Welcome to Part 1 in a series of articles on the KJV that takes a look at the oft-ignored and marginalized variants of the oft-revered King James Version.
The conservative independent, fundamental, Baptist churches that I grew up in and around held several doctrines and practices very dearly. Chief among these was a devotion wholly and solely to the Authorized King James Version. Now, this devotion came for various reasons, but one result was that the KJV was claimed to be completely without error, even down to the exact words and (often) even to the very spelling and capitalization. Modern versions were said to not only have the heretical audacity to remove verses, but also make word changes and corrupt that which was "perfect." The KJV was said to be flawless both in textual base and in translation, so even the smallest change was said to be a corruption. (Thoroughly, or Throughly, for example, or even dropping the "U" from "Saviour.") Now, this position, of course, requires that one have a 100% accepted standard base text of the KJV to judge all others by, even in matters of capitalization. (Spirit, or spirit) Growing up, I heard very vague whispers about Zondervan corrupting their KJV.(1) Thus, we were not to buy one from that publisher. Little did I know, the KJV I was pointed towards then would later be deemed "perverted" by a different circle of Baptists.
This came to a head recently as I was at a youth rally with our teens. For whatever reason, the organizer wanted kids to memorize a portion of Joel 2, among them, verse 24. Well, turns out there's a KJV variant there and some of our kids had "fats" while others had "vats!" (Including my KJV! The one I was told to get because it wasn't corrupted!) There was a brief, hushed whispering with the leaders and they concluded that "fats" was "not the perverted version." Which I guess means mine was perverted. Fantastic. A little poison can kill, as they often say, so by their logic that single letter perverted my entire Bible. For years, I was a heathen and didn't know it....or maybe not.
I had heard about textual variations within the KJV family before and set out to learn a bit more about the hows and whys of these "perverted" versions and which one is claimed to be perfect. (And why!) However, before launching into that broader discussion, I'd like to share what I found about my particular "perversion."
The 1611 has Joel 2:24 as this (Notice the 1611 spelling is far different than our own.)
"And the floores shall bee full of wheate, and the fats shall ouerflowe with wine and oyle."(2)
The 1796 edition (usually the edition claimed King James Only Advocates) has this:
"And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the fats shall overflow with wine and oil."(3)
The 1901 Pure Cambridge Edition also has "fats."(4)
However, the version on BibleGateway.com reads "vats" and the site claims it matches the "1987" printing. (5)
So, where did my "Vats" come from first?
According to David G. Burke,(6) "vats" is a variant found in the KJVs from two publishers: Royal Publishers of Nashville in 1966 and World Publishing Company of Cleveland and New York (After mid century) However if Biblegateway is correct, the newest "1987 Printing" has been standardized to that. (Though whose printing that is, I don't know.)
Apparently, Bearing Precious Seed/First Baptist Milford, Ohio, (Where my KJV is from) uses one of those "Perverted" editions while my Ryrie Study Bible has "fats." The former is interesting, as BPS began publishing in 1973, not even a decade after the Royal Publishers edition came out and before the "1987 Edition." (However, they may have changed texts after that time.) I wonder, then, if they have always used this test, why they chose that text and how they got a hold of it so soon after that variant was introduced. I've emailed them about it and hoped to hear something back soon, but as of now have only received silence. On the other hand, if they began with a different text, why they switched over. Knowing the organization's passion for printed as perfectly as possible what they believe to be the correct edition, I wonder what would have compelled them to update to the newer edition.
But, back to the word choice. The Hebrew word, יקב, given the Strong's Number H3342, is also used in Joel 3:13, and translated identically in each edition to it's respective translation in 2:24. So, that means two letters in my Bible were corrupted. Elsewhere, the Hebrew word seems consistently rendered across all KJV variants, though it is most commonly translated as "winepress/winepresses/press" and nowhere else as "fats/vats."
Interestingly, while researching this phenomenon, I ran into this observation by E.W. Bullinger: "fats=vats. Anglo-Saxon (northern) faet, (southern) vat= a vessel, or cask. Literally = that which contains. Hebrew yekeb the reservoir for receiving the wine; not gath, the press where the grapes are pressed. See note on Isaiah 5:2." (7)
Which may mean the word "fats" in 1611 had the meaning of a vessel, (or vat) That is supported by the strange inclusion of "vat" as a noun under the entry "fat" in Webster's 1828.(8) While that may explain the shift from Fats/Vats and why "fats" was even considered in 1611, it still doesn't explain why the KJV translators used "Fats" in the first place when the older English translations didn't. Wycliffe has "pressers," while Geneva and Bishop's have "presses." Today, the translations I checked (HCSB, NASB, NIV, ASV, ESV, MEV and even the 21st Century KJV) all agree on "Vats."
If the words mean the same, and were simply an accepted spelling variant in 1611, which itself had innumerable spelling variants throughout the book, and the spelling has continually been updated before, as the comparison above points out, then why couldn't this variation be accepted? It is not doing anything that hasn't been done before, right? Is changing a single letter, which in no way affects meaning, that important? Especially if that change makes the text more accessible to modern readers with ANY compromise in meaning or translation?
It seems so.
For that single letter that does not affect meaning, my Bible is "perverted." One letter is all it takes, yet, the spelling changes that KJVO advocates admit make the 1769 much more acceptable to modern readers changed far, far more than a single letter. In fact, in this verse alone, it removed 4 letters and changed "Oyle" to "Oil." That is undeniably far more than the changing on a single letter.
My question is, if a single letter change perverts a Bible, how can we justify using the 1769 spelling revisions over the original 1611? What about the KJVO claim that the 1611 is full of typos that had to be weeded out and were finally fixed later, how do we know? Or which Bible is perfect, which has the best spelling, and if the "errors" of the 1611 are only a multitude of fixable spelling differences and typos, what makes us think whatever version we use now is free from all such mistakes? If that process of spelling updating was fine then, why not now? What makes the 1769 flawless? Or if not that one, which one? What does it say about God's preservation if a single letter can pervert an entire Bible? Finally, if typos are variants are so easily slipped in today, with modern printing practices and computers, what about ancient manuscripts? Even now, I'm beginning to learn just come complex this subject can get.
While some of those pertain to textual criticism as a whole, let's aska more immediate question: If we do have a completely flawless KJV that's the standard for all others, which is it?
Hopefully, some of that will be answered in the next article.
Coming Soon!
Part 2 - Comparing 1611, 1769, 1901 PCE, New Cambridge Paragraph Bible
Part 3 - The Divine "U"
Footnotes:
(1) Zondervan's KJV "changes" will be addressed in the next article.
(2) See here: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Joel-2-24/
(3) See the Oxford 1796 here: http://textusreceptusbibles.com/KJV1769/29/2
(4) See here: https://kjvpce.com/bible/joel/2/24
(6)“Translation That Openeth the Window Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible.” Translation That Openeth the Window Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible, by David G. Burke, Society of Biblical Literature, 2014, pp. 109.
(7) Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Joel 2:24". "E.W. Bullinger's Companion bible Notes". (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/joel-2.html.)
(8) See here yourself: (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/fat)
コメント