Textual Criticism

Quite a few misconceptions and errors in this post.
Let’s interact…nicely :saint:

Let’s face the facts, Textual criticism is a foundation for every translation.
Jerome encountered textual difficulties as he translated the Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin.
Handwritten manuscripts differs from another.
There are no manuscripts that are alike.
A translator first job is to establish the text, determine to the best of their skills what the text was.

The translators of the Authorized Version executed the same tasks.
Modern versions also do this, albeit with a vastly enlarged arsenal of tools and texts.

I’ve seen pages from Siniaticus, it’s a work of art in itself.
Don’t let their histories dictate their worth for you.
I’ve got an “old” KJV in generally poor condition in my bookshelf that I honor above all others.
Its worth lies in what it reveals.
I’ll grant to you that both of these are important texts in the history of textual criticism.
They represent two of the earliest full texts of the New Testament that we have.
But the texts simply reveal what we’ve already known, there are small changes that accumulate over time in handwritten manuscripts.
These changes occur in clusters (or families) as copies of copies are copied.
The ERROR of modern scholarship is simply to believe that earlier manuscripts are closer to the original form of the original.

So far as we can determine the evidence has proven correct, but there is only little scant early evidence for the “textus receptus” form [the Byzantine textform]

Last that I heard the KJV included Judith, Esdras, Susanna, 1,2,3, and 4th Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Bel and the Dragon… among others.

Dinner time! It's soup nite... ummmm!
I"ll be Baaaccck... :tongue3:

Rob

 

Vegetable soup, you can't go wrong with that on a cold winter day!

Recognize that “ancient Syriac and Italic versions” sometimes support differences found in Siniaticus and Vaticanus; they also contain readings quite different from anything we are familiar with as well.
Recognize also that the church used the Latin Vulgate for century upon century before “Anabaptist churches, Waldensian churches, and Albigensian churches”.
Recognize that as the church aged in each of these periods mentioned, the text of the church was refined by the translator(s).
Let me say this clearly, there are no major changes in the texts of the KJV and modern versions.
Try (as some do) to find err, the changes are doctrinally insignificant.

I personally believe that this "church age” interpretation does a disservice to the context.
It’s a argument based upon a poor hermeneutic.

If we determine that the “Traditional Text” needs correction, we fix it, ...just like “all of the above named people” (including the KJV transltors) did when they translated the text.
My loyalties lie with God and not with a “Traditional Text”.

Actually the textual criticism of biblical literature is different from that of secular literature but to explain differences is too much to expect from this type of forum setting.
As I noted the selection of textual variants occurs in every translation, even the trnslation of the KJV.
It's "humanistic" only because humans perform the task.

I think Dr. Streeter is mistaken. Perhaps it wasn't perserved as the good doctor thinks it was but it was perserved.

But God has preserved his text! I have it right in front of me! :tongue3:

Rob

 

The YLT, KJII, LitV, NKJV, KJ21, TMB, AKJV, MKJV, NCPB, AV7, HSV, WES, UKJV, WEBS, KJIII do not 'rest heavily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus', at all. There are several other Modern Versions that do not rest on these two codices, as well as these, but these 15 versions are more than enough to show that this is a false statement.

An absolutely amazing feat, to say the least, considering von Tischendorf would not even 'discover' this Codex for another 240 years.

Of course, this does not apply when addressing the Joannine Comma or Acts 8:37, to name two well known examples, now does it? For here, the position you appear to hold to, exactly reverses this position.

And my alter ego, Language Cop, would like to say something. I'll sign off now, and let him finish the post for me. L.C.? It's all yours.

"You might want to actually check on the spelling of Codex Aleph. It gives one more credibility when one spells a name or title correctly ."

Signed, Language Cop

 

Scuse my spellin' errs in the above posts, I'm embarrest :tongue3:

Who says this and why would the textual decisions made by the translators of the KJV be any different than those made by translators today?

The translators of the KJV were interpreters, they were not prophets;
they did many things well, as learned men;
but yet as men at times they stumbled and fell,
one while through oversight,
another while through ignorance,
yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original,
and sometimes to take from it;

The modern textual critics are called “humanistic” and it's claimed that the textus receptus line which was the basis for the KJV is right because its text is a majority text?
Sounds like the argument that “Might is Right”. Just a bit humanistic I'd say.... :smilewinkgrin:
What many find exciting about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is that although they were written about 300 years after the original texts, the readings they contain are found in much earlier documents, some written less than a generation after the originals.

