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 food 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.
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
../