R. L. Dabney on those who delight in criticizing and amending "the received English version"

 

From X post:

R. L. Dabney warns against those who delight in criticizing and amending “the received English version” “this precious work of our ancestors”:

"The most reprehensible pedantry of all is that which delights in criticizing and amending the received English version. Instead of seeking for opportunities to point out errors in this precious work of our ancestors, its credit should be carefully sustained before the people, whenever this can be done without an actual sacrifice of our integrity and of the truth of the text. The general excellence of the translation merits this treatment. Such were the learning and labour of its authors, that he who is most deeply acquainted with sacred criticism will be found most modest in assailing their accuracy in any point. But it is far more important to remark, that this version is practically the Bible of the common people—the only one to which they can have familiar access. If their confidence in its fidelity is overthrown, they are virtually robbed of the written word of God…. Thus let the confidence of your hearers in their English Bibles be preserved and fortified."

-Evangelical Eloquence, 162-163.

WM 329: Scrivener Series.Part 3 of 3: Did Scrivener "Back Translate" his Greek NT from the KJV?

 

JTR

WM 312: James Snapp Jr. on Mark Ward and his "Ridiculous Claim" About the KJV

 

JTR

Audio: The Translators to the Reader.Part 1: The best things have been calumniated

 

My audio series reading through the preface to the AV (1611) continues.

JTR

WM 279: Does the KJV wrongly translate Acts 5:30? Follow up to White/Ross Debate

 

JTR

Letis book reprint: Today's Christian & The Church's Bible: A Time to Return to the Authorized Version

 

The Greater Christian Heritage announced today the upcoming release of this booklet by Theodore P. Letis. It will be available in July 2023. You can find pre-order info here.

This work originally appeared in 1978 under the title A New Hearing for the Authorized Version inn 1978.

I was also happy to offer an endorsement blurb for the book:

The influence of Theodore Letis’ winsome and scholarly defense of the traditional Greek text of the New Testament continues to be felt decades now after his untimely death. In this essay, Letis offers a corresponding defense of the Authorized Version, the classic Protestant translation of the Bible in English based upon the Received Text. Its republication in this attractive new edition will serve as a welcomed resource for those who continue to seek out the “old paths.”

-Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Louisa, Virginia

JTR

WM 274: Debate Review: James White vs. Thomas Ross: Part Two

 

JTR

Resource: Audio Version of William O. Einwechter, English Bible Translations: By What Standard?

 

Glad to see this resource in an audio version. I got this booklet from Chapel Library several years ago and read it with profit. Einwechter also contributed an essay to the Why I Preach from the Received Text anthology.

Enjoy, JTR

Christian McShaffrey Lectures: TBS Text and Translation Conference in Northern Scotland (11.11.22)

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 13: Bishop Thompson on the Canterbury Convocation (1870-1881)

 

JTR

WM 240 (b): Is Confessional Bibliology KJVO?

 

Three problems with the CB is KJVO argument:

First: It does not offer a clear definition of terms, especially "KJVO."

Second: Confessional Christianity necessarily reject KJVO, especially of the Ruckman/Riplinger variety (see WCF 1:8).

Third: There are those who affirm the CB position but who do not make primary or exclusive use of the KJV.

Links:

Iron Sharpens Iron podcasts:

Mark Ward on the June 1, 2022 and June 8, 2022 shows under the titles, “KJVO & CB: Comparison and Contrast (& the Dangers of Both).”

James White in the second hour of the June 15, 2022 program, titled “Further Reflections on KJVO & CB.”

Mark Ward at 2022 DBTS Summer Series (July 26) in two lectures under the title: “Confessional Bibliology: A Growing Movement of Reformed KJV-Onlyists.”

To find Andrej's comment on WM 114.

My quote tweet on people "pushing" the Received Text.

JTR

Follow Up: Mark Ward's Rejoinder to My Review

One more follow up to my review of Mark Ward's Authorized: Yesterday (5.14.20) Mark Ward posted to his blog a rejoinder to my review titled "When Will the KJV Be Sufficiently Unintelligible to the 'Plow Boy' That Change Will Become Necessary?" He has also incorporated this rejoinder as an appendix to the audio version of the book.

