Image: A marginal translation note at Acts 27:40 which appeared in the original 1611 publication of the King James Version.
This
is the fifth and final part in a series reviewing the brief online article by
Daniel Stanfield titled “Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV.” In Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4, I
responded to the preface and first three paragraphs of the article. With this post we move on to the fourth of
four paragraphs. Here is Stanfield’s fourth paragraph in full (in italic)
followed by my response:
4. Quality of Notes - NASB While almost all KJV Bibles are published with some kind of notes,
none are version inclusive. The NASB does include a particular set of notes
with the text which pertain directly to the rendering. The first example of
these notes is the notation of the literal translation in those instances where
a word or phrase is not literal. A second set of notations identify certain
passages as being included or excluded in various manuscripts, or giving
readings found in alternate mss. Other advantages of text notes include the use
of the small-capitals font when the New Testament is quoting the Old Testament,
the marking of the Greek historical presents [sic] tense, and the
capitalization of personal pronouns which refer to deity. The fact of the
matter is that the English Bible is a translation, and as such, justifiably
calls for adequate translation notes, notes which are bountiful in the NASB and
completely absent from the KJV.
JTR Response: I must admit that I do not easily comprehend what Stanfield means
by the opening sentence of this paragraph.
He refers to “almost all KJV Bibles” being published with “some kind of
notes” but “none are version inclusive.”
I do not get his point here. The
KJV was, in fact, originally printed with copious scholarly notes by the
translators in its original publication in 1611. These notes were edited and expanded in later
editions of 1701 (by Anglican Bishop William Lloyd), in 1762 (by F. S. Paris
and H. Therold of Cambridge), and in 1769 (by Benjamin Blayney). For more on this, see Alan J. Macgregor, Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV, and
NKJV (The Bible League, 2004): pp.
94-95. I thus offer three responses to
Stanfield’s argument:
First, the editorial notes
added by the original translators of the KJV and of subsequent editors are, by
definition, version inclusive, in that they are notes specifically related to
the translation choices reflected in this version. Therefore, the nebulous charge that the KJV
does not include “version inclusive” notes is simply inaccurate.
Second, perhaps the
confusion here relates to the fact that over time the KJV came to be the most
widely reprinted English translation. It
is held in the public domain. Most
modern editions which reprint the KJV do not include the original notes, and
they are not legally bound to do so. Far
from being a drawback, however, the fact that the KJV is in the public domain
and is not controlled by any publishing company, foundation, or Bible society
might well be seen as an advantage. The
translation is protected against promotion of it merely for financial gain or
personal influence. Furthermore, if one
wants to read original and expanded KJV notes, there are editions which
continues to reprint them, including Oxford and Cambridge editions.
Third, the most important
aspect of the KJV as a translation, or, for that matter, for any translation,
is not the notes which accompany the text of the translation but the text upon which the translation is
based and the quality of the translation
itself. With regard to text, as already
noted in this series, the KJV is based on the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text
of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament. The present author and many others believe
that this text, the acknowledged standard of the Reformation period, is
preferable to those based on modern critical texts, which arose during the
Enlightenment and modern periods. With regard to the quality of the
translation, it is generally agreed that the KJV is an outstanding literary
work, which has had an unparalleled impact in Western history, religion, and
culture. Are there not good reasons to retain this venerable translation in
personal study and devotion but, perhaps most importantly, in public worship?
After noting what he
perceives to be the inadequacies of the KJV with regard to “notes,” the article
proceeds, correspondingly, to extol the value of the NASB’s “notes.” Three kinds of examples of this are cited,
but, again, no specific references or citations are made to the NASB itself to
verify or illustrate these points. The
three suggested improvements in the NASB include the following:
(1) Stanfield suggests that
the NASB is superior to the KJV, because it provides a more literal alternative
in the notes when it chooses to use a less literal rendering in the main text
of translation. Perhaps the NASB does
this in some cases (though no examples are cited), but in the example I cited
in Part Four of this series from Acts 21:9 the NASB provides no notes to
explain why it chose to depart from the literal Greek text and describe
Philip’s prophesying daughters as “prophets.”
(2) Stanfield suggests that
the NASB is superior to the KJV, because it supposedly provides notes which
offer information on the original language manuscripts which the NASB follows
and on alternative traditions. The fact
is that the NASB textual notes can be very misleading. Rather than providing objective information,
the notes simply reflect the consensus viewpoint which supports the modern
critical text. For example, the note at
Mark 16:9 says, “Later mss. add vv. 9-20.”
What it fails to say is that only three extant Greek manuscripts end the
Gospel of Mark at v. 8 while the vast majority of manuscripts (thousands),
including ones of great antiquity, include it.
Furthermore, if one were to choose a translation simply on the basis of
the number and quality of its textual notes and explanations, he would have to
choose the New King James Version (NKJV), which provides numerous detailed
notes on disputed textual issues.
(3) Stanfield suggests that the NASB is superior
based on several other facets of its editorial layout, including: setting off Old Testament quotations in a
distinct font, “marking” the historical present [Note: The NASB uses a star symbol to indicate
places where it renders a present tense verb in the Greek NT in the past tense
in its translation, upon the assumption that it is grammatically a historical present.],
and the capitalization of personal pronouns for the Deity. A couple of these points have been previously
discussed in this series. I would again
make the observation that all of these supposed advantages are, in fact,
examples of translational interpretations, which might not always be considered
to be improvements. Furthermore, with specific regard to capitalization of
pronouns for the Deity, I might add that if one believed this to be a mark of
superiority in an English translation, then one might well prefer the NKJV,
which does this more frequently and systematically than does the NASB. In fact, I do not take this to be an
improvement but, rather, a practice that weakens the usefulness of both the
NASB and NKJV.
To conclude, notes might be
helpful for a translation, but they are not essential. The author does not prove to any degree why
the NASB’s notes make it a superior translation, and he is simply in error when
he says such notes are “completely absent” in the KJV translation tradition.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
