Something I Am Embarrassed to Say I Just Learned

I knew that English Bible translators have access to a computerized linguistic corpus—an unbelievably massive collection of English texts—to help them do their work.

What I didn’t know, what I just learned, is that I do, too.

What you’re about to learn, if you didn’t already know it, is so do you.

So I chose to get involved in some online discussion about the KJV, and I’m glad I did. I was talking to some intelligent guys who kept me on my toes. I pointed out to them, in a broader argument about the readability of the KJV, that “dropsy” (Luke 14:2) is an archaic word liable to cause today’s readers to draw a blank. The word is very old, first citation 1290—though, of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s archaic (sack is also very old, but not archaic). But my sense was that “dropsy” just doesn’t get used today.

One of my interlocutors pointed out, and touché for him, that my beloved ESV uses the word, too, however! (He could have added that the NASB uses it as well.) I had not realized this, and I was initially surprised.

However, being a denizen of the Internet and therefore rarely being one to admit fault, I determined to do some poking around. Standard contemporary dictionaries weren’t enough help. Merriam-Webster told me only that “dropsy” means “edema.” American Heritage said the word is “no longer in scientific use,” but didn’t elaborate. Is it archaic? Should the ESV and NASB have used it? I didn’t know yet. Even if the word has dropsied right out of science, maybe it has landed in the speech of the common man.

So I checked Google’s NGram Viewer, and this is what I found:

Right after 1900, “edema” clearly changes places with “dropsy.” I’m not sure why there are massive spikes, and a big drop in the “edema” line starting sometime before the year 2000. I’m also not sure how much to trust Google NGram Viewer—I simply don’t know whether the corpus it’s searching (Google Books) is a truly representative sample. I’m not confident that I’m interpreting the graphs correctly. Perhaps the relative difference is huge, but the actual difference is not. Stats are tricky.

Then it hit me: I wonder if there’s an online English corpus available freely, designed for precisely my question, and focused on contemporary English—the kind of corpus I’ve heard Doug Moo talk about, which he used for the NIV. I searched for “english corpus,” and as they say in Telugu, voilà. I discovered BYU’s Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). It provides a massive, curated database balanced of different types of American speech and writing. It’s composed of roughly equal parts spoken, fiction, magazine, newspaper, and academic English. Wow.

There are actually multiple English corpora at the site, and they “allow research on variation—historical, between dialects, and between genresin ways that are not possible with other corpora.”

So, COCA, what’s a more common word in contemporary English, “dropsy” or “edema”? There’s a very clear winner. But if I give you a fish you’ll only eat for today. Go see if you can figure it out yourself.

Lessons from a Back Porch in a Bad Neighborhood

Courtesy USA Streets Blog
USA Streets Blog

I once stood on the back porch of a run-down home in a neighborhood your realtor wouldn’t even take you to. (Trust me.) I was the leader of an evangelistic outreach ministry, and I was with a college freshman I was mentoring. I wonder now if we were talking to a middle-aged prostitute… After many years of trying to understand, I never did fully grasp the world of that neighborhood. I’m sure I got laughed at for missing obvious cues. Anyway, one obvious fact I didn’t miss was that this woman had substance abuse in her past—and probably her present.

Thankfully, the eighteen-year-old I was with knew just what to do to help her: he rattled off a bunch of KJV memory verses from the Romans Road at 100 mph.

For-the-wages-of-sin-is-death-but-the-gift-of-God-is-eternal-life-through-Jesus-Christ-our-Lord-but-God-commendeth-his-love-toward-us-in-that-while-we-were-yet-sinners-Christ-died-for-us-that-if-thou-shalt-confess-with-thy-mouth-and-believe-in-thine-heart-that-God-hath-raised-him-from-the-dead-thou-shalt-be-saved.

