Debate Proposal for Debate with Will Kinney

Here's an outline of debate proposal for a hoped-for debate with Will Kinney regarding whether (and on what basis) the King James Version (Pure Cambridge Edition, 1900) and Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881/94) can be improved.

I. Names

One of the more difficult questions in translation is how to translate names.  When it comes to the names of people, should the names be they transliterated as closely as possible?  Should the Bible reflect a post-Biblical human tradition in preference to a more accurate transliteration?  The name "James" itself is not a close transliteration of the New Testament name ("Ἰάκωβος" Yakobos) but Archbishop Bancroft demanded that the names be kept in their traditional form, and for the most part the King James translators complied.  Even then, though, they were sometimes oddly inconsistent, such as the case of Simeon/Simon, Balac/Balak and Timothy/Timotheus.  When it comes to the names of animals, the King James translators did their best, but sometimes they got things wildly wrong: unicorns and satyrs are two fairly clear examples.  The name of the Passover is an interesting third example of naming issue in the KJV.  

In some of these cases, the KJV is clearly wrong and needs improvement.  In other cases, maybe it is merely a matter of translation preference.  However, if it is merely a matter of preference, can we agree that preferences can change and it is ok to change the KJV according to our preferences? 

A. Names of People

1. Acts 15:14 & 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon or Simon?

At Acts 15:14, should the English text be "Simeon" (as the KJV has) or "Simon" (as the KJV translation rules dictate)?  If the former, then in 2 Peter 1:1, should the English text be "Simon" (as the KJV has) or "Simeon" (as the Greek has)?

In both cases, it seems apparent that we are talking about Simon Peter.  While it is true that the Greek sometimes uses one transliteration rather than the other (i.e. the Greek is itself a transliteration of a Hebrew name), why would we not follow the Greek everywhere or follow a single transliteration consistently? Partially following the Greek and partially not doing so seems like an odd and confusing combination.  On this point the KJV can use improvement. 

2. Revelation 2:14 "Balac" or "Balak"  (if the former why not "Balac" in Numbers 22:2?)

Consistency seems appropriate when we are talking about the same person.  The use of a different transliteration for the Hebrew than for the Greek when referring to the same person is (at best) an odd translation decision.  

3. Timotheus (19x) or Timothy (9x) but never Timotheos (more accurate than Timotheus)

Again, consistency seems like the best policy. The same Greek word is used, but in some places the more English "Timothy" is used, in other places the more Latin "Timotheus" is used, but never is the more Greek "Timotheos" used.  Why not pick one and stick with it? 

B. Names of Animals

1. Isaiah 34:7 "Unicorns" should be "Reems" or "Aurochs" or "Wild Oxen" (discussed more fully here)

I've already discussed this at great length, but there cannot be serious doubt that the King James translators meant the animal on King James' royal coat of arms, and that the animal they had in mind has never existed. Instead, the word "reem" refers to the Aurochs, a species of wild bull that was hunted to extinction in the middle east, and finally died out in the 1600s in Poland.

2. Isaiah 34:14 "Satyr" should be "wild goat" (discussed more fully here)

The King James translators wrongly followed Jewish superstition on this point, against the weight of the linguistic and historic evidence.

C. Name of Passover (debated at greater length here)

Acts 12:4 refers to Passover as "Easter" - it would be better especially in 1900 and beyond to call it "Passover," because no one refers to Passover as "Easter" any more, even though everyone did when Tyndale translated Acts. 

II. Differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus in Revelation 

While the KJV/TR/NA28 usually align with the majority reading of Greek texts, in some cases they depart from them.  The book of Revelation provides an unusually high number of examples of places where the KJV departs from the majority of Greek manuscripts.  How do we know when to follow the majority of Greek texts and when not to do so?  Treating the King James as the standard is inadequate at best and leads us into error in some cases.

A. Where the TR agrees with the NA28 against the Majority

Revelation 15:4 Agios (αγιος) or Osios (οσιος) 

The Majority of Greek Manuscripts have Agios rather than Osios at Revelation 15:4.  Both mean "Holy."  Which is correct? (or is it something else?) Should Agios at least be referenced in a marginal note?

B. Where the TR disagrees with the NA28 and the Majority  

Revelation 16:5 "Lord" should not be added (the vast majority of manuscripts do not have it) and "and shalt be" should not be substituted for "O Holy One" (none of the Greek manuscripts, fathers, or versions have this substitution)(see also this specific post regarding Will's position)