Books and Articles About the KJV (1)

If you’ve not read the KJV before (all the way through), and these posts have piqued your interest, this post is intended to give you some further direction.

The KJV Itself

If you don’t have a copy of the KJV, I would highly recommend that you purchase the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (sorry, Dr. Carrick, the Oxford editions just don’t measure up). It is available in paperback as part of the Penguin Classics series, or in really nice (and really expensive) leather versions. Why this edition? The editor, David Norton, has completely and carefully gone over the entire text (see his comments under “Text” in the Introduction), producing a text as close as possible to what the original translators intended. All spelling has been modernized. The font is quite readable, and it is set out in a nice single-column format. Those of you who are real history geeks might also want to consult Norton’s companion volume to this Bible, A Textual History of the King James Bible. The two volumes were originally published together in 2005.

Books and Articles About the KJV

Since this year is the four hundredth anniversary of the publication of the KJV, many books on its history and influence have been published this year. Of these histories, I recommend the following three (although almost any of the others would certainly be worth reading). First, I would mention Leland Ryken’s The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation.  The first part is devoted to a brief history of the origins of the KJV. The last three parts deal with the various kinds of influence that the KJV has had over the last four centuries. Ryken is a professor of English at Wheaton College, and has written extensively on the Bible and translations. Second, I would recommend David Norton’s The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today. Most of the book is devoted to the story of the actual production of the KJV, with the last section being a summary of the history of the influence of the KJV. The third history would be Gordon Campbell’s Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011. This is a more even treatment of the history from 1611 to the present than Norton’s and is part of Oxford University Press’s contribution (Norton’s, of course, is from the Cambridge University Press.)

 

In addition to these works focusing on the KJV, I would recommend Tyndale’s New Testament, edited by David Daniell. Tyndale’s work was a key precursor to the work of the KJV translators. The introduction by Daniell is full of interesting information, including pointing out that many memorable lines from the New Testament that we associate with the KJV originated with Tyndale. In addition, while many of you may have read the KJV, probably very few have read Tyndale. Since Daniell has had it set in modern type and with modernized spelling, it is quite amazing how readable it still is after almost five hundred years.

One more tidbit to throw out for this post. In 1950, C. S. Lewis gave the Ethel M. Wood Lecture at the University of London. The title of that lecture was “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version.” For those interested, whether Lewis fans, or KJV fans, or literary types, the text of the lecture is available online at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf

Practical Reflections on Using the KJV

Some people, having read my preceding responses to Joel Beeke’s piece, might conclude that I think the KJV ought to be dumped on the rubbish heap of ancient Bible translations. That could not be further from the truth. However, I do think that the general usefulness of the KJV is not what it once was. Fifty year ago my home church (an admittedly liberal UPCUSA congregation) was using the RSV as the pew Bible, and the Bible they gave to students in Sunday school. Conservative congregations were still using the KJV. So how should the KJV be used today?

First, I do not recommend the KJV as a pulpit/pew Bible. Unless you have a unique congregation (such as Dr. Beeke’s), regular reading from the KJV will serve primarily to confuse and alienate the congregation. An exception to this might be at Christmas and Easter services (if your church has such) and where even the man off the street should be able to follow the Bible narratives associated with those events.

In general, however, the KJV requires a sophisticated reader, and apparently American Christians (perhaps like Americans in general) are becoming less able to handle sophisticated reading. The prominence of the NIV and, increasingly the NLT, in evangelical circles bears witness to that fact.

It is still possible for the individual reader to use the KJV profitably. In order to do this, though, you need to be willing to read it with a good historical dictionary beside you (or online, available at a few keystrokes). Many words have changed meaning, or have different nuances than they did four hundred years ago. For this reason you also need to read slowly and thoughtfully. The KJV is not the version to read if you are doing the Bible in 90 days program.

One of its characteristics is that it reflects the original Greek and Hebrew syntax more clearly than many modern translations. Thus, the KJV provides a way of reading the original for those who have no command of the original languages. For example, the style of Jeremiah is very different from the style of Isaiah. This is very clear in the KJV, but it is not so clear in the functional equivalence translations that are popular today. Those versions have reduced it all to a simple-minded sameness.

An example may help here. In Isaiah 3:19-23 (a passage I criticized in an earlier post because of the archaic words used), every “and” in the KJV represents the presence of the standard Hebrew conjunction. Most modern versions do not do that. They simply turn the series into a list, which then ceases to have any rhetorical power. The KJV, in following the lead of the Hebrew text, has a rhythm to the “list” that actually produces a good rhetorical effect, in spite of the fact that the various words are mostly unknown. Incidentally, the NASB Update, which is in general a very literal translation, misses the boat here, completely ignoring the Hebrew connective and using only commas.

One other suggestion for making good use of the KJV: buy a copy of the recorded version read by Alexander Scourby. It is the best of the recorded versions. Listen to Scourby read as you follow along. That will help you to keep pace, and it will also help you with the pronunciation of names and archaic words.

Reflections Regarding the KJV (8)

Beeke’s twelfth point is that the translators of the KJV were “men of sound religious faith.” He then calls into question the soundness of the religious faith of the translators of modern versions. It is true that the translators of the RSV and NRSV have been people by and large coimmitted to liberal theology. But neither version is used much by evangelicals. It is also doubtless the case that the religious faith of some translators of other modern versions is less than completely sound. But how does Beeke know? Has he met these people? Has he examined the depth and reality of their faith? No. He simply throws out the charge. That’s hardly just, and really is an ad hominem attack on the translators, which is then used to call into question the reliability of the translation. On what basis, for example, would Beeke call into question the soundness of the religious faith of the translators of the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV? It seems to me that his assertion is special pleading motivated more by a devotion to the KJV than by a devotion to a fair and just evaluation of modern translations.

