I’m sure someone has made this argument, even though I haven’t heard it. Someone might call the five previous editions of the King James Version an argument for another update. Four editions followed the original 1611. Why no sixth edition? Why did we stop at 1769, the date of the last edition, what is called the Blayney Edition?Benjamin Blayney, English Hebraist, updated the King James Version. Dot Wordsworth in The Spectator wrote (based on his reading of Gordon Campbell’s Bible: The Story of the King James Version):
Dr Blayney made thousands of changes to the text of 1611. In vocabulary he incorporated amendments from another version from 1743, for example, fourscore changed to eightieth, neesed to sneezed, and the archaic crudled to curdled. In grammar he changed, among other things, number, so that ‘the names of other gods’ became ‘the name of other gods’; and tenses, so ‘he calleth unto him the twelve and began’ changed to ‘he called unto him the twelve, and began’. There were changes in spelling, in punctuation, and in the choice of words to italicise (which had been intended to indicate words not literally present in the original languages).
A highly documented paragraph in the Wikipedia entry on the King James Version
says the following:
By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of 20 years’ work by Francis Sawyer Parris, who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 and in John Baskerville’s fine folio edition of 1763. This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney, though with comparatively few changes from Parris’s edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings. Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of “supplied” words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. . . . Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney’s 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.
With all of the above in mind, why hasn’t the KJV been updated like some call for? It might seem to follow along a pattern already set for the King James Version. Some today criticize King James Version and
Textus Receptus proponents for not giving the King James Version an update to eliminate obsolete or archaic words.
The changes occurring in the past updates or editions of the original King James Version did not retranslate the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament or the
Textus Receptus of the New Testament. They are still the King James Translation. The Wikipedia article provided a comparison between the 1611 and the 1769 for 1 Corinthians 13:1-3:
[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Reading that, you can see how Blayney made 24,000 spelling or punctuation changes. Changing from “feede” to “feed” counts as one of them. 1769 also does not read at all like a retranslation. Compare that to a different translation of those same verses, the NASV with the above 1769 KJV.
[NASV] 1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
None of the four editions proceeding from the 1611 King James Versions read like a new translation or an update in the translation. They didn’t do that. The updates or editions of the King James Version are not a new translation. They don’t look anything like a new translation.Would another update of obsolete or archaic words in the 1769 Blayney edition represent the spirit of the previous editions of King James Version? My honest assessment is that it wouldn’t. Critics, who don’t prefer the KJV, want something more than a new edition.I have not read an official explanation for why no continued updates to the King James Version. No authorized figure said, “This is our last update.” I think that they stopped in 1769 because they were done. They had done enough. No one was motivated to update again, because the 1769 Blayney edition accomplished what people wanted at the time. It hasn’t been done again, because no one agreed it was significant to do.Men like Mark Ward and others criticize people such as myself and Thomas Ross for not endeavoring to update the King James Version. They see our lack of support for an update as a sign that we really, actually believe the preservation of scripture occurred in the English translation. If I did, however, I would advocate for foreign translations from the English King James Version. I don’t. I support foreign translations from the Hebrew and Greek original language text. That doesn’t sound like someone who believes preservation of scripture in the English translation.Previous to the King James Version, men made several translations of the English Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek Testaments. The momentum for translation changed after the completion of the KJV. Churches accepted the King James Version. Updates didn’t continue after 1769. Churches were satisfied with the updates.The King James Version was changed after 1611. The concept of an update is not foreign to the King James Version. Changes occurred. Why not further updates to the King James Version? To be an update, what would need to happen? The answer to this second question also explains why it hasn’t happened and probably won’t.
WHY NOT FURTHER UPDATES TO THE KING JAMES VERSION?
1. The 1769 Blayney Edition Is Good
Despite the “false friends” of Mark Ward, the existence of words obsolete and archaic to today’s English reader, the Blayney Edition of the King James Version is good. It is a good translation of the preserved original language text. True churches accepted it. It has had a supernatural impact over the centuries. It is still causes a great effect on the souls of men. The Blayney Edition of the KJV is proven.
Most people still read the King James Version after all these years.
Almost three times the people read the King James Version than read any other single version of the English Bible according to Statista. A study published in 2014 by The Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University and Purdue University found that 55% of Americans read the King James Version. Next was the NIV at 19%.
