Changing letter formation

In his lesson More On The Work Of F.S. Parris, at about 39 minutes, Bryan Ross mentions changes in letter formation. Yes, this is a change technically, but I wonder if we would even be talking about it if it weren’t for folks in the Bible version debates looking for minutiae to grab ahold of on one side or the other. (I mean folks in general, not in reference to Bryan simply mentioning it in his lesson.) Differences in letter formation is more noticeable in older Bible printings, I suppose, because we are talking about letter formations that are not common today. Yet in our own contemporary reading, I suspect most folks read right over differences in letter formation and never give it a thought. For example, most all type fonts use the “double-story a” and many use the “loop-tail g,” while others use the “open-tail g” and some the “single-story a.” Very few folks actually print their letters in the more common typed letter formations (“double-story a” and “loop-tail g”) when they doing writing it by hand. (See picture above.) (The fonts at places like Google and Facebook usually have the “double-story a” and the “open-tail g.” Who pays any attention to that? Had you noticed?)

This is just an odd thought that jumped out at me as I was listening through Bryan’s video. Letter formation should be a topic of information, and not a debate on something that is right or wrong that has changed in the Bible.

Straining at a gnat and not swallowing a camel

In a post in 2023, I took notice of Dan Wallace’s claim that “strain at” in Matthew 23:24 is a translation error. I addressed the usage and whether it is an error (and James Snapp, not a KJV defender, really “cleaned his (and others) clock” about the usage, in the essay Straining at a Gnat). However, in a different article, I noticed Wallace made an additional claim not included in what I addressed. This claim by Wallace is that the 1611 printing of the King James Bible originally had “strain out” rather than “strain at.” That is false.

“Another well-known error is found in Jesus’ discourse against the religious leaders of his day, recorded in Matthew 23. In v. 24 the KJV reads, ‘Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.’ The Greek verb διυλίζω means ‘to strain out.’ I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording, but inexplicably changed it later to ‘strain at.’”

To be fair, Wallace presents “the KJV of 1611 actually had [strain out], but inexplicably changed it” as what he believes rather than what he knows. Obviously he did not check and did not know, because what he believes is wrong. Checking a scan of a 1611 Bible printing makes it obvious that the original printing has “at” rather than “out.”

This may not be a very large camel in the grand scheme of things – and Snapp has already rebutted this – but I want to add it to my blog. Perhaps someone will stumble along and find this post, and learn that the urban myth perpetuated by a highly esteemed doctor is just that, an urban myth camel to be strained at and strained out of our minds. It is false. Or, as James Snapp concluded, “Those who have promoted that theory (and especially those who have presented it as a fact) should stop doing so.”

We do not allow Dallas doctors to prescribe phony pharmaceuticals. Hopefully Wallace has learned better by now, and has stopped, but his error still adorns the pages of Bible.org to dupe unsuspecting readers.

Pure Cambridge and Acts 11:12

The Pure Cambridge Edition is a nice and accurate printing of the King James Bible. This printing of the King James Bible can be found online, for example at Bible Protector PCE, KJVPCE.com, and Pure Cambridge Edition. However, some supporters set it up as the (one and only) correct printing of the King James Bible, against all others. According to Matthew Verschuur in “How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition of the Bible,” a Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV can be identified because it by its conformity to the following test in 12 places.

• 1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
• 2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
• 3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
• 4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
• 5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
• 6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
• 7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
• 8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
• 9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
• 10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
• 11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
• 12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

Verschuur also adds that the Concord Cambridge Edition has departures in the following areas, where the correct PCE text has (among other things) “rasor” instead of “razor” (Numbers 6:5, et al.), “inquire” instead of “enquire” (Genesis 24:57, et al.), “counseller” instead of “counsellor” (2 Samuel 15:12, et al.), “expences” instead of “expenses” (Ezra 6:4,8), “ancle” instead of “ankle” (Ezekiel 47:3; Acts 3:7), “Geba” rather than “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26, and lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12, 28 and 1 John 5:8.

I have mentioned the test before in passing. Now let us look at it more directly. One of the identifiers of the Pure Cambridge Edition is the lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12. Using this as a test case shows the arbitrary nature of choosing this printing as “the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible.”

• “And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting…” (Acts 11:12)

However, in this same edition the Spirit in Acts 10:19-20 who bids Peter go, doubting nothing, is capitalised “Spirit.”

• “While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.” (Acts 10:19-20)

The Spirit/spirit in Acts 11:12 is the selfsame Spirit/spirit in Acts 10:19-20. How can it be that it is correct to capitalise the word in Acts 10:19 and not capitalise it in Acts 11:28? If it is not wrong to capitalise “Spirit” in Acts 10:19, it cannot be wrong to capitalise it in Acts 11:12. Defenses of the distinction devolve into disconcerting disputations, of doubtful merit. If one will be led of the Spirit of truth rather than the spirit of defending a particular printing at all costs, this is easy to see.[i]

The problem with “PCE-ism” is not the Pure Cambridge printing itself, but rather the arbitrary induction of only one early inexactly-dated 1900s printing of the King James translation as “the” Bible. This subtly shifts the time-honored, God-given interpretation method of comparing Scripture with Scripture to a new-fangled method of interpretation based on one typography frozen in time.

This Cambridge printing of the King James Bible is clean, nicely done, and highly recommended. However, it is not the one and only final edition to the exclusion of all other King James Bibles. If your Bible has “Spirit” instead of “spirit” in Acts 11:12 (and 11:28) don’t throw it away! Continue to use it, with God’s blessings. It is the Spirit of God speaking in those places.[ii]

---

[i] This could also cause a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of who the Spirit is in Acts 11:28. However, be aware, it is the responsibility of the Bible reader to interpret based on context rather than English capitalisation, which has not always been (and may not now always be) standardized. For example the 1611 Barker printing has lower-case “s” in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28, the 1618 Norton & Bill printing has capital “S” in all three places, while the 1631 Barker printing has a lower-case “s” in 10:19 and capitalization in chapter 11. See also endnote 2. Note, however, that trying to find the best printing of the King James Bible is not immaterial. If the Bible is God’s word (it is), then we should want the best printing of it, with the least number of typographical errors, defects (smudges, page bleed-through, etc.), and so on. But we should not let it become a dogma inhering in the defense of the King James Bible.

[ii] It is well to note that the history of this (capital versus lowercase) is entrenched in the history of the English language, which has gone through many uses of and attempts to standardize the capitalization of words. See the 1611-1768 chart for some history of the printing of these verses in the King James Bible.