Just where were those early Greek “Byzantine” manuscripts copied and stored?
And where exactly did Erasmus gather the Greek manuscripts that formed the basis for the textus receptus?
To use my grandsons English, “the Turch” .
The translators of the KJV were quite complementary of Jerome, Origen, Augustine and those multitude of early translators; despite their many shortcomings.
God didn’t leave his church without a witness.

I’ve seen those marks too. They show a careful correcting and editing of a hand-written text.
Such correcting is seen in hand-written manuscripts.
Those seen in these particular documents shows the value the document had to those that watched over them.

So the question is, Are those documents [the Syriac, the Italic, and especially the Peshitto] more reliable than the Critical Text that some call corrupt, or the TR?
I think you’d be surprised. There are differences! There is some evidence of Byzantine readings within the early papyrii but the evidence is certainly not overwelming.
It shows that the translators of the KJV practiced an early form of textual criticism.

I believe that you are confusing the practices of the Jewish Masoretic community [~700 A.D.] with that of the early church.
Could you find documentation of such practices in the early church for me?

As for modern translators:
They are simply building upon the foundation of those translators that went before them,
and being assisted by their labors,
they endeavor to make better which was left so good;
no man has cause to abuse them;
for if they were alive, they would thank todays translators.

Rob

 

I'll just reply that your understanding of textual criticism is not awfully robust.

Might I suggest, respectfully several texts:

Old Testament Textual Criticism by Ellis Brotzman

Textual Criticism of the Old Testament Bible by Emmanuel Tov

New Testament Textual Criticism by David Allen Black

New Testament Textual Criticism by Bruce Metzger

Check out these...seriously...and you'll find that your suspicions and underlying assumptions are just plain out of focus.

 

KJVBibleThumper: // Every Modern Version rests heavily on two manuscripts, the Siniaticus, and the Vaticanus. //

Give me the meaning of 'Every' and 'Modern Version' and 'heavily' that you are using in order to make your sentence a true statement. I don't think you can or will.

1. Some people refuse to read what they call 'Modern Versions (MVs)' - are you one of these folk?

2. I've got a paper copy of the Geneva Bible, 1560 Editon & an electronic coply of the Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition (some thing 1587) from e-sword.com These two editions were available in paper form when King James 'authorized' the making of the version that later bore his name: "The King James Version". When first published the King James Version (KJV) was a MODERN VERSION (MV). When did the KJV quit being a modern version? What was the 'real Bible' before the KJV What was the 'real Bible' while the KJV was a modern version?

I believe the statement "Every Modern Version rests heavily on two manuscripts, the Siniaticus, and the Vaticanus." is incorrect pertaining to the following Versions:

1. The New King James Version (nKJV)
The nKJV frequently makes a decision other than the reading in the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus - in fact, it follows the Siniaticus or the Vaticanus only when they are the majority evidence. Even then, less than 2% of the passages don't follow whatever sources the KJV translators used. The KJV translators did, BTW, use minority sources they had available: the LXX Greek Translation of the Old Testament (which the New Testament writers tended to be fond of quoting) and the Latin Vulgate & Old Latin, as well as the Syric translation.

2. The HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ was made as a viable alternative to the NIV (New International Version) which was lest costly for the poor Southern Baptists to use. The translations available were documentd and when translations other than the so called 'received text' were used, it is documented; when received text is used but there are variants, it is documented. What is different is that the KJVO have determined (in a strangely non-Bapatist way which reminds me of Popery) that the translator footnotes that were in the original KJV1611 Edition and many editions of the KJV afterwards are NO GOOD. In fact, a version without translator footnotes leaves out important Bible Preservation facts

3. There are other MVs that don't rely heavily on the Aleph & Beth - I just listed a couple one of which (nKJV) I used over ten years and the newer HCSB I've used since the full copy came out in 2003 (I didn't get my prepaid full copy until 2004).

 

I believe you mean that to be Codex "B" as opposed to "Beth". I do not believe that any NT codex or manuscript is assinged an Hebrew letter aside from Aleph for Sinaiticus.

Here is a brief synopsis of the numbering system for the so-named known >300 "uncial" Mss.

