Translate

Showing posts with label Bible versions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible versions. Show all posts

Friday, February 06, 2026

Old bluster and bluff

Reading Greek.

I ran across these comments that I had saved from a Facebook group. Several years ago, a preacher named Jonathan Burris – who had “disembarked” from the use of only the King James Bible and had been “dislodged” from his church – joined the Facebook group and hit the ground running. He “knew all” and “told all.” Burris usually wrote in superlatives. He claimed to meet all comers and answer all questions, but I found “a few” he would not answer. Here is one. After touting his Greek skills, he would not answer whether he could actually read Greek with comprehension. He snuggled back in a safe position of “if someone will debate me I will prove that I can.” A simple answer was not simple enough, because the answer was probably simply, “no.” Here was our conversation.

Robert Lee Vaughn: “Btw, Jonathan Burris, you may have missed my earlier question. When you were suggesting doing live videos, I asked if would you do a live video in which you read and then giving the meaning of a reading from the Greek, that you would not know what it is until handed to you live. What do you think? Thanks.”

Jonathan Burris: “Robert Lee Vaughn, if you are curious if I can truly read Biblical Greek or not, I would love to have a KJVO debate me and during cross-examination, my opponent could ask me to read and parse a random portion of text from either the Greek NT or the Septuagint. Someone should debate me if they think I am bluffing.”

Robert Lee Vaughn: “Jonathan Burris, so that is a ‘no’ to my question? I am curious whether you read Greek or ‘read’ Greek. Thanks. https://danielstreett.com/2011/09/08/what-does-it-mean-to-read-greek/

Jonathan Burris: “Robert Lee Vaughn, would you like to do a live, in-person, moderated debate with me and find out? During cross-examination, you can ask me to read and parse a random portion of the Greek NT or the Septuagint. If you don’t think I can read and understand Koine Greek, call my bluff.

“Else, let’s put this to bed and present a coherent argument for us to discuss. Or, just move on and have a good weekend.”

Robert Lee Vaughn: “I do my ‘debating’ on paper and electronic media. I am old and a slow plodder, and never was a quick thinker anyway. Plus I don’t have the face for visual media! Additionally, I don’t really see why you can’t answer the question without having a debate. Do you read it with comprehension like you do your native language, or you ‘slosh through it’ like Bart Ehrman said in an address he made at Loyola Marymount University in 2013? ‘Today when somebody is highly skilled in Greek, like Jeff Siker and me, we’re considered highly skilled – that means we can kind of slosh our way through a Greek text if we have a good dictionary sitting next to us.’

“By the way, I have ‘called your bluff.’ I have asked for a straight answer and so far you won’t give it, for some reason.

Since I saved these remarks for some reason, I decided to go ahead and post them here and get them out of the queue. I found many interlocutors on the non-KJV side to be open, honest, and sincere. Jonathan B. was not one of them. If you run across him, keep one eye and both ears open.

Friday, November 21, 2025

Appomattox Baptist Association condemns A. Campbell translation

1830.

“The Appomattox Association issued the following statements signed by Abner Clopton as clerk:

“1. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the churches composing this association, to discountenance the writings of Alexander Campbell.

“2. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the churches in this association not to countenance the new translation of the New Testament.”

Alexander Campbell and His New Version, page 80 referencing The Millennial Harbinger, Volume 1, 1830, p. 261.

Alexander Campbell and His New Version, Cecil K. Thomas (St. Louis, MO: The Bethany Press, 1958).

Tuesday, November 11, 2025

Oops...

...another critical text group thinks they can and should revise the King James Version! I found the following from several online sources, as noted.

James F. “Jim” Linzey (b. 1958) is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, a retired Army chaplain (rank of Major, it seems), the lead pastor and president of Military Bible Association, Inc., a private, non-profit ministry to the military which owns and operates Coffeyville Worship Center (in Coffeyville, Kansas). He is originally from San Diego, California, an author, speaker, and he chief editor and executive director of the Modern English Version Bible.

