Let the Minutiae Speak
The place of genealogies, numbers, and parallel passages in the King James only debate
“Things that are different are not the same.” So says the title of Mickey Carter’s book advocating the exclusive use of the King James Bible. This sentiment is a fair summary of the mindset of most King James only (KJO) advocates. The differences between Bible versions demand a judgment. Which Bible is right?
Troubled by differing Bible versions, many sincere Christians seek for answers. One side affirms that no doctrine is affected by the relatively minor differences between Bible versions. The message is the same, but finer points and particular details may be slightly different. A typical KJO position jumps in and says this can’t be right. Verbal inspiration is useless without the preservation of those very words of God. In fact, we need to know each and every word, in order to live (Matt. 4:4). All differences, even word order and spelling differences, matter (Matt. 5:18). Differing versions cannot both claim to be translations of the perfect, inspired Word of God.
On the face of it, the KJO argument makes sense. When we’re speaking about the Bible, shouldn’t every little difference matter? Some respond with manuscript evidence that calls into question the choice of the King James Bible as a perfect standard. Others have shown that the various proof texts for word perfect preservation don’t actually promise a single, identifiable, word-perfect copy of the Bible. And prior to 1611, where was such a copy to be found, anyway?
In this paper, I want to take us down a road less traveled. Rather than looking for a proof text which directly deals with this controversy, I aim to scour the King James Bible itself for examples of the very differences which are said to matter so much. The minor points of Scripture itself, the minutia, should be allowed to speak to this issue. Genealogies, lists, numbers, and parallel passages all have an important bearing on how we should think about “things that are different.”
Genealogies
Few passages of Scripture are more consistently skimmed or avoided than genealogies. We get lost in hard-to-pronounce names and find the contents quite boring. We do assume that they were accurately recorded and are without error. Upon closer inspection however, the genealogies sometimes reveal an alarming amount of variation.
1 Chronicles chapter 1 compiles a variety of genealogies from different parts of Genesis. In the first 37 verses, we find 135 names. Twenty of them are spelled differently. Some people are omitted (like the sons of Dedan vs. 32-33 - Gen. 25:2-4), and others are redefined. Aram’s sons become Shem’s sons (vs. 17 - Gen. 25:22-23), and a concubine turns into a son (Timna, vs. 36 - Gen. 36:10-12). The most important difference is revealed by cross-referencing Luke 3:36 and noticing its inclusion of an additional name (Cainan) not recorded in Genesis or 1 Chronicles (although it is found in the Greek OT translation, v. 24 - Gen. 11:11-13).
Other genealogies show similar differences. Ezra 7:1-5 compared to 1 Chron. 6:1-15 reveals a gap of 5 or 6 generations. Even Jesus’ two genealogies differ significantly. Matt. 1 traces the line of David’s son Solomon, whereas Luke 3 uses David’s son Nathan. Luke’s list contains an additional 14 generations between David and Jesus.
Lists
Other lists of names contain similar problems to the genealogies. Given the stress we hear about word-perfect preservation, wouldn’t it be natural to expect that two lists of David’s mighty men would be identical? Instead, when one compares the lists in 2 Sam. 23 and 1 Chron. 11, several strange variations are found. The chief of the captains, the number one guy isn’t given a consistent name, and he doesn’t kill the same number of people with his spear. Is he “the Tachmonite” named as “Adino the Eznite” (he is said to have killed 800 at one time) or “Jashobeam, an Hachmonite” (who killed 300)? Shammah defends a field of lentils in Samuel, and another guy Eleazar defends a field of barley in Chronicles (Shammah doesn’t appear in that list). Seven guys in Samuel don’t have a counterpart in Chronicles. Six guys in Chronicles don’t have an equal in Samuel. And the men who are on both lists rarely have the same name and title (or lineage). To top it off, after Uriah the Hittite’s important spot at the bottom of Samuel’s list, the Chronicles list goes on to add another 16 heroes.
An even more perplexing list comes from Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. A count is given of all the people from various families who returned to Jerusalem. What’s striking here is how different the numbers are.
Family Group | Ezra 2 | Nehemiah 7 |
Children of Arah | 652 | 775 |
Children of Pahathmoab, Jeshua & Joab | 2818 | 2812 |
Children of Zattu | 845 | 945 |
Children of Binnui | 648 | 642 |
Children of Bebai | 628 | 623 |
Children of Azgad | 2322 | 1222 |
Children of Adonikam | 667 | 666 |
Children of Bigvai | 2067 | 2056 |
Children of Adin | 655 | 454 |
Children of Hashum | 228 | 223 |
Children of Bezai | 324 | 323 |
Men of Bethel & Ai | 123 | 223 |
Children of Lod, Hadid & Ono | 721 | 725 |
Children of Senaah | 3930 | 3630 |
The singers: (of Asaph) | 148 | 128 |
Porters | 138 | 139 |
Children of Delaiah, Tobiah & Nekoda | 642 | 652 |
Singing men and women | 245 | 200 |
Numbers
The list above moved us into the realm of numerical difficulties. Anyone familiar with the accounts of the Israelite kings may have an inkling of what’s ahead.
