Cover Letter
 

"FIGHTIN’ WORDS IN THE TRANSLATION CONTROVERSY"

A Response
from the Hinterland

by Billy V. Bartlett

Responding to an article is a little like challenging the man with the microphone–there are several built-in disadvantages. Nevertheless, let me attempt to represent the feathers furthest toward the tip of the Fellowships right wing. Since Noel Smith intended as Tribune policy "to continue to print criticism of us along with the compliments" (page 23), I trust this effort will find its way in nearly unexpurgated form into the sister publication, The Baptist Preacher. I would also hope I am not viewed as an enemy of the movement for giving vent to views which would still elicit an "Amen" from a sizable segment of our brethren. I realize, of course, with pen and ink comes a risk. As Dr. Vick used to quote, "Oh, that mine enemy had written a book."

Since I obviously will not be afforded the same space as the editors original autograph, let me break the response into two hopefully terse sections: Response to the feature article and Reaction to the college policy statement as interpreted by the President of Baptist Bible College. Some of these issues could take pages to probe, but now we are back to the disadvantages of this forum.
 

Let me begin by deploring the ad hominem use of heroes, their words often wrested, to establish what "historic position" we ought to take institutionally. Spurgeon, for instance, can be painted as pro King James or pro multi-version. It also seems if you were at the Texas Hotel you get an exemption from criticism. That being the case, I wish someone had checked me in that fateful week in 1950; it would have saved a lot of aggravation over the years.

On the topic of personal history, I, too, have historic Fellowship ties and pre-Fellowship ties. I knew Noel Smith. Noel Smith was a friend of mine as were J. Frank Norris, G. B. Vick, Fred Donnelson, Reg Woodworth, Wendell Zimmerman, and other historic fathers/founders of our Fellowship and its precursor. I was not at the Texas Hotel, but I was at the 1950 Thanksgiving meeting. I was also present at the Temple Baptist Church the night Norris was voted out as co-pastor, 3,000 to 7. I am hardly an outsider with contempt for our history but neither am I a slave to it. It is possible for a great man to have a wart or two and even to be wrong on a point or two. Sometimes an historic position is a monumental mistake. Luther said, "to blazes with the fathers; what saith the Scriptures." I will not take the Luther attitude out of respect and love for men I knew well, but I will not adopt or justify an error based on a position all of them or one of them held. Their historic arguments and positions must stand on their own merits sans filio-pietistic props.

The article itself was at once amusing and aggravating. After a cursory overview of textual transmission and the introduction of the Bangor Resolution hammered out to "undergird students" with "an unshakable faith in the Word of God" (later defined as the Authorized Version), the editor quotes Matthew 24:35, "My words shall not pass away." But, alas, are they preserved in the 1611 printing–no, that's "unreadable today". To equate updating in spelling and economy of punctuation with substantive change is disingenuous. I have a dozen pages of a 1611 edition King James Bible and have had access to the whole for periods of time. I find no substantive change in it and the Bible I carry into the pulpit.

The Baptist Preacher then turned its attention to the issue of equivalency; i.e., the problem of going from one language to another. This problem is particularly plaguing, we are assured, when the translator is forced to go from the "superior" Hebrew and Greek into the "inferior" English. Although there is no conclusive way to prove this, since we do not have the originals, part of the autographs were themselves a translation. For instance, where Pharaoh spoke, we have a translation into the Hebrew. Where Paul spoke to the Jews in their own language (Acts 22), we have a translation into the Greek; and, what if Jesus was quoting the Old Testament from the Septuagint, as many scholars contend–voila a translation any time He quotes the canon of His day. If it is impossible to go from one language to another with equivalency, that would make even the autographs flawed, or put another way, an approximation of what was originally said.

