Jude 1:19 in the KJV & NKJV

Jude 1:19 gives another test case on whether the New King James Bible prefers a Critical or Majority Text reading over the Textus Receptus. First, remember their claim:

“While the New Testament scholars were free to consult any available Greek text, and they did so, each agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener. This text, originally published by Cambridge University Press, reconstructed as closely as possible the Greek text underlying the King James Version.” (“A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, p. 1234.)

Does the “they” of Jude 1:19 “separate themselves” or “cause divisions”? Compare the difference in the translations of the King James and New King James.

• AKJV: These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
• NKJV: These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Now also compare the printed Greek Critical Text, Majority Text, and Textus Receptus. The first two are the same and the Textus Receptus contains a word not found in those two.

• CT: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
• MT: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, Πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
• TR: 19 οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.

Finally, compare these pictures Greek text of the 1598 Theodore Beza, which the King James translators followed (first picture) and the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, which the New King James editors inadvertently suggest they followed.

The first picture is from the 1598 Novum Testamentum by Theodore Beza (p. 520).[i] The yellow highlighting shows the Greek word ἐαυτούς, which is not found in the Critical Text or Majority Text.

The second picture is from The NKJV Greek English interlinear New Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994, p. 838), edited by Arthur Farstad and others. The red arrow shows the word ἐαυτούς is missing in this text.

This interlinear uses The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, by Hodges and Farstad (2nd Edition, 1985, Thomas Nelson). This tacitly shows that the translation of the New King James Bible in this place matches the Majority Text (and in effect the Critical Text, which is the same) rather than the Scrivener TR as promised by the editors.[ii] The translation matches more closely modern translations rather than the King James Bible because the translators were influenced by a different underlying Greek text. There is a difference here. It is not just a translation decision.

Jude 1:19 presents another case in which the NKJV editors and translators say one thing and do another. If you wish to use the New King James Version that is your prerogative – but don’t keep telling us that it is a faithful modern update of the King James Bible.

---

[i] Beza adds this note about verse 19:
Qui seipsos segregani, οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς. Addidimus ἐαυτούς ex Veteris interpretis & trium vetustorum codidum fide: quanquam etiam possimus non inepte hoc referre ad alios quos isti a verae Ecclesiae coetu abducant. Hi sunt inmirum quos Paulus ἰτεοδιδασχαλυῶ τας & αἰοεποκοις vocat, id est qui peculiarem doctrinam docent, & sectas instituunt. 
Who separate themselves, οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς. We have added ἐαυτούς (themselves) from the faith of the Old Interpreter and the three ancient codices: although we can also not inappropriately refer this to others whom these lead away from the assembly of the true Church. These are the ones, no doubt, whom Paul calls ἰτεοδιδασχαλυῶ τας & αἰοεποκοις, that is, those who teach a peculiar doctrine, and establish sects.
It is not clear to me to which old interpreter Beza is referring. In his commentary on this text, John Calvin noted that “Some Greek copies have the participle by itself, other copies add ἑαυτοὺς, ‘themselves’.” His conclusion was that the meaning “is nearly the same,” and that Jude means those that separated from the church. That meaning would be gathered from ἑαυτοὺς.
[ii] In this case, supporters can declare that the NKJV is following a different TR, such as the 1550 Stephanus. However, while this is correct, remember that the editors themselves claimed they were following “the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener.” In The NKJV Greek English interlinear New Testament the editors state, “The word-for-word interlinear English is the first translation of the Majority Text.” So clearly they understand that the NKJV translation they have matches the Majority Text over the TR in this place.

Reverse engineering a Greek text

• reverse engineer. To examine or analyze in detail to discover the concepts involved in creating something, usually in order to produce something similar.
• back translate. To translate a previously translated document or text back to its source language.

These two terms above are often used to describe a misconception some people have concerning the creation of The New Testament in the Original Greek compiled by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1881.

Reverse engineered is preferable to back translated for this description. The term “reverse engineered” means or can mean something different than “back translated” – and perhaps is understood differently by some people discussing the subject. However, the average person talking about the King James Bible means basically the same thing when using these terms. People have a misconception of the relationship of the Scrivener TR and the KJV. For that reason, the use of “reverse engineered” is still likely to be misunderstood and confusing. It is somewhat problematic to try to come up with a simple terminology that would acceptably and accurately represent the relationship of the Scrivener Greek New Testament and the King James English translation, since the idea has been corrupted in the minds of many people (sometimes deliberately so, and add to that the acrimony often fueled by such discussions). The title given by Scrivener and/or Cambridge is: “The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version…”

Reverse engineered may in fact be apt and accurate if what the person means by it is apt and accurate. Nevertheless, the number of people who regularly and consistently use “back translated” and “reverse engineered” to mean the same thing makes it problematic. Ultimately, people will often spend more time explaining what they mean by the term than they will spend if they start out with “the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version” and then describe and explain what F. H. A. Scrivener did. (Not that we can solve everyone’s inability or refusal to understand.)

Even someone so reasonable as Dwayne Green puts “back translated” and “reverse engineered” in “almost” the same category in his video “Why Scrivener Reverse Engineered the Textus Receptus.” “So the 1881 text of the Textus Receptus has actually been sort of – I don’t want to say back translated but you could almost say back translated from the King James Version.” (At about 25 seconds into the video). Interestingly, according to the transcript (if accurate) Dwayne actually used “reverse engineered” only once in his lesson, and used “back translated” three times. Back translated is used both in the introduction and the conclusion. (I am not saying that Dwayne did not explain it properly in the video, but am using the video as an example of why I even avoid “reverse engineered.” Even in the end of it he says, “I’d always wondered about what he was doing when he back translated the King James Version into the Textus Receptus…” I would wonder, if he had it to do over again, if Dwayne might approach that differently. The fact that Dwayne made another video clarifying his position strengthens the point I am trying to make.)

