bible of 1611 to the American Standard Version of 1901. This is a confusing comment, since Clearwaters and those in his orbit can only be ahead of others who are “still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits” by the amount of time they began using the ASV to whenever this “still weighing” is occurring.
[iii] After this sentence Clearwaters writes, “We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.”

[iv] This is not to say that Gray consistently preferred the KJV above the ASV, but simply to show he did not think the ASV was always better. Gray acknowledged some Christians “who would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as being stronger than the King James” by introducing a word to make it say, “Every scripture (because) inspired of God is also profitable” (p. 16). Both J. M. Gray and L. W. Munhall take the position that translations are not inspired (p. 37).

[v] Thomas Cassidy, a former student and friend of Richard Clearwaters, in his praise of him included this telling statement: “Doc Clearwaters was my pastor and mentor while I was a member of Fourth Baptist and a student at Central Seminary. He was a truly great man. A bit flawed where his ego was concerned, but a great man nevertheless.” It is worth noting that Carnell’s position, against which Clearwaters argued, is the position of the modern text critic – that Bible “translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship.” The modern fundamentalist followers of Richard Clearwaters are, on this matter, closer in belief to Carnell than to Clearwaters, who held that “‘natural’ men who ‘receive not the things of the Spirit of God’ and hence totally unfit to translate or interpret what God has inspired” (Compromise, p. 199).

[vi] I also use ellipses (plural of ellipsis); most every one who quotes anyone does at some point. I am sad to say many King James Defenders use them ill-advisedly (see Getting It Right, for example). The wide distribution of material (books, tracts, etc.) has made it much easier to check original sources to see what had been left out of quotes. Many times we need to do so. It is worthwhile every time we have the sources to do so.