My first encounter with numerical differences came in high school. I noticed the differing census figures given for David’s numbering of the people in 2 Sam. 24 and 1 Chron. 21. One account gives 800,000 soldiers for Israel and 500,000 for Judah, whereas the other account gives 1,100,000 for Israel and 470,000 for Judah. I studied the passage more closely and found further discrepancies. David is given a choice of 7 years of famine in Samuel, but 3 in Chronicles. He pays 50 shekels for the threshing floor of Araunah in one account and 600 shekels to Ornan in the other. And to top it all off, God moves David to number the people in one text, while Satan provokes David to sin in the other. My teacher (who was a fan of Peter Ruckman), didn’t have a good answer. He later came up with a confusing explanation involving quite a bit of biblical numerology if I remember right.
The following table shows some additional numerical discrepancies. Some of this discussion is adapted from a paper entitled “Large Numbers in the Old Testament” (Tyndale Bulletin, 1967) by J.W. Wenham.
Figure 1 | Figure 2 | Variation Type |
40,000 ” stalls of horses for his chariots ” (1 Kings 4:26) | 4,000 “stalls for horses and chariots ” (2 Chron. 9:25) | Zero dropped out (symbols likely used similar to zeroes) |
700 horsemen (2 Sam. 8:4) | 7,000 horsemen (1 Chron. 18:4) | Zero dropped out |
Jehoichin begins reign at age 18 (2 Kings 24:8) | Jehoichin begins reign at age 8 (2 Chron.36:9) | Digit dropped out |
“40,000 horsemen” | “40,000 footmen” | Noun attached to the number was changed |
2,000 baths – size of the brass sea (I Kings 7:26) | 3,000 baths – size of the brass sea (2 Chron. 4:5) | Number changed by one unit (a ten, hundred or thousand) |
Pillars 18 cubits high | Pillars 35 cubits high | No correlation between the numbers |
23,000 killed (Numb. 25:9) | 24,000 killed (1 Cor. 10:8) | Different source used (Greek or some other translation??) |
70 people went to Egypt (Gen. 46:27) | 75 people went to Egypt (Acts 7:14) | Various explanations provided |
Sum of the number of vessels listed = 2499 | The stated total of vessels | Sum of individual items in a list don’t equal the said total |
Parallel passages
Everyone is somewhat familiar with the synoptic problem. The words of Jesus and the sequence of His travels are presented differently in each of the four Gospels. Sometimes different sayings can be harmonized (a supposed original statement can account for each of the different quotations given by the Gospel authors). Other times such a solution doesn’t seem to work. Even when we come up with a plausible explanation for differing words in a quotation, we have no way of knowing the true chronology. For example, in which order did Jesus’ three temptations come? Matthew’s or Luke’s?
This problem is not unique to the New Testament Gospels, however. There are actually two sets of “the 10 commandments” (see Ex. 20 and Deut. 5) with considerable differences.
Perhaps the most extensive OT parallel passage is the account of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem as found in 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 36-38. These two passages contain 12 speeches, mostly of Rabshekah, Hezekiah and Isaiah. The speeches cover just 51 verses (by Isaiah’s record), yet we find considerable discrepancies. Remember, the following differences are from recorded speeches, not the author’s description of the narrative.
The speeches are almost identical most of the time, but there is considerable variation. The Isaiah account omits 85 words, adds 20 words, rearranges the order 8 times, and replaces a word with a similar word 55 times. This does not count the ending of the final speech (Isaiah 38:7-8), which is a complete recasting of 2 Kings 20:8-11 (the narrative is condensed and given as a quotation).
Before we finish this look at parallel passages in the Bible, we will need to address the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. According to John Battle of Western Reformed Seminary, there are conservatively 295 explicit references to the Old Testament. These quotations occupy 352 verses, equal in size to the book of Romans. Ninety-four verses from the Pentateuch, 99 from the prophets and 85 from the writings are quoted by the New Testament. (See chapter 5 of Battle’s syllabus for his course on Biblical Interpretation.)
The following chart is but the tip of the iceberg. Examining the passages listed will reveal numerous slight differences between the KJB OT and NT. Many times the differences stem from the NT agreeing more closely with the Greek OT translation. I recommend looking at R. Grant Jones’ extensive and accessible study of all the NT quotations of the OT (insert link: http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm). He demonstrates conclusively that the Greek OT translation is predominantly followed by the NT authors.
