January 17, 2001 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - One recent e-mail debate on the Bible Version issue contained the following statement debunking the scholarship of the translators of the 1611 Authorized English Version:
“In the realm of linguistics alone, the KJV translators were completely ignorant of numerous languages that shed important light on the OT, including Ugaritic, Phoenecian, Moabite, Old Aramaic, Akkadian, Old Persian (and more remotely, Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian and Sumerian). And the KJV men were wholly ignorant of the nature of NT Greek as being koine. And we could add their ignorance of (or ignoring of) the so-called Sharp’s rule, which demonstrates that Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 do with certainty affirm the deity of Christ--a fact obscured in the KJV. Beza wrote concerning this Greek construction and understood it correctly viz a viz Titus 2:13, but the KJV missed it. Scholarship was not mysteriously suspended in 1611, and somehow all further accumulation of knowledge ceased. No, scholars today have 4 more centuries of research and writing to build upon, and can see more clearly and accurately at many points than was even possible in 1611” (e-mail, Dec. 20, 2000, sent to betbapt@flash.net).
If this statement is true, it follows that the King James Bible is an exceedingly weak translation that should have gone by the wayside centuries ago. Men such as the author of the above statement pretend that they are not enemies of the King James Bible. They profess that they actually love the KJV; they are merely opposed to “extremism in the Bible version debate.” I don’t believe it for a minute. If they are friends of the KJV, it needs no enemies! Consider what they are saying: The Greek text underlying the King James Bible was rudimentary and weak. The best Greek text, they say, did not come to prominence until two and a half centuries later. Furthermore, the 17th century translators were infants in their scholarship, lacking even the most basic tools and skills necessary for the task, for the simple fact that those tools and skills (say they) were not available until centuries later. Where does that leave the King James Bible? It leaves it in a mess. It would mean that the King James Bible is literally filled with error, both textually and translationally. It would mean it is COMPLETELY untrustworthy. If that is the case, why do most of these same KJV critics still use the KJV at least in the pulpit and in their classrooms and chapels? Either it is a good translation or it is not. If it is not; if it is what they are saying it is; it is a worthless Bible and should be discarded immediately. If it is what they are saying it is, and if it is also true that “fundamentalists have never defended the King James Bible but have accepted modern textual criticism,” I want to know why fundamentalists of old almost always used the KJV? And that includes Bob Jones, J. Frank Norris, John Rice, you name it. What type of hypocrisy was that? If they really thought that the Westcott-Hort Greek text was the accurate text, why did they cleave to an antiquated, miserable old Bible like the King James? If the modern versions are better, why didn’t they use them?
The fact is that the scholarship of the 17th century translators was not mediocre. It was excellent and it was sufficient to produce excellent versions of Scripture. Consider the following comments by three men who understand these matters:
REPLY BY DR. DONALD WAITE:
[I wrote to Dr. Donald Waite, director of Bible for Today, and asked him to give a reply to this challenge. Dr. Waite has 118 semester hours (1,888 class hours) of training in the biblical and other foreign languages, plus countless hours of teaching and personal research in the use of these languages. He obtained a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952; an M.A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition from Dallas Seminary in 1955; and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. He holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts, and has taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for over thirty-five years in nine schools. Following is Dr. Waite’s response to the previous challenge:]
Dear Brother Cloud:
Let me answer partially by referring you to Chapter III of my book DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE (pp. 62-83) on the Translators’ Superiority. Though it is brief, and McClure goes into even more detail, yet it shows clearly how the KJB translators were cognizant of all of the “cognate” languages germane to their endeavors in the translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek . [Dr. Waite is referring to Alexander Wilson McClure (1808-1865), Translators Revived: Biographical Notes of the KJV Bible Translators. A reprint of this book is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. 800-564-6109 (orders), 856-854-4452 (voice), 856-854-2464 (fax), BFT@BibleForToday.org (e-mail).] Dr. Andrews was conversant with 15 languages (pp. 67-68). So far as Dr. Andrews ignorance of the Greek language is concerned, he devoted an entire Manual of Private Devotions wholly in the Greek language. (p. 67).
Dr. Bedwell knew thoroughly both the Arabic and the Persian languages and left documents for study in these languages, even a Persian dictionary (pp. 68-69). Dr. Bedwell was conversant with all of the cognate or sister languages that had anything to do with understanding the Hebrew O.T. (pp. 68-69). If the 10 languages listed [by the writer first quoted] have anything to do with an understanding of the Hebrew O.T., Dr. Bedwell and others on the translating team knew them and used them in their task. That’s what “cognate” languages means. If they have nothing germanely connected with the Hebrew translation task, why should the translators need to know them? Anymore than I as a Pastor need to know how to knit a rug in order to preach. Knitting has nothing whatever to do with preaching (except that both need lots of time, study, and patience). Dr. Bedwell definitely had a firm grasp of Arabic, Persian, Aramaic, Coptic, and various other cognate languages. (p. 69).