Another way of putting my complaint with Beeke’s point is this: suppose a number of godly young men were gathered together to produce a translation of the Bible. All of them had had one year of instruction in Greek and one year of instruction in Hebrew. They could no doubt produce a usable translation. But there would be legitimate questions about the quality of the translation, due not to the question of their godliness, but due to their inexperience with the biblical languages.

Beeke’s last point is simply more in the way of ad hominem attacks on modern versions. He says, for example, “This change to new translations was often part of an effort to strip worship services of dignity, reverence, and beauty, in favour of the casual, the contemporary, and the convenient.” How does he know that? How does he know that modern versions were not motivated by a desire for people to be able to read the Bible with understanding? How does he know that new translations were not motivated by a desire to enable people to read the Bible and to hear it read without stumbling over archaic words (take a look at Isaiah 3:18-24 and ask youself if you have any idea what most of those words refer to), and becoming confused by words that have changed in meaning over the last four hundred years (for example, it helps in reading the KJV to know that “prevent” does not mean to stop, or to inhibit, but rather to go before, to anticipate). It is the case that all human projects, even Christian projects, are filled with mixed motives. That is particularly the case when large numbers of people are involved in the project. But Beeke dismisses them all with one sentence. They are really all, to Beeke’s way of thinking, driven by base motives, designing to lead people away from godliness. I ask Beeke to prove the charge. I don’t think he can do it. In all fairness to those who have devoted years of labor to the production of Bible translations that seek to honor God and make his word available in the language  of the people, he needs to stop this sort of attack on the motives of people he doesn’t know. 

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (7)

Beeke’s 11^th reason for retaining the KJV is that it sounds like the Bible. In Beeke’s view this was deliberately aimed at by the translators of the KJV. They aimed for it to sound, in its day, a little old-fashioned, formal, as a way to command a reverent hearing. There is a sense in which this is true. The KJV was not intended to be an entirely new translation, completely separate from those already available. Instead it was to retain the best of them in a revision that would be acceptable to the entire English church. For example, many memorable phrases and verses that we connect with the KJV actually came from Tyndale’s translation, but were retained by the KJV translators.

As with some of Beeke’s other reasons, this reason doesn’t apply only to the KJV. The ESV, the NASB, and the NKJV are all intentionally a little “stuffy.” They are deliberately formal (in addition to following a formal equivalence translation philosophy). They are intended to carry the weight of being a presentation of the Word of God in English.

Beeke further argues that the unbeliever expects the Bible to sound this way. “He expects the church to speak in a way that is timeless and other-worldly.” Again, this can be accomplished without recourse to the KJV. It is true that many of the recent translations sound casual. This springs from two sources. First, it comes from the commitment to a functional equivalence translation philosophy. Second, it comes from a sense on the part of the translators that the reader ought to be able to understand the Bible by himself, as it were, without helps. Thus many of the new translations sound little different from today’s newspapers (except for the fact that newspapers arre not afraid to use technical language). But in this move, the translations lose any real sense of reverence, formality, and timelessness. There was a paraphrase of Paul’s letters that appeared in 1971 titled Letters to Street Christians. It was deliberately written in the idiom of the late 1960’s. Today it is almost incomprehensible, because popular English idiom has changed so much in the intervening forty years.
However, there is a legitimate question as to when “a little old-fashioned” moves beyond the realm of comprehensibility. In Dr. Beeke’s church context, most of the parishioners have been raised on the KJV. Many perhaps use it for their daily Bible reading. Thus, to hear it read from the pulpit causes no difficulty. However, many younger evangelicals coming into Reformed churches have an entirely different experience. They were not raised in church or on the Bible. If they were raised in church, it is often the case that the church they were raised in, or the church they have been attending, has little in the way of Bible reading. Many modern evangelical churches may go through a whole service with no more than a handful of verses being read from the Bible. To sit, then, in a Reformed service where maybe an entire chapter is read from the KJV is to listen to a different language. Yes, to many such people the KJV might sound like what they expect the Word of God to sound like—incomprehensible. For many today, the KJV is not much more comprehensible than the Vulgate was to the contemporaries of the translators of the KJV. Is that what we as pastors want to put on our congregations? It is probably the case that there are still congregations where the KJV as the pulpit Bible works. But my own sense is that those congregations are few and far between.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (6)

Beeke’s seventh reason for retaining the KJV is that it is laid out in a verse-by-verse format, which is the easiest for preaching. In other words, as any minister who preaches from the text can tell you, it is easier to find a verse if the verses are laid out verse-by-verse rather than in paragraph format. It is also easier to find the verse if it is printed in single-column, rather than double-column format. Currently, the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV are available in verse-by-verse, single-column format. That is, the KJV is not distinctive on this point.

Beeke next states that the KJV is the most beautiful translation. While I tend to agree with Beeke, the beauty of a translation is, to some extent, a matter of opinion. Certainly in well-known passages, such as the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, Psalms 23 and 100, and other like passages, the KJV has a resonance that most modern versions lack. The question is whether this is a matter of it being inherently more beautiful, or simply being more familiar. It may well be that the early 17^th century was simply a period when English was at its highest aesthetic level. The KJV resonates, at least with the sophisticated reader. The modern formal-equivalence translations (that is, those most likely to be used by people who would otherwise use the KJV) simply don’t seem to have the same beauty. An example might help here. In 1Kgs 19:12, Elijah is at Mt. Horeb, and after the wind, earthquake and, fire, there is “a still small voice” (KJV). According to the NASB, there is “a sound of a gentle blowing.” The first certainly sounds better, and is probably no less accurate than the second.