NT passage
OT passage
Observations
Matt. 27:9-10
Zech. 11:12-13 (with some words from Jer. 19:1-13)
This text is said to be from Jeremy the prophet but more closely aligns with Zechariah
Matt. 21:16
Ps. 8:2
Agrees with Greek OT
Heb. 10:5-7
Ps. 40:6-8
Agrees with Greek OT
John 19:37
Zech. 12:10
Agrees with Hebrew
Mk. 12:29-30
Dt. 6:4-5
Greek = mind, soul, strength
Hebrew = heart, soul, might
NT = heart, soul, mind, strength
Rom. 12:19
Dt. 32:35
Differs from both Greek + Hebrew
Conclusion
We have only begun to uncover the minor differences in numbers, names and parallel accounts in the Bible. Enough variations have been exposed however, to force us all to grapple with this problem. Just how are we to explain such differences?
The KJO adherents have to defend each and every difference as best they can. The opposing point of view however, can allow for some copyist errors in the manuscripts. They are also at liberty to look for solutions in other ancient manuscripts or versions (Greek, Latin, etc.). Ultimately, our faith in the clear statements of God’s Word will keep us from becoming skeptics. The Bible clearly affirms its own inspiration, perfection and inerrancy. Faith leads us to believe the original copies of Scripture were perfect. We may not know the answer, but an answer does exist.
We can learn something else from this study, too. The Bible itself does not measure up to the word perfect standards of King James-onlyism. If absolute certainty of the specific wording of a text is required to have an authoritative Bible, the King James Bible itself doesn’t measure up.
Matthew Poole’s commentary from 1685 contains a similar observation: “This custom of the New Testament… to quote texts out of the Old Testament, very often according to that Septuagint (Greek) translation… may learn us not to be too curious as to minute things in Scripture, for had it been a thing of moment, the Holy Spirit of God had certainly never suffered [it]” (e-sword module version of Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole).
May we all learn not to “be too curious as to minute things in Scripture.” God has seen fit to inspire “things that are different.” In His wisdom, these differences may prove to increase our faith. I trust they will teach us to be more charitable of Christians who make use of varying Bible versions.
Bob has a BA in Pastoral Theology with a Greek emphasis and a MA in Bible from Fairhaven Baptist College and Seminary in Chesterton, IN. He currently works in technical sales support for Boston Scientific, and actively serves at Beacon of Hope Church, St. Paul. Since 2005, he has been blogging theology at www.fundamentallyreformed.com. He founded KJVOnlyDebate.com and can be found as well at Re-Fundamentals.org and CrossFocusedReviews.com.
- 72 views
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I find your data very interesting. They are much the same data that exists on the websites devoted to disproving the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Since I am firmly in the camp of inspiration and inerrancy, that track is of no consequence in this discussion.
On another level, though, I fail to see how this is a big deal for the KJO inspirationalists. Since the whole debate for them is fundamentally non-evidentiary, there is no reason for them to feel compelled to answer anything that someone else might find incongruous in the KJV. It is inspired and inerrant, even in its self-inconsistencies. Now, this brings up the very real aspect of the KJO position that begins to look like existentialism. By them, we do not need these questions asked or answered. “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.” As long as the KJV is the standard, then there is no reason to question these things.
As one who belives that the KJO position is the same as the old Romanist position on the Vulgate, and therefore indefensible biblically, I think your data, and other arguments, merely reinforce my position. However, I doubt that it will carry much weight with those who hold the KJO position.
Bob Fuller Always Forward
That may be the case for many, but I trust not for all. I speak as a former KJV Onlyist myself (of the TR Only variety). I think they will default to something like you describe initially, but if they consider the evidence here perhaps they will reevaluate their position.
I also think the mentality of stressing over minor differences like this is very similar to the skeptics approach to Scripture. We can follow Matthew Poole’s advice and trust that something else is going on with the small differences between parallel accounts. Our faith can lead us to uphold inerrancy and authority even while admitting the differences do exist and sometimes are puzzling. Incidentally, the paper I reference by Wenham has some intriguing solutions to some of the big number problems in the OT. A big part of our problem is not understanding exactly how all the words used for numbers really worked in ancient Hebrew.
Thanks for interacting here.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I fail to see how this is a big deal for the KJO inspirationalistsI don’t think “the minutiae” is a KJV issue alone.
We (wife & I) are reading in the Pentateuch now (Numbers specifically). It is easier to skip the name lists. We’ve been reading them aloud. (i’m sure we mispronounce 80% of the names!)
The apparent discrepancies (I prefer to call them unresolved differences) are there no matter what version one is reading (for us right now it is the ESV)
–—
To Bob: I appreciated the article and thank you for submitting it!