IMHO, not much new ground is covered, so I'll let my review stand and readers can make their own judgments as to the ongoing usefulness and intelligibility of the classic translation of the Bible in English.

JTR

Christian McShaffrey: "What, Are You ESV-Only?" A Brotherly Inquiry

My friend Christian McShaffrey, Pastor of Five Solas OPC in Reedsburg, Wisconsin and host of the upcoming "Kept Pure in All Ages" conference, has written an on-point article titled, "What, are you ESV-Only?". Pastor McShaffrey makes some great points in this article. Give it a read. 

JTR

WM 108: Review Modern English Version (MEV) Bible

I have posted WM 108: Review: Modern English Version Bible (MEV) (listen to the audio here).

In this episode I share a draft of a written review of the Modern English Version (MEV):

Here is the opening to the review, the headings, and the concluding observations:

James F. Linzey, Ed., The Holy Bible, Modern English Version (Lake Mary, Florida: Charisma Media/Charisma House Book Group, 2014): 625 pp.

The Modern English Version (MEV) is yet another contemporary English translation of the Bible. This version is distinct, however, for several reasons. First, and most importantly, it is a translation based on the traditional original language texts of the Christian Scriptures (the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament), rather than the modern critical texts, which form the basis for most modern vernacular translations. Second, it also aims to be an “updating” of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the venerable English translation that was based on these same traditional original language texts.

The history and perspective of the MEV

MEV layout, design, and formatting

The MEV and the text of Scripture

The MEV and the translation of Scripture

Concluding observations:

Though the MEV is “yet another contemporary English translation of the Bible,” its differences from other modern translations are significant. This is the first widely available modern translation since the New King James Version (completed 1982) which aims to follow the traditional original language texts and emulate the translation style and wording of the KJV. It is, in fact, similar in many ways to the NKJV and thus shares in some of its strengths and weaknesses.

The MEV, no doubt, reflects the ongoing popularity of the KJV in the English-speaking world and the respect it continues to enjoy among evangelical Christians despite decades of the marketing of “new and improved” translations based on the modern critical text.   The MEV could easily be read and used in the pew in churches that ordinarily use the KJV or NKJV. It might even enhance and further the appreciation of the Tyndale/King James Version tradition. For these reasons it is a distinctive and even refreshing addition to a crowded Bible market.

JTR

WM 106: Plummer on the KJV

After a hiatus of several weeks, I have posted a new Word Magazine: WM 106: Plummer on the KJV (listen here).  A regular listener suggested a review of this youtube.com video in the "Honest Answers" series from the Southern Baptist Seminary, featuring NT Professor Dr. Robert Plummer, on the topic: "Is the King James Version of the Bible the most accurate translation?"

Unsurprisingly, Plummer not only rejects the KJV but also rejects the traditional text which under girds it. As happens too frequently among modern translation and text advocates, he lumps in defenders of the traditional text with the bogeyman of KJV-Onlyism. He suggests that the Greek text of the NT is based on the Byzantine text, rather than the Textus Receptus. Finally, he perpetuates the myth of Erasmus' "rash wager" leading to the insertion of the Comma Johanneum into the third edition of his Greek NT.

Some resources mentioned in this episode:

My blog post on WM 54: The Comma Johanneum and the Papyri, which points out that we actually have no papyri evidence pro or con on the originality of the CJ. This dulls the argument against the CJ based on the Greek manuscript evidence.

My article "Erasmus Anecdotes" from the Puritan Reformed Journal (January 2017), which demonstrates that the "rash wager" anecdote is a modern scholarly legend which began in the nineteenth century in order to undermine the Textus Receptus and which continues to be uncritically perpetuated by scholars today.

Grantley McDonald's Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge Press, 2016) , based on his 2011 dissertation at the University of Leiden, which explores the history of early modern controversy over the CJ. McDonald does not believe that the CJ is original, but his work (especially his dissertation) provides the most up to date analysis of the evidence relating to this disputed text.

JTR

WM 100: Rejoinder to Mark Ward: 3 Ways to Engage Modern Translation Onlyism

I have recorded and uploaded WM 100: Rejoinder to Mark Ward: 3 Ways to Engage Modern Translation Onlyism (listen here).