2. Change Is Worse Than Possible Improvements
Think of the concept of changing the Bible. Consider how much people already change the Bible. Think about everything that is changing in the world. The left wants to change everything and the meaning of everything.The Bible stands over men. When men say, “I want to change the Bible,” then they are in a sense standing over the Bible. Yes, updates were made, but it is very serious to change.Once men were settled on the Blayney edition, they didn’t keep updating. The Bible should be very difficult to change or update. It should at least be more difficult than changing the United States constitution.Changing the Bible requires a certain amount of ego. True scholars translate the Bible. Someone else comes along and says that they didn’t know enough, so they change it. Later others say they’re even smarter, so they change it. John MacArthur recently led in another translation of the Bible. He’s studied the issues of text and translation, while preaching in his church, and he has the power and resources to create his own translation that favors most or all of his desires for a Bible. He’s got his own Bible now that he reports is the best ever.Once another edition of the critical text arises and further collation of newly found manuscripts occurs, what will stop changing of MacArthur’s Legacy Standard Bible? These never ending changes take away from the perception of the authority of the Bible. That is more dangerous by far than anything else.The constant changing of the Bible looks like a bigger problem than updating obsolete and archaic words. People who can’t explain those words have bigger problems than those words. Updating those will not take away those problems.
3. King James Version Churches Don’t Want the Update
I hear non-KJV people crying for a change. I don’t hear King James Version churches doing that. Men like Mark Ward won’t motivate KJV churches to change to a different Bible. He won’t impel men like Thomas Ross and I, who know original languages, to set in motion another update. No one on my side of this issue talks about updating the King James Version.Mark Ward and men like him incite churches that are already changing. He’s provided some cover for pushing forward changes. Rick Warren wants changes too. He’s kindled changes to many churches looking for numerical growth.
4. An Update Is Far From a Priority
Updating the King James Version pales next to other issues and problems for churches. Before another English translation, churches could work on the first translation into other languages from the preserved text of the Old and New Testaments to get the Bible to millions others.Churches are declining everywhere. It’s not because of the King James Version. Even among churches that use the KJV, they deny the necessity of repentance for salvation. Their people are more worldly. They are colder toward evangelism. They are more pragmatic.An update should arise from some movement toward the truth. It should accompany desire for God and His Word. It should proceed from a rise of repentance toward biblical belief and practice.
TO BE AN UPDATE, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
1. King James Version Churches Would Want an Update
A successful update of the KJV would arise from more than a desire of one church. A large majority of the King James Version churches would want it. If 75% of those churches called for it, they might accomplish it. A poll of those churches, I’m guessing, would receive less than 10% desire for an update.The Holy Spirit works equally in all true believers. Faith is “like precious faith” (2 Peter 1:1). That same Spirit and that same faith will show up in more than one church. Scripture would give common basis for necessary change.
2. King James Version Churches Would Unify For an Update
Update would so motivate KJV churches that they unify to do so.
3. King James Version Churches Would Provide the Good, Qualified Men from their Midst, Who Could Work Together to Accomplish an Update
If the KJV churches want an update, they would gather the men who could accomplish this task. Those men would stop whatever else they were doing because this was more important. With me it would take attention off evangelism, discipleship, the gospel, preaching, apostasy, sanctification, and the church itself. I’m sure that’s the same for other men. They don’t want that.
4. King James Version Churches Would Approve of the Update
After finishing the update, the churches would still need to show approval. They would want the updated translation. Maybe that would occur if the first three on this list occurred. We’re not close to those and so many other things are more important, I don’t see those happening. Most KJV churches would likely say that on the translation issue, the departure from the KJV is a bigger and more serious priority than the updating of the KJV.
5. The Updated King James Version Would Become the King James Version for King James Version Churches
KJV churches do not want or use the new translations completed by individual churches and men from the same text as the KJV. They find very little acceptance. Why? KJV churches don’t want them. They don’t like them.If KJV churches represent New Testament Christianity, and they don’t want an update of the KJV or a new translation of the underlying text, then New Testament Christianity doesn’t want that. If they are not New Testament Christianity, then that’s the bigger issue. I believe that among the KJV churches is New Testament Christianity. Only among those is belief in biblical doctrine of preservation of scripture.
Thanks for the article. Great read. Could not agree more.
Jim Camp
Thanks Pastor Camp.
Lots of good thoughts and points here! I think the strongest is that King James Bible defenders do not see the necessity of an update. I say this cautiously, since it is easily misunderstood — I believe there could be some changes introduced, of the nature of the kind of changes made 1611-1769. However, I do not believe they can be profitably agreed upon by the aggregate of King James Bible readers. Therefore, leave it alone. Let us all stay with the Bible on which we agree!
