The trouble with the King James Bible

It's hardly sufficient that every copy will come with a brief introduction penned by Michael Gove.

So, as reported, every school is to be sent a copy of the King James Bible. Quite right too, many believers will say: the Bible is, after all, the inspired Word of God.

But does that statement of faith possibly stand up to what we now know about the Bible's origins?

By the time the King James Bible was put together four hundred years ago, arguments were raging over which versions of many of the scriptures were the genuine ones. Since then, several discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have aroused further doubts about those which made it into the KJV (King James Version).

This is hardly surprising. Take interpolations. This word is used to describe third parties inserting various passages into the books of the New Testament many years after they were originally composed.

I will mention just two examples because they go to the core of Christianity.

If you turn to the end of Mark in the King James Bible you will find an account of Jesus' resurrection along with stories of a few appearances which he made after the crucifixion. Yet the early manuscript copies of the gospel finish midway through a sentence -- crucially, before the resurrection has been mentioned.

What follows was added probably more than a hundred years later and so scholars cannot agree whether the original manuscript included the resurrection at all.

Or how about this? The central Christian dogma of the Trinity occurs primarily in two short verses in a letter in the New Testament, said to have been written by St John. When the letter was first written in Greek, the crucial verses were nowhere to be found.

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman explains in his new book Forged that it was only some time after the letter was translated into Latin, that the passage was inserted and the doctrine of the Trinity became a crucial piece of Christian dogma: so much so that the passage was retranslated back and inserted into the Greek text to appear authentic. And that is the version which now appears in several Bibles including the King James Version.

Besides, thousands of Bible manuscripts survive from before the printing presses started to roll. Crucially, no two are alike. This is hardly surprising. Scholars have studied the way in which these texts developed over the centuries. They have discovered that scribes were copying from sources which were many times removed from the original manuscripts. Each new copy piled fresh errors or deliberate changes onto whatever corruptions were contained in the prior version.

Take the Gospel of Mark. The earliest manuscripts now available date from about 220CE and the earliest full version was transcribed around 350CE. We cannot possibly know how even these earliest surviving texts differ from the original gospel, written in about 70CE. After all, research has shown that the further back in time we go, the more errors were made in the copying process.

Quite frankly, when you read the King James Bible, you have no way of knowing whether any particular line would have been in the original manuscripts. This poses an interesting question for those who believe that all scripture is God-breathed: if God was not going to preserve the original manuscripts, why would he have bothered to inspire them?

But many believers disregard these difficulties. For them, the Bible offers the moral code of a just and merciful God. What is more, the King James Version expresses God's love in beautiful poetic language which would grace any classroom. Perhaps, they're right in part: sit back and admire the poetry with which God's words are expressed in just these 3 passages:

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling

Yes, I suppose it is poetic. The vibrant and vivid language enables your mind's eye to see God exacting his revenge on pregnant women and infants. You can even picture the Hebrew soldiers killing all the non-virgin women and raping the others.

But what on earth will today's schoolchildren make of the God of the Bible? Perhaps, like most believers, they won't look at these troublesome passages.

Either way, it's hardly sufficient that every copy of the Bible being sent to the classrooms will apparently come with a brief introduction penned by Michael Gove.

Rather it should come with a slap in the face to those who think that it could possibly be the inspired and accurately-recorded Word of a loving God.

Andrew Zak Williams has written for The Guardian, The Independent, Skeptic and The Humanist.

 

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour and Tory MPs fear the political forces Brexit could unleash

The Liberal Democrats and Ukip are offering Remainers and Leavers alternative homes. 

Two years ago this month, MPs felt the tremors of a political earthquake. The 45 per cent of Scots who voted for independence had driven a surge in SNP support. Five months later, in the general election, old loyalties dissolved. Forty Scottish Labour MPs and ten Lib Dems were swept away.

The referendum realigned Scottish politics along nationalist and unionist lines. The Conservatives, once considered irrelevant, acquired new purpose as the SNP’s antithesis. Labour was pushed to the margins.

At Westminster on 5 December, MPs asked whether another tectonic shift was under way. That afternoon, Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat who overturned Zac Goldsmith’s 23,015 majority in the Richmond Park by-election, was sworn in to parliament. Like the Scottish Conservatives, the Lib Dems had been the subject of derision. But by adopting a resolutely anti-Brexit stance they ended their political exile. In a seat where 72 per cent of people voted Remain, the pro-Leave Goldsmith was caught on the wrong side of his constituents.

