By Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez
President of the RVG Bible Society
There are currently over 3000 languages and dialects in the world today that still do not have the word of God translated. Thank God for those who are doing what they can to provide a faithful translation for as many of these groups as possible. I couldn't think of a more important work than to provide God's words into the language of those who have never had it before. Due to the demand for God's words to be translated into foreign languages around the world, heated discussions have developed as to the right kind of resources for such sacred work.
Some oppose the idea of using the King James Version as any kind of source to incorporate in foreign Bible translation work, much less as a standard to follow. I strongly disagree.
Few among Independent Baptists have done more for the cause of foreign Bible translation work than Dr. Rex Cobb. He is an experienced Bible translator and a former missionary to Mexico. He is the Director of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute in Bowie, TX, a school that specializes in advanced linguistics for the cause of Bible translation work in foreign lands. Dr. Cobb addresses the issue of involving the KJV in translation work. In an article entitled “English or Greek?”, he wrote:
“For the one who weighs in on the side of the Greek, let me remind you of the tremendous amount of Greek scholarship present in our Authorized Version. We probably have no Greek scholars today who could hold a candle to those of 1611. We believe they accurately translated the Greek into English. Also, when would a young missionary know Greek well enough to translate from it alone? He will never know Greek as well as he knows English, and besides, no one translates exclusively from the Greek. All English-speaking translators follow some English Bible, even as they translate the Greek. This being the case, their translation is based on both languages.”
Dr. Cobb concludes his article with the following statement:
“So, do we translate from the English or the Greek? Yes—and from the Portuguese too!”
(The rest of Dr. Cobb’s excellent article can be read here:
Dr. Cobb argues for not only the use of the KJV as a prominent source in the work of foreign Bible translations, but also the incorporation of as many reliable, trustworthy resources available…
…just like the King James translators did!
In fact, I would take this argument a step further. With what we know about the prominent place and fruit of the KJV in history, it would be wrong, or at least a disservice, to not include the KJV. All things considered, the KJV should not just serve as a resource but as the standard to follow to ensure textual purity.
This suggestion enrages some, especially those who wish to defend the 1960 edition of the Reina Valera. One time a pastor in Venezuela argued in an angry email with one of our colleagues that the Spanish Bible should ONLY be based upon the Hebrew and Greek texts and that the KJV should not be considered at all. He had no argument, however, when it was pointed out to him that there is no Bible translation in history that was only based upon Hebrew and Greek texts. All Bible translations in history have collated resources outside of Hebrew and Greek.
In fact, 1960 Reina Valera defenders fail to realize the hypocrisy in this argument when the truth is the revisers of the very Bible they defend used multiple English Bibles. Dr. Jose Flores, a collaborator in the 1960 revision, confessed in his own writing:
“One principle added to the first list of the RV 1960 revision committee was that wherever the RV (1909) Version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text we did not return to the Receptus. Point 12 of the working principles states: in cases where there is a doubt over the correct translation of the original, we consulted preferentially The English Revised Version of 1885, The American Standard Version of 1901, The Revised Standard Version of 1946, and the International Critical Commentary.” P. 323, El Texto del Nuevo Testamento
If supporters of the 1960 revision of the Reina Valera are not upset about the incorporation of corrupt Critical Text based English Bibles like the Revised Version (of Westcott and Hort), the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version, than their complaints against our use of the KJV in the RVG are completely irrelevant.
As Dr. Phil Stringer of the King James Bible Research Council puts it:
The critics who attack the RVG have unknowingly given a great reason to support it. They constantly claim that the RVG matches the readings of the King James Bible. They claim that this is because the gringos pressured Dr. Gomez to bring the English into the Spanish.
Actually, all of the Spanish readings they defend also match English Bibles. These men are comfortable when their Spanish Bible is identical to the Revised Standard Version, the New English Version or even the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation. But they literally get hysterical when a Spanish reading matches the King James Bible. This tells me everything that I need to know about these men and also everything I need to know about the RVG.
(The rest of Dr. Stringer's article can be read here:
The remainder of this article is a portion from chapter 4 my book entitled God’s Bible in Spanish in which I explain why it is important for the KJV to be used in the work of foreign Bible translation and why we rejoice that it was used in the RVG revision.
