The Refining and Polishing of the King James Version - Glenn Conjurske

The Refining and Polishing of the King James Version

by Glenn Conjurske

From my earliest acquaintance with the modern King James Only doctrines, it was evident to me that these are the doctrines of men who have done very little thinking. This is a system of doctrine which is absolutely untenable—-as much at variance with itself as it is with the facts of history.

The doctrine affirms that God has promised (in Scripture) to preserve his word, and that therefore the word of God, preserved in perfection, does exist. This doctrine is applied not only to the original texts in Greek and Hebrew, but also to the English translation. We are told that the perfectly preserved Greek text is the Textus Receptus, and the perfectly preserved English translation is the King James Version. But these assertions immediately raise some serious questions in the minds of all who are accustomed to think. Some of those questions are:

If the supposed promises of God to preserve his word in perfection secure to us a perfect version in English, why did those same promises fail to secure any such perfect version before the year 1611? Those promises were not given by God in 1610, but thousands of years before that—-most of them in the Old Testament. How is it that those promises secured nothing of this before 1611? Why, with these same promises in force, was there no perfect English version in John Wycliffe’s day—-or a hundred years before Wycliffe’s day? If for some reason those promises did not apply in the days before 1611, what reason do we have to think that they apply today? If the promises of God did not secure a perfect version in English before 1611, who can say that they do secure a perfect version after 1611? If these promises of God to preserve his word are such that he may fail to keep them for the space of hundreds of years, what possible reason can we have to suppose that he has any obligation to keep them today? For observe, anyone who takes the trouble to think may plainly see that these King James Only doctrines absolutely necessitate the conclusion that for hundreds of years God failed to keep those promises. If the promises of God actually mean what these men contend—-if to keep those promises God is obliged to give to us a perfect English version—-then those promises must have meant the same thing 600 years ago that they mean now, and God must have had the same obligation to keep his promises then as he has now. Yet none of these men will so much as pretend that there was any perfect English version before the year 1611. Their own system forces them to believe (if they will but think) that for hundreds of years God failed to keep his promises, from the dawn of the existence of the English language, until the year 1611. Those promises which are supposed to mean so much to us, and secure so much for us, meant absolutely nothing for Englishmen 500 years ago, for God was not in the business of keeping those promises then. If the children of God looked to him for bread in the year 1350, he gave them nothing—-except the Latin Vulgate, for those who could read it. If they looked to him for bread in the year 1450, he gave them a serpent—-an English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate, which the King James Only men are pleased to call “the devil’s Bible.” If the children of God looked to him for bread in the year 1550, he gave them a stone—-an English Bible which, whatever it may have been, was certainly not the perfect word of God, for it differed in countless places from the version which they hold to be perfect. Thus during century after century, the Lord left these alleged promises of preservation on the shelf, and did not keep them.

But now, we are told, we have a perfect Bible in English, and the proof alleged for this is, God has promised to preserve his word! Since 1611, then, God has been keeping his promises, but he did not trouble himself to keep them before that—-for none of these men can affirm that there was a perfect version in English before 1611, without making manifest fools of themselves. If there was a perfect Bible in English before 1611, then the King James Version can only be regarded as a corruption of that Bible, for it differs in hundreds of places from all of its predecessors. There is no doubt that if any man today were to put forth a revision of the King James Bible, reinstating the readings of the early English Bibles, which were displaced in the process of revision, the King James Only men would soon denounce the new version as corrupt—-as they denounce every version which any way differs from the King James Version. But more, if any man today were to put forth a new Bible version based upon the same Greek text which William Tyndale used, the King James Only men would be the first and foremost to denounce it as corrupt—-and that entirely irrespective of the character of the translation. They would denounce it as corrupt because it was translated from a different Greek text—-for it is a plain matter of historical fact that the Greek text of Tyndale’s version differs in dozens of places from that of the King James Version. Nor are many of those differences trivial in their nature, but extend to the addition or omission of words, phrases, and whole clauses.

