Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. By Mark
Ward. Lexham Press: WA, 2018. Kindle Edition.
The sole case against the regular use of the King James
Version is its vernacular. Dr. Ward correctly identifies the AV’s English to be
“early modern English.” What is not mentioned however is that the KJV as an
accurate translation of the original languages, is not merely standardized
English but also Biblical English. The KJV reader is exposed to a meticulous
reflection of the Hebrew/Aramaic and the Greek. The KJV Hebraisms and syntax
scrupulously exhibit the originals. Idiomatic expressions and certain terminologies
are at times mistaken for archaisms. Indeed, there are words that are archaic,
but none are unintelligible. The KJV pushes the English toward the original
languages. A good solution is one that is unfortunately discounted by Dr. Ward
in his introductory diagnostic question: “So do we…teach people to read it?
No.”
If much of English-speaking Christianity has sent the King
James Version to that part of the forest where trees fall with no one there to
hear them, it is owing to both ignorance (for many) and sedition (on the part
of unbelieving textual criticism and religious liberalism). Thankfully, the KJV
is not the treasure of commercialism, but rather the Lord’s churches. Yes,
generally speaking, no one misses the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, nor the Geneva
Bible, but this is because the current iteration of a faithful English Bible
points exclusively to the King James Version. Dr. Ward highlights five points
that readers will lose if they stop using the KJV. “Intergenerational ties to
the Body of Christ” reflects an ecclesiology not shared by this reviewer however
to contextualize his first point a KJV-link is appreciated. To view the KJV as part
of a rich heritage to hand down is commendable. Part of the beauty of the King
James Version is that it is a faithful translation which ought to be handed
down to subsequent generations until such a time as another faithful English
translation would iterate differently. This occasion is perhaps possible, but
most likely not probable. Dr. Ward correctly fears allowing traditions to set
aside the Word of God. While this is a valid concern, there is nothing by way
of tradition about the King James Version that stands to set aside the Word of
God. Simply put, the traditions which surround the AV are good ones. Dr. Ward
puts forward another healthy, diagnostic question: “What do we do with the KJV
in the twenty-first century?” A healthy response: study it.
Dr. Ward identifies the reader’s understanding as the
weighty reason for giving up on the KJV. His solution though is gratuitous. If
the problem is the reader’s understanding, then the task is to elevate the
reader’s understanding. In Acts 8 where the Ethiopian lacked understanding, Philip
did not offer to change the text but rather explained it. A citizen’s lack of
understanding the U.S. Constitution is no reason to call for its amendment. To
change the KJV because of the reader’s lack of understanding is to introduce a
flood of evil. Furthermore, to amend a classic eliminates it from being one
(regardless of whatever classic piece it may be).
In Chapters 2-3, Dr. Ward presents a very good point and
concern. “It is not impossible that Bible readers are running their eyes past
words that simply don’t register.” In other words, how would a reader know to
look up a word or words if he assumes he understands it or if he is unaware,
perhaps even operating on a false assumption (Mark calls these words “false
friends”). Whatever else the solution may be, replacing the text is certainly
not the answer. The need is for guidance not gerrymandering the text. Part of
the problem was exacerbated by using a modern dictionary when studying an older
text. This is something that Dr. Ward points out. An alternative to the peerless OED is the free online tool “Online Etymology Dictionary” (www.etymonline.com)
– Unicorn, halt, commendeth, convenient, wait, & remove (including more
false friends) are adequately explained relatively free. This reviewer would
like to add “meet” (as in Gen. 2:18) in the “false friends” category. Hebrew
poetry and the choice of the KJV translators to render it into prose versus an English
poetic equivalent is not without its reasons. Take for instance, Bible
Presbyterian Church, Senior Pastor Christian Spencer's lecture on the KJV poetry
at a Dean Burgon Society meeting accessible on sermonaudio.com. Readability
has always been a concern, but solutions are never beyond reach.
In Chapter 4, Dr. Ward properly qualifies some distinctions
within the “KJV-only” camp and more could easily be said but this is not the essence
of his book. Modern translations also contain their share of difficult words.