~
Some people allow that the KJV can be consulted as a secondary source but nothing more. Dr. Gómez disagrees (as does this author).
Though the foundational basis for any Bible translation should be the Received Texts, the KJV should play a much greater role than just a secondary source, since it is more than just another accurate or faithful Protestant translation, though accurate and faithful it is. It is the very Word of God in English.
The KJV is the crowning work of the Received Texts.
A valid question that has been raised by those on both sides of the fence is in regards to which edition of the Textus Receptus should be considered the standard for foreign Bible translation or revision. Should it be Beza’s text? Or Stephanus? Erasmus? Colinaeus? Stunica? Elzivers?
Then, once you choose which text you will use, you must decide which edition of this text to use.
For example, Beza authored 10 different editions of his Greek New Testament. Which of his 10 editions would you choose?
Using the KJV as the standard eliminates this confusion, for the King’s translators incorporated the best of all editions of the Received Texts. Perhaps Dr. Edward Hills explained it best:
The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God’s special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum… But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith.
Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which, more than any other, God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version.
This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949.
In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London by the Trinitarian Bible Society. We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students.”39
By incorporating the KJV in the work of foreign Bible translation, the translator is incorporating both its Greek and Hebrew basis and the textual decisions of the King’s translators. This is the best form of the Received Texts to use for translation work.
It is important to note that not only did the KJV translators collate the Greek texts, they also compared prior English translations.
Also incorporated were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots40 and the Latin Bibles.41 They also had the Italian Diodati, the French Olivetan, and Martin Luther’s German Bible42 available for their work of collation. As mentioned in the last chapter, they even had translations in Spanish at their disposal.
The point is that the underlying basis for the King James Bible was really not a singular text at all, but rather a culmination of many texts within the Traditional Text family that represented the overwhelming majority of manuscript evidence.
Therefore the KJV should be regarded as more than just another good and reliable translation. It is, as Dr. Hills puts it, “…an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.” Dr. Hills explains:
The translators that produced the KJV relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the KJV agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.43
Although any of the Textus Receptus editions, from Erasmus to that of Scrivener’s, is superior to any of the Critical Texts, each of these Textus Receptus Greek New Testaments was a revision. They were works in transition in efforts to improve upon the prior editions.
True Bible-believers believe that the KJV is the finality of the Textus Receptus and thus the final authority. It is the standard for accuracy. As Dr. Carlos Donate puts it:
“The KJV stands alone, wholly perfect! It has been, and forever will be, the touchstone by which all faithful translations are to be judged. It is true to the TR (Textus Receptus) and MT (Masoretic Text), its underlying texts. Without apologies, and as a native Hispanic fluent in other languages besides my own, I vouch for the faithfulness of the KJV in total.”44
When people reject the RVG on the basis of the involvement of the KJV in the revision process, they do not realize that they are robbing themselves and others of using a Spanish Bible that represents the very best scholarship in the history of Bible translation. They also fail to realize that this is not an issue of a superior language, but an issue of superior scholarship.
In other words, KJV Bible-believers do not insist that foreign Bibles be revised using the KJV because the English language is superior to Spanish or any other language. We do not believe nor advocate that.
We insist that foreign Bible translators and revisers use the KJV as “the standard to follow” because the scholarship that produced it is superior to any other translation. And to apply the KJV is to apply its scholarship, its accuracy, and its purity.
In regards to the work of the King James translators, how can today’s foreign Bible translator go wrong standing on the shoulders of these giants?
39) Dr. Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, pg. 223.
40) Price, p. 271.
41) Hills, pp. 198-208. Note: Most readers assume “the Latin Vulgate”
always refers to the corrupt Vulgate of Jerome. Not always. The Old Latin
of the early Waldenses was also referred to as “the Latin Vulgate” for many
years before Jerome produced his revision. (see J. J. Ray’s God Wrote Only
One Bible, p. 99). Also, both Erasmus and Beza translated their own Latin
New Testaments. It is common knowledge that the KJV translators used
them both. Therefore, it is highly probable that the Latin versions they
collated may have been that of Erasmus and Beza and not just Jerome’s. Miles
Coverdale also edited his own version of the Latin Vulgate. Perhaps his was
consulted as well.
42) D. O. Fuller, Which Bible, p. 212.
43) Dr. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 220.
44) From an email correspondence.
Comments