The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV

Reprinted with permission from As I See It. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com

It has been widely publicized that the year 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the original publication of the “Authorized” or King James Version of the Bible in English. Historically, this translation has been the most widely used, at least since it overtook the previous champion, the Geneva Bible of 1560 (chiefly, at least initially, as a result of the legal suppression of the printing of the Geneva Bible by the British monarchy, in favor of the KJV).

Note, however, that the great majority of the editions and copies of the KJV printed and read in the past 400 years have been revisions rather than reprints of the original form of the KJV, with literally tens of thousands of revisions in spelling, punctuation and the use of italics, plus many hundreds of revisions in the precise wording of the text. Later editions also included the switch from “black letter” (“Gothic”) type to Roman, the widespread omission of the Apocrypha in the 18th and later centuries, along with the omission of an extended calendar and charts of biblical genealogies. Most unfortunately, later editions omit the extremely important and informative introductory essay, “The Translators to the Readers,” which was included in the original edition. In short, most KJV users, particularly those who claim to be “King James Version 1611 Only” in their beliefs, have never actually seen or used a real 1611 King James Version in the original form in which it was issued from the press in 1611.

Past facsimiles

In the past facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV have been produced from time to time. In 1833, “The Holy Bible, an exact reprint page for page of the Authorized Version published in the year 1611” was printed at the University Press, Oxford. It featured Roman type.1 In 1911, the University Press at Oxford issued two 1611 reprints—the first a facsimile (in black letter) in reduced size of the original 1611 KJV, the other an exact reprint page-for-page but in Roman type, both with introductory essays by A. W. Pollard.2 I have owned a copy of the 1911 Roman type reprint for almost 35 years.

This 1911 Roman type reprint was reissued in the 1970s (or early 1980s) by Thomas Nelson of Nashville, about the time they issued their New King James Version (and for a time Nelson sold the two volumes together in a slipcase). This reprint omitted the Pollard essay (and perhaps other features—I gave my copy to one of my sons a few years ago and cannot check it directly). Later—probably in the 1990s—Hendrickson Publishing also reprinted the 1911 Roman type edition (in precisely the form Nelson had). These two recent reprints are easy to find via the Internet.

Besides these, over the years various publishers have produced several full-sized facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV. My brother has a copy of one made in the 1950s, for which he paid $350, used, a decade ago. Such full-sized facsimiles are rarely seen and are generally rather pricey (in the hundreds or even many hundreds of dollars).

An affordable new facsimile

Now, another edition, widely available and quite inexpensive, has appeared. This one is made by Zondervan and sold at Wal-Mart (and perhaps other retail outlets). The ISBN is 978-0-310-44029-1. It is a facsimile—an exact reproduction in the original black letter script—of the 1611 edition, but in a reduced size, and with one feature of the original omitted—the thirteen books of the Apocrypha (as noted on p. viii of the Introduction to this new edition). That the 1611 KJV originally did have the Apocrypha can be visually confirmed in this edition on the page containing Malachi 4, where the “catch-word” at the bottom of the page is “APO-” which points to “APOCRYPHA” which is at the top of the next page in the original (and in my 1911 reprint), after which originally followed the complete text of those non-canonical books. [amazon 0310440297 thumbnail]

The printed retail price of this Zondervan 2011 facsimile reprint is $7.99, though I have bought several copies at Wal-Mart in Kansas for $4.97. I have heard it priced about a dollar higher elsewhere (and I suspect they hope to make a profit on the publication of the KJV at that price). I would strongly urge every preacher, every Christian reader and every church and Christian college library to get a copy at once. If you have any KJVO friends, buy and give them a copy. There is no quicker cure for KJVOism that the direct and extended study of the 1611 edition, introductory material and all.

One finds in the actual, original, genuine 1611 KJV (no doubt “preserved in the form God wants us to have”) an introductory essay that states the translators’ perspective on their own and other translations (they, at least, were decidedly not “KJV-only”). If I could do just one thing to combat KJVOism, I would have every KJVO believer carefully read those eleven, highly informative pages. The original translators’ English Bible text has literally thousands of variant marginal renderings (showing that they did not believe their translation as found in the text was infallibly correct), plus variant manuscript readings, showing that they did not believe that the manuscript reading given in their text was necessarily always right. One will also find numerous places where words are “omitted,” “added” or altered as compared with all modern editions of the KJV, to say nothing of a considerable number of printer’s errors (are these also part of the “perfect preservation” we hear so much about?). And one can discover on the title page of the NT those revealing words: “cum privilegio” (Latin: “with privilege”) which demonstrate the fact that this translation was copyrighted from the day it was first published (contrary to the misrepresentation on this point that is often part of KJVO teaching).