But the men who have flooded the church with this King James Only clamor have been men who have done very little thinking. They sent their doctrines into the world without ever thinking so far as to be aware of the existence of the questions and issues which I have just rehearsed. Others, however, have done some thinking for them, and forced them to face questions like these. But with what result? Alas, they have responded exactly as did the Jehovah’s Witnesses, when they found themselves forced to face the absurdities of their system. They have not stepped forward in a manly fashion to acknowledge their errors, but have rather entrenched themselves more deeply in those errors—-and added folly to foolishness in order to do so. The men who fathered these doctrines did not trouble themselves about the fact that there was no perfect Bible in English before 1611—-obviously never thought of it. Now that the fact has been forced upon their attention, they must endeavor to account for it, but in so doing they have only added to the self-contradictions of their system. From a little sheet called “The Enchiridion” (Feb.-March, 1995), put forth by William W. Van Kleeck of the “Institute for Biblical Textual Studies,” come the following statements:

“God the Father has entered into a covenantal relationship with the Son to preserve His Word. (Isaiah 59:21). The preserved Word of God therefore exists. The inscripturated (written) Word is limited to a finite number of words that can be empirically (actually) compared and rationally understood. The (Holy Spirit filled) believer’s role is to identify the existing Word of God and unite it by way of collation with the rest of the canon (books of the Bible). When the covenant keeping believers (not textual critics) have identified all the words that God had prepared to receive the autographa (the original language text) and made them a part of the exemplar (the receiver language) the translation is complete and no further translation is required nor possible. To the degree that the translation in process reflects the autographa it is authoritative[,] but the final edition is not relatively authoritative, it is absolutely authoritative.”

That from the front side of the sheet, and from the back side, “The KJV was refined from 1525 to 1611 and polished until 1769. It is the true Word of God.”

For those who are unfamiliar with the events corresponding to the dates which Mr. Van Kleeck mentions, I pause to inform them that in 1525 (or 1526) William Tyndale published his first New Testament, in 1611 the King James Version was first printed, and in 1769 Benjamin Blayney put forth the revision of the King James Version which is now in common use.

But in these statements Van Kleeck has actually given up—-doubtless without thinking far enough to realize it—-almost everything distinctive in the King James Only position. He has given up the very foundations of the system, while still, of course, holding that system fast. He grants that a Bible version may be the word of God without being perfect. He grants that the English Bibles which preceded the King James Version were the word of God, only in an unrefined state. He grants that they were the word of God, though they were not “absolutely authoritative.” They were “relatively authoritative”—-authoritative, that is, only insofar as they truly represented the originals. This is precisely what the rest of us have held from the beginning—-and we have been accused of modernism for it by the King James Only men. And if those who follow Mr. Van Kleeck in this opinion would but think a little, they would be obliged to admit that if one version may be the word of God, though not perfect, so may another. If William Tyndale’s New Testament may be the word of God, though less than perfect, and less than absolutely authoritative—-if the same may be true of Coverdale’s Bible, of the Great Bible, of the Geneva Bible, and of the Bishops’ Bible—-then the same may be true also of the Latin Vulgate and of the Septuagint, and the same may be true of the King James Version.

But more—-yea, much more. Mr. Van Kleeck actually grants that the same is true of the King James Version—-at least that it was true of the original King James Version of 1611. He grants that the version has been “polished” since 1611—-and the polishing of which he speaks has explicit reference to something so major as the omission of the Apocrypha from later printings. But he is certainly aware that a good deal more “polishing” than that has taken place—-with spelling or punctuation changed in every verse, italics added throughout, and many words added, omitted, or changed.