I found several remarkable facts and red flags with Linzey.

Assembly of God background.

Jim Linzey has an Assembly of God background. He is a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary. Linzey’s mother, Verna Linzey, was an Assemblies of God minister/pastor, and a biblical languages scholar. It was she who led in an updated translation of the original Tyndale Bible in 2001 called New Tyndale Version (NTV). University of Mobile professor Douglas Wilson served on the Old Testament translation committee for the “New Tyndale Version.” Stanley M. Horton, who served as the early senior editorial advisor of the MEV, was a leading Assembly of God professor. 

The MEV is a modern translation by 47 unidentified US & UK translators. There is a 2024 edition now, but the 2014 edition is on Bible Gateway: The Holy Bible, Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Published and distributed by Charisma House.

Fudges for status.

Around 2016 Linzey was working on a revision of the “New Tyndale Version” (which apparently is available in a NT called ‘The Leadership Bible’). Their now defunct website called Maurice Robinson “Senior Editorial Advisor.” However, Robinson told John Himes that this group was using the Robinson-Pierpont Greek text, but that he (Maurice) was not officially a consultant for them. At that time (2016), he had answered one question they had asked him. He was willing to answer their question, but he was not officially working with them in any way.

That’s a pretty blatant case of name-dropping for promotional purposes in dubbing Maurice Robinson a “Senior Editorial Advisor” in such circumstances.

Prefers critical text.

Tim Nickels of “A Nickels Worth Bible Reviews” interviewed Linzey, in which the following points come out. Listen HERE and HERE.

“I’m Jim Linzey, the chief editor of the Modern English Version. It is the King James Version Bible itself. It is the 2024 English update. And so, if you’re looking for – if you’re a KJV only person, this is what you want. If you are a TR person, this is what you want. It’s even more modern than the New King James Version.”

Linzey: “I believe the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament – and UBS, same thing – I believe those are the most academic. But when it comes to a KJV update, you use the Textus Receptus.

Nickels: “So, if I’m hearing you right you’re saying you actually, from a scholarship standpoint, prefer the critical apparatus?”

Linzey: “Absolutely.”

Linzey believes there are errors in the King James translation and admits they diverged from it in places. “I do believe that there are errors in the King James version that with the TR you can correct and make it more accurate as far as the TR is concerned. And we did that and I’m very proud of that.” This from the man who just shortly before said if you are KJV Only, the MEV is the Bible you want!

Does not hold to the standard “Protestant” canon.

Linzey believes the Book of Enoch and the Apocrypha are inspired.

Linzey: “There are other writings, which means Scripture, that are simply not in the canon, that are equally inspired. The early church fathers considered the book of Enoch to be Scripture. And it should have been in the canon; but it is not...Let’s take the Apocrypha…I do believe the Apocrypha is part of the Bible…”

Nickels: “I don’t want to put words in your mouth…Are you saying that [the book of] Enoch and the Apocrypha are on the same playing field as the 66 books of the Protestant canon?”

Linzey: “Yes.”

Conclusion.

Like other profane paths and wrong ways, “Avoid [the MEV], pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.”

Friday, May 09, 2025

What’s on Archive and Google

On Archive.Org:

Alexander Campbell and His New Version by Cecil K. Thomas (St. Louis, MO: The Bethany Press, 1958)

This is an extended treatment of a Bible version created by Restoration movement leader Alexander Campbell. It is a generally favorable treatment that seems to find it more important than it was. It also has a bit of feel of promoting the Revised Standard Version. Thomas writes about “the striking way in which Alexander Campbell anticipated, by some one hundred twenty-five years, many of the most striking features of the Revised Standard Version” (p. 10). It appears a few years after the RSV. The “Introduction” was written by Luther A. Weigle, the chair of the RSV translation committee. He writes that “there is so large a degree of likeness between Campell’s translation and the Revised Standard Version of our own day” (p. 13).

