I have long thought that the proper term for the King James Version is “the Authorized Version.” At times, I’ve wondered if that title isn’t more of a British title, since most Americans prefer “King James Version” or simply the “King James Bible.” But I recently read a historical essay by David Bebbington, professor of History at the University of Stirling, Scotland, in which he points out the fact that the King James Version was not always known as “The Authorized Version.” Bebbington’s essay, “The King James Bible in Britain from the Late Eighteenth Century,” appears in a collection of important historical essays published by Baylor University Press (2011) under the title, The King James Bible and the World It Made (edited by David Lyle Jeffrey).

Bebbington argues convincingly that the King James Bible did not enjoy universal acclaim in the eighteenth century until the very end of that period. In a post at my personal blog, I excerpted Bebbington’s conclusion, which argues that “the enthusiasm for the translation of 1611 rose and fell with the growth and decay of Romantic sensibility.” In the excerpt provided below, I would like to quote his description of how the title “the Authorized Version” came to be used for the King James Bible.

A fourth explanation of the rising tide of admiration for the translation of 1611 was its redefinition as “the Authorized Version.” The title emerged for the first time in a debate provoked by the creation of the [British and Foreign] Bible Society. Whereas the society’s evangelical supporters considered the new agency a bulwark of the existing social order, the High Church party thought it a sinister development. It threatened the work of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the established Anglican organization for circulating the Scriptures. Furthermore, the timing was unfortunate. During 1804, the year of the society’s foundation, Napoleon’s forces were poised to invade the country, and in the heightened alarm, the equal presence of Dissenters alongside Churchmen on the society’s committee seemed poentially subversive. Had not Dissenters once killed an English king, Charles I? Thomas Sikes, the High Church vicar of Guilsborough, Northamptonshire, warned that, when the production of the sacred text was being entrusted to “sectaries,” nobody could be confident that they would not tamper with the translations. In order to calm such fears, John Owen, one of the society’s secretaries, replied that the organization was limited to producing versions “printed by authority.” When an opponent pointed out that this restriction had not been stated formally, the society hastened in May 1805 to revise its constitution so as to read, “The only copies in the languages of the United Kingdom to be circulated by the Society, shall be the authorised version, without note or comment.” Thus the phrase “the authorized version” was launched on the world as an apologetic device for the Bible Society. By 1819 the phrase had been heard so often that it crept for the first time into the Times newspaper, though still with a lowercase “a,” showing that it was not yet a title. The steady growth of the usage is documented in the number of times in each subsequent decade the phrase occurred in the Times: 1820s, 7; 1830s, 41; 1840s, 61; 1850s, 91. By the last of these decades, the expression was starting to be capitalized, demonstrating that it had emerged as a title. Thereafter “the Authorized Version” became the standard term for the 1611 Bible in Britain, where the phrase “King James Bible” was hardly ever used. The new title surrounded this particular text, as it was originally intended to do, with an aura of unique legitimacy. It helped forward the process by which the version became embedded more deeply in the national culture. (pg. 53-54)

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: CBD, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Baylor University Press.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Baylor University Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

I have a confession, I depended on Google to verify the publication date of the King James Bible when I posted my recent video review of Dr. Donald Brake’s A Visual History of the King James Bible. I had heard the date May 2, given for the publishing of the KJB from the Haven Today radio interview of Dr. Brake. I Googled and found that several other sites were saying May 2 was “the date”.

I came across this blog post, where the blogger directly asked Dr. Brake if May 2nd was the date. Here’s an excerpt from his post and I think this answers the question.