To conclude – the popular idea is that F. H. A. Scrivener took the Authorised King James Bible translation in English and translated those words back into Greek. That is a misrepresentation, whether in ignorance or deliberate.

In his “Preface,” F. H. A. Scrivener wrote:

“One of the Rules laid down for the guidance of the Revisers by a Committee appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury was to the effect ‘that, when the Text adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.’ As it was found that a literal observance of this direction would often crowd and obscure the margin of the Revised Version, the Revisers judged that its purpose might be better carried out in another manner.” (Part of this “another manner,” was to compile and print “the text followed in the Authorized Version.”)

Here are the facts. The translators commissioned by King James created an English translation. They did not create a Greek translation to match their English translation. F. H. A. Scrivener was given the task of compiling a Greek text that would contain the Greek Textus Receptus readings used by the translators. The translators did not use one single Greek edition, but primarily used the 1598 Theodore Beza Greek New Testament. Therefore, Scrivener started with Beza’s 1598 Greek edition as a base text, then carefully identified places where the KJV translators used readings different from Beza’s edition. He searched texts and found these different readings in other editions of Greek New Testaments. In this task, F. H. A. Scrivener did not translate anything. We can say he “reverse engineered,” in that he began with the King James translation and worked backward. Nevertheless, I recommend even avoiding the terminology “reverse engineered” – because many people who hear it hear “back translated” (and their idea is that Scrivener took the KJV and translated the English words into Greek.) Just start with the hard work of explaining what you mean, which will probably be easier and more successful in the long run.

Yetzer to Boyce

Below is a response of Christopher Yetzer to Stephen Boyce (used by permission).

It is in response to Boyce’s video here. https://www.youtube.com/live/Y3jGB8X1Oss?si=MJU4KFSyPK85xJlT. I think there are 2 major errors which run through the entire video.

1. Boyce tries to set up the Puritans as an example Baptists should look to for their stance against the KJV. But Puritans at large did not disagree with the KJV. Recent studies into the printing, sales and the general book trade concerning Bibles in the early 1600s show “the sheer number of editions indicates strong demand to own a copy... If we put the rapid sale of the smaller formats of the King James bible against the slow and uneven dissemination of folio or church bibles, then it may well be that for many the new translation became familiar in the home before it was heard in church, and that its broad acceptance by 1640 owed as much to personal use as it did to hearing it in public worship.” [Fincham, Kenneth. “The King James Bible: Crown, Church and People.” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2018. pp. 15-16.] From his study of sermons and quotations, Feingold concludes, “scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start.” [M Feingold (ed.), Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible. Scientific and Learned Cultures and Their Institutions, Brill, Leiden, p. 27.] Feingold, who is one of the most recent scholars to do work on this, says, “Puritan preachers did embrace what quickly became established as the better translation, irrespective of their sentiments regarding the Geneva notes.” He says the separatist John Traske commented, “the last Translation is followed, as that by the which the Writer hath often confessed, that he hath received more benefite, then by all the Expositors that ever hee read. And thou art desired withall to esteeme that translation highly, and make it one cause of heartie thanksgiving to God...” [Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord page 24.] In that 1645 preface it says, “the people complained that they could not see into the sense of the Scripture so well as they formerly did by the Geneva Bibles because their spectacles of annotations were not fitted to the understanding of the new text, nor any others supplied in their stead.” It seems some of the lasting popularity of the Geneva was not the translation, but footnotes. Either way, we should correct our impressions of the immediate reception of the KJV to reflect the current data. How many Puritans can you quote who said they didn’t like it because it was high church? As a side point, the KJV was brought over with the Pilgrims on the Mayflower by John Alden. It is in the Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth, MA. Look it up. That doesn’t mean that the Pilgrims overall agreed or defended it, but it does show that his history is not quite accurate.

2. He seems to be inserting doctrine into the translation. I have seen this erroneously done even in interpretation of the title page. He is trying to retroactively hijack terms and claim that they only pertain to Anglicans. I actually love telling people, “This Bible wasn’t translated by my guys for my perspective, it is simply accurate.” I think it is a stronger apologetic for dealing with this modern anti-God world.

Ghost: Tyndale used “goost” before the CoE ever separated from Rome. It is not an Anglican term (or at least is not allowed to be claimed only by them).

1 Corinthians 10:16 Communion: Diodati (who was not an Anglican) translated this as “communion” in 1607. Possibly you misunderstand the meaning of the word “communion” or are inserting your theology into the translation. It is the same Greek word translated “fellowship” in Acts 2:42 in the NET and the ESV. Communion is defined by Webster’s as “Fellowship”. The translation is accurate.

2 Corinthians 3:7 Ministration: The Geneva translation used “ministration of death”. If the Puritans loved the Geneva and hated the KJV because of these High-Church terms than I think you need to search for other terms to use as examples.

Hebrews 12:23 church of the firstborn: Again Diodati in Geneva in his 1607 Italian translation said “Church of the firstborn”. The KJV is not unique here and neither can it be highjacked as pertaining only to the Anglican church.

“want” NKJV and MEV continue to use that in Psalms 23.

Luke 19:44 visitation: Tyndale, Geneva and Diodati’s Italian all have “visitation”.

1 John 2:20 unction: Unction actually comes from the Latin, so if anything the Anglican’s would have to say it is a Catholic term not Anglican. But in this case Diodati’s 1607 Italian also used it. He was not Catholic nor Anglican.

1 Timothy 3:1 Bishop: The Word Study Dictionary says, “the public office of an overseer”. The KJV does not use italics in every instance. They generally held to a principle that if it was understood in the context than they left it in. Diodati in Geneva used “Bishop” and he was not an Anglican and did not even have “Bishops” in their church structure and he did not believe in Apostolic succession.