A friend called my attention to an article posted to the Gospel Coalition site this week (July 26, 2018), by Mark Ward and titled “3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers” (read it here).

The article's author is Mark Ward (PhD Bob Jones University) an academic editor at Lexham Press and the author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible (Lexham Press).

WM 100 offers a review and critique of the article and closes with a suggestion of three ways to respond to those who suggest Christians should only use modern translations. Here are my notes for those three suggestions:

First: If they are willing to listen and understand, help them to understand the difference between a truly heretical KJV-Onlyist position and a KJV preferentialist position. Help them also to understand those who are Majority Text advocates and Confessional Text advocates. Help them to understand that it is not helpful or charitable to confuse these categories into a mishmash.

Second: Talk about a confessional view of text criticism. Walk them through WCF/2LBCF 1:8. Explain the historical roots of modern text criticism in the Enlightenment. Explain the difference between a reconstructionist view of the text and a preservationist view of the text. Explain how post-modern text criticism is no longer even interested in finding the original text and no one really knows what future editions of the modern critical text (and thus modern translations) will even look like.

Third: Talk about how important the KJV is as a treasure not only for the Protestant Christian English-speaking world, but for all of Western civilization. Suggest that rather than dumbing down the liturgical language of the church we should be lifting it up. Ask them why the KJV is loved in the English department but villainized in the religion department. Suggest they read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death or T. S. Eliot’s review of the New English Bible (listen here). Explain that using the KJV might just be one small way in which we might swim against the tide of this world.

JTR

"Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV": Review: Part 4: Quality of Manuscripts

Image:  The postscript to the book of 1 Timothy in the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus:  "The first (letter) to Timothy written from Laodicea"

This is the fourth part in a series reviewing the brief article by Daniel Stanfield titled “Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV.”  In Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, I responded to the preface and first two paragraphs.  With this post we move on to the third of four paragraphs. Here is Stanfield’s third paragraph in full (in italic) followed by my response:

3. Quality of manuscripts - NASB The KJV was based on the manuscripts which were few in number, local in geography, and late in date. Archeology has, since the KJV, made almost all important manuscript discoveries - everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls back to the Rosetta Stone, all occur after the KJV. These new manuscripts can be found in conclusive families, based on history and geography, with standardized variations of content and recognizable progression of modifications. Today's critical texts are very broad based and careful reconstructions of the original writings, and cannot be reasonably discounted out-of-hand, nor can the published arguments of those who would demand the exclusive use of the Textus Receptus be validated, or even accepted as reasonable. To suppose that the much older, much more widely distributed manuscripts, in many languages, which have been discovered over the last 390 years are all corrupted and inferior to the sources for the KJV is incredible, to say the least.

JTR Response:  I begin by again noting that Stanfield says he arranged these topics “in order of significance.”  In my view the issue of the text (manuscripts) from which a translation is made should be a primary consideration and not a secondary (or tertiary) concern.  This issue should be addressed sooner rather than later.  I also must call attention to the fact that this paragraph has a number of confusing statements, factual errors, and misleading arguments.

Stanfield starts by asserting that the KJV was based on texts “few in number, local in geography, and late in date.”  I assume he means by this that the actual number of individual Greek and versional manuscripts to which the KJV translators had access was limited.  I have two responses:  First, in fact, we do not have exact or exhaustive historical information on the individual original language manuscripts used by the KJV translators.  Thus, we must have some humility in criticizing them in this area.  Second and most importantly, we do know that the manuscripts they relied primarily upon were the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the traditional Byzantine or Majority Text of the New Testament.  Contrary to Stanfield’s statement, the traditional text used by the Reformation era Protestant translators generally represent the vast majority of extant original language manuscripts, cover a wide geographical area, and have an early attestation.

With specific regard to the Old Testament, the KJV translators made use of the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text.  Many modern versions have adopted alternative translations of various Old Testament passages based on readings found in the LXX, the Vulgate, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.  For a counterweight to this trend, one should consult, however, Cambridge professor Geoffrey Khan’s A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its Reading Tradition (Gorgias Press, 2013).  Khan contends for the antiquity not only of the Masoretic Hebrew consonantal text but also the Masoretic pronunciation and reading tradition.  He states, for example, “Contrary to a view that is still widely held today, the reading tradition was not a medieval creation of the Masoretes but was an ancient tradition that the Masoretes recorded by their notation system” (p. 47).

