Berean Fact Sheet Number 029

This Fact Sheet is best viewed in Times New Roman font. It is also available in PDF format. For more information, click here.

Debating King James Onlyism, Part II:
Quoting from the King James Version
Copyright © 2006 by Larry G. Overton

If you’ve read my articles and essays on the King James Version and King James Onlyism, then you have no doubt noticed that I whenever I quote from the KJV, I do so from the 1611 edition of that version, and not from the revised editions in print today.

More specifically, with the exception of utilizing a Gothic or black letter font, I try to approximate as nearly as possible the original appearance of the version. I quote it using the orthographic features present in the original edition, which have been changed to conform to current orthographic standards in the editions of our day.

“Why,” you might well ask, “would you establish and adhere to such a strict policy?” If you will forgive the breach of protocol, I will answer that question with a question. If a four hundred year old translation of the Bible was and is a perfect translation, then why quote from anything else? Why bother to revise and update it, or to quote from updated editions?

The contention of King James Onlyism is that the King James Version of the Bible is perfect. According to the KJO (i.e., the advocate of King James Onlyism), God superintended the translation process of the KJV to such an extent that He perfectly preserved His words of divine revelation in that English version. The KJO therefore claims that the KJV is the only English version that may rightfully be called God’s Word. And once he makes the assumption that the KJV is the perfect translation of the Bible, the KJO rejects as heretical the notion of updating and revising the text of the KJV. Reading and/or quoting from an edition of it that has any changes whatsoever is a rejection of God’s original, and is tantamount to apostasy.

However, KJOs, almost without exception, do just that; they read and quote from revised and updated editions of the KJV. The printed editions used by them today have been modernized. The typeface or font has been changed from black letter to the more legible Roman type. The text has been edited and changed to conform to today’s standards of orthography. The books of the Apocrypha have been removed. The words in italics have been changed. Spelling inconsistencies have been corrected. Words and phrases have been added or deleted or changed.

KJO clergymen, apologists for their doctrine, have rightly perceived that they must equate the various KJV printings of today to that which came off the presses in 1611. If they do not, then they are logically left with two choices: read exclusively the exact original form of the KJV (whether expensive first edition originals or facsimile reproductions); or abandon their position. KJO clergymen therefore refer to the argument about the revision of the KJV as “the revision hoax.” They regularly make (false) claims such as the following:

Complicating matters further is the fact that a number of publishers of the KJV lead people to believe that their contemporary printing is the same as the 1611 printing. It is unfortunate that they sometimes claim on the title page of their editions of the KJV that their printing is “The Authorized Version of 1611,” or something to that effect. One web site I am aware of makes the KJV available for online reading, falsely billing it as “The Authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1611.”

Make no mistake about it: the editions of the KJV in use today are most definitely different from the editions that came off the presses in 1611. Contemporary claims to the contrary are just plain wrong. Space considerations in this Fact Sheet will permit just one example: Deuteronomy 5:29.

Comparing editions of the KJV in this verse shows that the differences involve more than just the type of font used, although that definitely is one of the striking differences (i.e., the black letter or Gothic typeface of 1611 as opposed to today’s Roman font). There are also examples of spelling differences (“feare,”“keepe,”“commandements,”“alwayes,” etc.).

However, the most significant difference between the original and contemporary editions of the KJV is the omission of the word “all” in the phrase “…and keep all my commandments always…” (Emphasis mine). The Hebrew word for “all” in this phrase is (kol), and the reading in the text of the Hebrew Scriptures—from the ben Chayyim text underlying the KJV to the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia—has kol. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the recensions of Lucian and Origen of the Greek Septuagint omit the word for “all.”

There are therefore three possibilities for the omission of “all” in the original KJV: the Old Testament translation committee at Westminster deliberately rejected the reading of the ben Chayyim Hebrew text; the reading was changed in a subsequent edit; or the printer in 1611 made an error.

Whatever the cause of this discrepancy, two things are abundantly clear: the 1611 edition of the KJV was wrong on this point; and the text of the 1611 KJV is not the same as text in current editions. And this illustrates why I believe that it is necessary, when discussing aspects of the KJO controversy, to quote the 1611 edition of the KJV, reproducing in my quotations the form of the KJV as it appeared originally. Doing so consistently demonstrates that the editions of the KJV in print today are not the same as the 1611 editions.