David Norton in his book A Textual History of the King James Bible says “The printing history of the KJB is plagued throughout by inadequate publishing records. Presumably because it was considered a revision rather than a new book, the first edition was not entered on the Stationers’ Registers, so we do not know when in 1611 it appeared.” (page 46)

Norton’s book was published in 2005 so I thought maybe some new evidence had surfaced which fixed the date to May 2nd. I immediately thought of Donald Brake. After reading his first book, A Visual History of the English Bible, I had emailed him a couple of questions and he quickly provided me with answers. Since he just published a book specifically on the history of the King James Version (A Visual History of the King James Bible) I thought I would try him again. Two days later came his reply. Here’s what he wrote:

“The actual date of the publication is unknown. Tradition has placed it in May but no specific date can be verified. We know it was being sold in November from a diary of a resident in England, a Mr. Throckmorton. I believe David Norton is correct and I too am puzzled by the fact it was not in Stationer’s Registers. They were generally disciplined to include all new publications. I question the reason ‘because it was considered a revision rather than a new book.’ While it was designed to be a revision of the Bishops’ Bible as clearly stated in the Introduction, few would consider it an actual revision of the Bishops’. The translators consulted most of the 16th century Bibles (as set forth in the 15 rules for translators) plus the Greek and Hebrew texts. Having said that, I don’t have a better explanation. Perhaps it was released over a period of time as the copies were sold.”

As it turns out Brake was in DC during May 2nd and 3rd for a celebration of the KJV anniversary. The date, he said, was a “date the anniversary committee decided as the official day.”…

[Read the whole post]

This being the year of the King James Bible’s 400th anniversary, celebrations of the enduring legacy of the King James Bible are planned all over the world. In England, the King James Bible Trust has been founded, and they are trying to educate the people of England about the literary treasure that is the King James Bible.

If you haven’t already been to the King James Bible Trust’s website, you really should give it a look. There is a wealth of historical information, and several interesting projects they are doing. The YouTube Bible Project seems especially intriguing. They are hoping to get video clips of people reading thorugh each chapter of the King James Bible uploaded to YouTube. I might have to try my hand at that and share my entry here with you all. [As a complete sidenote, I noticed that the University of Michigan's website for the King James Bible text is what the Trust recommends to readers for their project. As a big Michigan fan, I thought that was great!]

Here are the stated aims of the Trust from their PDF brochure, available for free download.

The King James Bible is the book that changed the world. For 400 years its words have rung out across the length and breadth of Britain – its phrases on the lips of millions, its cadences the music of English literature. In America it inspired the rhetoric of politicians from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, and has thus been a potent weapon in the struggle for freedom and social justice.

Yet the King James Bible has become – in its own telling phrase – ‘a prophet without honour’ in the country of its birth and one of the most important books in the English Language has practically disappeared from state schools.

Our aim is to raise awareness of what has been, for too long, one of Britain’s best-kept secrets. It is impossible to understand the history and culture of this country without a knowledge of the King James Bible, and so we intend not only to re-awaken memories among the older generation, but to lay down new memories for the young.

There will be many celebrations through the year, but we also want to leave a legacy to ensure that the King James Bible lives on for future generations.

Education will play a key role in achieving these aims. We have already funded the development of 3 modules for the Religious Education curriculum, and we also want the King James Bible to take its proper place elsewhere in the curriculum, so that children from all backgrounds will have the chance to encounter its power and beauty.

If anyone is interested, the Trinitarian Bible Society – which publishes the most widely circulated edition of the Textus Receptus – has put their history of the KJV on their site.

You can get it here.

I am curious as to why the King James Version translators translated eis as into, unto, for instead of consistently using one word.

For example, when reading verses about baptism, John baptized unto (eis) repentance and preached the baptism of repentance for (eis) the remission of sins.  Peter preached that people should be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins.  Paul said we are baptized into (eis) Christ, and that Israel was baptize unto (eis) Moses.

I cannot see that the word actually has a wide variety of meaning from one of these texts to  another.  It would have been helpful, I think, for it to have been translated with a little more consistency.

Perhaps someone could help me on the whole issue.

Last week’s televised debate between James White and Jack Moorman is now available to watch on demand. I was able to watch it this weekend and was really impressed with White, I thought he won the debate hands down.

White could have also pointed out that other languages beside Greek provide support for many Alexandrian readings, and only limited support for Byzantine readings. Also, the dearth of Greek study in general prior to the Renaissance helped ensure the Byzantine Text (being secreted into Europe with the onslaught of the Muslims against Byzantium) would be the primary text available for Erasmus and his like in the early period of recovering the Greek New Testament text.