He made no effort to see if she knew what “commendeth” meant. He offered no illustration to explain “the wages of sin.” He started sentences with conjunctions (“But,” “For,” “Therefore”) that made no sense without the rest of their scriptural context. He never let the woman get a word in edgewise (not that she tried; she was intently studying the wood-grain patterns at her feet) or asked her a single question before the clincher, at speeds now reaching those of the Micro-Machines commercial guy: “If-you-died-today-where-would-you-go?”

Any one of these communication sins by itself would not be so bad, but taken together they managed to communicate the reverse of what he (should have) intended.

Now, he was nervous. He wasn’t experienced in giving the gospel to people. His inner AWANA from the 1990s was kicking in. He was just being human. That’s why he needed a mentor.

What does a mentor say in such a situation? I wouldn’t say, “Don’t quote Scripture to people,” of course. I think his chipmunk-speed-narration of the Elizabethan English was only one symptom of his deeper problem, namely that he failed to put himself in the woman’s dirty WalMart flip-flops. He didn’t love this woman enough to be concerned with her needs and her thoughts in that moment. All this young man could think of was himself. Human, remember? I’ve done it, too. Countless times. It’s a temptation all Christians have, no matter who they’re talking to and no matter what Bible translations they tend to quote from.

So here’s what I tell everyone who tries to communicate the Bible to others: Love your neighbor as yourself. Talk to people as if they really are people like you are. Ask them questions to show interest in them—have genuine interest in them as real people. Because they are. Real people. Made in God’s image.

I’m a conservative. I don’t like the idea of pandering to people, of watering down the gospel message or the biblical message in any way. But I’ve realized recently how deeply my many years of ministering to low-income people has affected my outlook on Bible teaching—and I don’t think working hard to help others understand is pandering. I think it’s what teachers of the Word are called to do.

Imaginatively placing myself in someone else’s situation doesn’t lead to me sounding like someone I’m not: I won’t claim to have had their experiences; I won’t pick up their particular accent; I won’t (necessarily) begin to wear clothing like theirs. But I will try to see through their eyes and listen through their ears. Everything I communicate in every way I will try, by God’s grace, to make as understandable as possible for them. I hope they will do the same for me when it’s their turn to talk! Differences between people can be trivial, and they can be great gulfs fixed. Less than a mile from my house in Greenville was this other world, between us that gulf. Successful bridges use engineers from both sides of a divide. At the very least, even if people won’t meet me in the middle, I’m going to send my bridge as far as I can toward them. That’s what love does. I refuse to stay on my safe cultural shore and shout across.

A Vow Regarding the KJV

800px-KJV_Genesis

An online interlocutor with genuine intellectual acumen engaged me graciously but firmly on a recent post I wrote promoting the use of multiple Bible translations. He’s essentially KJV-Only, though his professed allegiance is actually to Scrivener’s Textus Receptus. He linked me to a lengthy bibliology statement by one Thomas Ross which he affirmed.

To my knowledge, I have made two vows in my lifetime: 1) a vow to love my wife with the true love of delight (with all the attendant vows of a wedding), and 2) a vow never to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. After lengthy consideration, I’m adding a third in this post—to protect me from forgetting what’s really at stake in the KJV debate, such as it is.

Here’s my reply:

That bibliology statement has some oddities that I’ve never seen before, but I at least appreciated the way Ross distinguished his viewpoint from Ruckman and Riplinger. I look in vain for most KJV-Only churches (and I am all the time reading their bibliology statements) to understand that, if indeed there are scriptural promises of preservation, the KJV is not “the preserved Word of God for English-speaking peoples.” Rather, as Ross says, “the promises of preservation are specifically made for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, not English words.” What a relief to read this. And this: “no verses of the Bible promise a perfect English translation.” I also appreciated the acknowledgment that, in principle, the KJV might need to be replaced some day. I have never seen a KJV-Only bibliology statement offer that admission.

