The Editor’s Bias for the King James Version - Glenn Conjurske

The Editor’s Bias for the King James Version

by the editor

A learned (and friendly) critic, having recently read many of my articles on Bible versions, tells me that we are very close in our views, but that he detects in me upon occasion a bias in favor of the King James Version. He notes as an example my article on paraphrasing in the Bible (Dec. 1992, pg. 280), and says that I ought to mention that the King James Version contains more paraphrasing than the New King James Version.

As to my bias in favor of the King James Version, though I aim always to be objective, and though I freely point out the faults of the King James Version where I see them, yet I confess that I doubtless have some bias in its favor. This I confess without shame. I am not so sure that in a question of this nature it could be right to be without such a bias. It seems to me that those who speak English, and who love the old paths of spiritual Christianity, must necessarily have a bias in favor of the King James Version, woven as it is into the warp and woof of every inch of the fabric of English Christianity for the last four centuries. There ought to be a predilection in favor of an institution which has so stood the test of time, and accomplished so much good in the world. We entirely approve of that bias which C. H. Spurgeon avows in words which we have printed before:

“For our own part, we are always grateful for good marginal readings; but we are less and less disposed to countenance any tampering with the text. The older we grow the more conservative we become. We have had ten thousand messages from God to our soul in the very words of our English Bible; and we have prayed over and preached about the precepts and promises it enshrines, till we feel a vested interest in the volume as it is.”1

We likewise—-and most heartily—-approve the following from J. W. Burgon, which we have also quoted before: “Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men’s hopes of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—-the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.”2

There was a bias in these men, surely, but that bias was the fruit of holy thoughts and emotions, whereas the absence of that bias can hardly bespeak a proper state of soul. All who love their spiritual heritage must necessarily love the King James Version, and love naturally begets a bias which is as wholesome as it is unavoidable. Love covers a multitude of faults. A man who is in love may be enamored even with the faults of his lover, and if this is an error, it is at any rate an excusable one, and an error on the right side.

But the bias which I defend is not merely subjective. There ought to be a certain objective bias in favor of that which has been the foundation of spiritual Christianity for four centuries. When some young upstart comes forward as the detractor of an old man of God, who has blessed the church and gained the affections of the saints for decades, it would be simply preposterous to set these two men on a level, and claim no bias either way. The man who could claim to be unbiased in such a situation only proclaims the bias of his heart against the old man of God. The “bias” of the saints of God, if such it must be called, ought to be with the man whose ministry has blessed them for decades, and the bias of the people of God ought to be with the Bible which has possessed the hearts of the saints of God for four centuries. That bias ought to move them to look with lenity upon its very faults—-though certainly not to deny their existence.

Now to apply my bias to the paraphrasing in the English Bible. It may be so that there is less paraphrasing in the New King James Version than there is in the old one. I have not collated them. But suffer me to make a few remarks on paraphrasing.

1.Some paraphrasing is necessary.

2.Some may be allowable, which is not strictly necessary.

3.Some may be necessary to retain the vigor or the spirit of the original, while sacrificing the letter. “God forbid” may be an example of this.

4.I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part. It must be borne in mind that the King James Version was not a new translation, but a revision of the old ones, and we may grant that it was proper—-or at any rate excusable—-to retain a certain amount of paraphrase from the older versions, when the renderings were adequate, and when they were moreover familiar, and dear to the hearts of the saints. Most of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale, and by 1611 was already endeared to the hearts of the people. Too much change would have rendered the version unacceptable to those for whom it was made, and I believe the solid conservatism of the King James translators was one of their chief virtues.

5.Yet having said all this, it remains a fact that the King James Version is, as the “Five Clergymen” who undertook to revise it affirm, “so generally accurate, so close, so abhorrent of paraphrase…”3 Though there is more paraphrase in the old version than we can approve of, still it is remarkably free from it, especially in the New Testament, and in this respect it is vastly superior to the versions of Tyndale or Luther.

6.The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version. That this was always wise I deny. If the New King James translators had possessed the same conservatism as the old ones, they would have “let well enough alone” in a myriad of places where they have altered the old version.

7.Moreover—-and this point I regard as the most important one—-it hardly seems that their removal of certain paraphrasing from the old version could have been dictated by any sound principle of faithfulness to the original, when in numerous other places they have introduced paraphrasing to which the old version was a stranger. Many of their alterations were dictated more by pedantry and fastidiousness than by any sound wisdom or faithfulness to the original. If it was any concern of theirs to render literally, without paraphrase, why did they introduce paraphrasing in so many places in which the old version was literal, perfectly intelligible, perfectly adequate (as four centuries of use have abundantly proved), and endeared to the hearts of the saints of God besides? This is the fruit of the liberal spirit of the modern church, and this it is to which I object in my article on paraphrasing. Whether it was right to remove paraphrasing which the old version contained may be open to more legitimate debate, but there is certainly no justification for introducing it, where four centuries of use have proved it needless.

8.The new paraphrasing introduced in the NKJV is of a more harmful sort, departing not only from the terms of the original, but from their meaning also. “Showing endearment” (Gen. 26:8) is a good example of this. And it hardly needs saying that in this the NASV is much worse than the NKJV, and the NIV very much worse.

Glenn Conjurske