Dr. Miles Smith was expert in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic (p. 70).
I seem to remember in the e-mail correspondence of ------ that he railed at the KJB translators because they didn’t leave any of their works to this day. That’s not because they didn’t write any. It’s because we haven’t re-printed them. chapter III [of Defending the King James Bible] is replete with various scholarly works written by them.
As for his charge that they knew nothing of Greek grammar and made errors in the KJB translation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, this is false. Both these passages teach the deity of Christ in the KJB just as it stands. Their translation of all of the Greek and Latin Fathers certainly is indicative of their strong comprehension of the grammars of Greek and Latin.
As to the four more centuries of evidence and work we have today, so what! What are we doing with the learning of those four centuries? Have we stopped watching sports or other TV trivia? He is trying to say that we in our generation are intellectual giants and the KJB translators were pygmies, whereas exactly the opposite is the case. Remember this, David, “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” And that is the epitaph of [the author of the above challenge to the scholarship of the KJV translators] and hundreds of others like him. I say with my Saviour in Matthew 15:14, “Let them alone. They be blind leaders of the blind and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”
As to the Hebrew tools, the Trinitarian Bible Society in their April-June 1979 Quarterly Record compiled a list of the books at the disposal of the KJB translators--44 in all. Some of them are as follows:
Hebrew Old Testaments (complete and portions) by A. ben Chavim, Faro, Soncino, Hijar, Pesaro, Daniel Bomberg, etc.
The Hagiographa
Hebrew Grammar compiled by Pellican
Hebrew Grammar and Dictionary by Reuchlin
Hebrew Dictionary and Chaldee Grammar by Munster
Hebrew Dictionary by Pagninus
Translations and Commentaries by Abravanel, Kimchi, Salonika, Luther, Zwingli, Pellican, Leo Juda, Pagninus, Oecolampadius, Tremellius, Munster, Diodati, etc.
Complutensian Polyglot (complete with O.T. Hebrew and Chaldee texts, lexicon, and grammar)
The Antwerp Polyglott by Montanus (containing an interlinear of the Pagninus Hebrew text)
French Geneva Bible edited by B.C. Bertram, a distinguished Hebraist
Regarding the 17th century information on Greek, even Beza (whose 5th edition, 1598) knew all about such a Granville Sharp rule in his day. Does ------ think the gigantic scholars of the KJB didn’t know about that rule and more? All the rule says basically is if only one Greek article is used before two nouns connected by an “and” (kai), both nouns refer to the same person in two aspects.
In both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 that was cited, the KJB uses the “and” just as the “kai” should be used in many instances, as “even,” thus identifying the two nouns as referring to one and the same.
We have our Bible For Today #60 entitled “PROVING THE DEITY OF CHRIST” which discusses this Granville Sharp rule. Even in this study (by Dr. Richard D. Durham, a friend of mine) (page 10) he also recognizes that Theodore Beza knew of this rule in his day (1598 and before).
It seems strange indeed for the KJB translators to do so much more writing from Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic and other languages (many times more than our current know-it-alls of academia) when in fact they were so ignorant of all of the nice rules of the grammars of these languages which (allegedly) only the modern critics know.
I agree with your diligent pursuit of truth in these areas and with your knowing that the little people you listed will not be moved. Your audience are those who might be swayed by the half-truths, lies, falsehoods, distortions, and deception of some of the spiritual spin-doctors.
In Christ
Dr. D. A. Waite
________________
REPLY BY DR. JASON CALL:
[The following reply is from Jason Call, who obtained his doctorate from Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary, Virginia Beach, Virginia. He is founder and president of Providence Baptist Bible College & Theological Seminary, Chesapeake, Virginia]
Dear Brother Cloud,
It is saddening to see the sound, orthodox work of the KJV translators increasingly trashed in debate over the Word of God. To make matters worse, unregenerate, unorthodox scholars like Westcott and Hort are increasingly “resurrected” from their apostasy and given credibility.
I do not believe that -------- has an intellectual problem. However, his spiritual discernment is lacking. The Words of God must be received and believed (John 12:48, Acts 17:11). Why must men wrestle with the Words of God (2 Peter 3:16)? I would like ------- to use his linguistics, mathematics, and rationalism to explain how God can be three and one and the same time. It does not make “sense” in our minds, but we must simply believe. How do we reconcile the Person of Christ--both finite (human) and infinite (God); or the sovereignty of God in election and the responsibility of man to repent? The answer is: We do not reconcile, we believe.