Speaking of Alexander Campbell, Google Books has Volume 1, 1830, of his periodical The Millennial Harbinger (as well as some other volumes).

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

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):

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.

Wednesday, February 05, 2025

Six Types of King James Only

I find attempts to categorize King James Bible Only positions interesting. I have posted on this subject in the past. Recently my attention was directed to “Six Types of King James Only - Are They All Extremists?” at A Nickels Worth Bible Reviews, by Tim Nickels.[i] Nickels labels 6 different King James Only positions. I don’t think he did a great job. However, (1) I find it to be more honest than the 5-part categorization of James R. White; and (2) I find it interesting that someone of his ilk chose not to regurgitate White’s categories (many or most of them do). He has apparently put some of his own thought into it.[ii]

I took the liberty of summarizing (below) the six categories created by Nickels.

Six Types of King James Only, by Tim Nickels.

  • 1. King James preferential. They prefer the King James because of its history, beauty, and language. They believe it is a superior English translation and like it above all others.
  • 2. King James superior. They believe that the King James translation philosophy and textual source (Masoretic and TR) are superior; they do not claim it is the only inspired English translation.
  • 3. King James exclusive. They believe that the King James is the only translation that should be used for an English-speaking audience; they believe that the modern translations are corrupt and that they are based off corrupted sources.
  • 4. King James inspiration. They believe that the King James is not just a faithful translation but the translation process itself was inspired (so we have double inspiration – the inspiration of the original languages and the inspiration of the English translation).
  • 5. King James inerrancy. They believe that the King James is the only inerrant and perfect word of God. The King James is even better than the original languages because the KJV translators were inspired (one can therefore use the King James to correct the Greek and Hebrew).
  • 6. King James extremist. They believe that the King James is the only legitimate Bible for all languages; that is, every language in the world needs to translate their Bibles from the King James Bible. Everything else is corrupt. Any deviation away from the King James is Satanic and corrupt. Some even claim someone cannot be saved apart from the King James Bible.


[i] Tim Nickels is an ordained Assemblies of God minister, and the pastor of Lakeside Worship Center in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. 
[ii] I nevertheless see this as a fail. I know folks who hold positions like numbers one and two. The question is whether these should ever be called King James Only. For example, Confessional Bibliologists who hold the Bomberg/Ben Chayyim Hebrew and Textus Receptus Greek as authoritative, specifically deny that their position is King James Only, even though most of them tend to use only the King James Bible. To them it is not primarily about the translation, but especially about the original language texts.

Wednesday, January 22, 2025

The Gideons ESV, an example

I do not own a Gideons ESV so that I may freely and easily check verses in it. However, I believe the “Daily Bible Reading” ESV on the Gideons web site is their own modified ESV. I do not know how you can easily search it, but you can look at the daily Bible reading. Thus, you can see, for example, some of its problems in the daily Bible reading for April 4, 2025 (Luke 9:37-62). Just notice three verses from their web site as an example:

Luke 9:54-56 in the NKJV, which the Gideons used before changing to the “Gideon ESV”

54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

Luke 9:54-56 in the ESV

54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But he turned and rebuked them. 56 And they went on to another village.

Luke 9:54-56 in the ESV on the Gideons website

54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But he turned and rebuked them saying, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man came not to destroy people’s lives but to save them.” 56 And they went on to another village.

In verse 54, the Gideon ESV leaves out “just as Elijah did.” In verse 55 it keeps “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of” and moves “for the Son of Man came not to destroy people’s lives but to save them” into verse 55 as well – keeping verse 56 as it reads in the ESV. This is just one example; I am sure they can be multiplied over and over by one who has time to do so.

To me the Gideons ESV is just a weird hodge-podge creation. It haphazardly matches the ESV to the TR in places, and does not do so in other places.

