The Anti-Scholarship of KJV Onlyism

What could I say many more capable have already said? Why hasn’t White dealt with Douglas Stauffer. Stauffer has a Th.M. in Theology and a Ph.D. in Religion. He’s written a book. He’s presented his material. If White felt confident enough to engage the late Dr. Letis (evidence, by the way, of the patience of Mr. Letis, but he was known for being willing to put up with just about anything the internet could throw at him) why not Mr. Stauffer?

posted on 3-14-2006 at 05:45 PM

These are the comments of the now-banned infamous “TimeRedeemer” (Michael Dries) on the PuritanBoard thread concerning the Comma Johanneum. Stauffer’s book was written 6 years after Dr. White’s book The King James Only Controversy, and this is the first time I’ve ever heard of it. So I decided to take a look. Chapter 3 can be read here. I was not surprised to find that the statements here are those that have already been addressed in the KJOC. But so as to not let down the TimeRedeemer, I’d like to offer a few comments by way of response (As an aside, it is a shame that this is actually a topic of discussion among Christians, and even among Reformed Christians. Who knows what is in the minds of our atheist readers as they are chuckling at this article of mine…):

The previous chapter reveals the magnitude of the changes in the modern versions concerning the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even the most precious of Bible doctrines falls prey to Satan’s penknife. Despite the immense variations, many of the modern version gurus fail to admit the problems associated with these differences. Some of the least honest Bible critics go so far as to claim that the modern versions are superior in this area!

King James Onlyists are quick to make the claim that modern translations are deficient in portraying the deity of Christ, or even that there was some conspiracy on the part of the translators to hide this doctrine! KJV Onlyist will attempt to show this by giving us a number of parallel citations, where the KJV will have something along the lines of “the Lord Jesus Christ” and the NIV or NASB will have “the Lord Jesus,” “Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ,” and they will conclude that the amount of these variants (the variants being caused by the difference in textually critical methods, the Textus Receptus pulling largely from a Byzantine text-type priority which tended toward an expansion of piety, and modern translators being made available to earlier texts that lack such an expansion).

Now, in all of this, the priority should not be “Which translation better emphasizes my traditions,” but “Which translation accurately represents what the authors wrote.” So really, an emphasis on merely the effect of the translation rather than the method of the translation is an unbalanced emphasis. Nevertheless, KJV Onlyists are quick to cite several verses which lack an expansion of piety, but slow to cite those passages in which the modern translations more clearly and to a more significant degree express the deity of our Lord. And when such passages exist (John 1:18, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, etc), rather than being grateful for the clarity of these new translations, KJV Onlyists will often accuse the modern translations of obscuring the Word of God!

In this chapter of his book, Stauffer focuses on Titus 2:13:

(KJB) Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(NIV) Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Here are his comments:

The main differences between the two versions are clearly seen: “…the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” in the KJB versus “…our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” in the NIV. James White provides a chart listing 12 verses (including the subject verse) and concludes that “…we can see that the NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ, the NASB just a bit less so, and the KJB the least of the three.” He also claims that the NIV and NASV are clear; whereas the King James Bible is ambiguous.1 If necessary, go back to the previous chapter and see if you arrive at the same conclusion concerning the NIV’s supposed superiority in its treatment of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Again, when weighing the scales, Stauffer will put the expansion of piety verses on the side of the KJV, count the number of them, and compare them to the modern translations. But number and clarity are two different things. A passage which directly refers to Jesus as “our great God and Savior” or “the one and only God” is different than a passage that simply expands Christ’s title (”the Lord Jesus Christ”). The fact is that the KJV is ambiguous on certain verses where modern translations are clear. Now, that isn’t to attack the KJV, but simply to rebut the claim that the KJV’s supposed superiority warrants our exclusive reading of it.

A few pages later, Mr. White’s attack on God’s word concerning this passage continues.