Sinaiticus is known as "א" or 01,
as Alexandrinus is "A" or 03,
Vaticanus is "B" or 02,
Ephraemi Rescriptus is "C" or 04,
Codices "D" are the Bezae or 05 (Gospels, Acts) & Claromontanus or 06 (Epistles of Paul & Hebrews),
Basilensius is "E" or 07 (Gospels)
etc. thru Dublinensis as "Z" or 035.
Mss. 036-045 are assigned Greek letters that are not identical in appearance with any English letters,
and Mss 046-0318 are not assigned any "Letter" at all.

Ed

 

I have read Streeter's book and have examined its claims. They are often inaccurate or misrepresent the overall evidence. He is misinformed or uninformed about a number of important matters. For one thing, Streeter ignores the fact that are a number of present-day English translations that are based on the same underlying original language texts as the KJV such as the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, the KJ2000, Green's Literal Translation.

The text of the Waldensian Bibles is not in agreement with the KJV at many places. Many of the Waldensian Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate, and they differ from the KJV in many places.

In 2005, KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged that some of Wilkinson’s “history, in fact, is strongly influenced by his devotion to Seventh-day Adventist ’prophetess’ Ellen G. White” and that “Wilkinson got the idea that the Waldensian Bible is ’preserved uncorrupted’ from Ellen White’s Great Controversy” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 13). Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295). Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221). Glenn Conjurske affirmed that “the medieval Waldensian version in the old Romance language [was] translated from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, July, 1997, p. 160). KJV-only author Ken Johnson wrote that “we openly grant this” [“the fact Waldo used the Vulgate as the basis of his translation”] (Real Truth, p. 21).

Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).

Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).

James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).

Conjurske observed that the “Codex Teplenis is a fourteenth-century manuscript, which has never been modified at all, but exists today just as it did in the fourteenth century, and just as it was written by the scribes who wrote it” (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 138). Conjurske pointed out that Codex Teplensis included the Epistle Czun Laodiern, “to the Laodicens” (p. 133). He noted that this manuscript included a list of Scripture portions to be read on certain holy days and saints’ days and at the end included a short treatise on “the seven sacraments” (pp. 133-134). Out of the eighty-two places where the N. T. has “son of man,” Conjurske pointed out that “the Tepl manuscript reads ’son of man’ only seven times, all the rest having ’son of the virgin’” [sun der maid or meid or another spelling variation] (p. 137; also Oct., 1996 issue, p. 240). He affirmed that the “Teplensis itself reads heilikeit, that is, ’sacrament’” at several verses (Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; 1 Tim. 3:16) (p. 139). Conjuske concluded that “it is an indubitable fact that the version contained in Codex Teplensis closely follows the Latin Vulgate and differs in a myriad of places from the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (pp. 139-140). According to J. T. Hatfield‘s examination of this text, some other example differences include that the Tepl has “Jesus” at Acts 9:20 where the KJV has “Christ,” “his name” at Acts 22:16 where the KJV has “name of the Lord,” “Lord God” at Revelation 1:8 where the KJV has “Lord,” and “Jesus” at Revelation 22:17 where the KJV has “Jesus Christ.”

​

 

Your statement above is incorrect. The old Syriac Peshitta is on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles, and there is an English translation of it still in print today. There are also other English translations or versions that are based on the same underlying original language texts as the KJV and that are not based on the two manuscripts you cited. Some examples include the NKJV, Green's Literal Translation, the Modern KJV, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the 2000 King James 2000 Version. There are also modern-spelling editions of several of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva Bible that are in print today.

 

First, I am not aware that any textual criticism that sets out on purpose to undermine any particular Greek text.

Second, there was probably no such thing as a "Bible-believing" church anywhere in the 2nd or 3rd century. The last of the NT books were completed just prior to the 2nd century and were scattered geographically over the Roman empire. Some individual congregations may have been fortunate enough to have a copy of several Gospels, a few of the general epistles, maybe Acts or Revelation, or most of the Pauline corpus by the end of the 3rd century. Due to the bulk of Hebrew scrolls, it is unlikely that a local church (meeting in homes) would have a complete set of the Tanakh. Periods of persecution of the Christian church were intense at this time. It is doubtful that there were any complete Bibles (with both OT & NT) until perhaps the 4th century and these would have been extremely expensive and rare (and in Greek). Even with access, how many average Christians at this time were literate? Without a 'Bible' there really cannot be "Bible-believing churches".