The Gideon ESV

Over ten years ago, the Gideons in essence created a new Bible version. I guess I am just now catching up. The Gideons International, more commonly simply called Gideons, is a parachurch organization made up of Christian business & professional men and their wives, They are best known for freely distributing Bibles. In 2013 they made an unusual decision, to distribute a hybrid edition of the English Standard Version (ESV). The ESV, first published by Crossway in 2001, is a revision of the Revised Standard Version.

Originally the Gideons distributed King James Bibles, but at some year unknown to me, they began to distribute the New King James Version. After HarperCollins acquired Thomas Nelson, the publishers of the NKJV, apparently the Gideons were unable to negotiate a satisfactory licensing agreement with them. This is when they negotiated with Crossway and changed to the ESV. (I believe they may still distribute the KJV as well.)

Excerpts from “About This Bible” in the Gideons ESV.

“This edition of The Holy Bible is distributed free of charge throughout the world by The Gideons International. …

“The Holy Bible, English Standard Version ® (ESV ®) is copyright © Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, Illinois, 60187, USA. …

“At the request of The Gideons—and in appreciation for their worldwide, century-plus distribution of more than 1.8 million Bibles—Crossway is pleased to license the ESV Bible text to the Gideons, and to grant permission to The Gideons to include certain alternative readings based on the Textus Receptus, for exclusive free distribution of a Gideons edition, as follows: Bible translations of the New Testament into English and other languages are almost exclusively based on either (1) the Greek Textus Receptus manuscript tradition (which was the basis for the 1611 translation of the KJV Bible), or (b) the Greek NA-UBS manuscript corpus (which is the basis for almost all Bible translations completed since the late 1800s). In some places in the New Testament of the ESV Gideons edition, as printed and distributed exclusively under license to The Gideons International, the Gideons edition follows the Textus Receptus manuscript tradition, which corresponds in the vast majority of instances to the corpus of the New Testament Greek manuscripts known among scholars today as the Majority Text.”

Textual changes demonstrated.

Apparently the only textual changes in the ESV Gideons Bible are in the New Testament. Joshua Holman has studied the changes and published “Gideon changes to the English Standard Version New Testament.”

Promotional puffery.

Crossway includes this edition of the ESV as part of their promotional material. For example:

“More than two billion Bibles and New Testaments have been distributed in two hundred countries, territories, and possessions across the globe. The ESV Bible text is the primary English text used by The Gideons International for their printed Bibles and New Testaments.”

Final thoughts.

All told, the Gideons ESV is a very strange mash-up of a Bible. Eternity magazine reported in 2014:

“The Gideon’s new ESV translation is a unique edition produced with permission from Crossway Publishing. It includes over 50 alternate readings consistent with the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that formed the basis of the translations for the King James Bible.”

Lack of consistency.

It certainly is unique! The Gideons and Crossway have created a Bible that does not follow the Traditional Text, the Critical Text, or the Majority Text. The theoretical underlying Greek in fact does not exist. Though it restores some traditional text readings, it does not consistently reintroduce TR readings that are missing in the ESV.

Lack of cooperation.

The Gideons ESV creates a Bible that does not exist outside of their organization. It hands readers a Bible that they cannot obtain elsewhere. In this they separate from all existing Bibles used in Christian churches, and create an exclusive version of their own making. This promotes confusion to its readers.

Lack of conviction.

The Gideons ESV demonstrates a lack of conviction – on both the part of the Crossway and the Gideons. If Crossway had a conviction that Bibles should be translated from the Critical Text, they should stand by the courage of their convictions. If the Gideons had a conviction about the Traditional Text, they should not settle for a hodge-podge Critical/Traditional text.

Though I do not prefer or promote interdenominational parachurch organizations, I have generally thought well of the Gideons in their doing the work of distributing Bibles widely. This Gideons ESV, however, is a bad decision from every angle.

