Welcome to the second in a series examining variants within the KJV family. Last time, we looked at the event that sparked my interest in the subject. That was a very zoomed-in look at a particular verse. This article, however, will zoom way out to capture the "big-picture" of what's going on here.
In 1611, a new Bible translation leaped out into the market of the English-speaking world. This masterpiece of prose and poetry was known as the "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Comandement." We know it today by the term "The King James Version" or "The Authorized Version." This translation (technically more a revision, per the translators guidelines(1)) was the next in a line of English Bibles that owned their existence to the bravery and effort of men like John Wycliffe (The first to complete a Bible in English, published in 1388.) and William Tyndale. (The first to translate into English from the original Greek and Hebrew, completed with the help of Mile Coverdale in 1535.) Within 100 years of Tyndale's translation, English speakers were blessed with Matthew’s Bible, (1537) The Great Bible (1539-40), The Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishops’ Bible (1568) and finally, The King James Version. (1611)
Each of these built on the scholarship and renderings that had come before. In fact, some say the wording of the KJV follows Tyndale's renderings an incredible 76 percent of the time!(2) The similarities, however, were not always just because the underlying text warranted it. The King James Translation Committee, in fact, had a series of rules or guidelines for their work, the very first of which read "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." This building on the work of previous translations is even referenced by the translators themselves "Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."(3)
Undoubtedly, they would. To see a group of intelligent, learned men laboring at the expense, protection, and command of the King to bring into existence the greatest English translation yet would have thrilled men such as Miles Coverdale and William Tyndale. History itself bears testament to the incredible influence and legacy of the King James Version over the last 400 years. However, one must also ask the question, "Was the English Bible locked into eternity in 1611?" If we acknowledge the fact that much of the verbiage draws on Tyndale's translation, then we must admit that the KJV Bible contains 500 year old English. Words like "Besom," "Beeves," and "Concupiscence," along with the famous "Thee's" and "thou's," display an English not entirely identical to our own. Even that fails to make mention of spelling or grammar differences.
Some say yes, that is the only Bible for today. These are often called "King James Only" or "KJVO" because of that belief. Some churches even proudly state in their by-laws that they will use only the 1611 King James Bible. Others claim that the 1611 is the exact same as their modern printings of the KJV, so it doesn't matter. Both are wrong. Those that insist on referring to later editions as "1611's" are mistaken, as the later revisions are not simple reprintings, but contain specific and meaningful changes. Thus, a church constitution that insists upon the "1611" phrasing, but uses some other edition, not only makes liars of the entire congregation, but shows incredible ignorance of the specification and exactness needed for such legally binding documents. If such churches and pastors later insist upon a specific edition as being perfect, honest and integrity should drive them to adjust their constitution as needed, or else they will be caught upholding a "corrupt" or "error-filled" KJV. (Which is why I would recommend churches that insist upon the exclusive use of the KJV leave their terminology at simply "King James Version" unless they insist on one, specific version, at which time their constitution should be amended to specify that.) But what about those that refuse to see the truth that different editions changes things?
Ironically, one King James Only Advocate once wrote: "The simple fact is, the King James Bible has never been "revised"."(4) Ironically, he later states (a few paragraphs down the article) "The King James Bible was first published in 1611. However, there were revisions that followed soon after; all of which were completed in 1629. The revisions that occurred between 1611 and 1629 were due to printing errors."(4) Perhaps he should have proofread his own writing first. This same man also brushes aside the issues of the different "editions/revisions" over the years. For example, regarding the 1769 edition, the author claims "He [the main editor] never changed the wording of the King James Bible." That is a lie. While Scrivener's book details a great many more, even a few examples will suffice. Leviticus 11:10 was changed, in 1769, from "nor scales" to "and scales." Other examples of swapping tenses including "had" to "hath" in Lev 5:10, or in 15:33 changing out "which is unclean" for "that is unclean."(5) These show but three changes made in the same book of the Bible in only that edition.
Going even beyond the usually cited 1769, several variations have even switched back and forth a few times. Per Scrivener: "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) It is still missing to this day. These, among a great many others that he, and others, detail, reveal the slight shifting of the text year after year, revision after revision. Matters such as punctuation and capitalization, which were also subject to much change, actually affect meaning even more, yet are often overlooked. Here is a brief list of one KJVO advocate's list of changes in comparison to the version he prefers to use.