Beeke’s ninth point is that the KJV serves as an ecumenical text for Reformed Christians. He says, “this version is used by preference in many conservative Reformed congregations.” I suppose it depends on what you mean by conservative Reformed congregations. I’ve preached in a number of conservative Reformed congregations over the last twenty years, and not one of them has used the KJV as the pew or the pulpit Bible. The days when one translation served all conservative congregations are long gone. One might wish it were otherwise, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Tenth, Beeke considers the KJV a practical choice in that it “is available in many editions; with a full range of helps and reference materials, not to mention computer software; in large-type, clear-print editions; and often priced well below modern translations.” That’s true to an extent, in that finding an exhaustive concordance for the NKJV or the NASB or the ESV is not easy. Apart from that, most of the rest of Beeke’s statements applies at least as well to modern versions, especially the formal-equivalence translations. All one has to do is go to the Bible page at www.christianbook.com to find out that all of those translations are available in about as wide a range of editions as is the KJV. It is true that the KJV is sometimes less expensive than one of the modern versions for a similar edition, but that is not universally the case. Particularly with modern Bible study software, the modern versions are generally as well-served as the KJV.

Beeke’s last three reasons will require greater discussion, so I will stop here for this post.

Practical Reflections on the KJV (5)

Beeke’s third point has to do with translation philosophy. The KJV has a “word-for-word” approach (more commonly called formal equivalence today), whereas versions such as the NIV take more of a “meaning-for-meaning” approach. This latter approach was generally called “dynamic equivalence” when the NIV first appeared. But over time it has gotten a bad name. Currently the preference is to call it functional equivalence.

While it is true that the KJV takes a formal equivalence approach to translating the text, that is also true of some modern translations. The NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV all take a formal equivalence approach to translating the text. Thus there is nothing distinctive about the KJV at this point.

Beeke’s fourth point is that the KJV is “a more honest translation.” By this, he means that words not in the original but supplied by the translator have been put in italics. This is not done with the NIV “lest the loose method of its translators be unmercifully exposed to view.” I don’t know if it would be possible to express this point in a more loaded or biased fashion. It is true that interpolated words are not indicated by words in italics in the NIV. The possibility is precluded by the translation philosophy adopted by the translators. I carry no brief for the NIV, but it is less than honest of Beeke to make this a point of contention. The translation philosophy of the KJV (and the NKJV, NASB, and ESV) is amenable to the indication of interpolated words by the use of italics. The translation philosophy of the NIV (and the NLT, NEB, etc., etc.) is not. Beeke’s problem here is not really with italics vs. no italics. His problem is with the translation philosophy. In short, this is not essentially a different reason than number three.

Beeke’s fifth point is that the idiom of the KJV is more precise. By this he apparently means no more than that the KJV indicates the distinction between the second person singular pronouns and the second person plural pronouns (between “thou” [2^nd person singular] and “you” [2^nd person plural]). On this point, Beeke is absolutely right. Both Hebrew and Greek make distinctions between the form of the second person singular pronoun and the second person plural. The KJV does also, while modern translations do not. I wonder, however, how many readers of the KJV are aware of this, and whether it makes any difference to them as they read. I do wish that there were a way in modern English of indicating the difference between the two. As Beeke says, it is often important. Perhaps modern English versions could adopt “y’all” for the second person plural.

Beeke’s sixth reason for retaing the KJV is that it is “the best liturgical text.” In other words, it is, in Beeke’s opinion, the best for reading in public worship. Maybe. It often depends on who is reading it. I would much rather hear the NIV read well than the KJV read badly. It also depends to a certain extent on the congregation. What version do they have? Do they follow along in the reading in their own Bibles, or do they listen to the version being read. My own preference is that people lay their Bibles aside when the Scripture is being publicly read, and listen to the text that is being read. That way, if there are differences between the version being read, and the version someone in the pew has, the congregant is not distracted by the differences.

I have more to say on the public reading of Scripture, but I’ll visit that at another point in the discussion.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (4)

I hope you understood the discussion about the Textus Receptus, and the debate about what Greek text of the New Testament should serve as the basis for our English translations. If not, comment, and let me know. The point of that entire discussion was to show what the different texts are (TR, eclectic, and majority). To many people, it makes a huge difference what text is used. As noted last time, the KJV and the NKJV use the TR. As far as I know, almost all other English translations since 1880 have used some form of the eclectic text. To my knowledge, there is no English version based on the majority text. Beeke says, “the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations.” In other words, as far as Beeke is concerned the eclectic and majority texts are inauthentic (or at least less authentic than the TR) and lacking. Also, the eclectic and majority texts have many omissions and textual rewrites.

I don’t have the space to go into a full discussion of that now, but am working on a project that will address at least some of those concerns. My own view is that the debate over the Greek text of the New Testament is, if not a tempest in a teapot, it is at least not nearly as significant as many people (including Beeke) seem to think it is.

One way of giving you a sense of what the variations are is to direct you to a copy of the NKJV. For the body of the NT, the NKJV has used the TR. In the marginal notes, the editors have indicated where the eclectic text and the majority text differ from the TR. The eclectic text is indicate by the letters NU. The NU stands for the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. M stands for Majority Text. For a fuller discussion, you can refer to the Preface to the NKJV. One example of differences among the texts is in the issue of spelling, especially of names. If you look at Matt 1:7, the NKJV reads, “Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.” The footnote to this verse indicates that instead of Asa, the NU has Asaph. Asa is what appears in the Hebrew text of 1 Chron 3:10 (apparently the source for Matthew’s genealogy) and also in the Septuagint (old Greek translation of the Old Testament). However, many Greek manuscripts of Matthew 1:7 have Asaph. Is this just a spelling variation, as the footnote in the ESV suggests, or is this an error in the NU text? It’s difficult to say, because unless it is simply a spelling variation there does not seem to be a good explanation for the origin of “Asaph” as opposed to “Asa.”

