|
|
-
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
Back
to The Answer Book Index
|
|
|
