John Vaughn: Whither from Here? A Way Forward on the Text and Version Issue

By the grace of God, we were able to lead the church that I pastor from using the KJV to using ESV for public reading and preaching. The transition was, frankly, a blast. God’s people enjoyed learning about the history of the transmission of His Word down through the ages. They were quick to learn about the various strengths and weaknesses of translations. People grew in their love for God and His Word as we prepared for and worked through the transition.

The number 1 comment I received by those who switched their daily reading from the KJV to the ESV was, “I am understanding so much more now.” The second-place comment was, “We should have done this years ago.”

Chip — per the explaining words issue: some in our church prefer and bring their NIV’s while I preach from my ESV. After the service, those with the NIV will often say that their NIV already had what I spent time explaining.

Just finished reading the articles on preservation in FRONTLINE. Some articles simply asked questions with no definitive answers. I thought the articles had political overtones as opposed to making the case for preservation and what that preservation means. The best articles on this subject will be found in the DBTS Theological Journal. The level of scholarship and detail is very high comparatively. Again, there was no substantive attempt to recommend other reliable translations of Scripture other than the KJV. It was very interesting to me that Dr. Minnick did not submit an article on the textual debate. Dr. Minnick, a well-respected member of the FBFI board, is perhaps the best textual scholar on the board. His chapters in “Mind of God to the Mind of Man” and “God’s Word in our Hands” are simply outstanding. How could the editor of FRONTLINE overlook that?

What does acceptance of other reliable translations look like? It’s good to see members of the FBFI using good translations in their churches, acceptance will be real when someone preaches from another version at a group meeting; ideally with Clarence Sexton in attendance.

All of you that have transitioned to ESV for example (not so much for NKJV):

Which is the most important to you, the contemporary language, or the verses that have been modified or removed compared to the KJV? In other words, is the key issue the language, or textual criticism?

[Mark_Smith]

All of you that have transitioned to ESV for example (not so much for NKJV):

Which is the most important to you, the contemporary language, or the verses that have been modified or removed compared to the KJV? In other words, is the key issue the language, or textual criticism?

[Joe Whalen]

The number 1 comment I received by those who switched their daily reading from the KJV to the ESV was, “I am understanding so much more now.” The second-place comment was, “We should have done this years ago.”

Chip — per the explaining words issue: some in our church prefer and bring their NIV’s while I preach from my ESV. After the service, those with the NIV will often say that their NIV already had what I spent time explaining.

That last sentence about NIV readers saying that it says what one just spent time explaining illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of the more idiomatic translation method of the NIV. The strength is that readers get to the point quicker—I’m told that some of the translation choices in the NIV are in fact conforming to evangelical, dispensational theology. The corresponding weakness is that readers don’t get to do the work to get there, and one can—per Mark’s comment about the NIV 2011 changing the gender of some pronouns—be misled by some of the translation choices.

I started with the NIV, migrated to the NKJV about 2000 and really loved the fact that there was a lot more to chew on. Have been reading NKJV/KJV/Geneva for about the past 5-7 years, along with a modernized Luther translation. I can endorse the old NIV for those with a lower reading level, but in light of the changes made in gender of pronouns and such claimed in the 2011, am reluctant to endorse that one. It seems to cross a line from legitimate translation methods into outright falsification of the text for me.

It seems to me many here will accept nothing less than total capitulation or unconditional surrender on their (in many cases almost minimal or tangential) use of the AV 1611. Yes, I’m being hyperbolic if not facetious.

But, I know at HSBC we use the KJV as our pew Bible though Pastor Innes has used the NASB for decades. Our bookstore sells the KJV, NKJV, and the NASB on an equal footing. Seemingly for many here that puts us on the same bench as Mr. Sexton and others to his right. [facetiousness on] What will satisfy y’all, the trashing of KJV Bibles?[facetiousness off]

I did not mean to imply that we ought to quit preaching from the KJV.

Personally I’ve done the Bible Version pilgrimage, including KJVP, TRO, to Majority Text. I currently preach from the ESV and study from a 1599 Geneva.

What I was trying to address is the almost passive-aggressive stance of some KJV people in which they will tolerate those who use other versions but expect/demand the KJV in public meetings in which they are involved.

[Mark_Smith] All of you that have transitioned to ESV for example (not so much for NKJV):

Which is the most important to you, the contemporary language, or the verses that have been modified or removed compared to the KJV? In other words, is the key issue the language, or textual criticism?

I think I know where you are going with this, but for me it is the language.

I grew up and was trained on the KJV. After I started doing my first greek translations, I used the NASB to check my work and was very surprised at how closely they matched up, so I switched to the NASB for my personal study eventually (both NIU and BJU required memorization from the KJV in their classes). While in seminary at BJU, a couple of my friends, on different occasions, encouraged me to try the ESV. I checked a copy out from the library and started reading it - I switched over a few months later.

