Revisions or Editions
of the
King James Bible Since 1611?
QUESTION:Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since
1611?
ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.
EXPLANATION:
One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized
version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming
fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who
overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and
to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently
to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the
1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this attack and the
momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their
escape.
Unfortunately, upon entering their
castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been
systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man named Dr. David F. Reagan.
Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity
Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He has written a devastating expose on
the early editions of the King James Bible entitled, "The King James
Version of 1611--the Myth of Early Revisions."
Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job
of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a
reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to
reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety:
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 modern 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."
II--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 predominant 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 modern 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 a 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" had 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 1600s 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 1600s 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 mee, 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 vice 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 modern
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
typesetter 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 more than 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 is 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 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
5:8 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; sternness
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
I, 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.