However, the principles by which one may discern whether or not the KJV needs to be replaced leave much to be desired:

In the unlikely event that the Lord were not to return for some hundreds of years into the future, and the English language changed in such a manner that the early modern or Elizabethan English of the Authorized Version were to have the comprehensibility of the Old English of Beowulf, it would certainly be right to update Biblical language.  However, I believe that the Holy Spirit would lead Biblical Baptist churches to have general agreement that such a revision of the English Bible is needed.  Without such clear Divine leadership, any revision would be inferior to the Authorized Version (as such versions as the NKJV most certainly are), and detrimental to the cause of Christ.

Leaving aside the irresponsible eschatology of the first lineBeowulf’s English is absolutely unintelligible (it opens with “Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon“)—do we have to wait till the KJV reaches that stage before we can ask for a new translation into the vernacular? Presumably not. So when can we ask? When the English is 50% unintelligible? Presumably before that… How about 10%? 5%? No KJV defenders I’ve ever met seem in the least interested in this question.

The NKJV is dispatched in a line, and a (frankly) airy call for “clear Divine leadership” of “Biblical Baptist churches” (why not the CofE?) is made when that call has already come in the very word of God you seek to defend. Vernacular translation is arguably modeled by Ezra (Neh 8:8) and is most certainly modeled in the NT’s use of translations of countless OT passages. Even the little efforts throughout Scripture to “translate” not-so-very-old, or merely foreign, words and customs for the intended reading audience—these provide authoritative examples for us. (I have in mind the passage in which “today’s ‘prophet’ was formerly called a seer,” and others in which anything from Talitha cumi to Immanuel to Rabbi to Tabitha to Barnabas is translated for the reader.) Richard Muller dedicates a whole section to “Vernacular Translation” in his summary of the views of the Reformers. He summarizes the views of one German reformer:

In the first place, the prophets and apostles themselves spoke and wrote in the vernacular in order that their hearers might understand: translation thus enables the Scriptures to be read by all, as the prophets and apostles themselves intended. Second, the Scriptures are the “weapons of the faithful” for defense “against Satan and the heretics.” Even so, third, all believers are commanded to read and study the Scriptures (John 5:39; Deut. 31:11) as, indeed, the apostle praised the Bereans (Acts 17:11). Beyond this, the command to preach to all nations implies the need to translate Scripture, as does the great effort of the early church to produce translations in all of the languages of believers—such as the Syriac, the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint, the many Latin versions, and even the Hexapla of Origen. (Muller, 425)

Every KJV defender I’ve met would profess allegiance to this Reformation value, vernacular translation. They excoriate medieval Catholics for their fear that putting the Bible in the hands of the people would lead to doctrinal novelty. They thrill to repeat the stirring words of Tyndale,

I defie the Pope and all his lawes. If God spare my life, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture, than he doust.

But they all turn on the plough boy, whipping out their pikes and mattocks, as soon as he observes that he’s having trouble understanding the KJV.

No matter which text you prefer, or how you get to that preference, the practical upshot is the same: English speakers, including “the least of these” to whom I ministered in West Greenville for 15 years, will not get to have the Bible in their language. And I won’t get to have it in mine.

You’ve led me to a decision: henceforth and forevermore, God helping me, I will not discuss textual criticism with people who insist on the exclusive use of the KJV. I’m not saying I won’t listen to others; I’m saying I won’t engage them on that one issue. Textual criticism is a red herring. Vernacular translation is the only issue I’ll debate. Resolved: the KJV is not—or rather, is no longer—a vernacular translation. Let’s talk English.

