The 3rd in a series on the KJV, here are the first two articles:
In 2003, Hyles Publications released a book titled "The Need for an Every-word Bible." This title accurately references an argument often put forth by King James Only advocates. The argument is usually stated as follows:
God wants us to know "every word" of his word.
If any Bible changes, adds, or deletes individual words, it is deviating from the "perfect standard" that God wants for his people.
Thus, any Bible that changes any word from what we know is the "perfect text" is corrupted and worthy of rejection.
This, naturally, sounds very logically consistent and ideal. This view draws on the wording of Matthew 4:4 in the King James Version.
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
However, this view quickly runs into trouble.
The first major problem with this view is discovering the "word perfect" standard that God has passed down to Christians today. After all, there have been many, many, many Bibles, in many, many languages, with many, many differences, over the years.
As this argument is often found in KJV-only publications, it is natural that such authors will refer readers to the KJV as that "perfect" standard. In fact, this argument is often employed to discredit more modern translations and thus leave the KJV standing as the only acceptable option for English speakers. More passionate defenders have even suggested the KJV can correct all other Bibles, even the Greek and Hebrew texts.
For example, this article chronicles several occasions where Peter Ruckman proclaimed that the KJV corrects even the Textus Receptus, from which the New Testament heavily relied. Other authors, like James Rasbeary in his book What's Wrong with the Old Black Book warns against using Greek studies to correct the KJV in Appendix B "Taking the Greek detour to the Enemy's Fire."
Ironically, then, at this point, one may turn one of their favorite arguments against them. Riplinger, in her New Age Bible Versions frequently calls out Westcott and Hort's critical Greek edition of the New Testament as "new" and contrasts it to the older, accepted standard of the Textus Receptus. This is echoed in R. B. Ouellette's A More Sure Word. Like-minded authors often claim that, if the Critical Text is more accurate, why God hid it from his people for hundreds of years until it was "rediscovered" in 1881. They wonder why the Word of God was not complete and perfect until then. For those that proclaim the KJV is the only word-perfect Bible, one must wonder why God hid his perfect word from his people until 1611. (Or, even sooner, as they sometimes acknowledge the typos and flaws that needed correcting in the 1611, leading them to proclaim newer revisions of the KJV to be "perfect" instead.)
Other authors modify that view slightly, teaching that the "perfect text" is not necessarily the KJV, but rather, the Greek and Hebrew behind it. These appeal to manuscript tradition and point instead to the "Textus Receptus" as the perfect source of the New Testament. This, however, still defeats KJV-onlyism, as pastors such as Joshua Teis who hold to using translations from the Textus Receptus open themselves to other translations that also use that textual source. He, for example, uses the New King James, though he also lists half a dozen literal English translations that also use that same text.
While those do change wording relative to the KJV, if the Greek TR is the perfect source, that fact not only opens the possibility for other translations, but also makes possible the idea that the KJV may not be completely 100% word-perfect. If it's not the word-perfect standard, then it doesn't need to be word-perfect.
Before jumping back into the original text debate, one other important facet needs to be addressed.
If the KJV is the perfect standard, one must then insist on a word-perfect KJV. Any alterations, then, must be rejected, no matter how small. I've already written on that subject and shown that the KJV text has been somewhat fluid, even beyond the obvious and extensive spelling and punctuation differences introduced over the years. Especially before computers, even Bibles by the same publisher, printed the same year, could have several differences. The most well know revision was the one in 1769, but if Scrivener's documentation is true, not one of the KJVs I own exactly matches that text, with an easy example being found in John 14:6.
"One of the changes introduced in 1638 it would have been better to have finally adopted, "and the truth" with the Greek in John xiv. 6. The "and" held its place beyond Blayney's revision of 1769, but has disappeared in Bibles from D'Oyly and Mant (1817)" (page 23 of Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives)
Those that claim to use the 1769 should probably check that verse to see if they truly use that variant.
As I stated before, to demand a word-perfect KJV, one must then select a very specific printing by a very specific publisher and not only claim it to be perfect, but find proofs that it, and it alone, is the purest, perfect text.