From this sentence we can deduce that Mr. Stauffer holds to the completely circular, out-of-the-realm-of-scholarship, impossible to defend “KJV Alone = the Word of God Alone” position. To Stauffer, suggesting ambiguity on the part of the KJV translation is attacking the Word of God. On a significant note, Stauffer’s position means that everything he writes about here is pointless. It doesn’t matter whether or not the KJV, the NIV, or the NASB, or anything else portrays the deity of Christ most clearly, for, in the end, the KJV will be Stauffer’s only standard.

[quote]The insertion of the second ‘our’ in the AV translation makes it possible to separate ‘God’ from ‘Savior,’ as indeed those who deny the deity of Christ would assert. But this is an error, as is demonstrated elsewhere. The fact is that the KJV provides an inferior translation in these passages, one that unintentionally detracts from the presentation of the full deity of Jesus Christ. The willingness of the KJV defenders to overlook this fact is most disturbing.[/quote]

This “KJV defender” (the author) does not feel compelled to overlook this passage. In spite of devoting almost 300 pages to the attack of the King James Bible, Mr. White’s book contains an introduction which emphasizes that, “This book is not against the King James Version.” 3 Such a statement would be similar to my claiming that this book is not against the New International Version. I would be a hypocritical, deluded liar if I made such a ridiculous claim and expected anyone to believe me.

Here Stauffer, by implication, outright calls Dr. White a “hypocritical, deluded liar.” Apparently, Mr. Stauffer does not have the ability to distinguish between a refutation of a KJV Only argument and an attack on the KJV itself. Why are we dealing with this subject? Do you think that Dr. White shows ambiguity on the part of the KJV just for kicks? No, rather, Dr. White is responding to a common argument that is made on the part of KJV Onlyists: the KJV translation alone equals the Word of God alone because it is superior concerning the deity of Christ. Now, as I stated earlier, this argument has a disproportioned priority: our concern should be what the authors actually wrote, rather than what translation we feel best aids us in apologetics or whatnot. And when textual criticism leads us to a better or more clear basis for an apologetic defense, we welcome it gratefully. If, somehow, it doesn’t, we welcome it gratefully, for we now have a better grasp on what the Biblical authors actually penned.

In addition to those pages already mentioned, Mr. White spends four entire pages (pages 267 to 270) discussing Titus 2:13 in an attempt to prove the inferiority of the King James Bible. Here is another of his comments, “The KJV translators, through no fault of their own, obscured these passages through less than perfect translation. Modern versions correct their error.” He then runs to the Greek and Granville Sharp’s Rule attempting to prove his point. What exactly is his point? (See additional material at the end of the chapter concerning Granville Sharp’s Rule.)

1. Dr. White is not simply attempting to prove the inferiority of the KJV. Rather, he is answering an argument that is often made by KJV Onlyists.

2. It is simply a fact that modern translations, due to new technology (here, the Granville Sharp rule), more clearly present this doctrine in certain texts. To deny this is simply to be blinded by bias and tradition.

3. Is Stauffer really ignorant of Dr. White’s “point” when he asks “What exactly is his point?”, or is this simply Mr. Stauffer’s way of responding by not responding? I believe the point is clear: we have knowledge today that the KJV translators did not have, and this knowledge aids us in clearer translation.

He claims that when the KJB says “…the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” the use of “our” between God and Saviour makes it possible to separate “God” from “Savior.” This is TRUE and exactly what the Holy Spirit intended to convey. However, the separation of God and Saviour does not make the KJB inferior. In fact, the reading from the KJB should bolster one’s faith in the inspiration and preservation of God’s perfect word as found in the pages of one book — the King James Bible. Let me explain.

Mr. Stauffer silently concedes Dr. White’s point, but then changes the subject. The question is: which translation more clearly presents the deity of Christ in Titus 2:13? Answer: the modern ones which are informed by the Granville Sharp rule. The question isn’t whether the KJV or a modern translation is “superior” in some general sense. Rather, the superiority is relevant to the topic at hand: the deity of Christ. Notice also that Stauffer does not address the Granville Sharp rule. He does not tell us which translation more accurately portrays what is in the Greek text. No, in Stauffer’s mind, either 1) that question has been answered from the beginning (so that everything Stauffer says simply begs the question), or 2) the Greek text simply does not matter, because the KJV is the standard. He goes on (I’ll not quote it here for space, but you can follow the link to see for yourself) to distinguish between the and our, having us believe that the KJV is superior because it presents a monotheistic view of God here (as if the modern translations do not. They not ony present a monotheistic God, but they present a God incarnate in these verses). But he never tells us which translation is grammatically correct. Does Mr. Stauffer dispute the Granville Sharp rule? That is where his focus should be, for that would silence all these statements concerning “the” and “our”.