Further, in my opinion, the late 19th century Westcott-Hort debacle was so bad that supporters of the King James translation of the Bible fear all new movements rising under the guise of the updating of the Bible.
Thanks Brother Vaughn.
Good points in this post.
Some years ago I was attempting to disciple someone and he got an actual 1611 KJV. When he read it to me over the phone it sounded exactly the same as the 1769. Only when I looked at it was it clear that it was not the 1769.
Another factor is that our language has likely changed less between 1769 and today than it did earlier. We have not had our “s” look like a big “f” or something like that, or had to drop lots and lots of letters at the end of words.
People who are pushing an English revision should be really, really excited about the Defined KJV, but they typically aren’t, because the point is not to improve a few archaic words but to get people to adopt a modern version with worse doctrine.
Those who want to see this translation, our translation, be changed today are more interested in getting people into multiple version philosophy, than in actually seeing the Bible more accurate.
As an aside, there were actually some additional minor updates done after Blayney’s 1769 update. If you took a physical reprint of the 1769 edition by Blayney, which was printed at Clarendon Press in Oxford, you would find some slight spelling differences with today (most of these changes however are returning the text to what it said in 1611 in certain places), but mostly nothing to write home about.
In one example, there was a major typo in the 1769 edition, where 1 John 1:4 in the 1769 edition said “our joy” instead of “your joy”. However, this was reverted back to the correct wording of “your joy” in the 1817, and subsequent printings. The words “bars of iron” in Psalm 107:16 were also mistyped as “gates of iron”, in the original 1769 Oxford edition, which was reverted back to the original, “bars of iron” later.
In our King James Bibles – which are technically in the “1900 KJV” format – there are a few word spellings that originate from after 1769. But they are all widely considered as a slight improvement. I’ve reviewed them and not seen any issues with them. For instance, in Psalm 135:5, the second occurrence of the word “LORD” in this verse was correctly changed to “Lord” (Adonai) based on the underlying text, and this happened sometime between the years 1789 and 1805. This is an example of a change that happened after the 1769 Blayney edition. The same type of update is found to have occurred in 1 Kings 22:6, Nehemiah 1:11 and Psalm 44:23 subsequent to 1817 but before 1885.
The update of spelling from “LORD God” into “Lord GOD” in Exodus 23:17 had an early appearance in an ABS edition in 1854, before it was incorporated into the Cambridge text of the KJV by the edition of 1885. Similarly, “God” became spelled as “GOD” (יְהוָה) in 2 Samuel 12:22. The above are examples of updates that were new in the post-Blayney editions which we have today.
Said changes appeared to have stopped sometime around 1900, via the manner in which they appear within the volumes of the “Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.” And this is the reason why the Bible, as we have it today, is sometimes given the “1900” designation, as in “KJV 1900,” while the time that the last update happened might not have been exactly in 1900.
A few of Blayney’s changes to the main text in 1769 were ultimately rejected, and changed back, such as where the parentheses were completely removed from Ephesians 6:2, or where he moved the comma in Hebrews 10:12 (his version places a comma after “sins” instead of “for ever”). Our Bible is closer to the 1611 than the 1769 edition in these few places.
The most recent updates that could be considered new, and which are unique to the 1900 format, are very limited— The most noteworthy are: the apostrophe in 1 Samuel 2:13 is moved from “priest’s custom” to “priests’ custom” and the spelling of “house tops” is changed to a single word “housetops” in 2 Kings 19:26 and Isaiah 37:27. Finally, in Jeremiah 32:5 a question mark is added at the end of “prosper” instead of a period. This question mark, which I call “Zedekiah’s question mark” was apparently added first in the ABS edition of 1818, and then found its way into the 1900 KJV. It’s not found in the 1817, or any earlier edition of the KJV, or any other previous English Bible (except for Wycliffe’s.)
This article is especially pertinent today with a fresh round of pushing for an updated version. Why can’t modern text proponents just be happy with their ESV? Why do they stress and demand that us KJV users change our position? In ways, I feel it is like the political left. They aren’t happy unless you define marriage or a woman the way they do, and they don’t stop pushing until you are silent or have conceded and align with them.
Thanks for this article. I have shared it recently with some folks and found it reassuring that the pressures for a new update are unfounded.