I am quite sure that the quickest “cure” for KJVOism is the close and careful study of the actual original KJV itself. I would challenge—even dare—everyone of KJVO persuasion to get this facsimile of the original KJV and study it cover to cover and margin to margin, spending a year and more in the process, and try to prove me wrong.

(Photos of a copy of the Zondervan 400th anniversary facsimie 1611. Click to enlarge.)

dedication page

apo

Notes

1 See A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525-1961. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1968; p. 377.

2 Ibid., p. 458.

Douglas K. Kutilek Bio

Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes KJVOism. He has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications.

Discussion

How’d we get to McDonalds? Oh yeah… KJVO & American arrogance.

FWIW, Jeff, tell your German friends that McD’s sells so much stuff now you can actually eat “healthy” there now if you want to. I was visiting relatives in Illinois a couple weeks ago. We were out and about a good bit and grabbing fast food. It was so hot all I wanted to eat was “fruit smoothies” - with real fruit and yogurt, no less. Had a lot of them. I’m pretty sure they did me little more good than the Big Mac, but Mrs. Obama would have been proud.

Anyway, Roland, I’ve heard the counterargument before that the KJVO translators just didn’t happen to be clued in on how perfect their work was and the fact that it represented the preserved word of God in English.

I’m not too worried about it. Their own words deflate that argument at a gut level. It is possible to see the translators’ view of things and still hold to a “perfect KJV” view of some kind, but once you know how they viewed it, the sails are much lacking in wind.

What we actually have is gracious providential use of the KJV by God in mighty ways for generations. We should rejoice in that. I don’t think we’re improving the scenario by trying to make something “more” out of it.

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.

[RPittman] Evidently, you’re assuming that the KJV translators were conscious of their role in preservation. This point doesn’t carry much weight if we view preservation as God working through the actions of men to preserve His word, which does not require the men’s intended purpose or their awareness of their role. You implied argument may be cogent for you in your paradigm but others have reason to question and discount it. Sorry, but it simply doesn’t clinch your case.
I’ve present no “case” or any argument whatsoever. I’ve only affirmed thoughts in the article by my own practices.

I am wholly against the KJVO movement, having been exposed to it early in my adult life, and working through it over several years in my own mind. When I first had the opportunity to preach in a small southern (small “s”) Baptist church and referred to a Greek definition from the Strong’s, I was gently chided that I was undermining the authority of the KJV

I believe that the KJVO movement does precisely what it attempts to prevent by adding to the Word of God.

The Letter to the Translators simply counters a large number of arguments posited by KJVO proponents and arguments that I have been exposed to, all of which are profoundly ignorant if compared to the Letter. From memory only, the Letter to the Translators preemptively argues against many objections, a few of which are: (1) the need for a “new” translation when other good translations exist; (2) the desire to translate into understandable language so that even the vulgar man behind the plow can understand it; (3) the value of previously translated works (answering the question, “Is what we have had not the Word of God then?”), etc. The Letter to the Translators is profoundly opposed to the KJVO movement on many fronts.

The original with the Apocrypha and the marginal variants is a huge counter to many arguments of KJVO-ism today. The fact that proponents do not use the 1611 (which is largely unreadable by the average person today without much difficulty) is another brazen example of the shallowness of many KJVO people.

I am an ardent proponent of accurate, literal translations, of which there are few. To the best of pastors’ ability, I believe they are required to study from the original languages before coming to conclusions. Translations are only best efforts of the translators, but they cannot replace original language study, which is essential to proper interpretation.

I am not sure what you are talking about in the KJV translators’ role in preservation. No idea.

For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

[RPittman] My point was simply that the argument from the translators’ preface does not necessarily refute a KJVO position. What most KJV opponents fail to realize is that the KJVO is not a monolithic movement. KJVO describes people of differing views of what KJVO means and for differing reasons. Thus, for arguments against a KJVO position to be effective, one must accurately state the KJVO position and then refute it. For many in the KJVO camp, the issue is more about preservation and a received text rather than what you perceive as the standard KJVO position. Quite frankly, none of your arguments move me. It’s more of the same old pabulum. I think too many KJVO opponents are listening to one another for their take on what KJVO is.
I’ve made no attempt to argue. I have simply stated, briefly, a few of my own views which relate directly to the posting. The nature of this posting does not appear to attempt to be the end all for the KJVO controversy.