Acts 14:22 Confirmation: In Vulgate, Geneva, Diodati. Not Anglican.

Acts 2:38 Remission of sins: In Vulgate, Tyndale, Geneva, Diodati. Not Anglican.

Hebrews 8:2 Sanctuary: In Vulgate, Geneva and Diodati. Not Anglican.

Baptism: Tyndale used Baptism. It is also in pretty much every translation known to man. There is nothing wrong with the word. It is not owned by the Anglicans.

Notes.

---

Christopher Yetzer is a native Ohioan, a Baptist missionary preaching in Milan, Italy. In addition, he does excellent research and writes concerning the Traditional Texts and King James translation of the Bible. In 2022, Mark Ward dubbed Christopher Yetzer “my best opponent.” He was such a good opponent that Mark had to block Christopher from posting on his YouTube videos so that he would not have to take time to answer him – and Mark’s followers would not be able to see a clear presentation of an opposing viewpoint.

Stephen Boyce is an ex-Independent Fundamental Baptist turned Anglican. (Anglican at the time this took place; he has since become Roman Catholic.) Boyce has a YouTube program called “FACTS.” Boyce says, “The primary focus of this program is to cover historical and biblical content about the early church Fathers, the Apocryphal accounts, the biblical canon, textual criticism, and the scripture itself. The acronym “FACTS” derives from Fathers, Apocrypha, Canon, Text, Scripture. Despite the name, Boyce often plays fast and loose with the facts!

The relevant video is: The KJV Is Not A Good Translation For Baptists (Friday, November 15, 2024). The description of the episode runs thusly:

“In this episode, we delve into the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, examining why it may not be the ideal choice for Baptist believers. Though revered for its majestic language and historical influence, the KJV carries distinct ecclesiological and theological elements rooted in its high church Anglican origins. We explore how these aspects can conflict with Baptist principles of church governance, sacraments, and congregational independence. Join us as we unpack the historical context of the KJV, highlight theological nuances within its translation choices, and discuss why Baptists may find other translations more compatible with their beliefs and traditions.”

“I’m not interested in long theological debates on social media anymore.” Boyce cries and waves his hand.

Stephen claims he has been misrepresented. Stephen cries that his position has been butchered, strawmanned, and those doing so will “not take correction.” Notice, however, his premise is based on certain claims, such as “the KJV carries distinct ecclesiological and theological elements rooted in its high church Anglican origins…we unpack the historical context of the KJV, highlight theological nuances within its translation choices.” It is his job to prove his claims, and push back directly against those claims should be addressed, not waved off in an high-handed manner. Christopher Yetzer addressed every word that Boyce used to prove his high-church thesis, showing that these words are not unique to the KJV, as Boyce insinuates.

Stephen at 3:51: The language itself is very high church … Much of what we find early on in the publishing of the King James: it was not accepted in fact it was not taken in by a lot of the Puritans.

Stephen at 4:06: [Its high church] terminology comes into play and they go, we want the Geneva Bible instead; so the Geneva Bible actually became the predominant Bible used by most of the Puritans.

See also My Former DEBATE OPPONENT (Stephen Boyce) SWIMS THE TIBER.

Were the KJV Translators KJV-Only?

“Were the KJV Translators KJV-Only?” is a skewed question used as a means to an end. The better question is, “What did the KJV translators claim they accomplished?”

Here is what the translators (represented by Thomas Bilson & Miles Smith) write.

There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your Majesty: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this Work, which now with all humility we present unto your Majesty. For when your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your Majesty did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

Epistle Dedicatory

Translators to the Reader

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.

What did the translators mean by what they wrote?

“A faithful student of the word of God looks up all kinds of words. The one’s they think they know, the ones they know, and the ones they do not know. Looking up ‘false friends’ falls within one of these three categories.” Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. to Mark Ward

The translators were called on to establish out of the previous translations one principal translation for the use of the English-speaking people. That was their goal they focused on accomplishing.

Epileptic or Lunatic

Did the NKJV translators believe epilepsy is caused by demon possession?[i] Or do they possibly believe the possession described here is not real, but rather figurative? Or something else?[ii]

• Matthew 17:15 AKJV: Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
• Matthew 17:15 NKJV: “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.

• Epileptic, noun. A person affected by epilepsy (a disorder of the nervous system, characterized either by mild, episodic loss of attention or sleepiness petit mal or by severe convulsions with loss of consciousness grand mal.)
• Lunatic (lunatick), noun. A person affected with a severely disordered state of mind.

Lunatick or Epileptic? The Greek word is σεληνιάζεται, which means “lunatic” or “moonstruck.”[iii] Epileptic is a modern interpretation or application.

Whether reading in the King James Bible or a modern translation, the context is clear that this is a case of devil- or demon possession. Jesus rebuked the devil, and the devil was cast out of the man’s son. Again, I ask, do the NKJV translators believe epilepsy is caused by demon possession, or do they possibly believe the possession described here is not real? Or something else? Many modernists reject that Jesus was literally casting out devils. They ascribe this to ignorance of medical conditions. For example, William Barclay writes from his high modern horse, “As was inevitable in that age [emphasis mine], the father attributed the boy’s condition to the malign influence of evil spirits.” In other words, such medical problems as epilepsy were merely associated with demon possession because the people were ignorant and did not know any better! Such an accusation, however, means the inspired writers—and the one who inspired them to write—must have also been ignorant of the cause! God forbid! Do the NKJV translators side with the modernists against God?