 

Your claim is incorrect. You have perhaps been misinformed by reading KJV-only authors or listening to KJV-only preachers. The other English translations I mentioned do not "actually give precedence to the Critical Text." While the NKJV does provide Critical Text readings in its footnotes, it does not give precedence to the Critical Text in its text.

There are a number of places that some KJV-only advocates have complained about in the NKJV where the NKJV's rendering is in agreement with the same original language texts as the KJV and when it may have the exact same rendering as the Geneva Bible or one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

 

Wrong, the NKJV symbol added by the publisher is a symbol for the Trinity that was used in an edition of the KJV. That KJV edition could even have been the source from which the NKJV publishers obtained it. The fact that others may have misused the symbol does not mean that was the way that the publishers of the NKJV used it.

The 1611 edition of the KJV included some symbols that you may find objectionable.

Darlow and Moule suggested that some of the ornamental initials in the 1611 resemble “those used in folio editions of the Bishops’ Bible” (Historical Catalogue, I, p. 135). In introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard pointed out: “In the New Testament two of the mythological ten-line set, the use of which in the Bishops’ Bible had justly been censured, reappear at the beginning of Matthew and Romans” (p. 45, footnote 2). John Eadie affirmed that the printers of the 1611 used some of “the same head pieces, woodcuts, and other embellishments, which had appeared in the Bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 291). In the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the 1611 KJV has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. Eadie noted that “the figure of Neptune with his trident and horses, which appears so often in the Bishops’, stands at the beginning of Matthew” (p. 291). William Loftie affirmed that “the figure of Neptune, which in the largests of the Bishops’ was made frequently available, now headed the gospel of St. Matthew” [in the 1611] (Century of Bibles, p. 6). At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611’s initial letter has a figure of the Greek god Pan. At Romans 1, the 1611’s initial letter has a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne. These can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them. Norton has a page of illustrations that includes the above three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he noted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52).

 

Those are incorrect accusations that have not been proven.

 

Gail Riplinger claimed in her tract that the "NKJV omits the word ‘God’ 51 times” (Church Bus News, April-June, 1996, p. 26). This inaccurate claim seems to be based on a simple comparison of the NKJV to the KJV and not on a comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. This count likely does not take into consideration the times where the KJV added the word “God” in italics.

In response to this misleading charge, James D. Price noted: "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases. This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God forbid," "God save the king," or "God speed" instead of a more literal expression in good English. In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible" (False Witness, p. 4). Price then discussed these times and proved the faithfulness of the NKJV to the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the KJV.

In the introduction to his translation, Noah Webster noted that the phrase God forbid was used several times in the KJV "without any authority from the original languages for the name of God" (p. ix). The KJV has “God forbid” eight times in the O. T. and fifteen times in the N. T. Waite acknowledged that the Greek for the KJV's "God forbid" would be literally translated as "may it not be" (Foes, p. 96). Cloud described this example as “’a little something like’ that which is called dynamic equivalency today” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 157). David Daniell indicated that Luther’s German Bible has “das sey ferne (be that far away)“ instead of “God forbid” (William Tyndale, p. 142). Concerning “God forbid” at 1 Corinthians 6:15, A. T. Robertson noted: “The word “God’ is not here” (Word Pictures, IV, p. 106). At Acts 10:14, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV has "Not so." At Acts 11:8, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Geneva Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV again has "Not so." At 2 Samuel 20:20, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV has “Far be it” twice. This verse has the same Hebrew word twice that the KJV rendered “God forbid” several other times. Would Riplinger and other KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV omitted the name of God at these three verses?

Were the KJV translators always faithful to their underlying texts and always consistent in following the renderings of the earlier English Bibles? Instead of keeping the rendering of the earlier Bibles, the KJV translators corrected the addition of the word "God" in several of the them at 1 Kings 1:31. (See second appendix). At Nehemiah 2:3, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s have a rendering with the name of God [“God save the king’s life for ever”] and the Geneva and Bishops’ have a similar rendering [“God save the king for ever”]. The KJV does not add the name of God at this verse [“let the king live for ever”]. At Daniel 2:4, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Bishops’ Bible have the name of “God” [“O king, God save thy life for ever”] where the Geneva and KJV does not. Coverdale’s and Matthew’s also have a similar rendering at the following verses (Dan. 3:9, 5:10, 6:6, 6:21).