For Matthew Verschuur, that choice is what he dubs the "Pure Cambridge Edition." This, according to him, was first printed around 1901, was the most commonly printed KJV variant until around the 1970's. He claims the purification process for the KJV ended at that time and no other edition should be used.
However, Local Church Bible Publishers addresses that claim by saying the PCE is not pure, referencing only a single instance of a capitalized "s," and state they refuse to publish that edition because of that error. They also claim that Verschuur's reasoning is often based in his charismatic beliefs and experiences, rather than actual, objective facts and history.
It is important to also remember that two different publishers hold the "Crown Copyright" to officially print the KJV. Between these two, Cambridge and Oxford, there are some differences in the text. One article claimed over 300 differences, but offered no examples. Another offered three examples, but with that author this time favoring the Oxford text. Chick Publications recommends the "Cambridge-Type" text, but fails to specify which Cambridge.
Even then, the multiplicity of publishers in the US is cause behind several more variations that are hard to track down and document. My 2018 KJV Journal the Word Bible from Thomas Nelson has the "vats" reading in Joel that echoes my older Bible from Bearing Precious Seed mentioned before, which agrees (at least there) with my 2000 Zondervan, while my 1994 Ryrie Study Bible from Moody Publishers has the older "fats". Which then is correct? According to one pastor I asked, it was whatever Cambridge variant that Local Church Bible Publishers uses.
In his defense of the PCE variation, Verschuur has compiled a short list of sample readings that compares 9 different variants of the KJV, none of which match perfectly to each other. This list generally compares more recent variants that have occurred after the thorough comparison done by Scrivener that finds many, many different variants in the first nearly 3 centuries of it's publication.
Tracking down which of the many, many variations is the "perfect" one seems to be a fruitless task. Even KJVonly groups harshly disagree, and no text printed today seems to match anything printed before 1900, unless it is a KJV 1611 replica. Even then, one must wonder why God waited so very long to finally give his perfect word to his people, yet left them in darkness for thousands of years before that.
Some, then, have turned their eyes to more ancient sources. Some claim the Greek Textus Receptus (for the New Testament) is the perfect standard, thus not only matching the language of the original penmen, but also opening the possibility for accepting other English translations of that text. However, that view is not without the same issues as choosing a KJV as the standard.
Erasmus himself, the editor of the TR, published 5 editions. Bruce Metzger, in his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, also notes:
"Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agree agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text!"
Additionally, this site documents over 25 different editions of the TR. Each, of course, differs from the rest. The KJV translators heavily referenced the 1550 Stephanus edition and the 1598 edition by Beza. Yet, according to this analysis, the KJV also departs from both of those aforementioned editions in nearly 1.5% of the verses.
Even the 1894 Edition released by Scrivener, whose entire goal was to construct a Greek text that precisely matched the choices made by the KJV translators, still does not match the KJV perfectly. Bearing Precious Seed released a paper claiming only one serious variant, but the truth is, Scrivener only made changes when he could find Greek support, leaving the many times when the KJV translators used the Vulgate instead of the TR unchanged. Thus, there is no Greek text today that 100% matches the readings in the KJV. That is not to even speak of the Hebrew Old Testament Variants.
We are driven, then, to either conclude that either the KJV is not word perfect, or that the KJV is the standard and there was no perfect text, even in the original languages, until that English printing came along.
Even then, the TR has only existed since the early 1500's, not even 100 years before the translation of the KJV. Additionally, the current TR not only contains readings based on the Vulgate, (With no Greek support) but has several hardly supported minority readings, and an infamous change by Beza with no support anywhere, and even the omission of "God" in Revelation 1:8 by Erasmus against every manuscript in Greek and Latin, (Even the one Erasmus referenced for his Greek text!) and even another reading based on a handful of church fathers in opposition to every manuscript available. Thus, one must realize that the current TR doesn't match 100% any ancient witness or text that has ever existed before now.
Again, one must chose one particular edition and claim nobody before or after has the perfect Word of God.