Notice also that there are parallel accounts of this incident recorded in Mark 9:14-27 and Luke 9:37-42. These accounts also clearly point to an evil spirit that Jesus cast out. Textual scholars can be like politicians. Politicians create political problems so they can remain relevant by solving them. Scholars create Bible text problems to they can remain relevant by solving them. I think the simple solution is to leave “epilepsy” out of the equation. Doing so stops short of seeming to make a modern medical diagnosis. Most folks today think epilepsy is a neurological disorder caused by abnormal electrical activity in the brain, and has nothing to do with demon possession. Whatever the “medical diagnosis” of the boy in Matthew 17, it is clear from the Bible that it was caused by the activity of an evil spirit.[iv] Let God be true, but every man a liar.

---

[i] And other modern translations, including: ASV, AMP, CEB, CEV, CJB, ESVUK, EXB, GNT, ICB, ISV, MEV, NCB, NCV, NRSV, OJB, RSV, WEB. Interestingly, the LSB and NASB do not use epileptic.
[ii] Some commentators try to either explain or compromise the situation by allowing that some but not all cases of epilepsy are caused by evil spirits. It is notable that in the Believers Bible Commentary edited by Art Farstad and based on the NKJV, William MacDonald attributes this to be an epileptic seizure caused by Satan, pp. 1270-1271. Harold Fowler approaches it similarly, stating, “The child is an epileptic, but not just an epileptic, because this physical malady is merely the background upon which his demon possession is superimposed. Rather, the cause of the epilepsy and its accompanying symptoms was a demon…Although the NT does not teach that all, or even most, cases of epilepsy were produced by demonic power, this one was.” (The Gospel of Matthew, Volume Three. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1978, p. 620). The liberal Lutheran Ulrich Luz does not like the demonic explanation of the text and seeks to spiritualize it positively for modern readers: “Illnesses such as epilepsy do not conform to the human image willed by God, and the struggle against it takes place with the will of Christ and by his power” (Matthew 8-20, English translation by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001, p. 408).
[iii] The modern NET Bible gives this note on Matthew 17:15: “tn Grk ‘he is moonstruck,’ possibly meaning ‘lunatic’ (so NAB, NASB), although now the term is generally regarded as referring to some sort of seizure disorder such as epilepsy (L&N 23.169; BDAG 919 s.v. σεληνιάζομαι).” From the root σεληνιάζομαι (lunatic), see also Matthew 4:24.
[iv] To be clear, I am not offering any diagnoses of any modern seizures. I am interpreting this case in the Bible in its context. The physical problem was caused by devils.

Charity or Love?

Below you will see a point made by Will Kinney in favor of the word “charity” in the places it is used in the New Testament (it does not appear in the Old Testament). “Charity” is used 28 times in 24 verses, and in every case the translators reserve it in context of the love Christians have or ought to have, using the English word “love” more broadly. My personal position is that “love” would not wrong in these places, but that “charity” is better. Everything below was written by Will Kinney.

Well, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 13 for a moment and then compare the characteristics of “charity” to those of “love” as found in some other Scriptures. We will see that by translating the word agape as “love” instead of “charity,” the modern versions in fact create several contradictions.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5-6 we read that CHARITY “doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own.” Charity as well “thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.”

However, when the new versions tell us that “love (agape) thinks no evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth” (NKJV), then this creates several direct contradictions with the rest of Scripture.

If “love seeks not her own and thinks no evil,” and if “love rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth” then what do we do with the following Scriptures where “love” (agape) clearly seeks her own and does rejoice in evil and not in the truth?

John 3:19 “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Agapao

John 12:42-43 “they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God.” Agapao

Luke 6:32 “for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them.” Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 “For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world...” Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 “Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness.” Agapao

1 John 2:15 “If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word “agape” means an unconditional, God-type love has not compared Scripture to Scripture. Words have different meanings in different contexts, and in 1 Corinthians 13 the King James Bible’s rendering of “charity” is far more accurate and consistent with the rest of Scripture. It is the modern versions that create the contradictions!

Yes, Doug, I am a genealogist

“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer

Last week, in contrast to Jonathan Burris, I mentioned that I have found non- and anti- KJV controversialists who are open, honest, and sincere.[i] I find others who are stuck playing one string on their banjoes and can pluck no other! In some cases, they may be willingly ignorant, determined to debate (regardless), and even deceivers & being deceived.

The Gary Hudson-Doug Kutilek-Rick Norton team of contenders seem to fit that description. They have lit on their “true truth,” found the one string they can pluck, and will not be dislodged from it regardless of the evidence. In “The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of ‘KJV–Onlyism,’” Doug Kutilek writes:

In the realm of King-James-Version-Onlyism, just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (died 1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants.

They have determined to dismiss “King James Only” theology and history out of hand by foisting on it a genealogy error. Doug Kutilek and others have made a cottage industry out of it.

Find someone who believed only the King James Bible was the word of God before Benjamin Wilkinson? “Dismissed! They can’t be KJVO because that does not fit our pre-determined genealogical scheme.” If my Baptist ancestors never heard of Benjamin Wilkinson, J. J. Ray, Fuller, or Ruckman, but believed their King James Bibles represented the inspired word of God? “Dismissed! This can’t be so, because we have already set the parameters and drawn the lines.” There is no reasoning with these guys. They will not be budged by any kind of evidence. How do we know? We’ve tried, and they still won’t move.[ii] 

The H-K-N team excels in hypocrisy. When olden King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team then erases them from the line of “KJV Only” supporters. However, when contemporary King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team charges that these are lying and are still to be considered “KJV Only.”

These are:

• Deceivers, Deceiving, Being Deceived?
• Woefully Willfully Ignorant?
• Dogmatically Dead-Set to Debate?
• Quibblers Qualified in Quibbling?

