 |
| Christopher Yetzer |
Take it away, brother Christopher!
Yetzer: Thanks James. Readers of The Text of the Gospels, I have a question: who isn’t listening to who?
In a recent video Mark Ward complained that he wanted “to see a King James only defender listen hard to my viewpoint the way I’ve listened to theirs”. But who is the one who isn’t listening? Has Ward not been heard or is he just not listening to the response? Is it possible that it is Ward who is not listening “without the twisted ears of ideology blocking” his ability to understand? I will demonstrate that the opposite side has listened and responded. It is Ward who is not listening.
After I saw some of Nick Sayers’ review of Mark’s video titled “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR” (a three-hour video critique of Mark Ward's 34-minute video) I wrote to Mark on June 27, 2024 to let him know about an error he had made in the video. Doubting he would respond, I made a FB post asking people to contact him to let him know of the error.
Thankfully Mark got the message from a Patreon supporter and he made a correction below that video as well as corrected himself in a video about two months later (possibly he could have removed the previous video, but I’m sure it still generates income). Since he seemed to be listening, I sent him a list of several faults I see in the NKJV (that is for another post). None of my complaints were addressed in the new video. Ward acts as if the only difference between the NKJV and the KJV is the style of English (which is still important) Just to be clear that there are other issues being discussed by the pro-KJV side. The following are some examples of people from different theological perspectives critiquing the NKJV:
Jeff Riddle
Nick Sayers (Mark Ward has reviewed part of Nick's website)
Robert Lee Vaughn and
Peter Van Kleeck.
Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?
While Ward raises high the flag of his apostleship (with the slogan "Edification Requires Intelligibility") he tramples on the Bibles and their editors (though ostensibly commending them).
The NKJV, for example, uses some non-English words and archaic words.
The literary stylist of the ESV (Leland Ryken) has argued against Ward’s use of Tyndale, stating, “The statement about the plowboy is not a comment about Tyndale’s preferred style for an English Bible. It is not a designation of teenage farm boys as a target audience for a niche Bible. Those misconceptions are the projections of modern partisans for a colloquial and simplified English Bible.” Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?
In Mark’s recent Video “Going on Offense for the NKJV” he made the claim that the KJV translation at Revelation 16:5 was “a guess based on zero evidence.” However this is not the case, and neither is the discussion anything new. Nick Sayers has written an entire book on this verse in 2019. Sayers’ website freely and quickly demonstrates that it was not a conjectural emendation. Sayers' page on Revelation 16:5 has been accessed 56,090 times as of this writing and yet Ward apparently hasn't seen it.
On the website Sayers demonstrates that Beza claimed to have a manuscript. (The fact that we do not have all manuscripts which were present in the 1500s is evidenced in that we also do not have two of Stephanus’ manuscripts for which we know various readings). Again: is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?
Ward has announced that he served as the editor of an upcoming book, “King James Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know”. Most likely it will include words like “commendeth” and “miserable” etc. A KJV translator himself described “miserable” (at 1 Corinthians 15:19) as being the perfect happiness of the soul. Mark on the other hand has his responsible modern lexicon which tells him otherwise. This is one of Mark Ward’s main problems. It appears again and again in his videos. See his recent video on the NKJV. Mark finds it hard to think outside the covers of his modern lexicons. He forces on those of the past the same definitions which he looks to today. Thus he comes to different conclusions than what was actually intended.
With the Genesis 4:25 example, the KJV translators, the Greek Old Testament translators, Jerome, Diodati, Rav Dario Disegni, and Dr. James Price (former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament) oppose Mark Ward's opinion. Are they all wrong because they disagree with Ward’s modern responsible lexicon? Over four years ago we discussed many of these issues in the comments on his YouTube channel and yet nothing has changed! Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?
I must confess that I used to think that Ward said things like “Nobody has answered me regarding my….” as a sort of self-flattering signal to his supporters that nobody could respond to his arguments. But now I really think he is just not listening. After I replied to his YouTube videos, Mark Ward blocked me from commenting on his page in 2021. Last year I tried to post a critique of the many problems with the Parallel KJV website, only to be blocked by Mark Ward from his Facebook page.
Did the two scholars featured on the site’s homepage evaluate its value and accuracy? Apparently not. When someone properly does, he gets blocked for mentioning its faults. One of Ward’s video editors, Jonathan Burris, also blocked me from being able to leave any comment on his site. Does that sound like something someone would do who wants to listen to the other side?
Mark Ward told me, “I have blocked you from commenting on my videos. That doesn't erase past comments, as I understand it. I have enjoyed some of our exchanges, and I want them to be available to others in the future who look at my videos.” In a video where Ward set up a straw man against Bryan Ross, Ward admitted that he only listened to some of Ross’ points on triple speed while doing yard work. I understand we are all busy, but Ward expects that academic deans and chancellors will listen to his videos and change their language on the TR, all the while his own calling is limited to doing prep work while taking care of the yard. Again: is Mark Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?
Let’s be clear, we have heard your message. We just disagree. We disagree on the amount of difficulties that exist in the KJV. We disagree that 1 Corinthians 14 is contextually talking about Bible translating and that the KJV is a different language. We disagree with the notion that saying "Edification Requires Intelligibility" is an excuse to pretend that difficulties in modern translations don't exist. We disagree with the idea that another attempt to update the KJV would bring better unity and more authority to the text. We disagree with the claim that the only differences in the NKJV are the forms of English that were used. We disagree with the claim that the KJV was modern-sounding in 1611. We disagree with the idea that "a few differences" is the same thing as "minor differences." We disagree with the canon that dictates that the oldest extant reading is best. We disagree with Mark Ward's claim that his approach has not been engaged. We disagree with his methods of interpreting KJV words.
We have heard you, Mark Ward - and we respectfully disagree.
3 comments:
I appreciated the interview, James. King James only people are sometimes marginalized as if they had a poor text. Even though I’m also not a King James only person, I think that, if one will look into the evidence closely, he will soon realize that their text is closer to the original in many books of the New Testament, but especially in the gospels. As to the NKJV, I agree that there are minor errors in it and so is the case for every other compilation because this is the way the word of God has been received by the churches in every age, meaning with some minor scribal errors and editions, which evidently includes the excellent KJV. What stands out for me in the NKJV are the succinct but scholarly footnotes scattered throughout the NT and the OT, giving us tools to discern a text that is more aligned with the scriptures that have been handed down to the church in all times and places. My only quarrel with them is that, with some exceptions, they should have added to the text the agreement between M-text and NU-Text and relegated the reading in the TR to the footnote.
James, did you offer Ward an opportunity to respond or did you just allow the side of the discussion that you ‘mostly’ agree with to be posted?
Mark Ward was invited to respond.
Post a Comment