And in granting this much, he has actually entirely given up the King James Only position. These men have told us for years that every jot and tittle of the Bible is preserved pure and perfect and without error, and this doctrine has been unhesitatingly, steadfastly, and belligerently applied to the King James Version of 1611. Now we are told that the 1611 version was not perfect at all, but contained many thousands of jots and tittles, besides whole letters and whole words, which must needs be changed. The version needed to be polished for 158 years, the final result of which is the perfect and completely authoritative word of God. But men who think will naturally ask, if the 1611 version needed such a long course of alteration in order to make it perfect and authoritative, how do we know that the process is finished yet? If the English publishers were free to revise the book as they pleased in 1616, and again in 1629, and again in 1638, if Thomas Paris was free to revise it again in 1762, and if Benjamin Blayney was free to correct it again in 1769, then who is to say that C. H. Spurgeon was not equally free to correct it in 1869, or F. H. A. Scrivener in 1873, or Glenn Conjurske in 1995? For more than twenty years these King James Only men have been condemning as unbelievers and modernists all who dare to correct a single word in the “KJV—-1611,” and now they tell us that that process of correction went on for 158 years, from 1611 to 1769 (or 244 years, from 1525 to 1769), and that all of that correcting was the work of God, in order to secure the “final edition,” which is not subject to correction.

Thus does the mistaken zeal of these men vitiate the doctrine of inspiration. For, make no mistake about it, what they are actually claiming for the King James Version is inspiration. They claim that it is the word of God in every jot and tittle, perfect and without error, and this, whatever they may call it, is precisely the doctrine of inspiration. This is precisely what the whole church of God has always claimed for the original texts of Scripture, as they came from the original writers. But anyone who had dared to teach such a process of inspiration, as these men are forced to claim for their inspired English version, would have been disclaimed as a heretic and a modernist. Let any man today claim that the Greek original of the epistles of Paul reached its state of perfection in the same manner that the King James Version is supposed to have done, and he will immediately (and rightly) be denounced as a modernist. Let a man claim that the epistles of Paul were written first by himself, and thus became “the epistles of Paul in process”—-were afterwards revised three times by Paul himself

—-revised again by Barnabas while Paul lived—-revised by Timothy after Paul died—-Timothy’s revision revised by Barnabas, then again by Apollos, and once more by Barnabas—-then Paul’s final version revised by the king’s scribe, adopting many readings from the last edition of Barnabas—-the scribe’s version then made the basis for a new edition, thoroughly revised—-that edition thoroughly revised again three years later, by a company of exiles—-then the last edition of Barnabas thoroughly revised by a company of bishops, and revised again two years later—-the same thoroughly revised again after the passing of nearly forty years, this time by a company of scholars appointed by the king, adopting readings from all the previous editions, including one put forth by the heretics—-and this latest edition subjected to minor revisions numerous times by various scribes, until at length the whole was revised throughout by a single scholar, and so, after 244 years “in process,” became “the preserved(!!) epistles of Paul, perfect and without error.” The man who made such a claim would be denounced immediately as a heretic or a lunatic, by the very men who make exactly the same claim for the King James Version—-for mark, the “process” which I have just described is no imagination, but the actual history of the King James Version.

And who determined that the edition of 1769 is the one which is perfect and authoritative? Ah! Bible believers, no doubt. Spirit filled men, no doubt. The real, final authority, then, does not rest in the King James Version at all—-but in themselves. The final authority is not in the Bible, but in the men who give us their ex cathedra pronouncement as to which version and edition is authentic and genuine. Here, then, is but one more way in which this ill-advised and intemperate reaction against an imagined threat of Romanism brings us directly back to the true doctrines of Romanism. The main tenet of this system, which exalts a human and imperfect translation to the place of perfection, giving it an authority equal (or superior) to the original, is a tenet of Romanism, which no Protestant ever believed before the advent of the present generation. Surely this is no accident, but the hand of the Lord, to confound ignorance and pride.

But to return, the real authority is now made to rest in certain covenant-keeping believers, who determine which edition is the final one. Doubtless Mr. Van Kleeck must suppose himself to be one of those covenant-keeping believers. No doubt David Otis Fuller’s Dean Burgon Society would qualify also, but Dean Burgon himself must be excluded, for he was a textual critic. I suppose I am disqualified as well, for I dabble in textual criticism also. Must we then resign ourselves to the judgement of whoever inscripturated the unspiritual and scarcely English jargon quoted above from “The Enchiridion”? The fact is, we very much doubt that many of Mr. Van Kleeck’s fellow King James Only men will endorse this new position. We strongly suspect that a large portion of them will continue to fight for the “KJV—-1611,” while they continue, of course, to use the “KJV—-1769,” the same as Mr. Van Kleeck does, and the same as they have always done. These men do not much concern themselves about the facts of history, and most of them are doubtless unaware that there is any difference between the “KJV—-1611” and the “KJV—-1769.”

