| |
Question #5
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 with the title of Dr. David F. Reagan.
Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee.
He has written a devastating exposé 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 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.
Individual copies of Dr.
Reagan's excellent pamphlet can be obtained by sending one dollar to:
Trinity Baptist
Temple Bookstore
5709 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee 37918
(615) 688-0780
|