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

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

Wednesday, December 04, 2024

Another trust issue, the SKJV

The Simplified King James Version (Simplified KJV™) is a relatively new updated King James Version created by Barbour Publishing, Inc. Barbour is a Christian publishing house in Uhrichsville, Ohio. According to Barbour’s SKJV site, “The revision work was conducted by Peachtree Publishing Services, a highly respected Bible editing and proofreading company serving publishers around the world.” The online version shows that it is copyrighted in 2022, so it is at this point about two years old. In the following quotes from the Barbour SKJV FAQ page, they make it clear that their purpose is to update the language of the KJV, but not to retranslate anything.[i]

Is this a translation or a version?

The SKJV is a version. The term translation implies going back to the original documents, in the original languages, which we didn't do. Keeping all the original translation work of the 1611 Bible, the Simplified KJV Bible carefully updates old styles that may interfere with your understanding today while leaving the KJV translation work untouched.

What source documents were used?

Only the King James Version itself. We did not attempt to create a new translation from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Instead, our editors simply updated confusing words, spellings, sentence structures, and punctuation issues in the King James Version.

How does the SKJV differ from the NKJV?

The SKJV did not engage in any new translation work as the NKJV did. There will be similarities in wording, since both versions are based on the original KJV, but the SKJV limited itself to updating antiquated or confusing language in the original KJV text. The NKJV performed new translation work from the original languages.

However, the claims are not technically accurate. When I was studying the NKJV change of Isaiah 9:3 that contradicts or is translated in an opposite manner of the King James Bible, I decided to look up how that verse is presented in the SKJV. Here is a comparison to the Authorized King James Version.

  • AKJV: Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
  • SKJV: You have multiplied the nation and increased its joy. They rejoice before You according to the joy of harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the plunder.

If “only the King James Version itself” was the source document for the SKJV, why did they leave out the word “not” in Isaiah 9:3? This does not match the KJV, but does match the NKJV and most modern English translations.

I sent a message to Barbour Publishing, asking:

“In Isaiah 9:3 you change ‘Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy...’ to ‘You have multiplied the nation and increased its joy...’ How is this dropping of a word not a change to a new translation that does not agree with the King James Version?”

I received a quick response, which described this omission as a typographical error that will be corrected. I appreciate that they intend to correct it. However, the error causes me to question the reliability of their statement about only using “the King James Version itself” and yet ending up with a typographical error that matches modern English translations and does not match the KJV.[ii]

I find it hard to trust publishers that seem to say one thing and do another. I admit that I find it hard to believe this is simply a misprint. It would seem that they have had two years to correct it, and yet it still exists. I understand previously printed hard copies, but how long would it take to correct it online (which is where I read it, and is still there 20 Nov 2024 as I type this).


[i] Like most modern versions, but unlike the WEB which is public domain, Barbour maintains tight restrictions on quoting from the SKJV. Not more than 500 verses or 25% of the total work in which they are quoted, may be used with one of three credit lines they suggest. Permission must be specifically requested and granted by Barbour to use over 500 verses, or over 25% of the total work in which they are quoted. The Simplified KJV can be purchased in print from their site or on sites like Amazon. To read the version online, one must subscribe to their email service.
[ii] Another example of matching modern versions is the SKJV text of Proverbs 18:1. To compare:
  • AKJV: Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.
  • SKJV: Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeks and rages against all wisdom.
“Rages” matches the NKJV and is against the AKJV (The RV and ASV had “rageth”). A modern language update should have replaced “intermeddle” with a more common synonym rather than a word with a different meaning.

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Check your sources, again

In May 2024 I wrote a post for my blog titled “Check Your Sources.” It grew out of discovering a discrepancy in the online resource Blue Letter Bible. Probably most of us tend to trust what we consider reliable resources; probably most of us do not question the resource unless and until we run into a problem.