One solution is Dr. Waite’s Defined KJB. TBS’ KJV Westminster Reference edition
seems beautiful and helpful. Norton’s KJB (the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible,
2005) returns the current KJV to the less than accurate 1611 edition and for
that reason it is not helpful (besides removing the italicized words, and the
retention of the Apocrypha). Mr. Dave Olson, faculty member at Fairhaven
Baptist College, wrote a 78-page booklet that helps: “Understanding the King
James Bible.” Hopefully, a future influx of good KJV study Bibles, editions,
and books will help solve much of Dr. Ward’s legitimate concerns.
In Chapter 5, Dr. Ward weaponizes the KJV’s vernacular
against itself. His syllogism is doubtful (even after reading 5 chapters of
good points and observations) in point number 2 “the KJV is not in our
language.” If the KJV is not written in English, what language is it written
in? Dr. Ward calls for an update of the KJV. It would be better to call for a
study of it. The “fear” of revising the KJV is not unfounded. How many attempts
have been made only to leave Christendom with a “finished” product that is less
accurate to the originals and less enduring. Take the word charity, for
instance. Charity could be rendered love in 1 Corinthians 13 but in doing that,
one loses the exact definition of a love that is heightened (or sacrificial) to
say nothing of its etymological link to a Christian context. The world can
legitimately say that Christianity has no settled text. Certainly, “make a good
one better” but since the 1885 Revised Version and onward, this remains to be seen.
In Chapter 6, Dr. Ward responds to ten objections to reading
vernacular Bible translations. In #2, Beeke’s “Sounds Like the Word of God”
point, Dr. Ward sees a conflict between understanding and reverence where there
is none. The KJV is sonorous. In #3, the fact that the KJV uses the thees and thous evinces the fact the translators opted for an older English
for precision’s sake. Modern English is simply inadequate to reflect the precision
of pronouns and adjectives in the original languages. Dr. Ward’s T-V
distinction is a fascinating read but Tyndale’s decision was grammatical not
historical, per se. That languages change is a fact, but a written text when
understood in its own context provides the meanings necessary to help the reader’s
understanding. It is in this sense that the KJV is “timeless.” In #4, quotation
marks are purposefully avoided for good reasons: the original languages do not
utilize them, these are editorial guesses, and it would appear disingenuous to
place a quote where a phrase is not actually quoted anywhere, (e.g. Matthew
2:23). In #6, the italics are purposefully utilized to supply the ellipses of
the originals. This is a simple matter of accuracy. In #8, Dr. Ward is neutral
in the formal/dynamic equivalence issue. This reviewer appreciates the recent
upper hand that formal equivalence has received as of late. In #9, The TR rules,
period. For the record: the NKJV and the MEV ambitiously claim to use the TR
but undermine it both in the text and in the footnotes and/or margins. Text
Criticism is certainly complex, but thankfully not beyond men like the late
John Burgon and the late Edward Hills; everyone has their favorite text critics.
In #10, Dr. Ward summarizes his arguments. To minimize his thesis is to do him
a disservice and to bury one’s head in the sand. Dr. Ward’s knowledge is expert
and serves his readers well including antagonistic ones.
In Chapter 7, Dr. Ward walks the readers through his thought
process for advocating a multiplicity of English translations. A belief that
this reviewer does not share for textual, linguistic, and theological reasons.
Epilogue, Dr. Ward offers a call to action for those who are
interested in venturing into modern translations. This reviewer’s call to
action is not merely to retain the KJV but to defend the it.
Positives: (Good)
1. Understanding the Bible is paramount.
2.
Language is changing. Dr. Ward brings a keen awareness to this fact.
Assumptions on the KJV reader’s part must be challenged.
Negatives: (Bad)
1. Dr. Ward maintains a “studied neutrality” on the
textual criticism, and translation methodology.
2. Relevance is prioritized over accuracy.
Mega-Negatives: (Ugly)
1. Dr. Ward calls
for replacing the KJV. Anathema! 😇
2. Dr. Ward has no
doctrine of Providential (or Perfect) Preservation of the Scriptures.
Mark Ward earned a PhD in New Testament Interpretation from BJU. He is a prolific writer and serves as a Logos Pro at Faithlife, the premier private Christian software company, imo.