With specific regard to the early date of the traditional text of the New Testament, it is represented, for example, in the fifth century uncial Codex Alexandrinus, a manuscript on par with codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with regard to antiquity.  Alexandrinus was given to Charles I in 1627 and was not published until it appeared in Brian Walton’s Polyglott in 1657, so it was not used by the KJV translators.  Its readings, however, generally support the traditional text followed by the KJV translators.  Furthermore, Harry Sturz has demonstrated that traditional (Byzantine) readings are also commonly found in the earliest New Testament papyri.  The book to read is Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text Type & New Testament Textual Criticism (Thomas Nelson, 1984).  Sturz, by the way, is not a KJV-Onlyist or even a supporter of the Majority Text or the TR, but an advocate of “thoroughgoing eclecticism.”

Stanfield also makes reference to the significance of archaeological finds that have happened since the KJV was completed.  He mentions two such finds in particular.  He first mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947) which do indeed have importance for translations of the Old Testament.  Many of these texts found at Qumran, in fact, support the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text, while others provide alternative readings to the traditional text which have been adapted in some modern translations of the Old Testament.  Traditionalists, however, continued to advocate the superiority of the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text, the same text used by the KJV translators.  The Dead Sea Scroll discovery has had no significant impact on the translation of the New Testament.  Secondly, he mentions the Rosetta Stone (discovered c. 1799 and translated in the early nineteenth century).  This mention is a little harder to understand.  The significance of the Rosetta Stone is the fact that it provided a key to translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.  It has had relatively no impact on the translation of the Bible.

The next comments which Stanfield makes are particularly confusing.  He states:  “These new manuscripts can be found in conclusive families, based on history and geography, with standardized variations of content and recognizable progression of modifications.”  He seems to be referring here to the division of Greek New Testament manuscripts into genealogical families.  This statement is confusing, because one might think he is referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Rosetta Stone, but these have absolutely nothing to do with the New Testament Greek manuscripts.  Furthermore, the genealogical approach to text criticism, popularized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by scholars like Westcott and Hort who advocated for the superiority of the so-called “neutral text,” has largely been abandoned in contemporary post-modern approaches to text criticism.  The book to read here is David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Stanfield proceeds to make reference to the superiority of today’s modern critical text.  He refers to them as “careful reconstructions of the original writings.”  There are several problematic issues with his approach here.  First, it reflects the modern idea, popularized by the likes of B. B. Warfield and Bruce Metzger, that the text of Scripture has been woefully corrupted and must be reconstructed by modern scholars.  Evangelicals like Warfield introduced the notion that the Bible was without error in its “original autographs” but corrupt in the preserved apographs (copies).  As Theodore Letis has pointed out, however, this view essentially suggests a Platonic idea of the text of Scripture.  It also represents a departure from the doctrine of Scripture found in Reformed confessions, like the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689).  Contrary to the modern approach, the Protestant and Reformed Fathers held that the Bible had been infallibly and providentially preserved in all ages through the extant copies.  They did not advocate the scholarly reconstruction of an elusive original autograph.  Again, their focus was preservation not reconstruction.  Second, the approach Stanfield advocates (seeing the goal of text criticism as the reconstruction of the original autograph) has been largely abandoned by modern academic text critical scholars who see the attempt to reconstruct an original autograph as not only impossible but inadequate.  Modern text critics no longer speak of trying to get back to the “original text” of the Bible.  Instead, they prefer to speak of many “living texts” of the Bible, each of which is as valuable as any other, whether they represent orthodox or heterodox readings.

Stanfield concludes with a particularly negative assessment of the affirmation and defense of the traditional, received text of Scripture.  In his opinion, such a view cannot be validated or “even accepted as reasonable.”  To the contrary, however, a consistent and reasonable defense of the traditional text of the Reformation Bible can be defended and certainly should not be rejected without due consideration of its merits.  Why should traditional Christians and faithful churches abandon the text of the Reformation in favor of the text of the Enlightenment?   

"Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV": Review: Part 3: Quality of language translation

Image:  Engraving portrait of Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) by Simon de Passe, 1618.

