Very Naughty Figs
Dan and Sonya Carlson, Traffod Publishing, 2006

Very Naughty Figs came across my path recently. It was written and illustrated by a husband and wife team to help expose the archaic expressions and words found in the AV (Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version). The book catches the eye and brings a smile to the face because it includes around eighty cartoons showing how a child might interpret phrases and words found in the AV. In I Kings 11:1 the Bible says, “king Solomon loved many strange women”; the cartoon depicts a king surrounded by weird ladies. The title itself begs the question: just what are “very naughty figs” and the cartoon brings the naughty figs to life. In the text, the authors attempt to counteract the King James Only movement (this sect teaches–to varying degrees–that the only Bible for English speaking people is the AV) while laying a simple biblical foundation for understanding a little bit about how translations work.

While the cartoons are cute and highlight the challenges of understanding the English of the AV, not all of them represent problems with the AV. For instance, on page 60b the authors parody the measure of a “homer” from Ezekiel 45:11, noting that it should be “eight bushels”. The problem, however, is that the word stands for a homer, not bushels, and one will find that the NKJV (New Kings James Version), ESV (English Standard Version), and NASB (New American Standard Bible) all use the correct term “homer”. This wouldn’t be so bad, except that the authors are inconsistent in their application of translation principles. For instance, the authors chastise the King James translators for using the term “Easter” in Acts 12:4 (pp. 26- instead of the term “Passover”. The use of the word “Easter” was simply a translation decision to help the reader understand the time of year. While this reviewer prefers the more accurate translation of “Passover”, it is hardly fair to castigate the AV for putting the date in modern terms in one area and then deride the same version for not putting a measurement in modern terms in another area.

This really brings to light the first of the two major weaknesses of the book: the arguments are skewed to make the AV look bad. Despite overtures to the contrary, the authors spend 20 pages (chapter 2) presenting supposed translation errors embedded in the AV. While the authors include a nod to the issue of alleged scribal errors, they completely eschew addressing them as such and present all the errors as if they were unique to the AV. Among the authors’ arguments are the forty thousand stalls of horses (I Kings 4:26), thirty-five cubit pillars of brass (II Chron. 3:15), two hundred and fifty chief officers (II Chron. 8:10), Gad’s three years of famine (I Chron. 21:11-12), and the four hundred and fifty talents of gold (II Chron. 8:18). These are presented as AV translation errors, yet the same numbers are found in the NASB and NKJV. This is because they are NOT translation errors, but correct translations of the Hebrew text. However, Mr. and Mrs. Carlson say, “All of the above examples are instances of mistranslations of Hebrew numbers—an easy mistake to make.” (p. 19). This is completely erroneous.

In the New Testament (NT) the authors note that in the AV there are two demoniacs in Matthew while only one is listed in Mark and Luke. They fail to state that this is what the Greek texts say and both the NASB and NKJV record the same thing. On pages 19-21 they mock Dr. C. I. Scofield for trying to explain why the AV says that the men heard a voice in Acts 9:7 but did not hear a voice in Acts 22:9. Again, this is NOT a translation problem, and one will find that both the NASB and the NKJV agree with the AV. They present “sanctify the Lord God” from I Peter 3:15 as a translation problem (p. 39), when, in fact, it is an accurate translation of the Greek text used by the AV and NKJV.

Some other problems include their bizarre reading of II Kings 6:25 where they change the Hebrew “kab of dove’s dung” to mean a kab of vegetables. The NASB, NKJV, and ESV all agree with the AV. Though it is admittedly weak, they do ignore the textual evidence for the AV including the word “not” in Isaiah 9:3 and call it a mistranslation. In one of their most glaring errors, they accuse the translators of the AV for pandering to King James by supposedly changing the name of Jesus’ brother from “Jacob” to “James” (Acts 12:2 et al; pp. 24-6). The authors ask, “Simply because the KJV translation team chose to switch names, does that make it right?” (p. 26). The authors insinuate that this was a new way to translate James’ name into English, but they fail to account for the Geneva Bible of 1560 calling James “James” and John Wycliffe’s English translation of 1382—the first English translation of the Bible and almost 250 years before King James—translating James in the same manner. At best, this is nothing less than grossly negligent research on the part of the authors.

The second major weakness of the book is the one-sided assertion that older manuscripts are better.  While most of the King James Only movement would attack this view, there are many theologians outside of that sect who also believe this assertion to be false.  On page six they call the more recently discovered older manuscripts “more reliable”, and on page seven they note that “It’s a fact that the closer one gets time-wise to the original writings, the more accurate they tend to be.” This may be a “fact” when dealing with secular literature, but in the opinion of many, including this reviewer, this completely ignores the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. It is more theologically sound to believe that God preserved in a continuing stream His very words. This has been amply illustrated through the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls where one finds that after over 2000 years the current OT readings have been preserved. This is miraculous.

They falsely note that the AV translators “were limited by the lack of manuscript evidence available” (p. 36). The true facts are that the reformers, including men such as Francis Turretin (mid-1600s), knew fully about the Alexandrian readings, refer to them in their writings, and rejected them out of hand as being unreliable (see Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. I, p. 115). The authors call the TR (Textus Receptus, the Greek text upon which the AV translators relied) “less-authentic” (p. 40) and note that “they had to ignore overwhelming manuscript evidence” on occasions. This is purely opinion, and they fail to note that many hold to a contrary position. This “overwhelming manuscript evidence” that is sighted amounts to less than 500 out of the 5,500 extant copies of the NT text—hardly overwhelming.

In arguing for their position they note that the “less-authentic” TR had pietistic additions. This theory states that pious copyists added to the text to help clarify Bible doctrine by doing things such as replacing “He” with “Jesus Christ” (pp. 31-2). Yet in their first illustration of copyist “errors”, they note that the older texts identified Jesus as “God” in John 1:18. So, how come the pietists supposedly deleted a clear indicator of deity when the authors argue that they usually added it? Such inconsistencies abound in the book.

The point is this: there are conservative scholars who are not King James Only who disagree with the philosophy behind the “older” manuscripts of the NT. To paint this as an AV problem is disingenuous at best.

Very Naughty Figs is a very naughty book. The authors fail to show actual translation errors in the AV and ignore the theological tradition behind the translation of both the AV and the NKJV. Unfortunately, the authors seem to have allowed their strong feelings against the King James Only movement to taint their presentation. Because of this, they twist their arguments and are unfair with the facts and inconsistent in their criticisms. In the end, this actually undermines the veracity of Scripture itself by promoting the concept of multiple errors in our Bibles. The illustrations bring a smile, but the rest of the book erases it quickly. Naughty figs indeed.