Another example is the question of “omissions.” If you look at Matt 5:27, the NKJV reads, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery.” The footnote indicates that both the NU text and the Majority text “omit” the phrase “to those of old.” Now, it is certainly possible that the manuscripts reflected in the NU and M omitted that phrase. It is not difficult to accidentally omit something in copying. However, it is also possible that the manuscripts behind the TR added the phrase in order to make vs 27 consistent with vss 21 and 33. But it should also be noted that vss 38 and 43 lack the phrase. So is vs 27 a case of NU and M omission or a case TR addition?

In short, as I said above, I think this is much less of an issue than others appear to think it.

Next time I will move on to Beeke’s third point.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (Part 3)

Erasmus continued to work on his Greek New Testament (GNT) even after its publication, and subsequent editions were published, with the fourth and last appearing in 1527. In all, about half a dozen manuscripts formed the basis for Erasmus’s GNT. By the middle of the 16^th century, a French printer by the name of Robert Estienne (also known as Stephanus) had also become involved in the publication of the GNT. His last edition appeared in 1551. This text was not significantly different from that of Erasmus. Following Stephanus, Theodore Beza, the disciple of Calvin, also became involved in the editing and publishing of the GNT, publishing ten editions between 1565 and a posthumous edition in 1611. Six of those were simply reprints of four distinct editions. Beza’s work served to preserve the GNT text as it had been published by Erasmus and Stephanus. Thus by the end of the 16^th century, the GNT as edited by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, had become the received text (the Textus Receptus) of the GNT. The last two distinct editions of Beza (1588 and 1598) were the texts that the KJV translators relied upon.

This text of the GNT became the standard text for the next three hundred years or so, until the discovery of many more manuscripts of the GNT in the 19^th century. At that point it rightly held the title of Textus Receptus. However, since 1881, the Textus Receptus has effectively lost its position as the received text. The translators of the NKJV deliberately chose the TR as the basis of their New Testament. However, no other major English translation (or even minor English translations, to my knowledge) has used the TR as the basis for its New Testament. Instead, beginning with the English Revised Version (1881-1885), English versions have used the so-called “critical” or “eclectic” text as the basis of their translations. The list includes the ASV, RSV, the Modern Language Bible, Today’s English Version, the NASB (and its 1995 update), the NIV, the Contemporary English Version, the New Century Version, and the ESV, among others. Beeke is technically correct when he says that the TR has been used by the church historically. However, it is now the case that that history essentially stopped at the middle of the 19^th century, and a new received text has replaced the TR.

This brings us to Beeke’s other two claims. First Beeke states:  “Oldest Does Not Mean Best – The Westcott and Hort arguments that ‘the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable’ and that ‘age carries more weight than volume’ are not necessarily true. It could well be that the two oldest, complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscripts in their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts. This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.” I know that Beeke was trying for brevity here. Nonetheless, it is a misleading summary of the views of those who support an eclectic text. It may be that the two oldest and and best-preserved manuscripts are well-preserved because they were recognized as faulty and not handled’ much. It may also be that they were well-preserved because those who preserved them recognized their importance and value and protected them. The fact that there are many differences between them is also misleading. There are many differences among the manuscripts that lie behind the TR.

Beeke also says: “Volume – The King James Version is based upon the Traditional Text. The vast majority of the more than 5,000 known partial and complete Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading.” This is gross overstatement. There are many differences between the TR and what is today called the Majority Text.

Beeke would have been better off to have skipped this reason entirely. It is full of loaded language that, while perhaps rhetorically effective, is less than honest. So, for example, the statement “the most authentic and fullest available text” implies that others are not authentic, and that they deliberately omit things that should be there. That has to be proven, not merely asserted. I would have expected better from Dr. Beeke. 

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (cont)

Dr. Beeke’s second reason is given in the first paragraph of his essay as follows: “Based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek NT), and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT), the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations such as the Revised Standard Versions (RSV) and the NIV.”

This reason alone is going to take more than one post to deal with. First, for those who don’t know what is meant by Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, a brief definition of each. Textus Receptus is usually used to refer to the Greek text underlying the New Testament of the KJV. Before the invention of the printing press in the 15^th century, books were copied by hand. This made books rare and expensive. It also had the tendency to produce errors in the copies made. [Just as an exercise, you might try copying out an entire book of the Bible by hand. Hint: try a short book first. You will notice that you have to pay very careful attention to avoid mistakes in copying. It gives you some appreciation for the labors of the copyists who preserved ancient texts for us down through the centuries.]

Most scholars working with the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible had access to only a very small number of manuscripts. The only exceptions would have been scholars who had access to major libraries, such as the Vatican library or libraries at the largest and most prestigious European universities. With the printing press, it was possible to make a large number of identical copies of the same text. Thus, as scholars began to prepare biblical texts for printing, they would gather a number of handwritten manuscripts together so that they could figure out what the correct readings were throughout the text. This is known as collation. Wherever there were variants among the texts, the scholar doing the work would have to decide which reading was to be preferred. This is, in brief, the art and science of textual criticism.

With regard to the Greek text of the New Testament, the first printed text was part of a major production by Catholic scholars under the aegis of Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros of Spain. It included the Old Testament in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek and the New Testament in Greek and Latin. Such a “parallel Bible” in different languages is known as a polyglot. It was printed in the town of Alcala, Spain; the New Testament volume having been printed in 1514. [Which, and how many, Greek manuscripts lay behind this work no one knows.] The name of the town in Latin is Complutum, so the work became known as the Complutensian Polyglot. However, for whatever reason, though the work had been printed, it was not put on the market.