This is the third part in a series reviewing the brief article by Daniel Stanfield titled “Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV.”  In Parts 1 and 2, I responded to the preface and first paragraph.  With this post we move on to the second of four paragraphs. Here is Stanfield’s second paragraph in full (in italic) followed by my response:

2. Quality of language translation - NASB The King James version is excellent, but we have since learned a great deal about both ancient Greek and Hebrew. Our understanding of Greek has grown significantly, particularly with the discovery that the Greek Bible was in common Greek, but our understanding of Hebrew has vastly improved since the 17th century, during which time the ancient Hebrew was very poorly understood. The NASB clearly benefits from a better understanding of the languages, and presents not only closer translations, but provides notes for certain aspects of translation, as discussed above. When the NASB and KJV differ on the rendering of a text, which is not based on variance in the manuscripts, the NASB is usually more favorable to the original languages. Also, slight variations in words chosen and sentance [sic] forms used throughout the NASB reflect our current understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, which has improved dramatically in 400 years.

JTR Response:  The author begins by acknowledging that the KJV is “excellent,” but he then proceeds to suggest that linguistic advances in understanding of the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages in the modern era (and, supposedly, the utilization of these advances in modern translations, like the NASB) have made the KJV outdated.  I know it is a brief article and one aimed at a popular audience, but the major problem with this entire paragraph is the total lack of examples of these supposed advances and direct citations, examples, and comparisons between the NASB and KJV to prove this point.

I would begin by challenging the whole notion that our understanding of the Hebrew and Greek languages has so dramatically improved since the time of the Reformation era that the old translations are obsolete.  One might argue that we know more about some aspects of things like vocabulary, especially with the Hebrew Bible. I might have expected to have seen some mention of the KJV’s use of “unicorn” (modern translations prefer “oxen,” cf. Deut 33:17; Ps. 22:21; Isa 34:7); “dragons” (cf. “jackals,” cf. Job 30:29; Ps. 44:19; etc.); or “peacocks,” (“baboons” cf. 1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chron 9:21).  Surely though, these differences (which were not even cited in the article) are minor.  Need I raise again the specter of “peck-measure” (Matt 5:15 NASB)!

On the other hand, in fact, one might even argue, to the contrary, that the learned men who translated the KJV were more steeped in the ancient languages and had acquired a level of learning that is impossible to equal in the modern setting. For more on this the book to read is Adam Nicholson, God’s Secretaries:  The Making of the King James Bible (Harper Collins, 2003). Here, for example, are  a few excerpts from Nicholson’s sketch of Lancelot Andrewes (p. 33):

The man was a library, the repository of sixteen centuries of Christian culture, he could speak fifteen modern languages and six ancient, but the heart and bulk of his existence was his sense of himself as a worm.

People like Lancelot Andrewes no longer exist.

It is because people like Lancelot Andrewes flourished in the first decade of the seventeenth century—and do not now—that the greatest translation of the Bible could be made then, and cannot now.

While on this subject, I am not quite sure what is meant by the article’s reference to the supposed modern “discovery” that the Greek Bible was in “common Greek.”  Surely the KJV translators could distinguish between the classical Greek of Homer, the Hellenistic Greek of the LXX, and the koine Greek of the NT.

Finally, I want to challenge the article’s statement that when the NASB and KJV differ, and the difference is not based on the text, that the NASB provides a reading that is “usually … more favorable to the original languages.”  Again, no concrete examples are supplied and no terms for frequency are given as to what constitutes “usually.”

When I read this section, a verse came to mind that I had studied in some detail for an academic article I wrote several years ago for The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on whether or not there are women prophets in Acts.  My argument in the article was that although Peter quoted the well-known passage from Joel about sons and daughters prophesying in Acts 2:17, nowhere in Acts does Luke describe women serving in the office of prophet.  As a sign of the new age, women could prophesy (the verb referring to a specific activity of the apostolic period) but they were not prophets (the noun referring to an extraordinary church office).  In fact, the feminine noun “prophetess [Greek:  prophetis]” never appears in Acts and only twice appears in the NT (Anna in Luke 2:36 and “Jezebel” in Rev 2:20).