The article then takes on the fringe belief that the beloved, preferred, English Version is itself inspired. Apparently, The Baptist Preacher feels we must not be to enthusiastic in our love respect and preference. "Some may hold that the preservation statement (a reference to Article X of the Constitution and By-Laws) implies the King James Version translators were inspired...no such promise is made apart from the originals." As support for this contention, II Timothy 3:16-17 and II Peter 1:21 are cited. II Peter 1:21 is not germane to the argument as no one in our camp contests the process of the God inspired originals. II Timothy 3, however, actually explodes the editor's argument. "No promise...apart from the originals"? I wonder in what antique store Eunice or Lois turned up this rare find three times more ancient at the time than the U.S. Constitution is today and, would you believe it, apparently altogether in a package. First, Timothy knew them. Second, they were not the originals. Third, Timothy's father was a Greek; and unless Timothy was a bilingual child prodigy, which he may have been since his mother was a Jewess, his "Holy Scriptures" were possibly a translation like the one Jesus may have quoted. Fourth, whatever their language, these non-original writings in the hands of this family were inspired Scripture–compare verses 15 and 16. In fact, no use of the word "inspiration" or "scriptures" in the New Testament is an exclusive reference to any original autograph. The possible exception is Romans 9:17. This is a reference to Exodus 9:16 where the Scripture in question went from God to Moses to Pharaoh to Hebrew Scripture to Paul–or from Hebrew to Egyptian (a translation) back to Hebrew then, into Greek (a translation) and, finally, into English (a translation). I wonder at what point its inspiration expired?

So far, what has the feature article established? It contends all the Fellowship fathers did not think the Authorized Version best, and what we have to teach and preach is a tampered with updating of an unreadable translation that is definitely not inspired. This begs for a definitive explanation of just how special is our beloved Book for which The Baptist Preacher has an unfettered "bias". The Baptist Preacher answers, "Frankly, I believe the KJV translators were subject to the same limitations and problems as that of other translators." This is a subjective area; but, frankly, I believe God had a special interest in the product of the committees of early seventeenth century England. I believe these men were only limited by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe the omniscience of God knew this work would spearhead the modern missions movement, be the text of great evangelists, be the building manual of the super churches of the twentieth century, provide the cultural frame for the greatest nation in history, and serve as God's Word for the English speaking people of the world for the last fifth of the Church Age. Frankly, I believe man's limitations and problems (even on translating committees) are opportunities for the manifestation of the power of God.

Continuing with the "how special is it" theme, the editor shifts to synthesis. "As I see it, the issue is the text underlying the translation. To me a translation is God's word preserved insofar as it renders the meaning of the original words." (That no one has seen for at least 1,500 years) "In that sense, the King James Version is Gods Word preserved in English." Matthew 24:35, remember, says, "words" not "meaning". Psalm 12, says, "words" not "meaning" (or message or theology or thoughts), "words". The Bible is not a commentary or dictionary. "The Bible (not the originals–they were never a Bible) is the very Word of God from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21", G. B. Vick, charge to graduates any year from 1950 to 1975 while hoisting an Authorized Version. Logically, The Baptist Preacher does not believe any Bible that ever existed any where was inspired.

Does the editor believe that the Holy Spirit through the King James translators correctly chose every English word despite the perceived problem of non-equivalent symbols? I know from experience there are those in Springfield who believe that there are words in there that do not belong and words not in there that do belong. I know there are those in our Fellowship who believe the NASV or the NIV have, at places, chosen better words than the KJV, even words with different meanings and have even correctly deleted words. Does The Baptist Preacher believe that these are Gods words, too, even where they differ from the Authorized Version, or does it believe they cease to be Gods word at the point of variance? Is the standard or authority the AV, a particular Greek text (if so, which), or something as nebulous as the "original language" (see Kennedy's comments, page 8, point 6)? Does it really believe (cf., the end of the article) that nearly 6,000 variations in the New Testament are not worth fighting about? The ability to correct the Bible is seen among many on Bible college faculties as the ultimate erudition. It is actually the ultimate arrogance. As G.B. Vick put it, "We need to quit trying to improve the Bible."

At this juncture, the article segues smoothly to the Fellowship's education policy. "The BBFI does not dictate to or infringe on the independence of the local church by prescribing the use of any designated English translation." Fine. We are out here in the hinterlands autonomous animals, but The Tribune/Baptist Preacher is not a church and has no such latitude. It is at all times answerable to all the churches which is, admittedly, rough territory to exist in–I have been there. Yes, the territory dictates that it is always "open season" for the constructive criticism of a Fellowship owned institution. Such criticism is not necessarily deplorable disunity. Sometimes it is the check to keep the system accountable. As the official voices, when our periodicals give an uncertain sound, the militancy of the movement is undermined. Yes, I know, militancy conjures that nasty term "fightin’", but then we used to call ourselves "Fighting Fundamentalists". In fact, the Fellowship was born in a fight. The Baptist Preacher abhors the extant spirit of divisiveness engendered by those nasty, contentious, over-enthusiastic King Jamesites defending their Bible all the while giving protestations of love for the version. Sometimes, if you love something, you are forced to identify its enemy, draw a line in the sand, and fight.