The greatest and saddest irony of the KJV-Only movement has to be the list of words that modern versions have supposedly “taken out” of the Bible. In reality, my King James Bible Word Book details hundreds of words that the KJV, through no fault of its own, “takes out” of Scripture. Every besom, every emerod, every shambles—is a word the KJV-Only folks take out of the hands of God’s people. The vocabulary words can be looked up, yes, but in my experience people don’t do it. They don’t know how to do it—they don’t even always know when to do it (because the modern senses of some words still make sense in context; see halt and let). They have no idea what the Oxford English Dictionary is or why it is necessary for KJV readers. And it’s not just archaic words that take the KJV out of the “vernacular” category—this is so often missed; it’s phrases, and it’s syntax. Every “give place,” every “fetch a compass,” is a phrase taken out of people’s hands. Every “not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh,” every “fret not thyself in any wise to do evil” is a clause whose syntax keeps God’s words locked in obscurity. I know all the individual words in those sentences, but I still can’t understand them. Difficult syntax cannot be looked up in a dictionary. You get it or you don’t—or you take a graduate program in the different phases of English and do a great deal of reading in late 16th and early 17th century English literature. Needless to say, this is not an acceptable way forward.

Educated KJV defenders are putting a burden on people’s shoulders that they themselves are not willing to bear. I’m a professional theological writer and have been, more or less, for 14 years. I love words. I grew up on the KJV (and I won five spelling bees in a row in the 1980s and early 1990s, I’ll have you know). I can read Greek and Hebrew. I cannot understand many verses in the KJV, and I trip for at least a moment on countless others. I could be flattering myself, but I have reason to believe that others are faring less well than I—largely because I was them. I used to think I understood the KJV just fine. It took me many years of study in Greek, Hebrew, and English to figure out how much I was missing.

I don’t want to overstate my case; the KJV is still (early) modern English, and it is indeed deeply beautiful. Many individual words and sentences don’t need updating. But when I read the Bible I want to understand every word, and the KJV—through no fault of its own, but merely because of the passing of the years—won’t let me.

Until KJV defenders take more interest in what the Bible actually talks about, namely the importance of understanding, than what it doesn’t, namely the perfect preservation of ancient manuscript copies—until then I love the plough boy (and the bus kid and my own children) too much to waste time discussing the origin and provenance of scales on a red herring.

I have to ask again: why can’t we have the Bible in our own language?

A Question about the New King James Version

A friend wrote me (and I have his permission to post this):

I have a serious interest in using the NKJV as the ministry Bible of choice for our congregation. It corresponds to my textual preference for TR/MT/Byzantine tradition (though I appreciate good CT translations on a scale). And it provides a more relevant form of English expression, which motivates me greatly (which gains your empathy, I am sure!). Furthermore, the vast majority of our congregation would support such a change (a major plus).

He did, however, have a gracious objection from a member of his congregation who is not KJV-Only but who felt he had reason to consider the KJV the most accurate translation of the Hebrew. It doesn’t matter what his reason was; I believe he was sincere. Everyone who objects to moving away from the KJV will have a reason—of course they will. And a pastor is called to patiently instruct them.

This was my reply to my respected friend…

Part One

You have more than my empathy—you have my very great excitement! You’re the very first person I’ve ever met or heard of who has made this very good, very logical move. Let me trace that logic if I can:

  1. The TR is the best Greek text.
  2. The KJV and NKJV are the only believable contenders for the title of “well-known, respected, English translation based on the TR which has multiple editions available even in local bookstores.”
  3. Our Reformation heritage (and, more importantly, the Bible itself) makes vernacular translation an essential tool for the church’s work of growing people into maturity and stability (Eph 4).
  4. The KJV is difficult for people to read today because English has changed; it is no longer a vernacular translation.
  5. So let’s use the NKJV.

Can you tell me if you know anyone else who has not only followed this logic but carried through and done something about it? I would love to see tons of people doing this. The fact that no one but you is doing it is what has always led me to doubt that the TR defenders actually care about the TR rather than preserving the KJV. When I have asked leading TR defenders why they don’t use the NKJV, they typically shrug their shoulders and say, “I’ve never really looked into it.”* That means they’re denying points 3 and/or 4 above. And that’s why my upcoming book is focused on point 4; I fear that, like a much younger me, people have persuaded themselves that they can understand the KJV but don’t know how much they’re missing.