But how is it that they have settled upon the work of Benjamin Blayney in 1769 as the “final edition,” subject to no further revision? The answer to this question is exceeding simple. They have determined upon this edition because this is the edition which is in everybody’s hands. There was obviously no critical inquiry of any sort in back of this dictum—-no exercise of any reason or judgement of any kind, but only a fixed determination to pronounce the edition which is in their hands to be perfect and without error. If reason had been consulted—-if any “Biblical Textual Studies” had entered into the matter—-they must certainly have decided otherwise. For observe, if the work of Benjamin Blayney, which he carried out haphazardly and inconsistently, was so excellent as to exalt his edition to the place of supremacy, how far superior must that edition have been if his excellent design had been carried out with greater care and consistency? But mark, his design has been carried out with care and consistency, and that by a conservative, reverent, able, and very careful and painstaking scholar. His name is F. H. A. Scrivener. His edition was published in 1873, under the title, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, with the Text Revised by a Collation of its Early and Other Principle Editions, The Use of the Italic Type Made Uniform, etc. Now, since one of the major contributions of Benjamin Blayney was to make the italics more uniform than the earlier editions left it, it is without all reason to leave the matter there, when a little more painstaking work (such as Scrivener excelled in) might remove all inconsistencies—-and when in fact the work was done a hundred and twenty years ago. But these men are determined only to pronounce the version in their hands to be perfect, regardless of any considerations of truth or fact or reason. If men had been of this same spirit four centuries ago, the King James Version would never have existed. Then the Geneva Bible would have been “the Bible which God uses, and Satan hates” (it was, by the way), and any attempt to revise it would have been belligerently denounced.

But there is yet more. Suppose it to be the very truth that “The KJV was refined from 1525 to 1611 and polished until 1769,” and that the final result of this process “is the true Word of God.” The fact is, 1769 was too late, and a good deal too late. So was 1611. So was 1525. Remember, the foundation of this system is the supposed promises of God to preserve his word. It was far too late to think of preservation in 1525, or 1611. If these men had done a little less asserting and denouncing, and expended a little of their time and energies in thinking, they must soon have realized that the very meaning of preservation completely overturns their entire system. It destroys it root and branch. If they were to tell us that God had promised to restore the purity of his word in 1611, or 1769, we might at least give them the credit for common sense and consistency, but restoration and preservation are two different things. If God has actually promised to preserve his word in perfect purity, 1611 is much too late to begin keeping that promise. The very meaning of “preservation” necessitates that he should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years. If the New Testament which Tyndale produced in 1525 needed 244 years of refining and polishing ere it could be regarded as “absolutely authoritative,” this operation was not preservation at all, but restoration. In making these affirmations about the refining and polishing of this “translation in process,” Mr. Van Kleeck has in fact totally given up, so far as the English translation is concerned, any possible doctrine of preservation. Not that it much matters, for all of these men have in fact repudiated their own doctrine of preservation from the first day that these King James Only doctrines existed. What they have really been contending for all along is the restoration of the word of God, though they have been so little engaged in thinking as to suppose that they were contending for its preservation. It really makes no difference whether they affirm that the point of perfection was reached in 1611, or 1769. Either position is an admission that the English Bible was not perfect before that date, and therefore not preserved in perfection by God.

But all of this serves to demonstrate the unsoundness of the foundation of the entire King James Only system. These men, if they are honest, must confess that there was no perfect version in English before 1611 (or before 1769). They must therefore confess that the promises of God which form the foundation of their system do not necessarily secure to any people a perfect translation in their language. They must confess therefore that those promises do not mean what they have till now contended that they do mean. And thus their whole system, from the foundation up, falls to the ground.

Glenn Conjurske