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

A bit off topic, and I’ve confessed I’m a Geneva Bible (1599) /KJV (1611, not that modernistic 1769 most of ‘em use, ha!)/NKJV/Luther Bible guy myself (working on attempting a touch of Hebrew and Greek in my copious free time between working and a family of eight), but it strikes me from a bit of observation that that the ESV resembles an eclectic text NKJV to me, and the HCSB appears to be a slightly more word for word translation than the 1980s NIV, and without the destruction of trust that Zondervan/IBS has done by releasing the TNIV (New Gelded Version) and the 2011 NIV.

Is that reasonably close? How would others describe these translations?

NKJV is a majority text translation; NASB and ESV are eclectic text translations based on Nestle Aland 27 and UBS 4th. Most fundamental and conservative evangelical scholars recommend the NA/UBS Greek texts. The Majority Text is superior to the TR. TR-only makes no sense from an historical/text-critical perspective, unless one believes that the original in some cases is a late 16th century, non-majority reading. Impossible to sanely make that case in my understanding. Combs’ articles on this issue in the DBTS Journal are compelling.

What the magazine should have done is to have a scholarly presentation for the majority text and one for the eclectic text and then present the best translations from those two textual families along with their strengths and weaknesses. They missed on this one for reasons that are beyond me. The best case I have ever read for the present use of the KJV was written by Dr. Kevin Bauder on the 400th anniversary of the KJV. I have no problem with those who choose to use the KJV for the reasons Kevin explained or for that matter the reasons that John Vaughn explained. I do have a problem with the constant restrictions imposed by Fundamental organizations that essentially eliminate the use of other accurate English translations. Such restrictions often impede a clear understanding of the meaning of God’s word. Also, there is no need in the 21st century to publicly read the Bible out loud and sound like you have a lisp. Wotteth not? Witherith should we go from here? Hard to defend that.

Verily, thou speakest the truth! Thou hast done well, by referring thine brethren to Bro. Combs’ articles …

[Mike Harding]

NKJV is a majority text translation;

I’m not so sure about that. The NKJV includes the Johannine Comma, which is not a Majority Text reading. In fact, my understanding is that the NKJV translators used the same textual basis as the KJV (see http://bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html). As far as I know, there is no English translation based on either the Hodges/Farstad or Pierpont/Robinson versions of the Majority Text. I think that would be a worthy undertaking, even though I believe the eclectic text is superior.

I actually take no strong position on the textual controversy, but isn’t one of the controversies over the TR the appearance (fact?) that Erasmus appears to have translated a few passages from the Vulgate back into Greek to get a Greek manuscript that included all of the Vulgate as he read it?

One can infer two reasons for a TR translation for this. First, if the Vulgate as Erasmus read it is representative of the Vulgate as Jerome translated it, we would infer that Jerome had before him a Greek manuscript that did have these passages, we would infer ancient evidence for a lot of these controversial passages. Second, the TR, in some form or another (not necessarily in Greek), does appear to be the basis for the historic translations used in Western Europe, and hence the great missionary pushes to the world. So we might—by faith as Beacham and Bauder note in “One Bible Only”—infer that God stamps His approval on TR for these reasons.

“If”, of course, we can infer that the passages were not accidentally added between Jerome and Erasmus.

Just as one might, to a degree by faith, infer that the Alexandrian/eclectic varieties are superior by dint of age and fewer copies made, or that majority is superior by proximity, number, or use by Greek speakers, no?

I really appreciated what Chip said about the controversy, though; if you go from TR to NA, in original or translation, the big theological issue is that you’ve got to find a few new texts to demonstrate points.

Andy, I talked with James Price about this who was one of the main editors. I recall him telling me that they put the majority readings either in the text or the margins. I think you are right though. Thanks

eek. As in dr. James Price of Tn Temple? He is so wonderful, humble and brilliant! He attends our home church in TN now, and Vitaliy was one of his final students— they really enjoy each other. They always have us over when we’re back in the Us. And he is or was? working on some project of making Bible translation much easier / computerized or something brilliant like that. A really amazing man.