I do believe that the Letter to the Translators does counter and refute many of the KJVO arguments (that I have heard first hand), as does an examination the original 1611 itself. It may not address views of the KJVO believers in their entirety. It most certainly does address a large number.

I also consider the arguments of the Received Text (or the Majority Text) at a different level than the preservation arguments of the KJV, and have not commented on this at all, as it is outside the scope of the brief posting about a particular piece of evidence regarding the KJVO discussion.

I understand that men can work under the direction without being aware of it. I also understand that men can overstate what the Word does say, and create new “fundamentals” which did not historically exist.

I am further aware that categorizing comments as “the same old pabulum” does not consist of evidence or argument itself, and really is a comment that serves no beneficial purpose in this short discussion.

I have not listened to any KJVO opponents, nor have I read their books. I have come up through the ranks of them as a young adult and drawn my own conclusions from my own study and observations, in part of which was my own discovery of the Letter to the Translators.

I do believe that the KJVO arguments at all levels have been used to create needless division in the body of Christ, and they have separated well-intended people (and thus weakened the cause of Christ), and they have distracted the Church from making of disciples to the arguing over something that simply is not clearly stated Scripture.

Feel free not to be moved. I make no effort to do so.

For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

[RPittman] Furthermore, my observation was limited to the fact that the translators’ preface does not necessarily refute KJVO arguments if the arguments are about divine preservation and the continuity of a received text. Did the translators have to be consciously aware of divine preserving influence if preservation is true? For sake of argument, were the inspired writers of Scriptural necessarily aware of divine inspiration at the moment of their writing? How do you know? Did they all say, “We are writing divinely inspired Scripture,” or did we reason that? Either way, you must admit that the translators preface carries no more weight than any other men’s opinions, modern or ancient. It does not carry the force of Scripture. Furthermore, the translators said exactly what we would expect them to say given their time and place in history.
This would equally apply to the words and views of those holding the KJVO only positions. The Word never says that the KJV is/will be the word of God for the English speaking people, either implied or explicitly stated. That, in my opinion, results in adding to the Word of God that they attempt to defend.

For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

How about in the same sense that God described His creation as ‘good’? Was it perfect? It was exactly what He wanted it to be, wasn’t it? Just a thought.

So Roland, do you live here in Europe?

Jeff Brown

I think I would have to agree with the president’s wife on getting American youth in shape. Still, all those changes at McDonalds! To think that they aren’t running full-throttle carb-salt-fat menu really makes you sad. If they are losing their identity, maybe America really is going downhill.

Jeff Brown

[RPittman] LOL :-)
Argument: I’ve written nothing to document, persuade, or move. If showing affirmation to the article is presenting an argument in your view, enjoy.

Vacuum: The arguments against the KJVO movement are not created in a vacuum, but by those that study the Word (both what it says and what it does NOT say). I would suggest that it is possible to anyone to come to similar conclusions presented in this article by anyone exposed to some of the KJVO arguments by reading the Letter to the Translators and/or viewing the original 1611 without input. I did (having attended a KJVO church for 2 years). Truth is not a vacuum.

Blasting: If calling something “old shoe” is a form of argument, you’ve won - I’m not sure how to respond. I have not blasted or ridiculed anyone. I have shared my experiences and observations and conclusions. Don’t take it personal. Personally, I do consider the KJVO a divisive heresy, which is extreme by its very nature, that has caused more harm than those who seek to correct it (by my own experiences).

Pabulum: You have my biography detailing my life’s experiences AND my vocabulary list? LOL ;)

The field is all yours, my friend. I’m afraid there is more heat than light here. I do agree with the premise of the posting, and have agreed with its ideas long ago, and have regularly taught such as part of my 25 years of pastoring to help believers avoid the ditches of KJVOism. (No LOL here…)

For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

[RPittman] I don’t think this attitude and position is representative of most KJVOs. Most will say something like this: “The KJV is God’s Word for the English-speaking people.”
We hear what’s said, but we’re not so naive as to not know the implications.