The first published Greek text (that is, both printed and put on the market) was edited by Erasmus, based on a fairly limited number of Greek manuscripts, none of which contained the entire New Testament. The work was published in 1516. Thus it had been printed after the Complutensian Polyglot, but hit the market about six years before it.

This is not the full story of the Textus Receptus, but I also have to say something about the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic (sometimes spelled Massoretic) Text is the Hebrew text of the Old Testament as it had been copied and handed down through the centuries. Up until about AD 500, Hebrew texts had included only consonants (not as bad a thing as it might sound; more explanation later). Over the next few centuries a system of indicating the vowels was developed and became a part of the text. These “voweled” texts became know as the Masoretic Text (MT), and it was those texts that became the basis for printed copies of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Next post, more on the Textus Receptus, and a little more on the MT.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV

This post begins a series responding to a short piece written by Joel Beeke a few years ago. If he wrote it a few years ago, why respond now? First, I only recently became aware of Beeke’s piece. Second, this year is the 400^th anniversary of the publication of the KJV. Third, there have been a number of pieces published in the popular press regarding the KJV and its qualities.

Beeke’s piece itself may be read here:

http://zion.redemptivehistory.org/oldtestament/Retaining%20the%20KJV.doc

Who is Joel Beeke, and why take him on? For those who do not know, Joel Beeke is the president of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and pastor of Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is well-known in conservative Reformed circles and is a regular speaker at Bible and theology conferences. He is also not a “KJV-only” radical, as that phrase is typically used. The reasons for taking him on are two-fold. First, he is well-known and well-respected in our circles. Second, while I agree with some of what he says in this piece, there seem to me to be some cultural and sociological issues, in addition to theological issues, that Beeke (and others who hold a position like his) either does not recognize or does not care to address, that affect the selection of a Bible translation not only for personal study but for public worship.

My series of posts will simply respond sequentially to Beeke’s points.

His first point is that the KJV is “The Standard Text of the English Bible.” Under this heading he makes three points. First, the quality of a translation can only be known by using it over time. This is true. In this regard, the KJV certainly is well-tested over time. Other currently popular translations cannot make the same claim. The NIV New Testament first appeared in the 1970s, with the whole Bible copyrighted in 1984. The New American Standard Bible dates to 1977, with a major revision dating to 1995. The New King James Version appeared in 1982. The English Standard Version appeared in 2001. The Holman Christian Standard Bible New Testament appeared in 1999, with the whole Bible making its appearance in 2003. The New Revised Standard Version was published in 1989. The New Living Translation was first published in 1996, with a significant re-edited version appearing in 2004. In other words, the oldest of these Bible is still less than half a century old, with the newest being less than a decade old. The qualities of these Bible are still, in some sense, under review.

Second, the KJV has outlasted many versions that were intended to replace it. This is also true. The American Standard Version (1901) is in print, but is regularly used by a very small number of people. The Revised Standard Version (1952/1971) is still available in a handful of editions, but it has been replaced by the New RSV. Other versions produced in the twentieth century, such as Moffatt’s translation and the Smith-Goodspeed translation, were never widely used. Even more popular versions such as Phillips’ New Testament and the Good News Bible have faded with time. Other versions, such as the Contemporary English Version and the New Century Version seem never to have really caught on. You can regularly find them on the remainder tables at secular bookstores.

Third, Beeke makes the point that the KJV is the standard to which all other versions are compared. While this was at one time the case, I don’t think it is any more. But that is only because Bible publishers have recognized that they really don’t get any traction by directly attacking the KJV. Instead, they will attack it indirectly by touting such things as the readability of their version, or how easy it is to understand.

The next post will deal with Beeke’s second point.

Calvin and 2K

First, a quick definition of Calvin's view of the two kingdoms: "The spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated" (Institutes 4.20.1) The institutional expression of the former is the organized church.

I've been reading David Van Drunen's book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, in part out of personal interest and in part because there will be a seminary-wide discussion of the work. In his chapter on Calvin, Van Drunen argues that Calvin's doctrine of the two kingdoms is somewhat at odds with his practice as it pertained to the city of Geneva. Assuming for the sake of argument that Van Drunen is right, I think the explanation for the difference is clear. In the mid-sixteenth century, Geneva was a relatively small town of about 25,000 (see E. William Monter, "Women in Calvinist Geneva [1550-1800], Signs 6 [1980], 189). Even today the area of Geneva is only about 100 square miles, and would have been smaller in 1550. Thus it was a town that was religiously and ethnically homogeneous. In other words, in most demographic ways, Geneva was a unified town.

Furthermore, the history of Europe up to the time of the Reformation is a long history of church involvement in politics, and political involvement in church issues. It was one things for Calvin to posit a "two kingdoms" view in theory. It would have been almost impossible given the historical, theological, political, and demographic situation to have put that view into practice.

Colossians 2:16 Continued Again

In studying the use of the Greek word sabbatos in the entire Bible (and the Hebrew shabbat in the Old Testament), it is clear that sometimes sabbatos means Sabbath, and sometimes it means Sabbaths. Why might this be the case? The reason is that there are two types of Sabbaths in the Old Testament economy. The first is the weekly Sabbath. The principle of this weekly Sabbath is set out in Gen 2:1-3. It is mentioned in passing in Ex 16. It is given in full in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20 and Deut 5). The second type of Sabbath is related to the annual appointed feasts (Lev 23:2). Each of the annual festivals occurred at appointed times during the year. These feasts are set out in schematic form in Lev 23. What becomes clear from that chapter is that there were a number of days during the year that, whether they fell on the weekly Sabbath or not, they were accounted as Sabbaths, because they were appointed holy days attached to each of the appointed feasts. For example, the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread were Sabbaths, as ordinary work was prohibited on those days (Lev 23:7-8). Pentecost is likewise identified, even though it, by definition, never occurred on the Sabbath (Lev 23:21). The Day of Atonement is explicitly identified as a Sabbath, even though it rarely occurred on the weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:32).