Later in May I read at John M. Asquith’s site a claim that the Wycliffe Bible was not translated from Jerome’s Vulgate. Because of researching this claim, I discovered another resource I use has some unexpected question marks surrounding it. When researching a “disputed” King James Bible reading, I check the translations of prior English Bibles. This includes the wording of the Wycliffe translation (available on HathiTrustOrg). There seems to be some question about what we have commonly accepted as the “Wycliffe Bible.” In 1850 Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden produced a “Wycliffe Bible.” Scholars (and the rest of us) have generally (or carelessly) accepted the work of Foshall and Madden as the work of Wycliffe. Yet, “some surprising discrepancies and inadequacies in their work have been discovered.” We may too uncritically refer to what the “Wycliffe Bible” says. Perhaps too little effort has gone into ferreting out what is the original work of John Wycliffe. Swedish scholar Sven L. Fristedt at the University of Stockholm produced three volumes on the subject of The Wycliffe Bible: Part I, The Principal Problems with the Forshall and Madden Edition; Part II, The Origin of the First Revision as Presented in De Salutaribus Documentis; Part III, Relationships of Trevisa and the Spanish Medieval Bibles. Nevertheless, these works appear to be little-known to the wider audience of Bible researchers.

“The Early Version of the Old Testament up to Baruch iii.20 (EV I) is contained in MS E (Bodl. 959), the manuscript that FM [Forshall and Madden] take to be the original copy of the translator or translators. FM did not, however, print their text from E, nor did they explain their choice of manuscripts, either here or elsewhere.” The Wycliffe Bible

Fristedt concludes that the FM edition does not represent “the most reliable reproduction of the original translation.” At the least, greater care should be taken in referring to what “the Wycliffe Bible” says. (And even the Forshall and Madden edition has two versions.) Wiping the egg from his face, again, he passes along a lesson learned (again).

  • Always check your sources.

Wednesday, September 04, 2024

Editions and printings of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated

For better or worse, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Benjamin George Wilkinson is something of a lightning rod in the Bible versions debate. Wilkinson, Dean of Theology at Washington Missionary College, wrote this defense of the Authorized (or King James) Bible in 1930 due to the denominational promotion of the American Standard Version of the Bible amongst the Seventh-day Adventists. Because of the place it holds in the Bible versions debates (though not always accurately and honestly portrayed), I thought it worthwhile to try to gather a list of editions and printings of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. This is a start, based on two books I have, what is listed at WorldCat.org, and printings for sale or otherwise mentioned online. I decided to also include electronic versions I found. If you know of additions or corrections, please let me know.


First edition
No publisher listed. Washington, District of Columbia, June 1930. 258 pages

Reprints
Bible For Today, Collinswood, New Jersey 1984
Burnside Press, Sydney, Australia 1979-1985?
Leaves of Autumn, Payson, Arizona (paperback) 1982, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1996. 258 pages
TEACH Services, [retypeset] Brushton, New York (paperback) 2006, 2014. 158 pages

Part 2 in Which Bible, by David Otis Fuller [retypeset] (paperback) 1970, et al. pp. 174-318

Online
At 4eAnge.com
At Internet Archive
At SabdaMedia.Org
From TemCat.com (archived)


Tuesday, July 16, 2024

“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.

Friday, July 05, 2024

Redemption through his blood

Extol the Lamb of God,
The all-atoning Lamb;
Redemption through his blood
Throughout the world proclaim: 
The Year of jubilee is come;
Return, ye ransomed sinners, home.
(Charles Wesley, No. 3, Hymns for New-Year’s-Day, 1750)

Poor Charles Wesley and his “ignorant” hymn writing. [i] Colossians 1:14 has a major variation between the King James Bible and modern translations based on the critical texts. “redemption through his blood” is in the King James translation, but not in the CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, RSV, et al.

  • Colossians 1:14 KJV in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
  • Colossians 1:14 NET in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

I found the note in the NET Bible intriguing.

26 tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou haimatos autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule MSS (614 630 1505 2464) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 𝕸 latt co as well as several other versions and fathers. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

  • Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7?” Um… because they made a scribal error? Miscopied it? I realize the issue is more complicated than this, but it is mind-boggling to me that textual critics make and put weight in such an argument! Otherwise they are constantly and consistently arguing for scribal errors, and yet suddenly scribes could not have made an error here unless they also made an error in Ephesians 1:7? To quote President Biden, “Come on, man.” Who can believe this stuff?