Rather than being grateful for the modern translations’ clarity concerning this verse, Mr. Stauffer tells us that they allow for polytheism!

This reading allows those that claim false gods to have an “out.” With the wording of the NIV, one could construe that there is our great God (the Christian God) and their great God of choice. One does not have this problem when allowing the King James Bible to remain the standard. According to the Bible, when the Lord returns, He will be THE great God and OUR Saviour to those that have trusted in Him. However, He will not be everyone’s Saviour. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe (I Timothy 4:10).

1. Remember, the concern is ultimately what did the Biblical authors write, and this is why any discussion about these verses that does not center on the Granville Sharp rule has misplaced priorities.

2. Stauffer simply ignores the central issue: the clarity of modern translations in presenting the deity of Christ (this, of course, is only the central issue because KJV Onlyists have made it the central issue). Stauffer wants to talk about the deity of Christ, but when we do so, he changes the subject. He changes the reference point.

3. How misinformed, deceptive people dishonor God’s Word by ripping this verse out of its context and making a conclusion which the entire Bible opposes is really no concern to me. My concern is what the authors actually wrote, and whether or not our translations accurately represent that.

Furthermore, the construction in each of the three chapters of Titus in the King James Bible testifies to the design planned by God. The parallel composition of each chapter does not indicate that there are two Saviours, but instead that the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same.

Correct me if I am wrong, but how does this not here refute the statements that Stauffer made earlier? He was just telling us how the modern translations allow for polytheism, because our God may not be their God. But why can’t the same be true for our Savior and their Savior? Oh…because of context, is that what you are telling me? Exactly! It is context that prevents us from concluding that there is 1) more than one God, or 2) more than one Savior. This is simply a double standard: he allows for the context to justify the KJV, but does not allow for the context to justify the modern translations.

The modern versions retain the construction in chapters one and three, but arbitrarily eliminate it in chapter two. …In each case, God is pointed out as the Saviour, then Jesus Christ is pointed out as the Saviour. The modern versions eliminate the construction of the second chapter, but retain it in the first and third chapters. Moving the “our” in Titus 2:13 in front of “great God” as the new versions do, destroys the parallelism and weakens the truth.

Excuse me, “arbitrarily“? Mr. Stauffer, are you that unaware of the issues at hand? Are you that unaware of the significance of the Granville Sharp rule here? Mr. Stauffer simply tells us that the modern translations weaken the truth. But he fails to address whether or not the modern translations are grammatically correct in their renderings of these verses. Thus, Mr. Stauffer’s priorities are not only misplaced, but they are directly opposite of the priorities of the KJV translators. Had the KJV translators known of the Granville Sharp rule, they would not have rejected it as “weakening the truth.” Rather, they would have gratefully embraced it as allowing them to better understand the meaning of the original text.

One cannot devote the time or the space necessary to refute all the errors and inconsistent treatment against the KJB by those claiming the superiority of the modern versions. However, when we consider how the critics emphasize and then distort the truth concerning Titus 2:13, their position in other areas becomes equally suspect.

Wait a minute…you’re finished with Titus 2:13? But you haven’t addressed the Granville Sharp rule yet… You haven’t once told me why the KJV better represents the Greek text… You haven’t once told me why the KJV rendering is accurate, or that the modern renderings are inaccurate…

No, all Mr. Stauffer has done here is cling tightly to his traditions, make the KJV the standard, and judge modern translations based upon that circular standard. This, folks, is the anti-scholarship of KJV Onlyism.

Evan May.