Baptist Bible College would also come under the tentacle of Article X. I would suggest, on admittedly limited feedback, that the on-campus King James advocate has far more to fear in the way of ridicule from faculty and staff than the proponent of say the NASV. My point: mean spirited ridicule from the right is the feature article's "straw man" whose torching is evidently meant to produce silence. The reasonable, congenial, multi-version friendly, middle-of-the-road approach has apparently conquered the Queen City. The editor exudes the new tolerance stating, "the vast majority of us in the BBFI love, respect, use, and defend the KJV (emphasis mine)."

Let's analyze the dogged determination of this daunting defense. As the Neo-Evangelicals did with the liberals of the ‘60's and ‘70's, The Baptist Preacher has only glowing descriptions of those on the near left. In fact, it elevates back patting to an art form by calling them "distinguished", "doctrinally sound" (bibliology?), possessors of the "right spirit", etc. Ernest Pickering, "distinguished scholar" [apparent definition: someone who agrees with me], is quoted as saying a book made up partly of those who do not hold a "position in favor of the KJV" has "a commitment to biblical infallibility". The double-speak continues–the infallibility of what mystery Bible? Arms outstretched, The Baptist Preacher concludes, in effect, we agree on so much we should not allow a little blip like the Bible issue to "exclude brethren who should be on the same team". Would The Baptist Preacher advocate an invitation to these right-spirited, distinguished, scholarly teammates to cart their super Bibles into chapel at BBC or on the platform of a national Fellowship meeting, or is there a limit to this grand camaraderie? Where is the line in the sand? I would suggest that The Baptist Preacher leave the defense of the citadel of the Bible to folks who really believe all the Book and are not in to bragging on its detractors.

Dr. Vick is then used as an example of the encouraged, reasonable, harmonious, benign approach to the issue. Yes, the primary patriarch prefaced his farewell remarks on the this subject with "I am not a crank on this subject", but let's see what he espoused in his uncranky way. To the 5,000 plus attendees of the 25^th anniversary celebration he thundered, "It's become fashionable to use many different versions. It (the Authorized Version) has won more souls than the originals." "We need to shun such expressions as ‘not appear in the original documents’...’not found in the oldest manuscripts’...’could be more precisely rendered as such and such’." "We need to quit trying to improve the Bible. Listen! This King James Version, the Bible of our fathers and mothers, is the one that has come floating down to us on the blood of Christian martyrs. It has been the one text of the Baptist Bible College, and it will be as long as I have anything to do with this school! Let's stick to the old Book."

Keep in mind, this is from the lips of the figure conceded to be "the MAN" in "the fight", "the split", "the break" that spawned our movement. Talk about your historic positions! Can one honestly say this is where the Fellowship is today? In his unique, inimitable uncranky way, the president of BBC for its first quarter century ended his message by echoing the late Bob Jones Sr.'s parting words to his school; to wit, if Bob Jones University ever compromised by questioning the Word of God "in these halls" he would ask the Lord for a short recess from Heaven. "The Founder" of that institution would then streak down to Greenville and upon arrival (as he envisioned the scene) "there won't be one single stone left of these buildings". Dr. Vick then threatened to do the same in Springfield if word came to him in Heaven of compromise on the campus. You may not call it crankiness, but the theoretical threat to dismantle the college brick by brick hardly constitutes permissiveness on the subject.

The Baptist Preacher article then presses on in its defense of the Precious Old Book undergirding students as it goes. The editor states, "From MY VIEWPOINT (emphasis mine), many of those associated with the King James Version were just as unsavory as those who presented the Alexandrian position." It then trashes the primary scholar (Erasmus), trashes the authorizer (King James), and trashes the translators as "baby baptizing Anglicans who included the Apocrypha..." It concludes "surely their BIAS figured in their work." Now, all this is run up the pole as an illustration of how one could be mean spirited from the left, but the arguments are clearly viewed as viable by The Baptist Preacher. I wonder if a bias is something like an error? I wonder how Gods Word is kept "intact" in the face of obviously biased translating? The mind-boggler is all this negative ad hominem humbuggery and red herringism is in the name of defending the King James Version and supporting an education policy dedicated to undergirding an unshakable faith among students in our revered text, which the editor does not seek to "diminish". Some defense! Keep in mind this entire response is just something I might say if I wanted to illustrate how one could be mean-spirited and employ ridicule from the right wing. The illustration ploy "cuts both ways".