The two types of Sabbath are thus lumped together in the use of the plural form of sabbatos. Is it possible to distinguish between the two types of Sabbaths? There does appear to be an idiom in the Old Testament in which the use of Sabbaths is explicitly connected with the annual cycle of festivals, thus setting those "special" Sabbaths apart from the ordinary weekly Sabbath. This is the phrase "the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the feasts." Those three terms occur together often enough (though not always in the same order) that it appears to be a shorthand way of referring to the annual festival cycle, without including the weekly Sabbaths. As indicated in this chart,

Verse	Reading
1Ch 23:31	ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς νεομηνίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς
2Ch 2:4	καὶ ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς
2Ch 8:13	ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς μησὶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς
2Ch 31:3	εἰς σάββατα καὶ εἰς τὰς νουμηνίας καὶ εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς
Neh 10:34	τῶν σαββάτων τῶν νουμηνιῶν εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς
Hos 2:11	ἑορτὰς αὐτῆς καὶ τὰς νουμηνίας αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ σάββατα αὐτῆς
Isa 1:13	τὰς νουμηνίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ σάββατα καὶ ἡμέραν μεγάλην
Ezk 44:24	ταῖς ἑορταῖς μου φυλάξονται καὶ τὰ σάββατά
Ezk 45:17	ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις καὶ ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις
Ezk 46:3	ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις
Col 2:16	ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·

From a comparison of these passages with Col 2:16, it appears to be the case that Paul is not including the weekly Sabbath, but is rather pointing to the annual cycle of festivals, with its feasts, new moons, and "special" Sabbaths as no longer obligatory on Christians. It is this annual cycle that was the "shadow of the things to come," and which pointed to Christ. The regular weekly Sabbath is in another category altogether.

Colossians 2:16 Continued

In my first post on this text (August 31) I mentioned that the use of the Greek sabbatos is inconsistent in the New Testament, sometime being singular and sometimes plural, though referring to the Sabbath. An examination of sabbatos in the Greek of the Old and New Testaments reveals the following. In the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), the Septuagint regularly uses the plural of sabbatos to translate the singular Hebrew word shabbat. In the historical books (2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, and Nehemiah), the Septuagint uses the singular of sabbatos to translate the singular shabbat, and the plural of sabbatos to translate the plural of shabbat. The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea and Amos follow the practice found in the Pentateuch. Ezekiel follows the pattern of the historical books. In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark are the least consistent. Matthew uses the plural 6 times* and the singular 4 times. Mark uses the plural 6 times and the singular 6 times. Luke primarily uses the singular (only 5 plurals out of 20 occurrences). John uses the singular 11 times, and the plural twice. But the plural occurrences both mean "week" rather than "Sabbath." Acts is somewhat mixed, using the plural four times (once it means "week," and once it is modified by the number three, so would reasonably be plural) and the singular 6 times. The word sabbatos is used only twice in the epistles. In 1 Cor 16:1 it is singular, and means "week." In Col 2:16 it is plural. So the question is, does it mean "Sabbath" or "Sabbaths"? That will be the topic of the next post.

*The English versions regularly translate sabbatos as "Sabbath" whether it is singular or plural, except when it means "week."

Notes on Ezekiel, 4: Chapter 1 continued

The vision moves from the living creatures to the wheels. The key verse here is vs 18, "And their rims were tall and awesome, and the rims of all four were full of eyes all around." The wheels, which are clearly means of locomotion, demonstrate two things: first, the omnipresence of God. He is not limited as to location. It is hard for us to imagine, but in the Old Testament, though the omnipresence of God is a given (see Ps 139), there was a sense in which he had "attached" himself to the temple in Jerusalem. Thus, the mobile throne is a radical departure. Second, the plethora of eyes indicate his omniscience. In a pictorial way, this says the same thing as Ex 2:25, "God saw the people of Israel, and God knew."

The final element of the vision is the throne above the creatures. It rests on an "expanse" (same word as in Gen 1:6). The allusion to the creation narrative is deliberate. The God whom Ezekiel sees is the creator of heaven and earth. Ezekiel sees a human-like figure, but all he can describe is brightness, and a rainbow. Again, the allusion to Genesis 9 is deliberate. The figure represents God coming in judgment, but not without mercy.

"Such was the likeness of the appearance of the glory of the Lord." Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord, but at best he is able to describe it only indirectly. The vision overwhelmed him, and he ended up on his face. This reminds us that we are never to take God for granted (which the Israelites had done, assuming that because they had the temple, God would not let Jerusalem fall). Nor are we to think of God as our good buddy. He is the maker of heaven and earth, judge and savior, and were we to have Ezekiel's vision, we would respond in like fashion. In some sense, Christ bridges the gap between us and God (there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim 2:5), but one day to him every knee shall bow (Phil 2:10-11)

What does the 2nd Commandment Forbid?

Provoked by someone's blog post this morning, I want to take a few minutes to try to explain the traditional Reformed view of the 2nd Commandment, and the prohibition of pictures of Jesus. This first thing to note is that there are two facets to the prohibition. The first facet prohibits making (Ex 20: 4). The second facet prohibits worshiping (Ex 20:5). Regarding the prohibition of making, it is usually argued (and the particular blog post in view did argue) that if the command is taken literally, it prohibits all representational art. In other words, statues, paintings, photographs, etc. of anything are prohibited by this command. This is the view that Islam takes, and explains why all Muslim art is abstract. This seems to be a plain reading of the command: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex 20:4, ESV).