“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer

---

[i] When I first became acquainted with him, I thought Mark Ward fit in that category. Continued interactions with him make me doubt it.
[ii] 1. One of Rick Norton’s perennial lines is that Archbishop Richard Bancroft (or another prelate or somebody) altered “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37 to make it say “robbers of churches.” He can find one old 1671 quote to that effect; inflate the claim with dozens of others with no evidence other than the first claim; ignore the fact that that translation previously appeared in the translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible; ignore the fact that the King James translators used “churchrobber” in 2 Maccabees 4:42, clearly in reference to the temple; and then just keep repeating the claim ad infinitum. 2. Plenty of Pre-Wilkinsonian historical evidence has been provided of the existence of supporters of the exclusive use of the King James Bible as the word of God. It seems to be dismissed out of hand because they simply cannot be KJVO. For a few samples, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Old bluster and bluff

Reading Greek.

I ran across these comments that I had saved from a Facebook group. Several years ago, a preacher named Jonathan Burris – who had “disembarked” from the use of only the King James Bible and had been “dislodged” from his church – joined the Facebook group and hit the ground running. He “knew all” and “told all.” Burris usually wrote in superlatives. He claimed to meet all comers and answer all questions, but I found “a few” he would not answer. Here is one. After touting his Greek skills, he would not answer whether he could actually read Greek with comprehension. He snuggled back in a safe position of “if someone will debate me I will prove that I can.” A simple answer was not simple enough, because the answer was probably simply, “no.” Here was our conversation.

Robert Lee Vaughn: “Btw, Jonathan Burris, you may have missed my earlier question. When you were suggesting doing live videos, I asked if would you do a live video in which you read and then giving the meaning of a reading from the Greek, that you would not know what it is until handed to you live. What do you think? Thanks.”

Jonathan Burris: “Robert Lee Vaughn, if you are curious if I can truly read Biblical Greek or not, I would love to have a KJVO debate me and during cross-examination, my opponent could ask me to read and parse a random portion of text from either the Greek NT or the Septuagint. Someone should debate me if they think I am bluffing.”

Robert Lee Vaughn: “Jonathan Burris, so that is a ‘no’ to my question? I am curious whether you read Greek or ‘read’ Greek. Thanks. https://danielstreett.com/2011/09/08/what-does-it-mean-to-read-greek/”

Jonathan Burris: “Robert Lee Vaughn, would you like to do a live, in-person, moderated debate with me and find out? During cross-examination, you can ask me to read and parse a random portion of the Greek NT or the Septuagint. If you don’t think I can read and understand Koine Greek, call my bluff.

“Else, let’s put this to bed and present a coherent argument for us to discuss. Or, just move on and have a good weekend.”

Robert Lee Vaughn: “I do my ‘debating’ on paper and electronic media. I am old and a slow plodder, and never was a quick thinker anyway. Plus I don’t have the face for visual media! Additionally, I don’t really see why you can’t answer the question without having a debate. Do you read it with comprehension like you do your native language, or you ‘slosh through it’ like Bart Ehrman said in an address he made at Loyola Marymount University in 2013? ‘Today when somebody is highly skilled in Greek, like Jeff Siker and me, we’re considered highly skilled – that means we can kind of slosh our way through a Greek text if we have a good dictionary sitting next to us.’

“By the way, I have ‘called your bluff.’ I have asked for a straight answer and so far you won’t give it, for some reason.

Since I saved these remarks for some reason, I decided to go ahead and post them here and get them out of the queue. I found many interlocutors on the non-KJV side to be open, honest, and sincere. Jonathan B. was not one of them. If you run across him, keep one eye and both ears open.

What is a Ruckmanite?

Anyone who engages in the Bible Versions debates will become familiar with the name of Peter S. Ruckman. Some elevate him as a demigod and others despise him as the devil. My opinion about him can be found here: The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman.

Because Ruckman is such a lightning rod, it has become a popular tactic to identify a King James Bible supporter as a “Ruckmanite.”[i]

What is a Ruckmanite?

Is there a standard definition that is useful and consistent when using the term “Ruckmanite”? Here are three explanations I found online, with one being very broad, and the other two relatively close.

• A Ruckmanite is one who follows the teachings (or most of the teachings) of Peter Ruckman and defend his divorces and cursing and such.
• A Ruckmanite is anyone who is King James Version Only.
• A Ruckmanite position is one that is hyper-dispensationalism (e.g., OT saints saved by works, etc.) and hyper-KJVOism (advanced revelation, KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew, foreign language Bible should be translated from the KJV, etc.).[ii]

Valid or not, like the wording or not, these represent explanations that I found online. I think the term “Ruckmanite” gets used in all three of those ways. Based on the comments I have read in Facebook discussion groups and elsewhere, the terminology “Ruckmanite” is undefined (i.e., it has no standard and easily recognized meaning). It means anything and everything – whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It is not worth much other than as a pejorative. (It really fits the modern secular divide-and-conquer methodology.) Calling a KJV supporter a “Ruckmanite” is the equivalent of calling a person a racist, Nazi, and such like .The term is not very useful beyond that, and should be avoided.

Is there a proper, standard, and consistent way to define a “Ruckmanite”? What are your thoughts?

---

[i] -ite is a suffix of nouns denoting especially persons associated with a place, tribe, leader, doctrine, system, etc. (for example, Campbellite; Canaanite; Hittite; Israelite).
[ii] When Peter Ruckman speaks against hyper-dispensationalism, I think he means the view that starts the church mid-Acts or later. On the other hand, those using it in reference to Peter Ruckman are pointing out his teaching of different ways of salvation in different dispensations.

Early reception of the King James Bible

The claims of the slow acceptance of the KJV have been exaggerated, and some scholars are now debunking this myth.

Kenneth Fincham pointed out “the sheer number of editions indicates strong demand to own a copy” and speaks of “its broad acceptance by 1640” (“The King James Bible: Crown, Church and People,” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Volume 71, Issue 1, 2020.)

