Every translation since the KJV has attempted, in one way or another, to speak to modern readers. To some Christians, this smacks of giving in. My grandfathers would have pealed an amen! to the idea of standing fast on the KJV, but the average Christian today has little reason to consider the small differences between English Bible versions worth fighting for or sufficient to dictate doctrine.
In truth, not even the KJV translators themselves believed that the KJV was the single worthy translation of the Word of God. That's one of the misnomers of the KJV-only crowd. Nowhere do the translators claim that. Many of today’s most prominent evangelicals—men whom you might think would be traditionalist enough to advocate KJV-only, don’t. Important evangelicals of the recent past as diverse as Billy Graham, James Dobson, and Carl F. H. Henry haven’t taught that the KJV is the only true translation for at least a few decades.
In the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s first decade at Liberty University, other translations were endorsed. Even C. I. Scofield, a champion of the KJV (and my grandfathers’ preferred interpreter of the Scriptures), wrote in one of his thousands of footnotes to his once-popular Scofield Reference Bible:
"The writers of Scripture invariably affirm, where the subject is mentioned by them at all, that the words of their writings are divinely taught. This, of necessity, refers to the original documents, not to translations and versions; but the labours of competent scholars have brought our English versions to a degree of perfection so remarkable that we may confidently rest upon them as authoritative."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I tend to view attitudes towards the KJB as on a spectrum. At one end you have what I call the KJB "Dismissives". Those are usually modern textual critics who argue that the KJB is outdated, has poor sources and textual bases, is archaic, etc., and that basically it should be abandoned for modern versions. At the other end you have the KJO camp; wherein one finds the idea that the KJB is the only Bible that is a legitimate Bible for English speaking people. Sometimes this view implies nefarious motivations regarding the new translations.
ReplyDeleteInbetween are what I call KJB "Preferentialists". I place you and David Norton in the preferentialist category, along with many others, including myself. Preferentialists consider the KJB a living testament, do not consider it outdated, are generally skeptical about textual critiques of the KJB, find the idea that the KJB is 'archaic' or 'too difficult' for people today to be over the top, and in general think of the KJB as a work of majesterial beauty, worthy of continued reverence and study. On the other hand, the preferentialist is willing to look at other translations and is willing to use others to clarify meaning.
In "From the Translators to the Reader" it says, ". . . the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." I think this is consistent with the preferentialist view and is one that the KJB translators would have been sympathetic to.
Thanks,
Jim