Dear brothers and sisters in Christ. I have been reading a very interesting book that was published by Ignatius press, authored by Dr. Karl Keating with the title "The Usual Suspects", I came across a very interest mini chapters that deals with the imperfect translation of the King James Bible from an imperfect Greek Text. Please do read this whole article it will make more sense as to what the author is trying to allude to. (Ocran)
“Chapter Scholars Need Not Apply – Book title Usual Suspects by Dr. Karl Keating Pg 84 through 89.
“Chapter Scholars Need Not Apply – Book title Usual Suspects by Dr. Karl Keating Pg 84 through 89.
Chapter starts off:
He begins by saying that the “King James Bible is being attacked daily by the Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Modernists, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists.” (Apparently he considers himself not just a Fundamentalist but a real Fundamentalist.) (Dr. Keating)
“The average Christian is given a King James Bible and told it is the Word of God. From then on he hears a steady stream of criticism of it through the radio, Christian books, magazines, in church, and in Christian schools. Anyone professing to have an ounce of education and who claims to be Godly and dedicated now assumes the right to correct the Bible any time it doesn’t measure up to this beliefs and standards. The King James Bible is corrected by saying ‘the orginal says’ when no one has the original. It is also corrected by saying ‘the Greek says’ when there are a dozen conflicting Greek texts on the market. Others say ‘this is an unfortunate translation’ or ‘a better reading is’ when they don’t know enough about Greek or manuscript evidence to know what they are talking about.” (Musselman)
Then we get to the meat, which is collected into sixteen propositions. Consider a few of them.
1 “Correcting the Authorized Bible teaches infidelity. The preacher or teacher who professes to believe the Bible then corrects it has just taught his students that the Bible has errors in it and cannot be trusted.” The problem with which Musselman never grapples is the King James Version was an imperfect translation of an imperfect Greek text. It is not surprising, then, that errors occur in it, but he writes as though the English itself is somehow inspired. Indeed, he ends his tract with the statement that “correctors of the Authorized King James Bible deny God has given his people his words in the English language exactly as he wanted them given.” As it stands, this statement is true. Correctors do deny this because translation are not, in themselves, inspired-and Musselman seems to be referring to inspiration when he states the English words turned out ‘exactly as [God] wanted them given”. (Dr. Keating)
2 “Correcting the Authorized King James Bible reinstates the Roman Catholic Bible.” Now we get to this problem. Musselman complains that Catholic Bible rely on this manuscript known as Vaticanus, so named because it reposes in the Vatican. This manuscript is faulty, says Musselman, because it was one of those composed by “the apostate Alexandrian school in the third and fourth centuries”. Somewhat contradictorily, he says that “Catholic translations are taken from [the] corrupt Bible” that was translated by Jerome – that is, from the Vulgate, a translation not based on Vaticanus. In the past most Catholic translations, it is true, were based on the Vulgate, but recent ones, such as the New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible, which are the Catholic translations most widely used in this country, have from the Vulgate, such as Msgr. Ronald Knox’s, have made use of the original tongues. So, on the one hand, Musselman warns against anything based on the Vulgate. On the other, he warns against anything based on Vaticanus, which Jerome did not use. Musselman complains that “Vaticanus leaves out most of the Genesis and all of the New Testament after Hebrews 9:14.” Aha! A faulty manuscript and one not to be trusted – one that has been doctored! But does this follow? Why are the beginning and end of Bible missing from Vaticanus? Was it because the copyist disbelieved in what those books taught and so dropped them from his copy? No. they are missing because the manuscript is old and falling apart, and the two ends got lost (or simply crumbed away) over the centuries.
Attacking the Authorized King James Bible repudiates the Protestant Reformation.” That may or may not be so - probably not, since most conservative English – speaking Protestants, people who show no particular love for the Catholic faith and never have entertained an uncharitable though about the Reformation, use English translations other than the King James or alongside the King James. Such use may constitute “attacking the Authorized King James Bible” or Musselman, but none of these people would agree to that. They would just tell you they are trying to use a more accurate translation.