However, this is where it is necessary to consult the Hebrew text. Two terms are used here, represented in the ESV by "carved image" and "likeness." Neither term refers to what we might call representational art. So, for example, the term "likeness" in Ex 20:4 is not the same word as "likeness" in Gen 1:26. Both words in Ex 20:4 refer specifically to images that are intended to represent deity. In other words, the command says, "Do not make a representation of God using anything in the created order as the foundation for that representation."

So how does this affect the "images of Christ"? First, granted that Christ is one person in two natures--human and divine. Any attempt to represent him visually can represent only his human nature. So it does not represent the "full Christ." Further, there are no descriptions given in the New Testament of what Jesus looked like. Since the death of the apostles, no one knows what Jesus looked like. Hence, any representation of his human appearance is a false representation. Thus, visual representations of Jesus fail the test of two commandments. First, they fail the 2nd Commandment test, in that they attempt to represent deity using part of the created order to do so. Second, they fail the 9th Commandment in two ways. They represent Jesus as if he were human only, which he is not. Second, they lie about his appearance.

Given this, it does not appear to me that "pictures" of Jesus can be justified, unless the 2nd and 9th Commandments are eliminated as laws for Christian behavior.

Notes on Ezekiel, 3: Chapter 1

The chief difficulty with interpreting Ezekiel is the temptation to over-interpret. So, for example, in the first chapter all the details of the visions that Ezekiel describes seem to cry out for interpretation. But the reader should remember that this is a vision. Hence, much of it is not only not to be taken literally, the point of it is to communicate to the reader an impression. Second, the reader should pay attention to the frequent use of terms such as “the likeness of,” “the appearance of,” “like,” and other terms indicating comparison. In some sense this chapter is on extended set of metaphors. Third, the reader should try to grasp the big picture, and not to become lost in the details of the imagery. In other words, the details of the vision are something like the dots of color that make up a pointillist painting. (If the reader doesn't know what pointillism is, the Wikipedia article is sufficient.) The details, to some extent, do not matter in themselves. It is what they bring to the whole that creates the effect intended by Ezekiel’s description.

The chapter divides into four parts: the introduction (1-3), the four living creatures (4-14), the wheels (15-21), and the throne (22-28). The introduction sets us in time and place. The time is the fifth year of the exile of Jeoiachin, fifth day of the fourth month. According to modern chronology, that puts Ezekiel by the River Chebar (pronounced key-bar) on Jul 31, 593 BC. The Chebar River (or canal) is located between modern Baghdad and Basra. This appears to have been the location of one of the villages of the Judean exiles.

The opening of the heavens is the idea that Ezekiel is allowed to see into the heavenly realm ordinarily not accessible to us. What he saw, he attempted to describe. But the language that he used indicates that he was operating at the limits of human language to communicate what he saw. Much of the language is clearly metaphorical. So what are we to take from the vision? First, we are to apprehend the completely overwhelming nature of the vision. At the conclusion, Ezekiel fell on his face (vs 28). Second, the reader should note the main themes of the vision. The cherubim (not identified here as such, but specified in 10:1) are human in form, having faces representing the highest of the various created orders: human, domestic animals, wild animals, and birds. Thus the created order magnifies God. The frequent mention of fire carries with it the idea of the judgment of God. Note that the storm came out of the north (1:4), which is the standard direction from which judgment arrives for Israel (see also Jer 1:14). The cherubim are also connected with the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24), the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:17ff), the curtains of the tabernacle (Ex 36:8), and the walls of the temple (1 Kgs 6:29). They serve to protect the holiness of God, and hold off the unholy man who would draw too near.

Notes on Ezekiel, 2: Outline, Organization, Main Themes

Outline:

I. Proclaiming judgment against Judah, chs 1-24

II. Proclaiming judgment against the nations, chs 25-32

III. Proclaiming restoration for Israel, chs 33-48

Organization:

The book is organized chronologically, beginning in the fifth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (593 BC). The last dated prophecy (571 BC), and the only one out of chronological order, is found in ch 29:17ff. This seems to have been connected thematically to the context, accounting for the date out of order. The vision of the new temple, chs 40-48, concludes the book, being dated to 573 BC. The material from the first 24 chapters all date from the period 593-588 BC. The oracles of judgment on the nations date from 587-571 BC. The prophecies of restoration date from 585-573 BC.

Thematically, the book is organized around Ezekiel’s three visions of the glory of the Lord. The first of these visions is the account of his call to the prophetic office in chs 1-3, in which the glory of the Lord appears to him among the exiles in Mesopotamia. The second vision, chs 8-11, recounts the gross idolatry of Israel, and the moving of the glory of the Lord out of the temple and out of the city of Jerusalem, leaving it unprotected and open to the coming attack by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The final vision, concluding the promises of restoration, shows the glory of the Lord settling in the new temple, in a restored land, in a renewed city

Main Themes:

Chapter 36:16-32 is a key passage for the book as a whole. In this passage the primary themes of the book appear all together. The first theme is the holiness and transcendence of God, demonstrated by the overwhelming appearance of the glory of the Lord, and the repeated emphasis on God’s concern for his holiness.

The second theme is the sinfulness of the people, and the consequent inevitability of judgment. Obviously, this is presented in terse, summary form in chapter 36, but it takes up the whole of the first half of the book.

The third primary theme is that of God’s gracious restoration. While summarized in 36:22ff, it takes up almost the entirety of the last third of the book.

Additional Bibliographical Note:

When posting the other day, I forgot to mention the exposition of Ezekiel by Patrick Fairbairn, which is still useful. In addition, the section on Ezekiel in O. P. Robertson’s The Christ of the Prophets is probably the best short theological summary in print.