Scholarship was suspended in 1611? Mr. ------- needs to study the qualifications of the KJV translators further. The sad truth is that he has probably already made up his mind. He does not like the KJV, so he does not like the translators.
Scholars have four more centuries of research and writing? If Mr. ------- is referring to the rationalistic works of the liberals, he is correct. There are multitudes of worthless, anti-supernatural, unorthodox works available (and more every day). However, these “scholars” can never produce a version that is better than its underlying text and since they all insist on using the corrupted CT, their work will never equal the KJV.
Mr. -------, as with the host of KJV-bashers, casts doubt upon the proven KJV. However, what does he offer? He and the rest of the Bible-bashers can offer nothing but promises of a better work someday in the future. Who is trusted with this crucial task? Bruce Metzger and other “scholars” that are churning out modern translations right and left. We know the modern “scholars” and their “work.” We know that it is worthless.
Praise God that in spite of the hardness of heart of many concerning the Words of God, there are a few that have open minds to the simple truths of God’s inspired, Inerrant, and Intact (preserved) Words. It is a joy to minister to some of the faithful few at Providence.
God bless you and your ministry of the Truth.
Dr. Jason Call
________________
REPLY FROM JOHN KRINKE:
[Mr. John Krinke teaches Greek at Heritage Baptist College, Greenwood, Indiana. Heritage was founded in 1955 by Ford Porter, author of the widely-used Gospel tract God’s Simple Plan of Salvation. From the beginning, Porter used and supported the KJV. In 1975, the college was moved from the downtown area of Indianapolis to the south suburban area under Dr. Clinton Branine (1926- ), who led the school for ten years. At that time, with the matter of Bible texts becoming more of an issue, the school took the position of the Dean Burgon Society. This remains the position of the school today under the direction of Russell Dennis, Jr., the son of the late Dr. Russell Dennis (1932-1998), who was president from 1985, when Indiana Baptist College was merged with the Heritage Baptist University, until his death in 1998. Dr. Dennis had a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University.]
Dear Brother Cloud:
Just a prefatory note; it is interesting that the neo-textualists, who in the main have been recently denigrating Sharp’s Rule (regarding uses of kai re deity particularly), are now interested in using Sharp’s Rule authoritatively to instead denigrate the scholarship of the KJB translators! Who knows what their agenda and methodology will be at any one time, except to ALWAYS attack the King James Bible.
It is sufficient to say that I find NO problem with the KJB in those areas. It is never wrong to exegete for more detailed clarity. Whether one translates with Sharp in mind or not, it is always possible to wrongly wrest the Scriptures, or to edifyingly translate, exegete, preach, teach, etc., in accordance with an accurate Bible Doctrine, paying close attention to the contextual usage of the grammar.
I wonder if all of the ancient languages Mr. ------ cites are those which were more modernly broken by Robert Dick Wilson, who did the language studies in order to refute the false scholarship of his day and before; probably all of the false scholarship were also on the side of those who were busily attacking by humanistic means the KJB and TR. Even if one uses a modern “strict Sharp” translation of these passages, it does not follow that a heretic cannot still wrest the passages to attempt to destroy Christ’s Deity, to their own destruction.
In a brief overview of the chief verses cited, I find no errors in the KJB. I do find good preaching material concerning Christ’s Deity! Without knowing exactly what the KJB translators had in hand as to rules of grammar and related languages to the Koine, Hebrew and Aramaic, PLUS the fact that we have imperfect knowledge of English idiomatic constructions of the 1600s, I am certainly in no position to criticize the KJB translators. But I do know that modern scholars regularly miss the boat on English etymology and usage, so why should I cite them as authorities on English translations?
Interestingly, according to Dan Wallace, Sharp wrote his only Greek grammar work to refute “wrong translations” in the KJB. If Sharp did write his book to denigrate the KJB, why did he do it? Could he not have taken the same grammatical research to explain how the exact Greek construction proves the Deity of Christ, and exhort preachers to so teach and preach. The KJB needs no revision, but simply needs to be expounded more fully in many, if not all cases. If only a reading of The Scriptures is all that is ever needed, then why did the Ethiopian eunuch ask for an exposition of what he had been reading? [I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1 Cor. 1:21). [“foolishness” -- what is considered foolish, intellectually weak, or irrational foolishness, nonsense.]
John Krinke