Much of the rest of the article is a litany of translation hopping by "historic Baptists" from Spurgeon to John Rice with the oft alluded to patriarch Noel Smith assuring us "you don't have to discard your King James", but if you want to be "a real Bible student and an authentic and accurate expositor of the Word of God" (emphases mine) "you should use the American Standard Version as a commentary." Is the American Standard Version a Bible or the equivalent of Lange, Barnes, and Pulpit? Perchance it is the long sought "super Bible" perfectly reflecting in our language the originals no one has ever seen. If so, I wonder why it has been superseded by a new, improved, even more scholarly edition. Were there no real, authentic, accurate expositors before this latest update? Perhaps Dr. Smith himself can help us. He was fond of saying "money will shed a lot of light on your theology".

I want to be careful not to be misunderstood and at once not deny my heart. I can't be as cavalier as Dr. Martin with his "to blazes" comment. I genuinely loved Noel Smith, but I think he was wrong on this issue. Its dangers were not as apparent when he was alive–a time when the Bible Babel towered to nowhere near its present proportions. The fact is I loved almost all our founders, but even they are subject to the Word of God. Quoting any one of them or harkening back to Broadus or A.T. Robertson (the Greek professor of my great grandfather at Louisville Seminary) does not settle the issue. Where are Gods words preserved on earth is the fundamental question. If in the originals only, they are lost or, at best, the object of a subjective, never conclusive search. If they are in a particular Greek text, which one? If they are in all Greek texts, in all Bibles, or somewhere in the tangled verbiage of your library, all we have is an approximation where no "essential doctrine" is lost. If they are not in the King James with its bumbling biases, I would like The Baptist Preacher to tell us where are the words preserved?

At this point, the feature article sums up by appealing to a chapter by Smallman in a work entitled, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. Smallman and his ilk are apparently blithely untroubled by 5,940 "specific variations" in the texts with "perhaps one tenth of them (594) having some doctrinal bias". There is that word again that smells suspiciously like error. Leland Kennedy cites 95 percent agreement as if the 5 percent were but an untroubling trifle. Put another way, however, that's the provision for 5 percent disagreement or error. The real question is begged–what do you do with that onerous 5 percent when you run across their English "meanings" in your Bible? Some of the professors used to teach, "don't take a text from these ‘spurious readings’." Could The Baptist Preacher please enlighten us as to the precise location of these biased and bogus sections so we in the hinterlands don't mistake them for the real Word of God and thus mislead our people. Some of us on the fringe of sanity reject such trifling inexactness and still expect perfection from a work of God. I realize this puts me in most unscholarly company; and, if at the Judgment Seat of Christ the Lord says, "Bartlett, you were wrong, you were too zealous, you were not scholarly enough, you attacked good men", I will profusely apologize. I would rather face that, however, than the specter of answering this question from my Lord, "Why did you tamper with My settled Word?"

The article winds up quoting a Fellowship founder to the effect that we do not need to debate the issue but just preach and teach the Bible. Rick Shrader in another article in the same issue, page 15, answers this "head-in-the-sand" philosophy through Dr. Martin Luther, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ." You have to fight where the battle is raging or your fighting is a mockery. Right now, the battle is raging around our Bible. We need to PREACH it and DEFEND it. My Bible says "fight the good fight of faith" (I Timothy 6:12); "earnestly contend for the faith"( Jude 3); and bibliology is part of the faith. I know defense is painful and sometimes pits friend against friend. When someone in our group tampers with the Word of God preserved for the English speaking people by questioning, removing, or changing His settled words, those changed words become, ipso facto, "fightin’ words". If we really love the Book, we will quit talking about preferring it and respecting it and using it while emphasizing its supposed failings. Suppose I said to my wife, "I love you; and out of all the girls out there, I PREFER you. Out of all the women out there, I USE you. I know your pedigree is questionable. It is apparent your parents made some serious mistakes with you. You've got some real bad flaws. But, in spite of these defects, I RESPECT you. I wish I could do better, but wrinkles, warts, crooked teeth, bowed legs, flat feet, bad breath, and all, you are the BEST I can pick up." I don't think she would be too happy. I wonder how happy God is with such lovers and defenders of His Word as The Baptist Preacher.
 