Notes on Ezekiel, 1

Historical Context: 2 Kings 21-25, 2 Chronicles 33-36

In 609 BC, Josiah, king of Judah dies in battle against Pharaoh Neco. He is replaced by his son Jehoahaz, who reigns for three months before he is deposed by Neco. Neco replaces him with Eliakim, whom he renames Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim comes under pressure from Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and in 605 BC Nebuchadnezzar takes a number of Judean hostages, among whom is Daniel. Jehoiakim died in 597, and was replaced by Jehoiachin, who reigned for three months. Nebuchadnezzar took him and a number of other Judeans captive, replacing Jehoiachin with Zedekiah. Ezekiel appears to have been among this group of captives, since most of the events in the book are dated from the captivity of Jehoiachin. Thus the context for Ezekiel is that he is a captive in Babylon among the exiles. He is a priest separated from the temple in Jerusalem.

Religious/Theological Context:

About a century before we meet Ezekiel, Manasseh became king of Judah. He made idolatry official policy, and reigned for more than half a century. Though he repented near the end of his life, it was too little, too late. He was replaced by his son Amon, who reigned for two years and restored his father's official policy of state idolatry. Amon was succeeded by Josiah, who became king on 640 BC. Josiah was a godly man, and instituted religious reforms, but they seem to have had little effect on the people as a whole. After Josiah's death in battle, it appears that the people returned to the idolatry of those who had preceded Josiah.

The prophet Jeremiah began to prophecy in 627 BC, the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah. In 622 BC, the scroll of the law was found in the temple, and its legitimacy verified by Huldah the prophetess. After the death of Josiah, the religious apostasy quickened, and the final twenty years of the kingdom of Judah was a time of disaster: political, social, and religious.

Personal Context:

Assuming that the "thirty years" of Ezekiel 1:1 refers to the thirtieth year of Ezekiel, Ezekiel was born in the year that the Book of the Law was found in the temple. He grew up in a priestly household, and no doubt expected that when he reached the age of twenty-five, he would begin the five-year apprenticeship that would precede his entering into full priestly status when he turned thirty. Thus his entire life would have been one of training for the priesthood. However, the year he would have begun his apprenticeship is the year that he was taken into captivity. he spent the next five years perhaps hoping that he would return to Jerusalem and to his "real" calling as a priest. Instead, in his thirtieth year, God called him as a prophet.

Bibliography:

The standard English-language technical commentary for some years to come will probably be that by Daniel Block in the New International Commentary series. Also worth consulting is the short commentary by John Taylor in the Tyndale OT Commentaries, and the exposition by Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel. Keil's commentary in the Keil & Delitzsch should not be omitted. The one by Lamar Cooper, Sr. in the New American Commentary series is worth consulting, though marred by a dispensational theology. William Greenhill, the Puritan commentator costs more work than I have found him to be worth. Iaian Duguid's volume in the NIV Application Commentary series well repays study. Two incomplete commentaries worth consulting are those by Calvin, who made it into chapter 20, and the Anchor Bible volumes by Moshe Greenberg. Greenberg died before completing the commentary, and Jacob Milgrom, who was appointed to complete it died not too long thereafter. It is uncertain when that set will be completed.

The NLT and the 10 Virgins

In chapel the other day, Dr. Carrick preached on the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13). I happened to have grabbed a copy of the New Living Translation to take with me to chapel. What struck me as I heard Dr. Carrick read the passage (from the KJV) was how different the NLT sounded. Some of these differences are due to the fact that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, while the NLT is based on the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text. So, for example, 25:2 in the KJV reads, "And five of them were wise, and five were foolish." The NLT reads, "Five of them were foolish, and five were wise." The differing order of wise and foolish represents the different texts.

However, some of the differences are not as easy to explain. So verses 3-4 in the KJV read, "They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them; But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps." In the NLT, those verses read, "The five who were foolish didn't take enough olive oil for their lamps, but the other five were wise enough to take along extra oil." The differences in text cannot account for the differences in the translation. The 27th N-A reads, "For the foolish, taking their lamps, did not take with them oil, but the wise took oil in the vessels with their lamps." Why does the NLT import "five" into verse 4 (not in the text) and eliminate the clear foolish-wise distinction (in the text). I fail to see how the NLT is any clearer than the KJV, and it introduces unnecessary changes.

See also vss 8-9, where the KJV reads, "and the foolish said to the wise ... but the wise answered." The NLT reads, "Then the five foolish ones asked the others ... But the others replied." The NLT uses "others" twice in place of the Greek phronimoi (wise). Why? What clarity is gained by failing to keep pressing on the reader the wise-foolish contrast that Jesus was pressing on his hearers? How is it any easier to understand than the KJV?

Ecclesiastes 1:9 and Stephen Hawking

The quote I posted on FB yesterday ("an infinite number of imperishable atoms coalesced through blind chance or immanent mechanical laws to form countless worlds in a vacuum of immeasurable proportion")I read in Reiner Smolinski's introduction to Cotton Mather's Biblia Americana, a vast, multi-volume commentary on the Bible that was never published in his lifetime. Only now is it being brought to press for the first time, with its publication projected over the next decade.

But the quote is a summary of the origin views of seventeenth-century Cartesian philosophers and naturalists. What struck me about the quote was the similarity to some things said by Stephen Hawking in an excerpt from his book The Grand Design. The most striking paragraphs are the following: "The laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universe to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason their is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology." (Originally published in the WSJ 9/3/2010, accessed online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?KEYWORDS=Stephen+Hawking.

The mechanical laws, the countless worlds, and the immeasurable proportion of the known universe, so similar to Hawking's propositions, make it appear that he has advanced all the way to the seventeenth century and even to the Greeks Democritus and Epicurus. So much for the latest new thing.