The King James has been through countless editions. Of course, the first 20-30 years saw many typos and printing errors corrected, and revisions in the 1700's brought the famous 1769 into play with it's standardized spelling and far more readable font. (For which I am thankful!) Few standard changes have been introduced since, mostly stemming from the differences in those texts printed by Oxford or Cambridge, the two official printers of the text. Those few changes, however, are still debated, with at least one group, made more well known by Matthew Verschuur, who passionately champion the specific Cambridge text of around 1900 as the final purifying of the KJV. Even he, however, admits the great number of changes introduced since then. In his words: "“The 1769 Edition”, or “The Cambridge Edition” have been too vague. Plainly, there have been changes in all editions since 1769, and there are variations in Cambridge Bibles, such as the Victorian text (circa 1830 to circa 1900), the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900 to circa 1970s) which is also printed in many Collins editions, and the Concord text (circa 1970s to circa 2000). Besides these, other modernised variations appear in Bibles printed in America under the name of Cambridge." (6)
In fact, remember the "Corrupt Zondervan Text" that I referenced before? It was probably the Concord Text. (That, at least, it what my old Zondervan KJV is.) Zondervan's two main texts are their "Pitt Minion" (Which seems to follow the Cambridge of 1900) and the "Concord." (With several changes similar to those already referenced above.) (7) My only guess is that those who condemned Zondervan did so without realizing they they printed two texts. This also reveals the problem that publishers rarely specify which text they use and when/if they made any changes.
All of the above, however, ignores any larger variations upon the KJV. The "Cambridge Paragraph Bible" and "New Cambridge Paragraph Bible" both took the 1611, the translators own notes, records, and documents in attempts restore the text to the translators intended product, free of typos, revisions, and later editor influence. Other revisions, seeking to continue the KJV legacy into a new era, brought us works like the 21st Century KJV that sparingly and conservatively replaced archaic words with newer equivalents while retaining the grammar and integrity and structure of the KJV and the KJV 2016 that did much the same. Of course, the New King James Version is a far more extensive revision than any of these, taking the same original texts and translating them into more modern English while attempting to still respect the legacy and feel of the KJV.
What's the point of bringing all this up?
Of the many, many textual differences, which are typos, which are better translations, and which are just plain wrong? If spelling could be updated up to 1769, what about adjusting spelling to more modern spelling or Americanized spelling now? If the translators were inspired and perfect, then why did God allow editors and printers to later change the text?
It depends on your view on the KJV. For those that insist on a perfect (even down to the letter) KJV they have a choice to make. Which of these (amid many other) variants is the "right" one? Some insist on the 1769, others the 1901 Cambridge, I even had a friend in college who dutifully brought a 1611 to class everyday.
The differences are admittingly minor. Yet, if one insists on a perfect and inspired KJV with no flaws, no errors, no changes, then one must pick an edition and defend it. Otherwise, one begins to admit that variants are not necessarily wrong, that some renderings could be debatable, and the issue of translations and their view of biblical "preservation" may not be as cut and dry as some may let on. Perhaps then, the view of the KJV translators, that no translation can be flawless, and each has room for improvement. Even then, is there any room for updating vocabulary, spelling, or even grammar to assist modern readers? As one man put it "An accurate Bible that isn't readable isn't really accurate because it didn't get God's Words into your language."(8)
Or, in the words of one who does still claim KJVOnly-ism: "If it were “given by inspiration” in 1611 it would not have needed any sort of correction or refinement, because it would have been infallible in every detail. Those who teach that the KJV is more than an excellent and accurate translation, that it is given by inspiration and perfect and inerrant in itself and advanced revelation and such, must show us exactly which edition they are referring to."(9)
ENDNOTES:
(1) These "rules" have passed down to us through three different sources, each with minor variations. These are MS Add. 28721, MS Harley 750, and MS Egerton 2884. Also see David Norton, “The King James Bible: a textual history” pg. 7-11
(2) Jon Nielson & Royal Skousen (1998) How Much of the King James Bible Is William Tyndale's?,Reformation,3:1,49-74,DOI:10.1179/ref_1998_3_1_004 (Available online here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/ref_1998_3_1_004)
(3) Found as the preface to the 1611 KJV, though largely omitted from most modern printings. It can be found online here: http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/kj_account.htm
(5) SCRIVENER, F. H. A. AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern ... Representatives (Classic Reprint). FORGOTTEN Books, 2015.
(7) Some Concord Cambridge changes are here compiled by Matthew Verschuur, and are listed in this chart under the name "CC." However, they are also only listed as in comparison to his preferred "PCE." http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm
(8) This quote comes from the brilliant mind of Mark Ward, in this video blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-wkip2cRU
Comments