Evaluating the King James Version

Revelation & Scripture
Evaluating the King James Version

Disadvantages

The primary weakness of the King James Version is that it is based upon the Textus Receptus which was authored by Erasmus in March 1516. Erasmus used many Greek manuscripts in preparing the Textus Receptus, but none of them were earlier than the 12^th century. The Textus Receptus, though not equivalent to the Byzantine text, is quite similar. The Textus Receptus did not have access to some of the more prominent early manuscripts we discussed last week: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Since these are both earlier manuscripts and from a broader geographical range, they most likely represent better textual evidence of the original.

For modern readers, the KJV does not represent a very readable text. The Old English language is not readily understood by modern readers. If the meaning of a Bible translation is not able to be understood, it really is not particularly useful.

Advantages

The KJV of 1611 was written by some of the best scholars and linguists of the day. These men were also devout and pious Christians. They were broken up into six companies (groupings) totaling 47 men.

As it was commissioned by King James, this version was very widely used by both the church, state, and people. As we discussed last time, one of the main reasons the KJV came about was so that the people wouldn’t be using one translation (The Geneva Bible) and the church another (The Bishop’s Bible).

This was the culmination of almost 100 years of good serious Bible translation. Starting with Tyndale, Coverdale and others, the KJV was the culmination of continuing efforts to make the best English translation available and accessible to people.

The KJV was a very good piece of English literature at the time, fitting in well with other stylistic and artistic pieces of literature in this period.

While many of us may not find the KJV as useful today for our reading and studying of Scripture, we must recognize that it was the Bible translation for the past four hundred years. Like many of you, I memorized most of my early Scripture verses in the KJV and still remember them in that translation. I do not think it is the best version to use in today’s churches, but it is in now way morally deficient or heretical.

Some "Weird and Wonderful" thoughts about the KJV:

The KJV is inspired – Evangelical Christians believe in the inspiration of the original autographs of Scripture. The original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (which we do not have access to, but are very accurately reproduced through the science of textual criticism) are inspired, not any English translation, including the KJV.

The KJV is the only theologically accurate version – This is simply not true. Most of the modern English versions have no theological inaccuracies. The theology of the KJV is certainly theologically strong, but so also is the theology of various other versions.

A look at some of the supposedly "corrupted" passages (according to KJV advocates):

[The first part identifies the explanation espoused by KJV advocates. The "Evaluation" is the instructor’s critique of this concern.]

1. The deity of Christ is watered down in Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30 in non-KJV versions. Instead of translating the text "God’s Son" (KJV), other version translate it "God’s servant."

Evaluation: The common Greek word for "son" is uios. The common Greek word for servant is doulos. The word used in this text is paidos (paida). This is simply an issue of translation. In most cases in the New Testament, paidos is translated as "child" (often a male child = son). However, in most occasions when Jesus is referred to as "God’s son" the words uios theou (son of God) are together. Since this is not the case, this is likely why modern translations have not used the word "Son." Regardless of this dispute, the context is quite clear that Jesus is being referred to, whether or not we read "Son" or "servant."

2. The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch is eliminated in the non-KJV versions of Acts 8:37.

Evaluation: As the footnotes in most modern translations indicates "the early manuscripts do not have verse 37 in them." This is indeed an accurate statement as Aleph, A, B, C, p45, p74 and others do not have the words:

"Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The official answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Furthermore, even if the non-KJV translations do not include this phrase, is it not quite clear that the Ethiopian eunuch was indeed saved? If you read your Bible (in any version) there is nobody who gets baptized without getting "saved." Salvation is always a pre-requisite for baptism. Thus, since there is no doubt in verses 38-39 that the Ethiopian eunuch got baptized, is it really reasonable to say that these other versions "eliminate" the salvation. It is assumed to be the case in Scripture that someone who has been baptized experienced salvation first.

3. In Luke 2:33 the KJV says "his father and his mother marvelled..." whereas other translations say "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." Some KJV proponents have cited this as another example of bad theology in non-KJV translations in that it denies the virgin birth of Christ.

Evaluation: First, this is a textual issue, not a theological issue. The textual evidence on this piece is mixed – some early manuscripts (Aleph, B, D) have the word "father" while other early manuscripts (A) have the name "Joseph." There are actually four variant readings of this text. So textual criticism should be the main concern on this passage.

However, there is no way this passage in other versions denies the virgin birth of Christ. The KJV use of "his father" quite obviously refers to the man named Joseph who was married to Mary and who were Jesus’ parents. Furthermore, if the other translations were truly attempting to deny the virgin birth of Christ, they would likely have changed the translation of Luke 1:27 & 34 so that it did not say "virgin."

Preface to the King James Version

See http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvpref.htm

	The KJV of 1611 was written by some of the best scholars and linguists of the day. These men were also devout and pious Christians. They were broken up into six companies (groupings) totaling 47 men.
	As it was commissioned by King James, this version was very widely used by both the church, state, and people. As we discussed last time, one of the main reasons the KJV came about was so that the people wouldn’t be using one translation (The Geneva Bible) and the church another (The Bishop’s Bible).
	This was the culmination of almost 100 years of good serious Bible translation. Starting with Tyndale, Coverdale and others, the KJV was the culmination of continuing efforts to make the best English translation available and accessible to people.
	The KJV was a very good piece of English literature at the time, fitting in well with other stylistic and artistic pieces of literature in this period.

	The KJV is inspired – Evangelical Christians believe in the inspiration of the original autographs of Scripture. The original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (which we do not have access to, but are very accurately reproduced through the science of textual criticism) are inspired, not any English translation, including the KJV.
	The KJV is the only theologically accurate version – This is simply not true. Most of the modern English versions have no theological inaccuracies. The theology of the KJV is certainly theologically strong, but so also is the theology of various other versions.