Apart from the TR and KJV traditions, Dr. Wilbur Pickering claims the Byzantine text-type found in the Family 35 manuscripts is the "perfect" text. These not only have historical support but also show use in local churches through the years in that form. (Unlike the manufactured texts of the TR and CT which made choices from different manuscripts and families to come up with what the editors deemed the "best readings") However, even then, the only English translation of Pickering's text is his own and one must trust that that man alone sifted through the smaller variants found there and somehow found the perfect combination, that again, doesn't exist in any manuscript anywhere.
In short, any student must admit that if they wish for a "word-perfect" translation and/or base text they must realize that said texts have always been in a state of change. To choose one particular text (no matter the language) is to say that no believer before, and a scarce few (if any) since, have had a "word-perfect" Bible and thus have been referencing a corrupt and flawed Word of God.
To insist upon that 100% accuracy not only demands one arbitrarily choose one text, but also accepted that God hid that perfect word until sometime far, far after the canon was written and collected. Depending on what text you select, it may even mean there is no "perfect" Bible today, nor in English at all.
The second major problem is that Matthew 4:4, and other similar verses, may not actually be referring to the exact "words." As this view defines it, every unit of speech/writing, those constructions of syllables and/or letters must be flawless, variant-less, and including only those spoken by God, no more and no less.
While many others have done the same, this essay by Timothy Berg neatly sums up the study by stating:
"But finally, to suggest that the passage is teaching some kind of verbal preservation based on the phrase “every word” in Mat. 4:4 is to fundamentally miss the point that this word of the phrase is not itself a part of the Hebrew text of Deut. 8:3. It is an addition from the LXX translation of the Hebrew text into Greek. To take an instance where the OT Hebrew text has been changed in translation, which translation is then quoted in the NT, and then to use that very change itself as the basis of a doctrine which asserts that the text could never be changed is beyond absurd. Absurd is probably too kind a word. It is in fact the very definition of shooting oneself in the foot."
R. T. France, in his contribution on the Gospel of Matthew in The New International Commentary on the New Testament series, wrote this concerning the the passage:
"“Word” is an LXX explanatory addition: the Hebrew simply says “everything that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.” In the Deuteronomy context what came from the mouth of God would be understood primarily as his law communicated to Moses; the phrase does not in itself refer specifically to the written Bible, but in this pericope Jesus does in fact three times use words from the Pentateuch (the written form in which those utterances of God had been passed down) as his guide to living."
The accepted gold-standard Greek lexicon, Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature has this definition: “that which is said, word, saying, expression, or statement of any kind” While Mounce's Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament tells us "from the Hebrew, a thing, Mat_4:4; Luk_4:4;" A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament has two main definitions for ῥῆμα (Strong's G4487) "1. prop., of that which is said or spoken, 2. Like Heb. H1697 (but perh. also a Gk. colloquialism, v. Kennedy, Sources, 124; Thackeray, Gr., 41), of that which is the subject of speech, a thing, matter" The older Strong's, the usual go-to resource for KJV advocates, has this "From G4483; an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by implication a matter or topic (especially of narration, command or dispute);" Thayer's also provides meanings that echo those above, with the focus on "utterances" and "subject matter" rather than individual units.
Without a doubt, the Greek word leans far, far more heavily on the side of "sayings/utterances" than "units of speech/writing." Even then, Webster's 1828 dictionary has 14 definitions of the word "Word" with only the first two focusing on the individual units of speech. With both languages leaning (And with Greek, heavily) away from the "unit" definition, and the reality that Jesus himself added to the Deuteronomy quote, (That very word, in fact!) the facts conclude that demanding a 100% "word-perfect" Bible cannot be a valid interpretation of this passage, nor does it seem to be the example set by Jesus Christ himself.
Keeping in mind this viewing of "word" in the Bible being utterances/sayings, many other "verbal preservation" passages become more clear as this insistence on a 100% "word-perfect" Bible slowly becomes less and less defensible. Not only is the main passage this view draws on carrying a completely different meaning, but it itself shows evidence that Jesus added and changed established "words."
With the previously discussed difficulties in even choosing which of the many texts to deem "perfect and pure" and the supposed biblical foundation for that view being shown to be misguided, it is, perhaps, time to consider an alternative view.
That, Lord willing, will be coming in Part 2.
Comments