Part Two

This situation is delicate, and you’re the pastor—you know how to deal with people, and you know this brother whom I don’t know. But I’ve got three major thoughts:

1) The translators of the NKJV OT include a number of major OT scholars who have written significant exegetical commentaries on major OT books: Smith in the NAC on Isaiah, Hamilton in the NICOT on Genesis, Ross, Beitzel, Van Gemeren, Merrill. He needs to recognize that you are in the spot of either trusting his judgment or that of multiple respected people with similar gifts and specialized training.

It’s a question of epistemology: how do you achieve justified, true belief (i.e., knowledge) with regard to a question about the quality of a huge Bible translation encoding tens of thousands of individual decisions? I wrote a post about this: you have to know Greek/Hebrew, you have to know English, and you have to be able to generalize from those thousands of decisions.

Assuming someone knows (OT) Hebrew and English really well, the only way you can possibly adjudicate your different positions is to look at tons of examples together. So I wonder if the way forward is asking him to get together thirty examples from across the corpus, and asking him if you can then send that on to an expert. I’d be very happy to take a look, or you might try James Price, who worked on the NKJV and I believe is now retired.

I suspect that, in the end, about 10 of his examples will be persuasive, 10 will be contestable, and 10 will be wrong or misunderstandings. And give James Price the time and he’ll come up with his own list of 30 going the other direction.

And that’s just thirty examples on one side and thirty on the other. There are, again, thousands of relevant examples. I have not used the NKJV extensively, but my impression over time has been that it is not clearly better or worse than the KJV. It is extremely similar.

Even if you’re not confident in Hebrew, what you do know is English, and so the question becomes this: are the (contestable) “inaccuracies” in the NKJV OT really of sufficient weight to overcome the problem that the KJV is no longer a vernacular translation? Sure, the KJV may be more accurate (again, that’s contestable), but if so it’s an accurate translation into a language no one speaks anymore. If accuracy is the main thing you’re going for, the Hebrew is the most accurate; why don’t people just read that?

2) My understanding is that the NKJV was designed to be as little different from the KJV as possible. I checked the preface again, and this is what their stated goal was:

A special feature of the New King James Version is its conformity to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. The reader discovers that the sequence and selection of words, phrases, and clauses of the new edition, while much clearer, are so close to the traditional that there is remarkable ease in listening to the reading of either edition while following with the other.

If anything, the criticism people (or people like me) tend to give of the NKJV today is that it wasn’t bold enough in straying from the KJV. One very gifted TR-only friend of mine, even though he uses the KJV, has told me that he finds criticisms of the NKJV from the KJV camp to be very weak, grasping at straws. I agree. When I read KJVO reviews of the NKJV I think, Nothing will ever please these people. Nothing.

3) There are other translations of the MT/TR: the MEV, the KJVer, and I’m sure some others that are more obscure (Darby is one I know of).

***

I am praying right now that the Lord would smooth your way with this man and with the congregation. Thanks for sending me this interesting question.

mlwj

*My friend told me he’s heard four objections to the NKJV:

  • I know some good men who have concerns about the NKJV, but I haven’t asked them for more information.
  • The footnotes refer to other manuscripts, which raises reader concern about manuscript reliability or undermines their faith. This could be harmful.
  • It’s a good translation, but it would be too hard to make a change. Good co-laborers would misunderstand.
  • It would be great if we could come up with a new translation that avoids the pitfalls of the NKJV (whatever they are), updates the KJV understandability, and we all (fundamental Baptists) could agree on!

Answering Joel Beeke on the KJV

I’m super late to the party on this one, but I just ran across an article by Joel Beeke offering thirteen “Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV.” Dr. Beeke is respected for good reason, and I have profited in multiple ways from his ministry. He also avoids the extremes of much of the KJV-Only movement.