I also thought Moorman should have had a better answer handy on the Revelation 16:5 point, which was repeatedly stressed. White did dodge some bullets, but the format makes it hard to address everything carefully.

Care to share your thoughts on the debate? Or did you (like me), miss it the first time round? Give it a watch and then chime in here. UPDATE: A better quality video surfaced on YouTube here.

For those who don’t know, while I’m evaluating the Majority Text position, currently I still am persuaded by the general tenor of the arguments for the modern Greek text behind modern versions, as shared by White and others. I believe our modern text can be refined and should be, but for the most part it is better than the Textus Receptus which preceded it. That’s my personal opinion and not necessarily the opinion of most of my fellow bloggers here at KJVOnlyDebate.com.

James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries and author of The King James Only Controversy will be debating Dr. Jack Moorman, author of Forever Settled and other books defending the King James Bible. The debate will be live on British cable TV and online at www.revelation.tv. It is to be held at 9pm local UK time Feb. 2nd, which translates to 4pm Eastern time here in the US.

You can watch for free online. Click here for more details. I’ve been asked to encourage those interested to send in their email comments or text messages during the debate as a measure of knowing which side is the winner. If you watch the debate, consider chiming in here in the comments and let us know who you thought had the most convincing position and why.

Today is the final installment of our interview with Dr. Kirk DiVietro. We asked him some specific questions about the King James Bible as an English translation.

KJVO Debate:
What specifically distinguishes your position from the general KJVO positions?

Dr. DiVietro:
I am not King James Version Only. I am Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text only. As I stated above I believe any time the proper Greek/Hebrew texts are accurately translated we have the words of God in English. I do not believe the King James Bible or any other translation is divinely inspired. I do believe an accurate translation preserves the inspired words into the English language.

KJVO Debate:
Do you believe the Word of God in English exists only in the King James Bible?

Dr. DiVietro:
I answered it above. In addition to that comment I add this caveat. The King James Bible is the only English translation that I trust 100% to accurately translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Its process beginning with Tyndale and ending in 1769 with the present revision of the Cambridge King James Bible was careful enough to produce an accurate reliable English Bible.

KJVO Debate:
One of the biggest criticisms of the King James text is that it is unreadable. Share with us how you answer that criticism in a practical way.

Dr. DiVietro:
Again it is nice if you can make a translation both easily readable and accurate. However, that is rarely possible, especially when working with an ancient language. Most of the readability problems in the King James Bible do not come from old English. It does not take a great level of intelligence to understand that thee, thou, and ye mean ‘you.’ The same is true of the -est and -est endings of verbs. The difficulty of the King James Bible is primarily because it attempts to keep the word order and nuanced grammar of the original languages. The translaters were attempting to replicate the full impact of the original language. Some words like propitiation were coined specifically because there was no English word which carried the full impact of the word. It cannot be rendered more ‘readable’ without sacrificing accuracy. There are other such conventions and phenomena.

KJVO Debate:
Some commenters have asked you to comment on the recent works to update the text of the KJB. What are your opinions of the MKJV, AKJV, KJV2000, and LITV?

Dr. DiVietro:
I have not done extensive research into any one of these revisions of the KJB. The English language has not changed enough to make most readers of the KJB uncomfortable and asking for a revision. It is still the most popular form of the Bible. There are not enough changes to legitimately justify a copyright. There are not enough changes that have been recognized by consensus as being necessary.

KJVO Debate:
Given the opportunity, how would you steer an update of the KJB text? Does there need to be an update?

Dr. DiVietro
No, I would not steer an update of the KJB nor do I think there a need for an update. The quality of scholarship both on the committee and in the born again, Bible believing pastors and educators of English speaking people to do a quality job. I would not feel qualified to serve on a revision committee. I would not tamper with the words of God.

On behalf of the authors of this blog, I want to thank my father for his gracious interview. While the TR-only position is held by a minority of textual scholars, it is not nearly as marginalized as mainstream publications tend to make it. The far more vocal KJVO provocateurs like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger have unfortunately monopolized the spotlight of the KJVO side of the debate. Even if you disagree with at TR-only advocate like Dr. DiVietro, you must admire their desire to have and know the Word of God.

