You may never have used or even read the King James Version of the Bible. Or, you may have grown up in one of the independent Baptist churches that uses only the KJV. You may, like me, have used it early in life but then moved on to a new translation. It is called "The Authorized Version of 1611" but the KJV we grew up with is actually the third one and dates from the mid 1700's. I once had a reprint of the original 1611 and the spelling was so different that it was barely readable. It was THE Bible of English speaking people for at least 350 years. It slowly fell out of use for two reasons: 1) archaic words (out of date words like 'kine' for cattle); and 2) discovery of much older and therefore more accurate manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament.
However, we should not minimize the fact that we have suffered a great loss in no longer having a common Bible. But that is the price we have paid for better understand and accuracy. I sympathize with those who miss the KJV. I still quote from it frequently because I memorized seven entire books of the Bible from it and many other passages before my 18th birthday. I do not sympathize with those who claim that the late manuscripts, from which the KJV was translated, were more accurate. Some "KJV only" people, when you examine their beliefs closely, do not actually believe in the inspiration of Scripture. They believe in the inspiration of the KJV. There is a difference and it is extremely sad.
Some of you have come to this blog because you saw a photo I posted on Facebook and you are wondering what it has to do with the KJV of the Bible. That group of men, photographed in the spring of 1967, had just completed over ten years of work producing, what I strongly believe to be, the most useful edition of the KJV ever printed. It was called The New Scofield Reference Bible. It is out of print now and there is something called the Scofield III in its place. I have never examined Scofield III so I cannot comment on it.
Before I go further I must recognize that some readers of my blogs may be from church backgrounds where they have heard only negative things about the original Scofield Reference Bible of 1909/1917. I have defended that edition of the KJV (in general, not in all its details) in an earlier blog and I am not returning to that issue. I believe I can show that whatever church background someone may have been from in 1967 (or now) the New Scofield had (and still has) much to offer.
Now, who are the men in that photo, the men who revised the original Scofield Reference Bible and who produced what I believe to be the best form in which the KJV ever appeared? Back row left was (I believe) a representative of Oxford University Press, the publishers. Second from left was Frank E. Gaebelein who, like others in this group, was among the cream of biblical scholarship in the mid 20th century. He went on to be editor in chief of the monumental 12 volume Expositors Bible Commentary which I consider to be the very best. Third from left was Clarence Mason from Philadelphia College of Bible. He was a good man but I had an unpleasant experience with him when I was a senior at Toccoa Falls Academy and I would rather relate that to you in person if you are interested.
Fourth from left was John Walvoord the president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Next man was (I believe) Allan Mac Rae of Faith Theological Seminary. And on the far right of the back row was William Culbertson, president of Moody Bible Institute. I listened to him in many chapel services. Front row left was Wilbur M. Smith of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and another of the cream of biblical scholarship of the mid 20th century. Second from left was (I believe) E. Schuyler English, the chairman of the group. Third from left was Charles Feinberg of Talbot Theological Seminary. Finally, on the far right of the front row was Alva J. Mc Clain the first dean of Ashland (Ohio) Seminary in 1930 and the founder of Grace Seminary (and later college) in 1937.
You may be thinking at this point that I am urging appreciation for the Bible this group produced because of the footnotes they placed throughout the Bible. That is not at all my main reason. Those footnotes are very much an improvement over the original Scofield footnotes and are probably the most thoughtful presentation of what is called the Premillenial, Dispensational view of Scripture. They are also especially good on the first chapter of Genesis in pointing out the several meanings of the word "day" and cautioning against using Genesis to calculate the age of the earth. Their footnotes, however, lean further toward Calvinism and toward cessationism regarding some gifts of the Holy Spirit than I would.
Even though I believe the footnotes are generally quite helpful I most appreciate this Bible for how the text of the KJV was made more understandable but still preserved. If you read the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 (and I would buy one on Ebay if I were you) you will see now and then a word in brackets. That means that the committee has 1) updated an archaic (out of date) word; or 2) corrected a badly translated word. The brackets indicate the word the committee substituted and the original KJV word is given in the margin. Because of this, people who wanted to keep the KJV should have flocked to the NSRB instead of going to something that came along later called "The New King James Version". It is not the KJV at all and the title is misleading.
Just as I urge an appreciation for the original KJV and how it served the English speaking people for many years, so I have here urged an appreciation for the most helpful edition of the KJV. The New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 does indeed deserve better.
No comments:
Post a Comment