For anyone interested in reading Wenham’s paper, here is the link:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1967_18_02_Wenham_La…] http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1967_18_02_Wenham_La…
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Bob Fuller has a point a couple of posts up and I think we’ll hear from RPittman along those lines probably. But ultimately, a view that says the Book speaks meaningfully to us here in reality as we know it, cannot simultaneously hold that what the Book actually says that appears to be contradictory is of no consequence. Can’t have it both ways. Either what is says matters or what it says doesn’t matter.
It does matter. Therefore it all matters.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I work with a ministry that comes alongside local churches and helps them develop ministries for teens and children. As such I work with a large variety of churches. I have a few in my area that I work with that are KJO. Some out of preference (which makes perfect sense to me… we all have preferences) and some hold to the more traditional view that is being referenced here.
Being fairly new in the ministry, I have been working through how to work with KJO churches. Should I avoid them? Should I do my best not to offend them and continue ministering to them? Should I try to help them move beyond the KJO issue?
I don’t want to sacrifice any ministry that I might have in those churches because I’m unwilling to give up my freedoms (Paul is a great example of this), but I also don’t want to turn a blind eye to something that I believe is not biblical.
As a former KJO guy, what are your thoughts on this? I’d also love to hear from some others about this.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Brandon] Being fairly new in the ministry, I have been working through how to work with KJO churches. Should I avoid them? Should I do my best not to offend them and continue ministering to them? Should I try to help them move beyond the KJO issue?Brandon,
I don’t want to sacrifice any ministry that I might have in those churches because I’m unwilling to give up my freedoms (Paul is a great example of this), but I also don’t want to turn a blind eye to something that I believe is not biblical.
As a former KJO guy, what are your thoughts on this? I’d also love to hear from some others about this.
I think you have the right spirit in this. You can partner with people who differ with you for a greater cause. That being said, some KJO churches will make it an issue, as some are more ardently KJO than others. As for trying to woo them out of KJV onlyism, that’s getting into some tricky waters. I would think through your position and relation to the churches. If they’re having you come in for a week, you probably best leave that alone. If you have opportunity to talk theology and what have you with the pastor, go for it. But respect the autonomy of the local church.
There’s no one-size-fits-all approach that is going to work for you. Dealing with people in KJV Onlyism takes time and patience, and they have to trust that you’re not out to attack them. Over the years, I’ve found that web-based media present the best way to reach people on this issue. People can study and research privately in their homes without fear of breaking the party line or crossing the pastor the wrong way (if they’re in an overly authoritarian church), or without fear of what their friends or family might think. This is why I’ve maintained my blog so long, and started a http://kjvonlydebate.com] group KJV Only blog . I rarely see those questioning or working through the issue interacting in the comments. But they are reading and lurking. I find out about them from emails or private messages and know I’m having some small impact.
Directing people to a place to search out the issue can be helpful. Or recommending a small book or booklet on the issue may help too.
Hopefully some of this makes sense and is helpful. Thanks for your questions and sharing your thoughts about the post.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Also thanks for your comments and perspective.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
My organization has a clear doctrinal statement that we ask each pastor we work with to read. It would not make much sense for people with differing views on gospel doctrines or ministry philosophy to work together.
I’m curious about your reference to a thread about KJOism as heresy. I have not seen it. Could you point me there?
http://sharperiron.org/article/ethos-statement-fundamentalism-evangelic…
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] I agree, Jim, “unresolved differences”. Glad you appreciated the article.In reading this article and the one referenced at tyndalehouse.com I have the strong urge to put my fingers in my ears and hum loudly. I wish that such textual problems did not exist but they do point out the need for conservative scholarship and lower textual criticism to find out what really was written in the first place. Thankfully, these numbers do not affect the doctrine of the O.T.
For anyone interested in reading Wenham’s paper, here is the link:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1967_18_02_Wenham_La…] http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1967_18_02_Wenham_La…
I find this statement in Wenham’s paper very revealing:
[Wenham] This same phenomenon may also explain the difficulties in David’s census. 2 Samuel 24:9 tells us that in Israel there were 800,000 that drew sword and in Judah there were 500,000 men; 1 Chronicles 21:5 gives the figures as 1,000,000 and 470,000. These figures are too big for the total population of military age, let alone for those who actually carried swords. R. de Vaux says rightly: ‘The lower total, in 2 Samuel, is still far too high: 1,300,000 men of military age would imply at least five million inhabitants, which, for Palestine, would mean nearly twice as many people to the square mile as in the most thickly populated countries of modern Europe.’When I think of Israel in Palestine I think of the wide-open spaces that we have in the U.S. However, this is not so - the whole area of Palestine (roughly 270 miles x 100 miles) could fit inside of many of the smaller states in the U.S.
While the Masorites did a great service by preserving the O.T. Scriptures, by eliminating any variants they made the work of the (lower) textual critic so much more difficult than that of the N.T. critic who has thousands of slightly different manuscripts with which to work.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Discussion