[Bert Perry]

One can infer two reasons for a TR translation for this. First, if the Vulgate as Erasmus read it is representative of the Vulgate as Jerome translated it, we would infer that Jerome had before him a Greek manuscript that did have these passages, we would infer ancient evidence for a lot of these controversial passages. Second, the TR, in some form or another (not necessarily in Greek), does appear to be the basis for the historic translations used in Western Europe, and hence the great missionary pushes to the world. So we might—by faith as Beacham and Bauder note in “One Bible Only”—infer that God stamps His approval on TR for these reasons.

According to Bruce Metzger (The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations, p. 359; The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p. 76), the text of the Vulgate appears to be Alexandrian, rather than Byzantine or TR. The same holds true for many of the other ancient versions (e.g., Coptic and old Syrian). This in turn highlights one of the problems with the majority text position — (1) the Byzantine text type does not appear as a distinct type in the Greek text OR the ancient translations until quite late (4th-9th centuries) and (2), if you count the extant ancient translations (which far exceed the number extant Gk mss), the so-called majority text is no longer Byzantine but Alexandrian. I don’t agree that counting mss is the best method of textual criticism but the wide-spread geographical evidence from the various versions argues for a non-Byzantine text type as their ultimate source.

I was not speaking to you specifically. I was speaking more generally.

I think what’s happening is folks aren’t grasping the basic problem. I see this period of time as a time of transition from a period with “authoritative” translation to a time when men look to the original language for the ultimate authority in their exegesis. This transition will take a generation or so. Ultimately, I see the KJVOs leaving the FBFI as the organization will not take a strong enough KJVO position to satisfy them.

[Ron Bean] No Surrender Demanded

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.

[Rob Fall]

I think what’s happening is folks aren’t grasping the basic problem. I see this period of time as a time of transition from a period with “authoritative” translation to a time when men look to the original language for the ultimate authority in their exegesis. This transition will take a generation or so. Ultimately, I see the KJVOs leaving the FBFI as the organization will not take a strong enough KJVO position to satisfy them.

But if the KJVO types are the only ones giving money to support the FBFI…they’ll be able to effect change. That’s why the consistent ties to Crown, WCBC, and especially Sexton bother me so much.

After visiting Faith in Taylors, SC this summer, it seems to me that Vaughn’s church and the home of Frontline is becoming more KJV only, not less. They had Crown College in on the Sunday night I was there, and the Sunday School class I attended made a comment about “those ESV churches.”

Organizations drift. Either to the right or to the left, they will move over time. In a day like today’s, where there is now open hostility to Scripture and the faith, people will hold more tightly to the things they hold dear, especially to something like a Bible (or translation) they’ve used all of their lives. That’s normal and expected. Question is - how do you catch that drift, arrest it, and bring it back in line when you’re the person doing the drifting?

This is not to attack Dr. Vaughn or the people at his church. It’s just the way things go.

I am not saying your concern is not a valid one.

However, I’ve been in the FBF orbit since 1972. I was saved through the ministry of Grace Baptist Church of Anderson, Indiana. GBC was pastor at the time by Don Camp. I first heard about the NASB from Pastor Camp when he recommended it from the pulpit one Sunday. I returned home to San Francisco later that summer and joined Hamilton Square then pastored by Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr. I can remember when the FBF Bulletin’s News column was written by G. Archer Wenigar.

My POV is hedged by the fact the FBF is a fellowship of individuals not churches. So, how much influence will Faith have on the FBFI after John Vaughn passes? Have you taken a look at the current make up of the Executive Board and the Advisory Board? I don’t know the position of all the men listed. But, I know for sure David Innes and Mike Sproul on the EBoard and the late (he passed after the July\Aug issue went to press) Tim Sneeden on the AdBoard are not KJVO. Then you have at least two of the major feeder schools for the FBFI, MBU and BJU. Neither are KJVO. So, yes, there will be a season of tension. But, in the long run as the influence of Hyles and the East Texas branch wanes in the FBFI, the KJVOs will no longer find a welcome in the organization.

