Obscurity & Vulgarity

I find this part of the 1611 preface to the KJV fascinating:

"[W]e have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." (17.13-14)

Note how the KJV translators criticized the recent Catholic translation for "obscurity," or darkness, or lack of clarity. Not the modern sense of "not being well known" mind you.... And to what does this "obscurity" refer? The use of words which, though written in English, were not the most reasonable, most obvious, most compelling, most CLEAR and UNDERSTANDABLE word choices. The Papists' purpose, supposedly, was to "darken the sense," or obscure the meaning of the text, to keep it "from being understood."

By contrast, the translators believed that the Bible should "be understood even of the very vulgar." Of course, the word "vulgar" itself would "darken the sense," today since few modern English speakers are aware of its more archaic meaning of "everyday" or "commonplace." Check out I Samuel 25:22 (and half a dozen other OT verses) in the KJV for a word that today would be considered a "vulgar"ity but which lacked that inappropriate sense 400 years ago. Is this really the best way to translate the Hebrew for a 21st-century reader? Come on.

"But we desire that the Scripture may ... be understood even [by ordinary people.]" Thank you, KJV translators! No thank you, KJVO!

Translators' Preface

Here is a full-text reprint of the translators' preface to the 1611 KJV.

Key sections that undermine the KJVO argument:

• Why translation is necessary
• Why the Bible should be in an understandable language
• Why translations, including this one, can differ from each other without harming the message
• Why ambiguity or impossibility in translating required their addition of marginal notes
• Why the Catholic Bible was faulted for not being understandable enough
  

"For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?" the 1611 translators asked (17.5).

Indeed! I say. Indeed.

Marginal Notes

How can the KJV be pure, etc. when its translators used marginal notes from the Hebrew instead of the actual Hebrew in hundreds of places? Yes, it's that ol' qere / ketiv issue, for you Hebrew scholars.

What does this mean for the KJVO "perfect preservation" argument, too?

Preservation

Here's a good article titled "The Preservation of Scripture," by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary professor, William Combs. See also DBTS' resources on the KJV issue.

He classifies the different views of preservation, and then examines the actual verses that are used to support some of the various positions.

I appreciate his consideration of what the "word" of God means in each passage, since this can be interpreted several different ways--from prophecy, to the Scriptures, to Jesus. Unfortunately, many people fail to critically examine the meaning of "word" in the given context before applying it.

He makes an interesting point about John 21:25, also (p.24).

The KJVO myth of certainty (p. 37) is explained. How can I know my Bible is the Word of God?!

Sadly, the KJVO position boils down to a faith decision, in contradiction to the facts about the Textus Receptus tradition, the meaning of simple Greek words, and the amount of energy put forth by so many KJVO-types to present their case as reasonable, scholarly, and Biblical.