This brings me to Acts 21:9, the verse that came to mind when I read this article on the NASB.   Acts 21:9 describes the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist.  Here is a comparison of the verse in four translations (emphasis added):

KJV Acts 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

NIV Acts 21:9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

NASB Acts 21:9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.

NKJV Acts 21:9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.

This comparison makes clear that the NASB translation varies from the others.  The KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translate the final phrase as a verb (“to prophesy”).  The NASB translates the same phrase as a noun (“prophets”).  Which translation is closer to the Greek original?  Here is the verse in transliterated Greek:  touto de hesan thugateres tessares parthenoi propheteuousi.   The final word is in fact a feminine nominative plural participle from the verb propheteuo, “to prophesy.”  Clearly, the KJV (and the other translations), which renders the participle as a verb in a relative pronoun clause, is closer to the original text than the NASB, which renders the participle as a noun.  One wonders why the NASB chose to translate “prophetesses.”  Were they influenced by modern feministic and egalitarian readings of the NT which desired to find women in public church offices?  We do not know.  The point is that here is at least one example where the KJV provides a more faithful translation of the original than the NASB.

JTR

Confessing Baptist Podcast Interview # 69: Michael Barrett on the KJV Study Bible

It's here!  Reformation Heritage's KJV Study Bible is being released this month.  You can read about this resources on the KJV Study Bible website.

I did an interview with Michael Barrett, the Old Testament Editor for the KJV Study Bible, for Interview # 69 on the Confessingbaptist.com podcast.  I have also uploaded this podcast to sermonaudio.com (listen here).

You can also watch this video:

CT Article: The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn't What You Think It Is

 

Note:  While working on a book review for the Holman KJV Study Bible, I ran across this interesting article (3.13.14) from Christianitytoday.com: 

 

When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.

 

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

 

So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"—the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

 

The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.
 

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.
 

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.
 

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.

 

Smith, whose research on how technology is shaping Bible use is profiled in this month's CT cover story, blended data from Google Trends and the Google Keyword Tool to see how English Bible translations compare in search terms. Bible translation searches may not necessarily be an indicator of Bible transation usage—a Bible Gateway study earlier this year found dramatic differences between the cities most likely to search for Bible verses and the American Bible Society's list of top "Bible-minded" cities.

 

Nevertheless, other studies also indicate that the KJV remains the translation powerhouse. A 2011 Lifeway study, for example, found that 62 percent of Americans—and 82 percent of Americans who regularly read the Bible—own a copy of the KJV.

 

"Although the bookstores are now crowded with alternative versions, and although several different translations are now widely used in church services and for preaching, the large presence of the KJV testifies to the extraordinary power of this one classic English text," Noll commented in the IUPUI report. "It also raises most interesting questions about the role of religious and linguistic tradition in the makeup of contemporary American culture."

 

Noll, a leading evangelical scholar, wrote a cover story for CT on where the world would be without the KJV.

 

The study from IUPUI in some ways paints a more religious picture of Americans than the ABS/Barna study, recording that 78 percent read their Bibles monthly, compared with the 41 percent found by Barna and the 53 percent found by Lifeway.

 

But IUPUI also found that fewer Americans read their Bibles every day—just 9 percent, less than the 13 percent recorded by Barna and half of the 18 percent found by Lifeway.

 

IUPUI also noted several main tells: You're more likely to read the Bible if you're female (56 percent compared with 39 percent of men), African American (70 percent read at least once a year, compared with 46 percent of Hispanics and 44 percent of whites), and older (56 percent of those over 70 years old, compared with 44 percent of those between 18 and 29). You're also more likely to read the Bible if you live in the South (61 percent) rather than the Northeast (36 percent).

 

While IUPUI found that readers name Psalm 23 as their favorite scripture, followed by John 3:16, Barna found that more people liked John 3:16 the best, followed by Psalm 23. (CT covered the 10 most-searched Bible verses of 2013.)

 

CT has reported on ABS's State of the Bible reports, including how the Bible gained 6 million new antagonists in 2013.

 

CT's previous coverage of the KJV includes a history of the translation, its influence, and how the KJV compares to other translations.

 

CT's previous coverage of the NIV includes the Southern Baptist Convention's rejection of the 2011 version for avoiding male pronouns where both genders are intended and responses from Lifeway and CT.