One final note. Dr. DiVietro is not interested in engaging in the debate of this topic. He has expressed that his desire is only to present his position. Others are free to agree or disagree.

We continue our conversation with Dr. Kirk DiVietro, pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Franklin, Massachusetts. Today, we provide his answers to some questions about the Greek text of the New Testament.

KJVO Debate:
What, in your opinion, is the single best reason to reject the modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament?

Dr. DiVietro:
The best reason to reject modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament is that they are based on theories and procedures that guarantee a wrong result. The theories were created by non-bible believers who reject divine origin and preservation of the scriptures.

The foundational thesis of modern textual criticism is that the Bible evolved by natural processes. The advocates vary on the origin of the Scriptures. But they agree that once the original scriptures were created God abandoned the preservation process. The scriptures were subject to the same corrupting influences of any piece of literature. This process reached its culmination with the printing press. The printing press froze the text and allowed perfect reproduction.

As the theory goes, the text when frozen by the printing press was the result of 1500 years of evolution. The existing text therefore not be the text when first produced. In the same way that geological and biological evolutionists try to regress the evolutionary process they decided that they would have to regress the evolution of the Scriptures.

A logical seive was created to do the regression. All manuscripts were assembled (in theory) and classified by their readings. An assumption was made that the earlier the manuscript text the more accurate. Since no two manuscripts can be demonstrated to have a direct ancestor-child relationship individual readings were isolated and analyzed. They were organized into ‘families’ by the geological region of their widest circulation. It was then speculated that there were separate distinct texts circulating in specific areas. Although no perfect pure regional manuscript was ever discovered scholars conjecture those texts and build them artificially by isolating geographical readings no matter what manuscript they appear in. (Much like Q is conjectured as a base for the Gospels)

Once they created their archetype texts and families of manuscripts they had to purify their artificial texts. If Alexandrian manuscripts disagree on a reading the true reading has to be determined. How? By picking the most unlikely, obscure, aberrant reading as the original reading, on the assumption that subsequent editors would ‘correct’ obtuse readings, the theorists conjectured ‘earliest’ and ‘oldest’ readings. Becuase the process is weighted against the historic, traditional readings a brand new text arose. This text appears NOWHERE in the physical manuscript evidence. It is completely eclectically created. You cannot pick up ANY NT manuscript and read the modern text although it is most dependent on the Vaticanus Manuscript and its allies.

KJVO Debate:
You have said elsewhere that you have rejected the idea of text families. What motivated that move and what do you suggest in place of that theory?

Dr. DiVietro:
I reject them because they assume the opposite of Bible truth. God said he revealed his word. It was perfect at its revelation. He further says he preserves his word. The concept of families rejects both statements. If the argument of families were used to explain where the aberrant variant readings came from I might accept the premise. Things don’t develope upward without intelligent intervention. According to modern theory the New Testament developed from a text which was grammatically, historically, theologically, biblically inaccurate into a consistent cogent uniform New Testament.

In addition ‘families’ are impossible to discern. The manuscript evidence as it appears today is like the result of a bomb hitting a 2000 year old cemetary. Modern scholars claim they can reassemble the bodies and tell who is related to whom without DNA. They claim bones found next to each other must be from the same individual, and individuals thus assembled found close to each other must be related.

KJVO Debate:
A few years ago, you presented a paper to the DBS – survey on the supposed LXX quotes in the New Testament. Can you share what you discovered?

Dr. DiVietro:
I discovered that in John, Acts and Hebrews, no Old Testament quotation came directly from the Septuagint. Even those who advocate the idea that the New Testament writers used the Septuagint readily admit that if an accurate translation of the Hebrew text varied from the Septuagint the writers translated the Hebrew. Simply stated, if an independent translation of the Hebrew and the Septuagint agree it is assumed that the writer quoted the Septuagint. If they vary he used the Hebrew. Why does that make more sense than assuming that they used the Hebrew text and when the Septuagint agrees it is becaust the translator of the Septuagint got it right?