3 “Correctors of King James Bible take the same position as the Roman Catholic priest. The Catholic priest sets himself up as an authority over the Bible and encourages the people to listen to him rather than the Book. The teacher or preacher who corrects the Bible set himself up as the authority for people to listen to, rather then the Bible, just like the priest. No wonder Bible reading is done by so few.” (Keep in mind that this tract is intended mainly for “Bible Christians”, Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals who may read nothing but the Bible.) Do priests, teachers, and preachers set themselves “over” the Bible? If he means that they interpret the Bible, the answer is yes. After all, a sermon or homily, whether Catholic or Protestant, usually deals with the meaning of the text for the day. Musselman is of the view, shared by many, that understanding the Bible takes no intellectual efforts. The meaning of a verse is supposed to jump out at you, and the meaning will be perfectly clear. This sounds fine in theory. The only trouble with it is that it breaks down in practice. Brother This and Sister That will repair to their Bibles at the conclusion of the service and will discover two distinct understandings of one verse. What is the sensible thing for them to do? Why, they turn to someone more experienced and, presumably, with a better understanding of Scripture. They turn to their minister.
4 “Correctors of the Authorized King James Bible reject the wisdom of God.” What Musselman means is that the King James Version must be accurate because it “works”. Missionaries have used it to convert millions, so it must be an entirely accurate translation. Of Course, before 1611, when the King James Version appeared, there were other translations, such as the Vulgate, and these, too, resulted in the conversion of millions. Before and after 1611 there have been translations into languages other than English – for instance, Luther’s German version and the German versions that preceded his – and these, too, resulted in millions of conversions. Which translation may claim the most? The King James Version can claim a large chuck of English speaking Protestant, but not all. It can claim almost no Catholics, no Eastern Orthodox, and none of those Protestants who read no English. In other words, it cannot claim to have been the instrument of conversion for the majority of Christians.
5 “Correctors of the Authorized Bible have no final authority. They appeal to the original no one has or can have. They believe, like Einstein’s theory of relativity, that everything is relative and that there is no absolute truth on this earth which a man can get his hands on.” First of all, Musselman has no idea what Einstein’s theory means. It has nothing to do with the notion that “everything is relative” or that “there is no absolute truth.” Second, why set up a particular translation as the “final authority”? One wonders how many Frenchmen, including French Protestants, believe that only the English-language King James Version is the “real” Bible.
6 “Correctors of the Authorized Bible put Christian scholarship above the God-authorized Bible….. While professing to believe the Bible, many schools, including Evangelical and Fundamental, have accepted Christian education as the final authority and believe it has the right to sit in judgment on any Bible, Hebrew, Greek, or English.” What it comes down to – and it is not a pleasant thought – is that in Musselman’s religion one must abdicate the use of the critical faculties.
Conclusion:
Before one picks up a Bible translation we must first ask ourselves before doing anything: “Is this as accurate a copy of the original writings, can I reply on this to be faithful, so far as possible, to the originals?” Unfortunately, majority of us do not ponder this question because most of us are not capable of determining which versions are accurate and which are not. We rely on experts to give us an accurate translation of the original text and ultimately we rely of the Church for the interpretation of the text. However, our friend in Christ Musselman disagrees He is suspicious of the scholarship translation of the text. He has seen it go awry, as it can, and he concludes it always goes awry. He is reduced to what is either bibliolatry or the thing next to it. He suffers from an immoderate devotion to a particular translation, coupled with a rejection of all others, coupled with the idea that it is not even possible to have another translation as good or better. The problem with this is that readers of his tract just might buy his arguments. If they do, they set themselves up for great disappointment. If they ever stumble across good, orthodox biblical scholarship, whether Catholic or Protestant, they will be thrown for a loop. They will discover the King James Version is not specially anointed by God. Their confidence in the Bible may evaporate overnight. Having staked everything on an erroneous position, when they see that position crumble, they may see their faith crumble too. (Dr. Keating)
Reference: The Usual Suspects by Dr. Karl Keating – “Scholars Need Not Apply” Pages 84 through 89 Ignatius Press.
Reference: The Usual Suspects by Dr. Karl Keating – “Scholars Need Not Apply” Pages 84 through 89 Ignatius Press.