However, I cannot agree with his conclusion, nor with most of his points. I failed in my efforts to resist the temptation to answer each one… Here’s a screenshot of the post, followed by my replies. I apologize in advance for the awkward reading this will require. If you’re really dedicated, perhaps you might try reading the two articles side-by-side. If you’re not really dedicated, the Internet is large and surely there are better things to read than my post. Hey, here is something you could read instead.

beekejoelkjv_shrink

 

  1. This is all undoubtedly true, but by this reasoning the English-speaking church will never be permitted to acknowledge that English has changed to such a degree that the KJV is no longer a suitable standard translation.
  2. Laypeople—who bear the greatest impact from the choice of their church leaders to stick with or move on from the KJV—simply cannot evaluate on their own the intricate arguments over textual criticism of documents in languages they cannot read. They must simply trust their leaders. But a lot of smart, orthodox people (in fact, most of them) disagree with Beeke. This point of his should, therefore, not be determinative. Notice I didn’t say whether I agree or not—only that this point shouldn’t be determinative. And even if the point is given a great deal of weight, it isn’t necessarily an argument for the KJV. The NKJV is also based on the TR.
  3. Missionary translator Dave Brunn has demonstrated that all the major modern English translations use “dynamic equivalence” and “functional equivalence” at different times. The KJV certainly lands on the more literal end of the commonly used translation continuum, but it’s not the most literal. It’s willing to translate μη γενοιτο as “God forbid,” to give just one example. I’m afraid it is simple bluster—and dangerous bluster—to say that the “KJV gives you what biblical authors wrote, not what a committee thinks they meant to write.” This kind of talk contributes to the conspiracy theorizing among the fanatics (note: I don’t believe Beeke is a fanatic). Doug Moo is the head of the Committee for Bible Translation, the group responsible for the NIV. Does his commentary on Romans give any indication that he is anything less than consummately careful with the text of Scripture?
  4. Italics are meaningless at best, misleading at worst, to people who can’t read Greek and Hebrew. The only instance in which I have ever heard anyone make something out of those italics is in Psalm 14: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” We are told, with the air of being given a hidden key to understanding, that what the psalmist was really saying was, “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘No, God!'” But one glance at the Hebrew reveals he is not a disobedient believer; he is an atheist. אֵ֣ין means “non-existence of,” not “No.” Reality is that Bible translators must make countless interpretive decisions, major and minor, which they can only describe or defend in footnotes, if they even have space for that. Ironically, directing people to distrust contemporary translations forces them to adopt the KJV translators’ viewpoints by default—something I feel confident would have mortified them. I’ve read the Translators to the Reader several times. It is remarkable to me how prescient they were regarding the KJV-Only movement. Instead of seeing the existence of multiple translations as a liability, it should be seen as a great opportunity not afforded to any other culture in history.
  5. Yes, it is helpful to see number distinctions through KJV pronouns, but this is a trade-off: what about KJV punctuation? I would argue that the absence of quotation marks makes accurate reading difficult more often than the distinction between thee and ye makes accurate reading easier. Context generally distinguishes the singular and plural second-person pronouns sufficiently—or we’d be having neverending trouble in spoken English. Beeke has chosen one respect in which Jacobean English is closer to Greek and Hebrew than is contemporary English. But there are multiple ways in which Jacobean English diverges so far from contemporary English that I am inclined to think the distinction between thee and ye is a small gain.
  6. God could have chosen a higher, even grandiloquent form of Greek for the New Testament, but he chose Κοινή, the “common” tongue. One could do little better on this than listen to someone who could read Greek of all sorts better than you or I ever will, C.S. Lewis:

    In the first place the kind of objection which they feel to a new translation is very like the objection which was once felt to any English translation at all. Dozens of sincerely pious people in the sixteenth century shuddered at the idea of turning the time-honoured Latin of the Vulgate into our common and (as they thought) ‘barbarous’ English. A sacred truth seemed to them to have lost its sanctity when it was stripped of the polysyllabic Latin, long heard at Mass and at Hours, and put into ‘language such as men do use’—language steeped in all the commonplace associations of the nursery, the inn, the stable, and the street. The answer then was the same as the answer now. The only kind of sanctity which Scripture can lose (or, at least, New Testament scripture) by being modernized is an accidental kind which it never had for its writers or its earliest readers. The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the Eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety…. When we expect that [the Bible] should have come before the World in all the beauty that we now feel in the Authorised Version we are as wide of the mark as the Jews were in expecting that the Messiah would come as a great earthly King.