Conversely, we might wonder, if a scribe were deliberately paralleling the statement in Ephesians, why didn’t he also add “according to the riches of his grace”?

This is not a critical answer to the critical text guys. Nevertheless, I am often bumfuzzled by the sorts of arguments that might satisfy them.

[i] Colossians 1:14 in the John Wesley New Testament translation: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins: John Wesley was the brother of Charles Wesley.

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Critique of “A Nearly Forgotten Heritage: The Geneva Bible”

A critique of “A Nearly Forgotten Heritage: The Geneva Bible,” by Jonathan Edwards (a modern one, not the Puritan preacher) represents another curious piece of the “pro-Geneva/anti-KJV” puzzle.[i] It contains some of the so-called “common knowledge” that is “widely available online” which passes for historical truth.

“In 1568, the Bishops Bible was published. Although partially using the Tyndale work, it mostly translated from the Latin Vulgate.”

This is false, The Bishops Bible was not “mostly translated from the Latin Vulgate.”

“The Geneva remained popular, and despite many reprints, the Geneva did not require any revisions.”

This is also false. Yes, the Geneva Bible was revised – one revision admitted by this author – but there were others as well. The Geneva Bible itself finds its basis in the prior English translations. Some Geneva Bibles were printed with the New Testament revised by Laurence Tomson (for example, this 1590 printing).[ii]

“All of the KJV printings prior to 1666 contained the Apocrypha...”

This is probably generally true, but not totally correct, in an age when printers bound Bibles in all sorts of ways (e,g., they might add the Book of Common Prayer, Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter, etc.) This 1637 printing of the KJV does not contain the Apocrypha, but skips from Malachi to Matthew.

“…the King James Bible…also included the Apocrypha, books the Roman church used, but which had been removed from the Geneva (the 1560 edition did include the books in an ‘inter-testamental’ section). No marginal notes, no cross-references…”

This statement implies that King James translation did not have the Apocrypha in an “inter-testemantal” sections – but it does! It does not deal with The Prayer of Manasseh, which in the Geneva Bible did not include in or ever move to the “inter-testamental” section. He further misunderstands marginal notes and cross references, both of which the 1611 contain. However, it did not have commentary or study notes, as the Geneva Bible.

“It was a publishing failure. The people did not flock to the new Bible, they continued to use the tried and true Geneva.”

“In its first five years of existence, readers called for seventeen editions, compared with six editions of the Geneva Bible during those same years. Expanding the time frame, in the first 35 years of its existence the KJV went through a whopping 182 editions.” See “The Reception of the King James Bible” in Correcting the Internet.

“The Mayflower pilgrims brought the Geneva to America. As I learned my family history as a 10th generation descendant of John and Priscilla (speak for yourself, John) Alden, I became interested in the Geneva Bible. John’s Bible is on display in the museum at his home near Plymouth, Massachusetts.”

Apparently, this descendant of John Alden does not know Alden’s Bible on display in the museum at Plymouth is not a Geneva Bible, but is rather a King James Bible instead.

“The KJV...is nearly word-for-word identical to the Geneva. Because of the exceptionally close copy of the KJV to the Geneva, I refer to the ‘Authorized Version’ as the ‘Plagiarized Version.’ It is simply hard to believe that being so close, with the exception of maybe 10 places, the KJV is not simply plagiarized rather than an actual work of dedicated scholars.”

This is strange complaint from one touting the Geneva Bible. If it is so great, then he ought to be glad its replacement was so exactly like it! However, in honesty the King James translation definitely is not a plagiarized version of the Geneva Bible, and there are certainly many more than 10 places where the Geneva is different. Many many more. Yet it is true that all the early generations of the English Bible are all built on the work of one William Tyndale. And rightly so.

