Most serious scholars were unpersuaded by such theories, and subsequent discoveries have demonstrated that the Alexandrian text-type goes back at least to the 2nd century. Westcott and Hort definitely established that certain traditions were generally preferable to others, and it remains true that the Alexandrian type has the best credentials. The able textual studies of even arch-conservative Protestants like Benjamin B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen argue that the Byzantine text-type is essentially a late one.
But some of President Clark's contentions have merit. The Westcott-Hort theory has, in the 20th century, been modified in many respects. Among other things, the textual traditions identified by the theory have been reclassified. Modern scholars recognize, unlike Westcott-Hort, that no text group has descended essentially uncontaminated from the original autographs. Also, while the Byzantine text is not generally preferable to the Alexandrian, some of the Byzantine readings (as with all the major traditions) are genuinely ancient. Westcott and Hort had indeed, as Clark charged, been overly dependent on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices. However, President Clark failed to allow that modern critical editions are eclectic, established on a case-by-case basis, using the best available evidence. They do not slavishly depend on the Alexandrian or any other tradition.
But President Clark went further in his criticism. Because modifications in the critical text were ongoing and scholars admitted they were likely to continue indefinitely, Clark implied that we therefore need not take too seriously changes that went beyond the TR (and thus beyond the KJV). This perspective, however, did not give sufficient weight to the tentative nature of all progress in human knowledge.
In any event, the case for the RSV was never based solely on the existence of better manuscripts than those available to King James's translators. The discovery of a wealth of papyri in the 20th century has significantly deepened scholars' understanding of the New Testament language as a whole, making better translations inevitable. Linguistic progress has been even more dramatic in the case of the Old Testament.
Perhaps the most enduring argument marshaled for the King James Bible against its challengers has been its unmatched literary elegance. As we have noted, this was not self-evident when the work first appeared in 1611. But within fifty years of its publication its excellence was increasingly acknowledged; feelings of reverence became ever more deeply attached to this beauty.
During most of the 19th century, Latter-day Saints said little about the Bible's literary value, much less that this criterion should take priority over accuracy. Their oft-repeated refrain was that all texts and translations were corrupt, and they professed to care most about precision, not beauty. However, with the arrival of the Joseph Smith revision and the threatening appearance of major new revisions, the literary importance of the KJV was increasingly stressed.
For J. Reuben Clark, this was an important issue. "Could any language be too great, too elegant, too beautiful, too majestic, too divine-like to record the doings and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ?" he said. The language of God was ill-served when rendered "on the level of the ordinary press reporter's style of today."
This concern for literary beauty had practical consequences. Before publishing Why the King James Version, Clark approached Church president David O. McKay for permission. McKay resisted. "We ought to be a little careful," he said, "about criticizing the Revised Version," since in some places it proved more accurate than the familiar text and it also eliminated confusing, outdated terms. Clark countered that President McKay, who had literary training, would probably not wish to rewrite Shakespeare's plays for the same purpose. The Church president acknowledged the point and assented to Clark's publication of the book.
President Clark's belief in the decisive importance of the linguistic superiority of the KJV was a plausible perspective, certainly. The KJV is a literary masterpiece and has perhaps more power in certain instances to awaken religious feelings than more pedestrian translations. But this belief could hardly pass as the official Church view when the prophet and president of the Church remained unenthusiastic. And President Clark's quip about Shakespeare would apply only if one's central purpose in reading scripture were literary. But for Latter-day Saints the Bible served other purposes. And unlike Shakespeare, the Testaments were not original products of 16th- and 17th-century England. Translating the Bible afresh was not analogous to marring the original Shakespeare but to offering a new translation of Shakespeare to, say, German-speaking peoples, when Germans already possess a beautiful but inaccurate rendition they hold dear.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In