  7. I disagree rather profoundly here.
  8. I liked a lot about this point, especially the poignant touch about seniors. I have no wish to rip the KJV out of anyone’s hands, least of all people who have loved it lifelong. But the first spiritual benefit I wish to give my children is that of reading the Bible in their own language. Later we can pick up the heritage of the KJV.
  9. When will English have changed sufficiently to justify moving to a new ecumenical text for Reformed Christians? I believe that time passed some decades ago. And who will take on the burden of carefully, lovingly moving us? By holding on to the old standard (which, it must be confessed, was all but inevitable), we have lost our opportunity to be unified on the new one. It’s like the Galactic Empire in the Foundation trilogy. After its fall, a time of fragmentation is unavoidable, but the period between empires could be shortened with wise preparation.
  10. I’m not sure when and where Dr. Beeke wrote this article originally (can someone enlighten me?), but the ESV has surpassed the KJV in these areas. ESV gift Bibles are very inexpensive, and there are many high-quality and innovatively useful formats whose beauty and quality exceeds that of most KJV editions I’ve seen.
  11. I have heard this before—the idea that the KJV purposefully used then-archaic forms—but I’ve never seen it substantiated (I would be most grateful to someone who could do so for me, because I’m writing a book on this topic and I can’t help it). If it’s true, which seems possible but unlikely to me, I’d really like to know how we know. The only ways we could know, it seems to me, is if 1) the KJV translators said so, and I’m not aware that they did in their preface or anywhere else; or 2) if the language of the KJV was so clearly out of step with the times that it could only have been done purposefully. Judging by the preface (and other writings I’ve read from the time), I would say that the language is remarkably similar to that of the translation. It would take some expertise in 16th and 17th century English literature to make a good judgment here. I would also say that maintaining allegiance to a reverentially religious form of English isn’t all good.
  12. I read Adam Nicolson’s book God’s Secretaries, and I am familiar with many of the translators of the ESV, HCSB, NASB, and NIV. I simply do not believe Dr. Beeke is accurate here, and I’m not sure how much it matters if he is or isn’t.
  13. The best things have been calumniated. I feel genuine sorrow in my heart as I read words like these. On the one hand, I’m a conservative Christian—yea, a fundamentalist of the old sort—who would agree with Dr. Beeke that stripping worship services of their dignity and reverence in favor of the casual and the contemporary is shameful. But I do not see “the penchant for new translations” as arising from this trend. Perhaps some translations do (I won’t name names), but the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and HCSB certainly don’t. New translations arise from the same “trend” that supports and sustains Dr. Beeke’s own pulpit and publishing ministry: people want to know God’s word. They want to hear it in their own language.

The KJV is a wonderful translation which deserves its legendary status, and it deserves to be read and used today. But not as a common standard for devotional reading or preaching. No one on the planet speaks the version of English the KJV uses. And the problem goes beyond individual archaic words such as besom, emerod, or chambering. When a reader encounters those words, he knows he doesn’t know them, and he knows just what to do: look them up. (Though few readers will know that the only suitable place to look up those words is the massive and expensive OED; and why they should have to look up words when there are common contemporary English equivalents—broom, tumor, and sexual immorality—has always eluded me.) That is problem enough, but there are many, many places where English has changed in more subtle ways, and readers will not realize it.

For example, what does “halt” mean in the famous phrase we’ve all memorized, “How long halt ye between two opinions”? I’ve collected numerous similar examples in my book, which may or may not ever see the light of day.

The kind of people who can—and care to—read a post like this, bear a responsibility to help lead and guide those who can’t. Dr. Beeke is a dear brother and a wonderful gift to the church, but I do not agree with him on these points.