|
It has been brought to my attention that the article, "Textual
Changes to the King James 1611: Negligible" "repeats some incorrect, non-factual claims that were made by D. A. Waite."
(Later on, D. A. Waite revised his information but this article was
written before those changes were made.)
Therefore, I have removed the article, Textual Changes to the
King James 1611: Negligible.
Instead, I am
posting an article by Dr. Reagan, pastor of the Trinity Baptist
Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. Dr. Reagan mainly discusses the character of the
changes although he does give a number which some, who cite thousands of
changes, won't agree with. Take a look at the
character of the thousands of changes
and see what most of the changes are all about.
In Dr. Regan's Textual Changes section, I do see some changes
in subsequent printings that are more than simply changes in fonts and spelling.
I understand there are more and I'd like to find out what they are. In no way should this sway believers to choose the modern
version Bibles which are not even
translated from the same manuscripts as the King James -- which accounts for the
reason they are sometimes translated very differently.
I have no problem with the historical fact that the King James
has undergone some word and phrase changes. I will much more choose the care
that has gone into refining our most precious English Bible translation, the
King James Bible, over the
doctrinal changes the modern versions have
introduced to the church.
THE KING
JAMES VERSION OF 1611
THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
Introduction
Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor.
4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi
to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day
scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man's
corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition,
subtraction, and substitution. From Adam's day to the computer age, the
strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.
One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these
days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language:
the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims
that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there
should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used
by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by
Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is
given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to
convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of
those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.
One major question often arises in any attack such as this.
How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer
every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would
never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As
always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a fool
according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according
to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be
ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack
will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore
the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible
because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely
assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often
questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues
would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the
question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the
second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of
its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established
English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must
be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of
this book.
I - THE PRINTING
CONDITIONS OF 1611
If God did preserve His Word in the English language through
the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the
infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found
in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost
because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy
which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished.
In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most
printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality.
That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones
often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be
compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be
allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the outset.
The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The
authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may
foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His
power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man.
Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.
Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by
Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment
used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and
difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that's one piece at a
time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed
book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no
earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James
Version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these
were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles.
They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at
times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modem printing.
These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in
later editions.
The two original printings of the Authorized Version
demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both
editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The
same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same
printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately
100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics
can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version
after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in
Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these revisions."
11 - THE
FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS
OF THE 1611 KJV
Much of the information in this
section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called
The Authorized
Edition of
the English
Bible
(1611),
Its
Subsequent Reprints
and Modern
Representatives.
The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that
Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision
Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his
material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.
In the section of Scrivener's book dealing with the KJV
"revisions," one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major
revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original
printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The
1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first
revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier
printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after
the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr.
Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King
James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the
original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another
edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both
Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this
time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised
Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated
words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors.
According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400
textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge
edition, only 27 years after the original printing!
Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two
stages of one process: the purification of early printing errors, so the last
two so-called revisions were two stages in another process: the standardization
of the spelling, These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769)
with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars
are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual
corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are
spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling
changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of
four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are still
changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do with the changes
that are still there? Let us now examine the character of these changes.
III - THE
SO-CALLED THOUSANDS
OF CHANGES
Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an
original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the
Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although
you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there
are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can
hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange
ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James
Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in
1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The
differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let's examine the evidence.
Printing Changes
For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three
kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes
will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was
the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar
with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it
originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic
letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the
Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was
invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate
style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until
recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would
soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style
for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the
Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first
King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the
bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.
Please realize that a change in type
style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size
does. However, the modem reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find
it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several
specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the
Gothic s looks like
the Roman s
when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a
lower case s
at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our
f. Therefore,
also
becomes alfo
and set
becomes fet.
Another variation is found in the German v
and u.
The Gothic v
looks like a Roman u
while the Gothic u
looks like the Roman v.
This explains why our w
is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get
used to it. In the 1611 edition, love
is loue,
us is
vs, and
ever is
euer.
But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style
changes. In another instance, the Gothic j
looks like our i.
So Jesus
becomes Iefus
(notice the middle s
changed to f)
and joy
becomes ioy.
Even the Gothic d
with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the
Greek Delta.
These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in
the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than
a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.
Spelling Changes
Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are
changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern
English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and
basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the
spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was
according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had
been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways,
often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the
educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600's a
spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to
take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the
spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.
What kind of spelling variations can you
expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although
every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are
very common. Additional e's
were often found at the end of the words such as
feare,
darke, and
beare. Also,
double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find
ee,
bee, and
mooued
instead of me,
be, and
moved.
Double consonants were also much more common. What would
ranne,
euill, and
ftarres be
according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The
present-day spellings would be ran,
evil,
and stars.
These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called
thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any
way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual
changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.