Mordechai Feingold pointed out that “as in the case of any new contribution to knowledge, a phase of acculturation was required” but that “scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start” (“Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Lose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” Chapter 1 in Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Erudition and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible, Brill, 2018).

Writing of John Bunyan and John Milton using the language of the King James Bible, Hamlin and Jones say that “One mark of the KJB’s dominance over other translations at this point is its use by writers like these, who had little sympathy with King James and his Church. Thus, even for non-conformists, radicals, and dissenters, the KJB had become the English Bible.” (The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, edited by Hannibal Hamlin, Norman W. Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Hamlin and Jones also point out “Although one might think that the Puritan Commonwealth would have been committed to the Bible most associated with English Puritans (the Geneva), even Oliver Cromwell now favored the KJB (printed by John Field, first Printer to Parliament and then ‘one of His Hignes [i.e. Cromwell’s] Printers’)...” Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB, and its domination of the English Bible market was assured for the next 250 years.”

But let’s go back even earlier. Notice in 1618, only seven years after the publication of the new translation, the Reformed Synod of Dordt held at Dordecht, Holland (now Netherlands) speaking of the 1611 translation said “honorifica accuratissimæ translationis Anglicanæ” (that is, “the honor of mentioning the most accurate English translation”). This is a group that, according to modern animadversions, should have preferred the Geneva translation over the KJV. Only seven years – and this bible is recognized outside of England and English, by people who had no pressure to think otherwise, as the most accurate English translation.

The supposed slow reception of the translation commissioned by King James is, in my opinion, an exaggeration or myth used to attack the King James Bible (or, at least in the dreams of some of the naysayers, attack King James-Onlyists). It should be revised according to the historical facts that contradict their theme.

Complaint about Genesis

Why the constant attacks on the King James Bible? Well, some of it may be lashing out against King James-Onlyists. But some of it is for another reason. If you’re contending for the heavyweight championship, you don’t want to take on the losers at the bottom, but the champion at the top!

Someone on Facebook called attention to the video KJV Error: Mistranslation in Genesis 25:27, in an attempt to make hay against the King James Bible. It makes claims about Genesis 25:27.

• Genesis 25:27  (KJV) And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

The maker of this video claims, “The Hebrew word tam means perfect, in the sense of being whole, complete, blameless and mature.” So, in his mind, the KJV gets it wrong.

It is my initial reaction that the purpose of the channel being “solely dedicated to demonstrating that the King James Version of the Bible, while a good translation, is not the one and only perfect word of God” makes the interpretations given possibly strained and suspect (in other words, to support and extend the purpose of the channel). The speaker is not clearly identified (but is possibly Jeff A. Benner). However, the agenda clearly is! The purpose is not just to interpret the Bible, but to undermine the support for the King James Bible. 

If the owner of the channel is Benner, notice here his translation of Genesis 25:27.

• RMT: and the young men magnified and Esaw was a man knowing game and a man of the field and Ya'aqov was a man of maturity a settler of tents,

This seems to exhibit some surface concordance level of Hebrew words.

Of the 50-something English translations on BibleGateway, only one goes in the direction of the video in its translation. The Jubilee Bible 2000 has “upright.” Interestingly, the Orthodox Jewish Bible has “an ish tam (quiet man).” I don’t know anything about that Bible, but I just found it interesting that a Bible that purports to be Jewish associates “ish tam” with “quiet man,” not “perfect man” as does this video The NET Bible has “an even-tempered man” and their note says “Jacob was calm and even-tempered (תָּם, tam), which normally has the idea of ‘blameless’.”

I also checked the nearly 20 Spanish Bibles on BibleGateway. Only one – the Spanish Jubilee Bible – has anything in the direction of what the guy in the video thinks it must be. It has “Jacob, empero, era varón entero, que estaba en las tiendas,” with “entero” meaning something like whole, complete. (But I believe its range of meaning can also include “upright,” which would match the English Jubilee Bible.)

The point here is that in fighting the KJV on Genesis 25:27, the antagonist has bit off a good chunk of fighting most everyone else as well. I do not find this video convincing that all translations are just changing the meaning of tam to fit the LXX. Of course, it could be that the LXX and the majority of English & Spanish translations get “tam” right in this context!

Comments of others:

• Barnes: “27. תם tām, “perfect, peaceful, plain.” The epithet refers to disposition, and contrasts the comparatively civilized character of Jacob with the rude temper of Esau.”
• Calvin: “The word תם (tam,) although generally taken for upright and sincere, is here put antithetically. After the sacred writer has stated that Esau was robust, and addicted to hunting, he places on the opposite side the mild disposition of Jacob, who loved the quiet of home so much, that he might seem to be indolent…”
• Clarke: “Jacob was a plain man — איש תם ish tam, a perfect or upright man; dwelling in tents - subsisting by breeding and tending cattle, which was considered in those early times the most perfect employment; and in this sense the word תם tam, should be here understood, as in its moral meaning it certainly could not be applied to Jacob till after his name was changed…”
• Constable: “The Hebrew word tam, translated ‘plain,’ probably means civilized and domesticated, a homebody…Translators have rendered it ‘perfect’ and ‘blameless’ elsewhere (Job 1:1; Job 1:8; Job 8:20; Psalms 37:37; Proverbs 29:10). It may imply a quiet, self-contained, detached person, complete in himself.”

---

Some notes:

Well, it is his translation, whether or not he is the owner of that channel!

Benner’s own site does not claim the YouTube videos, but the YouTube channel links to Benner’s mechanical-translation.org site.

Benner seems to enjoy setting himself up as an authority who is smarter than everyone else. This becomes obvious is his 10 surprising facts about Jesus we’ve had wrong all these years.