[Jay]

Rob Fall wrote:

I think what’s happening is folks aren’t grasping the basic problem. I see this period of time as a time of transition from a period with “authoritative” translation to a time when men look to the original language for the ultimate authority in their exegesis. This transition will take a generation or so. Ultimately, I see the KJVOs leaving the FBFI as the organization will not take a strong enough KJVO position to satisfy them.

But if the KJVO types are the only ones giving money to support the FBFI…they’ll be able to effect change. That’s why the consistent ties to Crown, WCBC, and especially Sexton bother me so much.

After visiting Faith in Taylors, SC this summer, it seems to me that Vaughn’s church and the home of Frontline is becoming more KJV only, not less. They had Crown College in on the Sunday night I was there, and the Sunday School class I attended made a comment about “those ESV churches.”

Organizations drift. Either to the right or to the left, they will move over time. In a day like today’s, where there is now open hostility to Scripture and the faith, people will hold more tightly to the things they hold dear, especially to something like a Bible (or translation) they’ve used all of their lives. That’s normal and expected. Question is - how do you catch that drift, arrest it, and bring it back in line when you’re the person doing the drifting?

This is not to attack Dr. Vaughn or the people at his church. It’s just the way things go.

My prediction: when people start going to jail over not performing same-sex marriages in this country, this issue will look silly.

agree with you.

[Shaynus]

My prediction: when people start going to jail over not performing same-sex marriages in this country, this issue will look silly.

I left off Larry Oats from my list of EBoard members. And we can add Pillsbury and Northland BBCs and Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) to the list of schools. Though, these last are or will no longer be major feeder schools. In their day, their grads did find a place in the FBFI.

[Rob Fall]

SNIP

My POV is hedged by the fact the FBF is a fellowship of individuals not churches. So, how much influence will Faith have on the FBFI after John Vaughn passes? Have you taken a look at the current make up of the Executive Board and the Advisory Board? I don’t know the position of all the men listed. But, I know for sure David Innes and Mike Sproul on the EBoard and the late (he passed after the July\Aug issue went to press) Tim Sneeden on the AdBoard are not KJVO. Then you have at least two of the major feeder schools for the FBFI, MBU and BJU. Neither are KJVO. SNIP

i just have a few odd comments to make on this subject. I attended Dr. Minnick’s church when he did a great series on this.

[Shaynus] My prediction: when people start going to jail over not performing same-sex marriages in this country, this issue will look silly.

It’s hard to just make Christ the banner and not cling to some issue or belief. It’s hard for Just Him to be enough for us.

I have noticed that usually people holding an aberrant position tend to scream about it and be very “sure.” So it’s easier for them to get in the public eye and be heard/seen and viewed as leaders.

Those who hold correct(er?) positions tend to be very gracious, quieter, and don’t even talk much about issue at hand … because to them, it’s not an issue.

So, in my own experience, I had to learn to speak up graciously, but speak up, because others sure were screaming about and teaching and promoting ____ view. I really appreciate those who are able to do this, and able to organize information in order to have a correct message to deliver to people. To give a voice those who know the truth but don’t know how to explain it with good backing/research.

Next: no one is 1611. Go the the little room in the BJU library and there’s a big 1613 (or some year near there) Bible, and see what you understand. I did this. Oh. My. Word.

This issue has even touched my romantic life. When I was single working at BJ, I briefly dated a guy in the PCC area (of FL). They were KJVO. I used NASV. He spoke with his parents about this and they decided I could use my NASV in my private reading but never publicly talk about it. Buddy, how happy am I that this relationship ended quickly. But it’s sad you know, too, as a Christian generally, how we are divided over these issues in such a stupid way.

My problem is having too many versions. For study, I like NASV; for reading through big portions, i like NIV or NLT, (I also like Amplified but too huge to use), but in general, I am losing my ability to recall where this or that verse is in the Bible and even to recall the verse. Because I did all that in the KJV, and now, I never read that. I never know in what version to memorize now. I’m thinking of just going back to the KJV because of the rhythmic language. the NASV is kind of long and clunky for long memorization, though I’ve done it …