Textual Changes
Almost all of the alleged changes
have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual
differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some
differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They
are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be
seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the
changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let
us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing
of the Authorized English Bible.
The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual
are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are
not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were
sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At
times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even
a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal
implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no
comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those
proposed by the scholars of today.
F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the
variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling
of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give
the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book.
The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date
the correction was first made.
1 this
thing - this thing also (1638)
2
shalt have remained - ye shall have remained
(1762)
3
Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)
4
requite good - requite me good (1629)
5
this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)
6
chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)
7
And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)
8
For this cause - And for this cause (1638)
9
For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)
10
Seek good - seek God (1617)
11
The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)
12
returned - turned (1769)
13
a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (1638)
14
The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)
15
thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)
16
the wayes side - the way side (1743)
17
which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)
18
the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)
19
now and ever - both now and ever (1638)
20
which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)
Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the
King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous
errors, they would be of no comparison to modem alterations. But they are
corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible.
Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious
doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire
appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of
being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek
good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two
points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity
of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary type setter
could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error
was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years
after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The
myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting
clearer. But there is more.
Not only does the character of the changes show them to be
printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the
thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent
bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type
style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of
printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing
process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener
was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only
approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern
copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford
editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters
in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third,
i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as "chief
rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one
more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the
early date at which they were corrected.
The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly
separate them from modern alterations. But the time the
changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400
corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for
example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in
1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in
1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were
made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long
drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another
study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72%
of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.
The character of the textual changes is that of obvious
errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per
three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three
fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All
of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the
sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only
editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for
the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies
of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our
English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not
leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see
fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand
of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!
IV - CHANGES IN
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of
Ecclesiastes would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is
grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By
comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons
with recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate
four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then
the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of
the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made.
1 1:5 the
place - his place (1638)
2
2:16 shall be - shall all be (1629)
3
8:17 out, yea further - out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)
4
11: 17 thing is it - thing it is (?)
Several things should be noted about these changes. The last
variation ("thing is it" to "thing it is") is not mentioned by Scrivener who was
a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in
the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in
chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But
notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is
average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that
the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without
even printing errors by the year 1638. That's approximately 350 years ago. By
that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all (and I mean
all) that has changed in 350 years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the
spelling has been standardized! As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629
and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And
the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of
spelling.
V - THE
SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION
FOR OTHER REVISIONS
Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not
been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference?
Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most
pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past
revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New
King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this
propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, "For
nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form,
the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples
of the world. "In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply that
their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have been going on
for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been stated directly by
others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the
book of Ecclesiastes.
An examination of the first chapter in
Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from
our present edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh
to comes;
labour
to labor;
etc.) were not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600
alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in the
entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change, you are
correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were identified in
analyzing the 1611 King James. That's only fair. Still, the number of changes is
especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the same
vein as earlier revisions. According to the fundamentalist scholar, the New King
James is only a fifth in a series of revisions. Then pray tell me how four
"revisions" and 375 years brought only 400 changes while the fifth revision
brought about 60,000 additional changes? That means that the fifth revision made
150 times more changes than the total number of changes in the first four!
That's preposterous!
Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but
the character of the alterations are serious. Although many of the alterations
seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of
the New King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious
blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading
in those places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these
areas, the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more
harmful alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given
first; then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the
reading as found in the New King James Version.
1:13 sore travail; grievous task
1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind
1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood
great wisdom
2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with
2:3 acquainting; guiding
2:21 equity; skill
3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task
3:11 the world; eternity
3:18 that God might manifest them; God tests them
3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts
3:22 portion; heritage
4:4 right work; skillful work
5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently
5:6 the angel; the messenger of God
5:6 thy voice; your excuse
5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official
5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy
6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child
7:29 inventions; schemes
8:1 boldness; sterness
8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness
10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking
savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment
10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull
10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success
12:9 gave good heed; pondered
12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars
This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but
notice what is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill
(2:21). The world becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast
but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8
("he that is higher than the highest") is successfully removed ("higher
official"). But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10: 10),
this must be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20).
Probably the most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one
listed where "the masters of assemblies" become "scholars." According to the New
King James, "the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one
Shepherd." The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the
source of the Shepherd's words. That is what these scholars would like us to
think, but it is not true.
In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the
vein of former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely
new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not
to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to
expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles
for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James
Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions
which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is
one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.
The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any)
major revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of
what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson Version.
They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has not been
revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in
our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The
authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James
Version in 1611, or in the character of King James 1, or in the scholarship of
the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England,
or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of
the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God
has the power. We have His Word.
Dr. Reagan, pastor of the Trinity Baptist Temple in
Knoxville, Tennessee
Return to:
New King James Version and the One World Church |