Question – “Why should we accept modern Bible translations that follow Westcott and Hort’s manuscripts, especially in verses like 1 Corinthians 13:3, when KJV Onlyists claim these scholars are heretics whose work is unreliable?”
The criticism of modern Bible translations and their alleged reliance on the work of Westcott and Hort especially by those in the KJV Onlyist camp often stems from a misunderstanding of textual criticism and a flawed logical framework. It is essential to evaluate these translations based on scholarly rigor, historical evidence, and the broader context of biblical scholarship, rather than on ad hominem attacks or conspiracy theories. In light of 1 Cor. 13:3, consider the following arguments:
1.) The major errors and logical fallacies associated with the KJV Only position, particularly concerning Wescott and Hort, are as follows:
a.) The major error of KJV Onlyists is their insistence that scholars and textual critics today completely and blindly follow Wescott and Hort. However, modern-day textual critics do not adhere to their specific methods, which are now considered less than ideal. Wescott and Hort did advance the science of textual criticism, but their reliance on only two manuscript variants is outdated. Additionally, their text is not the basis for any modern Bible translations, despite the misguided claims of KJV Onlyists.
image from christianpublishinghouse.co
b.) While Wescott and Hort held some non-orthodox spiritual positions, it is illogical to disregard their contributions to textual criticism. Rejecting their work solely because of their beliefs is akin to rejecting the KJV Bible because it was translated by scholars of the Church of England or because it relied on the works of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic scholar. These arguments fall into the logical fallacy of guilt by association and lack coherence.
2.) There is a manuscript variant under debate, as highlighted by Ronald Trail in the SIL exegetical commentary:
“Instead of καυχήσωμαι ‘I may boast,’ some manuscripts have καυθήσωμαι ‘I may be burned’ or καυθήσομαι ‘I will be burned.’ GNT selects the reading καυχήσωμαι ‘I may boast’ with a C rating, indicating difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. The reading καυχήσωμαι ‘I may boast’ is also taken by AB, EGT, NIC2, NIGTC, Rb, TNTC; NET, NLT, and NRSV. The reading καυθήσωμαι ‘I may burn’ or καυθήσομαι ‘I will burn’ is taken by Alf, Gdt, Herm, HNTC, Ho, ICC, Lns, NTC, Vn; CEV, KJV, NAB, NIV, NJB, REB, TEV, and TNT.”
3.) If modern translations were truly “corrupt,” why do they not all “agree” with each other ? (Down to the minutest detail) This “inconsistency” suggests that the accusation of corruption is likely a conspiracy theory promoted by KJV Onlyists and lacks logical sense.
4.) It is worth noting that if Wescott and Hort were indeed “enamored” by the Roman Catholic Church, then one should also consider Erasmus, whose Greek New Testament was dedicated to the Pope. The fact that the KJV translators relied heavily on Erasmus’s work demonstrates the inconsistency in using such arguments against Wescott and Hort.
KJV Onlyism’s criticism of modern Bible translations and their alleged reliance on the work of Westcott and Hort often stems from a misunderstanding of textual criticism and a flawed logical framework. It is essential to evaluate these translations based on scholarly rigor, historical evidence, and the broader context of biblical scholarship, rather than on ad hominem attacks or conspiracy theories.
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply