Engelsma’s pamphlet, Modern Bible Versions, presents a strong case for the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Bible as the best translation in the English language over against the plethora of more recent translations, revisions, and paraphrases that have attempted to replace the KJV.
Engelsma first defends the KJV against attacks that allege that there are significant weaknesses and serious errors in the KJV. These allegations include: 1) The KJV is not based on the best manuscripts. 2) The KJV contains unclear language. 3) Today’s readers can no longer understand the KJV. 4) Many forms of expression in the KJV have become archaic.
While admitting the KJV is not a perfect translation, Engelsma goes on to demonstrate that the KJV does possess three qualities which a usable version of the Bible must have. First and most importantly, a translation must be “thoroughly faithful to the Word of God.” Second, a good version must be clear to “the common man.” And third, a good version “should have a good style, a pleasing, smooth-flowing readable style…” a style that is worthy of our “majestic, holy, glorious God.” Engelsma then evaluates modern Bible versions in light of those requirements for a good translation and concludes: “the modern Bible versions are seen to be a curse, not a blessing for the Church.”
Engelsma concludes Modern Bible Versions, by asking and answering three questions:
- What about specific modern versions?
- What about the Living Bible?
- Can we still use the King James Version?
In the estimation of this reviewer the most valuable part of the pamphlet is the article found in the appendix of the pamphlet titled, The English Translation of Holy Scripture. Here Prof. Engelsma delves deeply into the specific reasons for his strong support for the KJV and strong opposition to the modern English versions of the Bible.
After presenting a brief history of the English Bible and his criticisms of various modern English versions, Engelsma hones in on the methods used and the Greek texts used by the King James translators compared to those used by the authors of the modern English versions. While the KJV translators were careful to retain as much as possible a word for word translation, those involved in the modern versions applied a theory of translating called “dynamic equivalence.” According to this method “in the interests of putting the language of Scripture into the language that the people of a certain age and culture will understand… “ the translator is free “…to depart widely from the very words which God breathed out in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.”
Of major concern to Engelsma and all those committed to the KJV are the Greek texts used by the translators. The text of the KJV is known as the Texus Receptus (the Received Text). “This text was accepted as the authentic text of the New Testament by the Protestant Church of the Reformation to the nineteenth century and by the Greek Church for more than a thousand years before the Reformation.” In the nineteenth century an older Greek text was discovered on which the modern Bible versions are based. After comparing these two ancient texts, Engelsma concludes: “It is, at the very least, difficult to imagine that the genuine text went unused and largely unknown for some 1500 years, only to be picked out of a waste-paper basket on Mt. Sinai and discovered in the Pope’s library in the nineteenth century.”
Many today are enamored by various modern Bible versions. This pamphlet will provide modern-day Bereans some healthy food for thought.