:)

Let’s see, the Roland Pittman KJVO check list…

Calling your opponents’ arguments pabulum, fiddle faddle, hogwash, humdrum, balderdash, hokum, poppycock, twaddle, horsefeathers, etc…CHECK!

Objecting to an opponent’s argument but not staying what, specifically, you believe about the matter…CHECK!

Next up…stating that your opponents’ arguments are all based on rationalism!

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[RPittman] Let’s see, the Roland Pittman KJVO check list…

Calling your opponents’ arguments pabulum, fiddle faddle, hogwash, humdrum, balderdash, hokum, poppycock, twaddle, horsefeathers, etc…CHECK!

Objecting to an opponent’s argument but not staying what, specifically, you believe about the matter…CHECK!

Next up…stating that your opponents’ arguments are all based on rationalism!
While I do get some sharpening from Roland’s arguments on occasion, I had to laugh at this. You nailed it!

Dave Barnhart

[RPittman] Furthermore, my observation was limited to the fact that the translators’ preface does not necessarily refute KJVO arguments if the arguments are about divine preservation and the continuity of a received text.
Yes, a “KJVO argument” that doesn’t claim a word perfect translation or a word perfect text would not find any difficulties with the translators’ stated views. I think I pretty much said that in my first post in the thread.

But most variants of KJVO claim one or the other or both. It’s pretty rare to find a preservation or text argument that does not strongly imply that the TR used for KJV is a word-perfect preserved edition of the Greek NT… and that the KJV is the word-perfect preserved English version.

But I have met some who use the KJV exclusively and believe using other versions is “wrong,” even though they acknowledge that the KJV has a translation error here and there and that the TR is incorrect here and there. For them, the TR is the right text “type” and the KJV is an especially blessed rendering of it into English. “KJVO” is probably not the best term for this attitude given how it differs from views that have come to characterize—apparently—the majority of KJVO folks.

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.

[RPittman]
[Jeff Brown] So Roland, do you live here in Europe?
No.
Roland

Please excuse my delayed response. I only asked because I did not want to negate your evaluation on the basis of your own experience if you lived here. I have experienced several preachers teaching exactly what I have mentioned here in Europe (i.e. the KJV is superior to any translation in your other language). I have also experienced Germans believing it.

Jeff Brown

[RP] What is a translation error? Aaron, would you please define it for me? Is it not the exact word, although it may be synonymous?…
They take many forms. We don’t have to define it to know that it exists. Human beings make mistakes.
[RP] Also, what is “a word perfect text?” Are you saying there is a one-to-one word correspondence to the Greek NT?
That would be a good question for those who claim they have such a text. I can’t speak for them.

But to clarify, “text” refers to the Greek itself, not any translation of it. “Text” is what you begin with; “translation” is what you end with. But I don’t think any of those who hold to “word perfect translation” define that in terms of the number of words used in the receptor language. But you’d have to ask them I guess.

Most KJVO advocates today claim two things:
  • word perfect Hebrew and Greek texts
  • a word perfect translation of those texts
[RP]… Could it be that the English language has been so strongly pressed into the mold of Biblical language from the KJV that the context of the words give the words semantic content that comprise “a word perfect text?”
I don’t know what this has to do with anything. In any case, it’s circular. The English language could not possibly have been in this KJV-influenced condition when the KJV was created. (I’m assuming here that by “text” you mean “translation”)
[RP] My final point is that one doesn’t necessarily need to claim “a word perfect text,” in the way it is commonly understood, to be KJVO and believe the KJV to be the inspired Word of God preserved for modern speakers of English.
Yes. I’ve already stated that a couple of times. But why anybody who believes the KJV is imperfect would want to claim to be “KJVO” is a bit of a head-scratcher for me. A case for exclusive use of KJV that makes no claim to KJV perfection is a very different view from what is now the majority KJVO perspective.

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.

One more thing…

It isn’t really possible to claim that KJV is “the” inspired word (as in “the one” inspired word in English) and simultaneously deny that it is “a word perfect translation.”

Well, I should say, it’s possible to claim that, but it’s not possible to make any sense claiming it.

If it is not word perfect, then some other English translation might be made that is a bit better—or one might already exist that is a bit better. So a denial of “word perfect” status effectively claims the possibility of improvement and legitimizes the effort to make something better.

Can’t really reject ‘word perfect’ and also reject alternative translation work.

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.