For me, there is almost no point in spending time explaining textual nuance and re-translating the text into modern English for the classes I teach. So my philosophy is that making sure that they can understand the English text trumps concerns over which textual family is best and those types of discussions. Having participated in the KJV forum here, especially in the earlier years, has led me to believe that concerns about the ‘correct’ textual family is usually a red herring for someone who is either pugnacious or schismatic.

I don’t like everything about the ESV, and there are at least two issues I would change if I had the power too, but it’s my mainstay translation. I’ve checked into a few other versions and like the HCSB very much, but I am not planning on making yet another change.

Let’s stick with the ESV so we aren’t wandering around. What is the more important feature about the ESV to you (or anyone else who cares to respond):

1- That it is written in contemporary English

2- That it uses the modern critical text of the Greek NT so that, just as an example, Matthew 20:16 has “for many be called, but few chosen” removed and NOT EVEN FOOTNOTED that this phrase is present in some texts. This implies that the TR/MT and the KJV is plain WRONG and in error…this phrase was never supposed to be in the Bible.

I am NOT trying to rehash textual criticism, I am looking at it from what is your motivation for using the ESV, the language or textual criticism (or both), and how does “missing verses or verse fragments” impact your congregation, if at all.

Interesting that, as far as this discussion goes, one of the main concerns with the FBF statement isin not recommending a “reliable” translation. Where does a non-church entity have the “elder authority” to recommend to any local assembly or its membership body which translation it should be using or considering? That appears to me to be a matter under the jurisdiction of the eldership of the local assembly.

What was stated was that as a fellowship entity they recognize that fellowship is not limited to being around the KJV but around scripture. That is a legitimate statement that does not impose upon a local assembly that which legitimately belongs only to that assembly and its elders.

I would guess almost everyone is picking the ESV, NASB, NKJV for the language, not because they are particularly beholden to the critical text as the “correct” text. My question then is why not footnote the differences from the historic text rather than act like nothing has happened with these critical textual decisions to leave out verses or parts of verses.

[Jay]

Mark_Smith wrote:

All of you that have transitioned to ESV for example (not so much for NKJV):

Which is the most important to you, the contemporary language, or the verses that have been modified or removed compared to the KJV? In other words, is the key issue the language, or textual criticism?

I think I know where you are going with this, but for me it is the language.

I grew up and was trained on the KJV. After I started doing my first greek translations, I used the NASB to check my work and was very surprised at how closely they matched up, so I switched to the NASB for my personal study eventually (both NIU and BJU required memorization from the KJV in their classes). While in seminary at BJU, a couple of my friends, on different occasions, encouraged me to try the ESV. I checked a copy out from the library and started reading it - I switched over a few months later.

For me, there is almost no point in spending time explaining textual nuance and re-translating the text into modern English for the classes I teach. So my philosophy is that making sure that they can understand the English text trumps concerns over which textual family is best and those types of discussions. Having participated in the KJV forum here, especially in the earlier years, has led me to believe that concerns about the ‘correct’ textual family is usually a red herring for someone who is either pugnacious or schismatic.

I don’t like everything about the ESV, and there are at least two issues I would change if I had the power too, but it’s my mainstay translation. I’ve checked into a few other versions and like the HCSB very much, but I am not planning on making yet another change.

I have liked what I have seen in the HCSB also, but, like you, I don’t intend to switch again.

[Mark_Smith]

Let’s stick with the ESV so we aren’t wandering around. What is the more important feature about the ESV to you (or anyone else who cares to respond):

1- That it is written in contemporary English

2- That it uses the modern critical text of the Greek NT so that, just as an example, Matthew 20:16 has “for many be called, but few chosen” removed and NOT EVEN FOOTNOTED that this phrase is present in some texts. This implies that the TR/MT and the KJV is plain WRONG and in error…this phrase was never supposed to be in the Bible.

I am NOT trying to rehash textual criticism, I am looking at it from what is your motivation for using the ESV, the language or textual criticism (or both), and how does “missing verses or verse fragments” impact your congregation, if at all.

I think it’s obvious that different people have different motivations in the KJV debate. Personally, I’m still KJV preferred, even though I attend an ESV church. But it’s not just because I am used to that translation (and I am, at least in non-obscure passages), but because I personally am “traditional text preferred,” or maybe “Byzantine-priority.” I generally believe that text stream to be the more accurate one (though because even that stream lacks perfection in all copies, I don’t hold TR-only or perfect preservation views). If I ever thought there were doctrinal differences between the text families, I would want a translation from the traditional text to be the one I use for the “final say.”

Still, I do use and study other versions (including those from the other texts), not because of the text, but because of readability and understandability (especially in the prophets). I don’t use the NASB much any more, but I still use the ESV, NIV (1984), NKJV, Luther, Elberfelder, and even for light reading, the NLT. And for a completely new convert, my attitude comes down to this: regardless of any differences in the text, an NIV that is actually read and used by someone is far more valuable than a KJV that is reverenced, but not read or understood.

To Rob’s comment: while there may be some here on SI who are antagonistic to any use of the KJV, that’s not been my experience with the vast majority of commenters.