History and Text Comparison Articles

Quote

Do we use a 1769 KJV?

by Rick Norris

It is often claimed that our present KJV editions are the 1769 edition. David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING, p. 17). David Cloud wrote that "an update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling" (FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 589). Douglas Stauffer asserted that "the 1769 edition merely continued the process of spelling standardization begun in the 1762 edition" (ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE, p. 348). Robert Sargent claimed that "the spelling was standardized to its modern form in the 1762 and 1769 editions" (ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 229). KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD YOU TRUST, p. 42). KJV-only author Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (CAN I TRUST MY BIBLE, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (COMMON MAN'S DEFENSE OF KJV-ONLYISM, p. 43). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (TO ALL GENERATIONS, p. 71). Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (SEVENTY-FIVE PROBLEMS, p. 104). Streeter asserted that God used "those who corrected printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769" (p. 104).

KJV-only author Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (THE BOOK NO ONE CAN READ, p. 56). Jim Ellis asked: "How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?" (ONLY TWO BIBLES, p. 17). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (FINAL AUTHORITY, p. 311). Charles Perkins wrote: "Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible" (FLAMING TORCH, April-June, 1998, p. 7). Bill Bradley asked: "Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?" (Mickey Carter, ELEPHANT, p. 142). Are the above claims and statements by KJV-only authors applied to the alterations in various KJV editions?

Even some KJV-only advocates acknowledge that the present-day Oxford edition is different from the Cambridge edition, and these two editions are usually considered different editions because of only 3 to 5 main differences (2 Chron. 33:19; Jer. 34:16; Nahum 3:16; Josh. 19:2, Psalm 148: Cool

. Some have even argued that the Cambridge edition is more accurate simply based on its rendering at the first three of the five verses just listed. If there were just five differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and today's Oxford edition, should they be considered different editions just as the Oxford edition and Cambridge edition are considered different editions?

Anyone who carefully examines KJV editions printed after 1769 and even in the early 1800's will find that the KJV-only statements in the first paragraph are inaccurate. There were actually several hundred changes in the text that were introduced in the 1769 edition that remain in present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford KJV still included the Apocrypha and the marginal notes from the 1611 edition along with some additional notes added in later editions. In addition, the 1769 edition had some changes in the text or some other renderings that later editors or printers changed or did not follow. While present KJV editions may be based on the 1769 Oxford edition, they are not 100% identical in text to that edition.

Consider a KJV edition that was printed at the Clarendon Press by William Jackson and William Dawson in 1795. While it is possible that the 1795 Oxford edition is not every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition, the 1795 Oxford is more likely to be in agreement with the 1769 than is the present Oxford edition printed in the Scofield Reference Bible. An examination of this 1795 Oxford KJV edition shows that it has several renderings that came from the 1769 Oxford edition that are not found in the present Oxford edition. This 1795 Oxford edition, a 1799 Oxford edition, a 1804 Oxford edition, and a 1810 Oxford edition still have a character shaped like "f" for long "s" in many words. Here are some examples of this use of the long "s" in the 1795 Oxford edition of the KJV: "fin" (Ps. 32:5), "fee" (Ps. 34:12), "chafe" (Ps. 35:5), "wife" (Ps. 36:3), "flay" (Ps. 37:14), "feed" (Ps. 37:26), "fore" (Ps. 38:2), "foul" (Ps. 42:1), and "fake" (Ps. 44:26). Thus, the evidence will show that all updating of the KJV's text was not finished by 1769. This evidence is also supported by a KJV edition printed by John Archdeacon at Cambridge in 1790. Some of the changes in Oxford editions were made around 1830, and several may have been made after 1840 while at least five or more changes may not have been made until after 1880.

Consider the examples listed below. In some cases, access was no longer available for the Oxford edition, especially the 1782 and 1799 editions, after other differences were found. In some cases, one of the old Oxford editions was missing some pages. In other cases, some of the Oxford editions may have followed the rendering of a KJV edition earlier than 1769 or may have changed the rendering in the 1769. In these examples the character shaped like a "f" for a long "s" in some of the old editions was updated...