It is good that this (probably young) “amateur Christian historian” is interested in the Geneva Bible and the history of the English Bible. It is bad that he gets so many facts wrong – facts that someone else can now come along and say this is information “widely available online”! Sadder still that a site that dubs itself “Christian History Institute” allows such to pass as “Christian History.” “Maybe 10 places” the KJV is different from the Geneva? Does anybody at CHI even check the stuff that gets posted?


[i] “Jonathan Edwards is an amateur Christian historian living in the Salt Lake Valley. He has studied many eras of Christian history in depth, most recently focusing on the Reformation. He is a descendant of John Alden, a crew member of the historic 1620 voyage of the Mayflower, which brought the English settlers known as Pilgrims to Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts.”
[ii] A Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, James Hastings, Editor. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912, p. 250.

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Dan Wallace on his NKJV work

The following is my transcription of Daniel Wallace’s comments on the New King James Bible in his lecture “Which Translation is Best” (comments on the NKJV start about 18 minutes and 14 seconds in).

“The New King James Version, done in 1982, is a curiosity. Now, I’m going to say some things that are negative about it. But the reason I’m saying this is because I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing. And basically, the New King James takes exactly the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible took, and gives them a modern translation. The kind of translation (they had a lot of scholars, a lot of these scholars worked on some of these other translations), the basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is along the lines of the New American Standard. It’s not as elegant as the ESV; it’s not quite as rigid as the New American Standard Bible. The problem with it is its textual basis is so bad. Now, it’s not that it is heretical, it’s just -- why use a Bible that in 5000 places isn’t the word of God, when you can use one that is the word of God in those 5000 places? It just makes no sense to me, and yet Christian after Christian loves the New King James Bible and say – ‘Oh, but I just love this translation I know it’s inferior in terms of textual basis, but wherever it’s translated it’s really good.’ Then use an ESV and you have a much better textual basis and you’ve got great notes. It just troubles me that we want these things just because of how it sounds rather than because of the textual basis, on which it’s based. Again, I worked on the New King James Version. In fact, I was kind of the watchdog to make sure the translators were translating from the Textus Receptus. In one or two places they weren’t, they used a modern Greek text and I really nailed these guys. I said, ‘No, that’s not right. You’ve got to do the TR.’ So, not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this. They just wanted to do it so it was in line with the old King James, so, it’s a throwback, it’s a nostalgia thing that I just think we need to get past.” [18:14-20:24]

Next is the transcript provided by BiblicalTraining.org to go with the lesson. From that you can see that the above transcription is a spoken and expanded version of this:

“The New King James version of 1982 is a curiosity. I am going to say some negative things about it and I can say this because I worked on it. This Bible takes the same Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible and gives it a modern translation. The basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is similar to the New American Standard. It isn’t as elegant as the ESV or as rigid as the NASB. The problem with it; its textual basis is so bad. Interestingly, none of the translators involved with the NKJV thought the manuscripts which they used were the best manuscripts to use and over a hundred scholars worked on this translation. They wanted it done in line with the old King James Version. It was a nostalgia thing that we need to get past.”

This material is worth considering because Daniel Wallace, who at the time worked on the NKJV as an assistant to the senior editor Arthur Farstad, relates some of its history and work-in-progress, even pointing out that none of the NKJV translators believed the Greek text basis they were using was really what they should use – and some even tried to use something other than what they were instructed to use. I have previously pointed out that the NKJV and NIV has several translators in common. Wallace indicates that some NKJV translators worked on more than just that one modern translation.

Dan Wallace is obviously very biased against the NKJV, and some of what he says needs to be seasoned with a few grains of salt. The (then) young whippersnapper’s assessment that “I really nailed these guys” trying to use the CT must be judged in light of the product – there are several places where the NKJV translation better matches other modern translations based on the Critical Text than the King James Version based on the Textus Receptus. Some of his “nails” apparently did not hold.