3. Jesus’ last words on the cross were not Eli Eli Lama Sabach’tani.

“In Matthew 27:46, the phrase Eli Eli Lama Sabach’tani is the last recorded words of Jesus, but his last words must have been sh’ma Yisra’el Yahweh eloheynu, Yahweh ehhad (Hear, O, Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is One (Deuteronomy 6:4). According to Jewish tradition, the words of Deuteronomy 6:4 should be the final words of every Jew before death and we can be sure that these were the last words of Jesus, a devout Jew, on the cross.”

King James Idolatry

One slick maneuver in the King James Version debate... 

Call “King James ‘Onlyists’” idolaters and the King James Bible an idol. That is, they are saying that those who hold the King James Bible as the only true English Bible have made it an idol. This is a strong piece of rhetoric that plays well with many people. For an example, notice a commenter on the Haifley-Ward video discussion “Do We Need a KJV Update? A Candid and Cordial Conversation.” He wrote concerning the KJV, “The problem is that the bronze serpent in the wilderness is being repurposed as an idol.”

That is nevertheless an insincere tactic for those opponents who continue to use the “I love the KJV” trope. I adjure those who sincerely believe this charge of idolatry to come up to the lick log and prove they believe what they say. Stop playing the “nice card” and call for demolishing the idol. That’s what Hezekiah did.

[Hezekiah] … brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

Does the NKJV follow the Critical Text…

…at Revelation 16:16? Scott Ingram brought this verse up in a recent Facebook post in the Textus Receptus Academy. He was defending the New King James Version translation. However…

Compare Revelation 16:16 in the King James and New King James:

• AKJV: And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
• NKJV: And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.

Brother Ingram implied that there is no underlying Greek word for “he” or “they” in the Greek text. However, he failed to mention or show that the verb συνήγαγεν is 3rd person singular (which is he, not they). Disregarding this, his main point was this translation is a matter of interpretation.

Compare Revelation 16:16 in the Textus Receptus, Majority Text (HF, RP), and Critical Text (NA/UBS). They are the same at this verse/verb (συνήγαγεν, 3rd Person, Aorist, Active, Indicative, Singular).

• καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον εβραϊστὶ αρμαγεδών
• Καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Μαγεδών.
• Καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἁρμαγεδών.
• καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἁρμαγεδών.

The clip below is shows this verse in The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament, edited by Art Farstad (the chief editor of the NKJV) and others.[i]

The Interlinear shows “he.” Yet the NKJV and most modern translations have “they,” with something like “they gathered” or “they assembled.” Why so? Some might argue that the translators are making an interpretation of the singular referring to a group, based on the context (or something like that).[ii] However, there is another possibility for this change – the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). 

The NET Bible note does not specify their reasoning, but implies that the word is “they” in Greek:

tn Grk “they”; the referent (the demonic spirits, v. 14) has been specified in the translation for clarity.[iii]

This is a place where the NKJV is following modern translations over the KJV and TR, which are giving weight to the note with the Nestle-Aland (NA) text. Both the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland Greek text is 3rd person singular – literally, “he” rather than “they.” The NA text has the same reading as the TR; both have συνήγαγεν. However, the NA footnote shows that there is a variant – συνήγαγον, which is 3rd person plural. Or possibly they are making some other interpretation that the singular refers to a group or something. Some do argue that a plural neuter noun can be followed by a singular verb, though I’m unaware of any other place in Scripture where that happens.

To me it seems that they took an option that was a possibility (but not a necessity), added weight from the Codex Sinaiticus and modern translations, and, voila, oops, here again they did not do what they claimed they would do. Since Nelson Publishing and the editors of the NKJV claimed this was a “new” King James Bible, in places like this they should have given the weight to the KJV; but they didn’t. Or they should have lessened their claim on the King James name; but they didn’t.

---

[i] It is unfortunate that the interlinear has no comment on the difference in what it shows (he) and the NKJV translation (they).
[ii] For example, Albert Barnes says that “Prof. Stuart renders it ‘they gathered them together,’ … and that this is the construction of the neuter plural with a singular verb.” “The singular συνήγαγεν (synēgagen, he gathered) is probably due to the neuter πνεύματα (pneumata, spirits [of demons] in 16:14 (since neuter plural nouns sometimes take singular verbs) and should be rendered ‘they gathered them together.’” Revelation, Grant R. Osborne, (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Moises Silva, Editor). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002/2012.
[iii] The upshot of this is that the NET translators take the Greek to be “they” (which is what it is in Codex Sinaiticus) and then substitute the interpretation “the spirits” for “they.”

Appomattox Baptist Association condemns A. Campbell translation

1830.

“The Appomattox Association issued the following statements signed by Abner Clopton as clerk:

“1. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the churches composing this association, to discountenance the writings of Alexander Campbell.

“2. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the churches in this association not to countenance the new translation of the New Testament.”

Alexander Campbell and His New Version, page 80 referencing The Millennial Harbinger, Volume 1, 1830, p. 261.

Alexander Campbell and His New Version, Cecil K. Thomas (St. Louis, MO: The Bethany Press, 1958).

Random comments re Mark Ward and the King James Bible

After his debate with Dan Haifley, Mark Ward made a few stabs at “clarifying” his debate answer to Haifley about not giving children a King James Bible – by which either he meant or has been interpreted by others to mean that giving a King James Bible to a child is a sin. If accurately copied from the transcript and properly tweaked by listening to the audio, here is what Mark said:

“There comes a point at which it’s so close to this ditch that actually it is a sin for a given Bible translation to be handed to children. I’m saying we’ve reached the point where there’s a sufficient number of readability difficulties that it’s time to turn away from the King James in institutional contexts. Would I say it’s a sin to hand to your child? Here’s what I’d say, quoting the King James: ‘to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.’”