 

While, as stated, I barely missed the Texas Hotel hubbub, I was in the 1983 joint trustee meeting that produced the aforementioned policy statement. In fact, I turned out to be an inadvertent key participant. I was then the Dean of Students at Baptist Bible College and along with the other deans was positioned around the wall of the conference room outside the President's office as the Trustees of Baptist Bible College listened to an explanation of the seven point document on Bible versions produced during Baptist Bible College East's graduation week. If this recounting is not word perfect, it's very close.

At the end of the session, A.V. Henderson, the president of both schools, went around the conference table asking the joint Trustees if they were "satisfied" with the final draft of the position paper. They responded in turn that they were. Suddenly, he appeared to be looking between two of them into my darkened corner and said, "Are you satisfied?" I said, "Are you talking to me?" He said, "Yes, I'm talking to you." I said, "No, I don't like it." Henderson, somewhat aghast, wanted to know why. I told him Article VI as originally worded made the Greek (specifically Berry's text, a rendition of the TR) "the final authority". This move was considered by some of the assemblage a master stroke that would replace Nestle's (Alexandrian text) in the classroom and would have the effect of quieting the "extreme" King James element of the Fellowship. Henderson responded, "You have a problem with that?" I asked, "Dr. Henderson, do you know Greek?" He said softly, "No." I continued, "Then, when you preach or teach you have no final authority unless you check with our Greek faculty first, and they become your final authority." He looked at his Bible on the conference table and paused for which seemed like five minutes but was probably more like fifteen seconds. I was braced for any reaction from firing on down the list. Finally, he broke the stultifying silence with the words, "Well, this Bible has been my authority for all the years of my ministry. I am not changing now. Reword the Article for us." I laid out what I thought was an appropriate change and, after some committee revision (lead primarily by Frank Collins and Truman Dollar), which made my changes a bit more politically palatable producing "intact" and the phrase in Article VI which would not "preclude the study of Greek for clarity", the document passed.

The whole idea of the exercise was that the Greek was not to displace the authority of the English text but would, in fact, be considered subordinate to it. Kennedy's take of this somehow supporting the Articles of Faith with its "as originally written" and leading to the acceptance of any translation of any language as it accurately translates the original languages (whatever that means) is baffling. The clear intent was that the Authorized Version reign supreme, unchanged, and unchallenged on both campuses. These facts can be checked with some of the men in the room, two of whom were Dr. Collins and Herb Koonce.

I have responded to both articles, if I know my heart, not out of malevolence but concern for the direction of our movement. I confess to a tendency to get "on a roll" and with the juices flowing get a little acerbic in argumentation. (I can't pass a dog fight without kicking one of the dogs.) If I have offended unnecessarily, I am sorry. I will not, however, retract my basic position on the Book–ever. And, I am not going away. "I'm Fellowship born and Fellowship bred and, when I am buried, I'll be Fellowship dead." I am too old to choose a new camp. I have very few hot buttons, but this is the big one. If and when this issue flares anew, you may hear from me again. I have had my run in the institutional sun and, though it had its rewards, I am content and fulfilled in the local ministry of Toledo Baptist Temple. I have no agenda, no grand goal, no institutional aspirations, and no political yen. I fully realize that probably all I will get out of this response is the cultivation of some new enemies. Either I am an incurable masochist or receiving flak just comes with the job description of defending the Book. I'll not take a vote.

Jerry Falwell is a living lightening rod who draws Fellowship bolts primarily from our right wing. I was visiting Lynchburg last year to check on a student from our church. While there, I attended a Sunday morning service at Thomas Road Baptist Church. In the introduction to his lesson, Dr. Falwell said, "If the evangelicals don't get back to the King James Version, we won't know each other in fifteen or twenty years. I am teaching this morning from a King James Bible. If you have a lesser Bible, you'll just have to do the best you can." I wonder. Are the Tribune/Baptist Preacher, some of our Fellowship officers, and the "Mother School" now to the left of Liberty on the Bible issue? I am not saying they are, you understand; but it is something to think about, isn't it?
 
 

Return to Sermon Home Page