Further I found there is no direct evidence of a Septuagint (except for the possible translaqtion of the Pentateuch) in the pre-christian era. The Septuagint as we know it appears first in the writings of Origen near the end of the 2nd century AD. The modern text ASSUMES the Septuagint origin of the OT quotes and whenever it finds a variant that agrees with the Septuagint elevates it above the historic reading.

KJVO Debate:
Is there an extant, perfect manuscript copy of the TR? If so, which? If not, could you explain briefly why you believe the TR tradition to be superior to the texts used in the Critical Text?

No. There is not a perfect manuscript copy of the TR. No intelligent student of the manuscripts would say there is. Every manuscript is handwritten. In that volume of work it is impossible for any one copyist not to make some inadvertant error. However, if you pick up any TR manuscript (about 95% of the manuscript evidence) you will find a clear mainstream. Any given manuscript will have an eddy of error from time to time but when compared against the stream it is easily identified as an aberration.

In contrast, the modern text cannot be found in any manuscript. Its manuscript evidence resides primarily in 2-5% of the evidence. It requires the ‘scholar’ to arbitrarily adopt a given reading from any given manuscript to create or ‘restore’ the text.

The Textus Receptus tradition comes from the eastern churches which continued to use Greek as their primary active language into the 15th century. The manuscripts are not museum pieces. They are the Bibles they were using. They come from an area of the world which is not especially condusive to preserving biological materials. As manuscripts deteriorated from use they were disposed of lest they give rise to bad readings. This area of the world was the area to which the documents of the New Testament were originally addressed. The churches of this area would most likely have been the depository of the most accurate copies of the New Testament making restoration after persecution possible.

Many of the modern readings are consistent with the dialect of Alexandria preferring classical greek grammar rather than koine greek.

There are just too many factors which weigh against the accuracy of modern textual conclusions.

KJVO Debate:
In discussing things with me (Erik), you made an excellent point about the reason we should trust the Byzantine texts and the faulty reasons why Westcott and Hort rejected them. Could you explain that to us?

I’m not exactly what observations Erik has mentioned to you. I have partially explained it above. I will summarize here.

1. The Byzantine text has been demonstrated to be at least contemporary with Codex B/Aleph. (See The Byzantine Text-type by Bruce Sturz)
2. The B/Aleph group of manuscripts is not consistent in its source texts. There is no one manuscript which is 100% “Alexandrian” in its readings. There are many that are TR.
3. The B/Aleph group of manuscripts shows signs of being edited to a more classical Greek from a Koine source.
4. Westcott-Hort and the other textual critics were trained in classical Greek. Their assessment of the TR was that it was terribly corrupted is a result of their training. The idea that Koine Greek was a defined dialect would not come into existence until after their work.
5. Manuscript B (Vaticanus) was traced over three times. The original readings are obscured below the latest retracing. The authority of the edited text of Vaticanus is questionable.
6. The modern critical theory denies the doctrine of divine preservation and some of the advocates deny the divine origin of the Scriptures. Their logical grid for determining original readings is biased toward the obtuse.
7. Westcott and Hort as well as Gladstone wanted to remerge the English church with Rome. They knew that the authority of the King James Bible had to be broken before that would be possible.
8. Several members of the 1881 Revision committee were unsaved. Several were unitarians.

KJVO Debate:
What are your thoughts on the Byzantine/Majority Text Platform? How does it differ from the TR?

Dr. DiVietro:
As I read the introduction of the Majority Text I was lead to believe that it was not what it claimed to be, a text created by simply counting manuscripts and choosing the majority supported reading. Instead there was a formula which accepted the Von Soden classifications of readings. This was not a simple majority method. As a result about 4-5000 of the W-H readings were rejected leaving 2000+ variants from the Textus Receptus. The Majority Text advocates still are based on the assumption that original text was lost and needed to be restored by the work of its editors. When the smoke clears the best that can be said is that Majority Text is as close to the original as manuscript evidence allows.

Author’s Disclaimer:

What follows is an exchange of some questions and answers with Dr. Kirk DiVietro, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Franklin, Massachusetts. Dr. DiVietro is a prominent member of the Dean Burgon Society and a Textus Receptus advocate. (He also happens to be my father, so forgive my bias if I say that he is one of the more well-reasoned TR advocates.) His comments appear as they were provided to us. If clarification is needed, please request it in the comments and I can either clarify it or ask Dr. DiVietro for more information. Today’s portion of the interview covers Dr. DiVietro’s basic information and some of his associations. Tomorrow, we will see his views on the Greek text.