Three days before Olney’s election, the new Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall, declared it was his party’s mission to “replace Labour”. In a mirror image of the Lib Dems’ strategy, the Liverpudlian aims to unseat pro-Remain MPs in pro-Leave constituencies.

There is reason for caution in predicting Scottish-style ruptures. Brexit is a less defining issue than independence (turnout was 72.2 per cent in the former vote and 84.6 per cent in the latter). The SNP has formed a devolved government since 2007, allowing it to claim the mantle of incumbency as well as insurgency. The Liberal Democrats, punished for coalition in 2015, and Ukip, with a sole MP, cannot replicate this feat.

Though it felt churlish to say so following Olney’s triumph, by-elections are a historically poor indicator of general election results. In 2013 the Lib Dems hailed their victory in Eastleigh as proof that most of their 59 MPs could defy electoral gravity. Only eight did (Eastleigh’s was not among them). In 2014, after two Ukip by-election victories, excitable commentary suggested that the party could win as many as 30 seats. It won one. Supporters of both parties defected to the Conservatives when faced with the prospect of Labour taking power.

However, there are plausible reasons why the next election could upset these precedents. Brexit is a process, not an event. It will define UK politics for a decade or more. The next election could become a de facto second referendum. The Liberal Democrats will speak for aggrieved Remainers, Ukip for “betrayed” Leavers. Both Conservative and Labour MPs fear an electoral price.

“Remainers feel that they’ve been sidelined, pushed to one side, made to feel small,” Anna Soubry, the former Tory business minister, told me. She lamented that Theresa May’s “wonderful” words when she entered Downing Street were “undermined” by her “hard Brexit” conference speech. Soubry warned of the next election: “When 2020 comes along, those aged 15, 16, 17 now will be able to vote. A large number feel that they have had their future stolen by an older generation.”

To some, the potential for Lib Dem gains appears limited. Only two of their top 30 Tory targets (Hazel Grove and Lewes) are Remain seats with Leave MPs. But Conservatives worry that the Lib Dems could triumph by forging a pro-EU coalition of Labour and Green supporters. Under first-past-the-post, as the SNP can testify, seats can be won with significantly less than 50 per cent of the vote.

By far the greatest anxiety, however, is felt among Labour MPs. “We face a tougher electoral map than at any other time in our history,” Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow Treasury minister, told me. The party remains marooned in Scotland and fears a three-way squeeze in England between the Tories, Ukip and the Lib Dems. Labour’s poll ratings, which last month averaged 29.5 per cent, were described as “dire” by its general election co-ordinator, Jon Trickett, at an NEC meeting on 22 November. Jeremy Corbyn’s ally warned that the party would have to “defend some seats” at the next election, rather than focusing on targets alone.

MPs speak of a gnawing sense that Labour is the party of the past. In a less tribalistic age, when voters are no longer defined by their work, it risks political redundancy. Across Europe, social democracy appears in structural, not merely cyclical, decline.

Rather than pitching solely to Remain or Leave voters, Corbyn’s team intend to target both through a vision of “the kind of country we want to live in”, and a focus on jobs, living standards and the economy (though they do not rule out supporting a second referendum). Others, feeling the electoral ground shift beneath them, advocate more radical action. After Richmond, Clive Lewis, the shadow business secretary, reaffirmed his call for a “progressive alliance” under which Labour would not stand candidates in certain seats. Reynolds, a fellow pluralist, told me: “We can’t pretend that people have the class allegiances of the past.”

Another group, in the words of one MP, will “follow the Lib Dem playbook, treat the party as a franchise and run ultra-local campaigns”. Leaflets will be free of references to Corbyn and national policy. “You’ve got to cut the mother ship adrift and row yourself to safety.”

At the very moment that the UK is preparing to leave the EU, its politics has never appeared more European. Britain’s fractured opposition of socialists, nationalists, liberals and greens has long been common on the continent. Amid this tumult, Conservatives hope that Theresa May will predominate in the manner of Germany’s Angela Merkel. In the absence of a Labour recovery, they anticipate at least another decade in government. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 08 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brexit to Trump