In their marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, the KJV translators acknowledged that the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, 2 Kings 11:12, and 2 Chronicles 23:11 was "let the king live" and at 1 Kings 1:25 "let king Adonijah live." Perhaps because of their note at verse 25, the KJV translators did not include this marginal note at 1 Kings 1:34 and 39 where it reads "God save King Solomon." The Geneva Bible translators also had marginal notes giving the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, and 1 Kings 1:25. God's Word in the Hebrew does not contain the word "God" nor the word "save" in these verses. The KJV translators translated the same Hebrew word used here as "live" many times. Why didn't the KJV translators put the literal meaning of the Hebrew in the text rather than in the margin? Why did they correct the same rendering in the earlier English Bibles at other verses while keeping them at some?

 

It is true that the KJV has Jehovah (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4), Jehovah-jireh (Genesis 22:14), Jehovah-nissi (Exodus 17:15), Jehovah-shalom (Judges 6:24), and JAH (Psalm 68:4). The 1611 KJV also has the following marginal note at Jeremiah 33:16: "Heb. Jehova-tsidkenu." Arthur T. Pierson claimed that "it is a blemish, if not a blunder" that the name Jehovah "finds it way into the English translation four times only (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18, Is. 12:2; 26:4), shutting out the common reader from the full significance of hundreds of passages" (Knowing the Scriptures, p. 61). Mark Cambron, who was dean of a fundamentalist Bible School, wrote: “the words GOD and LORD (all capital letters) in the King James Version are best translated Jehovah” (Bible Doctrines, p. 15). In the Hebrew Old Testament, this Hebrew name of God is actually found over 5,000 times. The book of Psalms alone has this name 700 times. This name is found in every Old Testament book except Esther and Ecclesiastes.

When applied consistently, it can be observed over and over that the claims of KJV-only advocates would harm their own favored translation. David Engelsma, a KJV defender, acknowledged: "The King James is not a perfect translation. It is to be regretted that the translators did not consistently render the outstanding name of God in the Old Testament as Jehovah, but instead gave it as LORD" (Modern Versions, p. 4). In his Analytical Concordance at his listing for Jehovah, Robert Young commented: "In the Common Version [KJV] of the English Bible it is generally, though improperly, translated by 'the LORD'" (p. 536). William Barker noted that Thomas Gataker (1574-1654) wrote a work on the name Jehovah in 1645 “in which he inclines to ‘Jahveh, ‘ but is content to retain the traditional ‘Jehovah’ as preferable to the substituted word ‘Lord’” (Puritan Profiles, p. 159). In nearly all the Old Testament, this special name of God (Jehovah) is withheld from all who only hear the Bible read. Furthermore, many who read it do not know that the renderings LORD and GOD stand for Jehovah. If it was right for Jehovah to be used and seen in these few cases, then why not in all the cases? If the KJV can fail to use Jehovah over 5,000 times, what valid basis is there for complaining about not using it the other few times?

If the use of the name Jehovah determines which translation honors the name of God the most, the KJV would not merit first place. The 1569 Spanish Bible and later Spanish Bibles used "Jehova" consistently. Does the Spanish Bible honor the name of God more than the KJV? Tyndale's Old Testament and the 1537 Matthew's Bible used the rendering Jehovah at least twenty times where the KJV does not (Genesis 15:2, Exodus 15:3, 23:17, 33:19, 34:23, Deuteronomy 3:24, 9:26, Joshua 3:13, 7:7, 22:22, Judges 6:22, 16:28, 2 Samuel 7:18, 7:19 [twice], 7:20, 7:28, 7:29, 1 Kings 2:26, 8:53). Tyndale also used Jehovah at Ezekiel 18:23 and 36:23 in some portions of Old Testament books he translated that were included at the end of this 1534 New Testament. The Geneva Bible has Jehovah at Exodus 15:3, 23:17, and 34:23 where the KJV does not. The Bishops’ Bible has Jehovah at Exodus 6:2, 6, 8, 33:19, and Ezekiel 3:12 where the KJV does not. At Psalm 33:12, the 1540 Great Bible has “God is the Lord Jehovah.” According to a consistent application of KJV-only claims, did Tyndale honor the name of God more at some verses than the KJV does?