In the original quote itself Mark seems to be “hedging his bets,” and has also done so in some of his “clarifications,” in my opinion. In a recent discussion on Dwyane Green’s channel, Mark was understood by one listener to mean the following. He writes,

“Here’s how I took his comment:

“‘If you, like me, believe the KJV has reached the point of not being sufficiently intelligible for your child’s reading...and yet you give it to them, to you it is sin (because you know better).’

“So if one doesn’t agree with his premise about readability, then he’s NOT saying to that one it’s sin.”

I think that is a “charitable” interpretation of what Mark said. It would be a sin for Mark to give a KJV to a child, because he “knows better.” It would not be a sin for me to give a KJV to a child, since I don’t know any better. Is that a fair interpretation of how he uses James 4:17?

Then that raises the question whether that is even a proper interpretation and understanding of James 4:17. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” [Or for the modern reader who doesn’t understand James 4:17 - “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (ESV). “So suppose someone knows the good deeds they should do. But suppose they don’t do them. By not doing these good deeds, they sin.” (NIrV).]

Is not this instruction about sinning by omission – omitting or failing to do the good one knows to do? Giving someone a Bible – regardless of what version one gives – is an act, is it not? It is not an omission. It seems that Mark’s use of James 4:17 here makes sin much more subjective than what James actually writes.

Here is a transcription from about 5:38 to 6:10 in the second of Mark’s video interviews with Dwayne Green about the debate. Mark says:

“I’m opposed to exclusive use of the King James in general by anyone. I think at the very least you ought to have the liberty in your conscience to read other translations. I really don’t want to lay the burden on someone’s conscience to require them to use a modern translation even though I just said I don’t think it should be used exclusively. I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin. I mean there must be millions – I don’t know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dear older saints who’ve grown up with the King James who do understand it sufficiently well…”

In light of the recent flare-up over whether it is a sin to give a child a King James Bible, there is this interesting comment: “I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin.” I suppose “back off” might be taken one of two ways. The most common way to take it, I think, is that he is abandoning that position, retreating from what he had previously said. However, it might possibly mean to stop short of saying it, as in “I oppose the exclusive use of the King James, but stop short of saying that exclusive use is a sin.” I think Mark realized in reference to his making it a liberty of conscience issue, he needs to allow the liberty of conscience for those who want to exclusively read one translation.

On his opposition to the use of the King James Bible, I believe:

• Ward’s approach can be arrogant. He often implies only he is smart enough to know the answer.
• Ward’s method can be misleading. For example, his King James Quiz is defective in several regards, especially that it seems to try to direct a respondent to a wrong answer, so as to prove his point. Also there are no control questions.
• Ward’s interpretations can be inaccurate. He skews some definitions in his tests so that the range of meaning, not only in the translated word, but the original language word as well, is lost. His continual hammering on “halt” is an excellent example of this.
• Ward’s excess is unwise, and can start a chipping away at people’s faith in the Scriptures.

A somewhat peripheral general observation from me, on the multiplication of many different translations, and the continuing revision of the already multiplied ones:

If we would be faithful obeying “teach the generation following” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalm 48:13; 2 Timothy 2:2), there would not be a need for an every-generation update of the Bible.

300 years of Printing the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible

Some KJV reading.

• 300 Years of Printing the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible at Cambridge, 1629-1929. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929
• Earliest known draft of King James Bible found in Cambridge
• Scrivener’s abomination Part I, John M. Asquith
• Scrivener’s abomination Part II, John M. Asquith
• Scrivener’s abomination Part III, John M. Asquith
• Scrivener’s abomination Part IV, John M. Asquith

Acts 24:6-9

Chapter 24 divides into three parts – 1-9 Ananias and Tertullus, against Paul; 10-21 Paul answers for himself; 22-27 the responses of Felix.

In this chapter Luke records both Tertullus and Paul speaking to the governor, Felix, then concludes with the varied responses of Felix.

A textual variant not in modern translations.

Verses 6-8: “who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.” 

Most modern English translations do not include the bolded portion. It is in the King James Bible, the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, Codices Laudianus (E, 6th century), Athous Laurae (Ψ, 8th century) and the Latin Vulgate (4th century). It explains the situation, from the accusers’ standpoint, which is left somewhat vague otherwise. Internal evidence supports the reading. The fact that Felix wanted to hear more from Lysias (v. 22) supports the reading, because a reference to Lysias is made by Tertullus and Felix would need to look into that.

Verse 9: The other Jews present testified to their agreement with the charges Tertullus made against Paul.

King James Bible Adverbs

The King James Bible uses six adverbs – hence, hither, thence, thither, whence, whither – that are not archaic but nevertheless used less than some other adverbs in modern times.

• Hence, adverb. From this place; from here.
• Hither, adverb. To or toward this place; to here.

• Thence, adverb. From there; from that place.
• Thither, adverb. To there; to or toward that place.

• Whence, adverb. From what place? from where?
• Whither, adverb. To what place? to where?

The adverbs whence and whither ask direction or location; the adverbs hence, hither, thence, and thither give direction or location. The “ence” forms carry the general sense out of (exit). The “ither” forms carry the sense into. Robert Hammond, pastor of Long Hill Baptist Church, has suggested this mnemonic to help remember – those with “e” think exit; those with “i” think into. Also, the beginning letters help to focus on their location – “h” here; “th” there; “wh” where.

For more information, see Directional Adverbs in our King James Bible.

Updating an older verb table

Below I am updating a table that I published about 12 years ago. You should be able to select the picture and enlarge it to see it better.

For discussion of the verb endings, see Use of "-est" and "-eth" in the KJV and The verb ending "-edst".