KJVO Debate:
For starters, could you give us a little background about yourself, your faith and your scholarly career?

Dr. DiVietro:
I was saved Palm Sunday 1971 at the age of 18 years old. I came from a Christian home which loved and respected the Bible. When I was growing up, my family attended independent Baptist or baptistic churches. Despite this orientation I tried to objectively discover the teachings of the Bible. I spent hours reading and analyzing the bible to find the doctrines revealed by God in his word. Today I am a baptist by conviction forged by the Scriptures and not by any affiliation.

I was married in April of 1971. In September 1972, I began my formal preparation for the ministry by enrolling in United Wesleyan College in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The school was both Arminian and Neo-orthodox in orientation. There was also a pro-charismatic element. I attended UWC for three semesters until I was asked to leave becuase of my conservative convictions, especially surrounding the nature of the Bible itself.

In January of 1974, I transferred to Lynchburg Baptist College which became Liberty Baptist College and presently Liberty University. Liberty at that time was a firm Bible-oriented, soul-winning, fundamentalist Baptist college. The theology department was primarily 4 or 5 point Calvinist in their orientation. The one point they debated was the limited atonement.

After graduating from Liberty, I started an independent baptist church in New Jersey which I pastored for 13+ years. During that time I continued my education through a small Bible school in Maryland. I earned a B.Th. and Ph.D. there. These degrees do not have wide recognition although the school was accredited in the state of Maryland.

In 1992 I moved my family to Massachusetts, where I took the pastorate of Grace Baptist Church – the congregation I still pastor.

For several years I taught as a part-time professor at Baptist Bible College East (now Boston Baptist College) in Boston, MA. When it drifted away from firm biblical footing I resigned. During my experience at BBCE I returned to Liberty for a M.A in Religion, and a M.Div. Since leaving BBCE, I have taught as a guest professor in seminary and was sought as a full time seminary professor in two seminaries. Neither position materialized.

KJVO Debate:
You do not hold what might be considered the “typical” King James Only position. Tell us about your journey to a TR-only position.

Dr. DiVietro:
I am not sure what you mean by “typical” King James Only position. Let me state clearly what I believe and then tell how I came to believe it.

• I believe that the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus are the preserved, inspired words of God.
• I believe that the modern versions of the Greek and Hebrew texts has been corrupted by theories advanced by unsaved biased ‘scholars.’
• Whenever the true words of God have been accurately translated into the English language we have the preserved authoritative words of God in English.
• The only place where I have the confidence by experience that this has been done is in the King James Bible. I use, as do most KJB advocates, the 1769 revision of the Cambridge text of the KJV of 1611. I have never found a verse which is inaccurately translated when compared to the Greek or Hebrew-Aramaic from which it was translated.

Many people think that only uneducated, traditionalists hold to the King James Bible and the texts from which it came. My experience is that those who hold to the KJB and the texts from which it comes are generally more educated in the details of textual comparisons and translation than non-KJB/Textus Receptus-Masoretic Text advocates. This could only be accomplished by reading both sides of the issue. My library is rather extensive in these areas containing many of the major textual scholars of both America and Britain. It also contains many of the notes and personal papers of those who created the modern textual theories as well as facsimilies of many of the major evidentiary manuscripts. Where manuscripts were not available I gathered printed texts of the manuscripts.

My journey to this position began in my second year of College. UWC used the RSV as its standard text my freshman year. They moved to the NASB in my second year. I used a parallel Bible my first few months of school. Comparing Scriptures quickly led me to believe that there were clearly two very distinct Bible traditions. I defaulted back to the Bible of my youth, the KJB. I found fellowship with a handful of other students who were conservative bible believing Christians. We were expelled because of the liberal bend of the school.

At Liberty I began my Greek education. We used the UBS 2nd edition of the Greek New Testament at Liberty. I was told that whenever it deviated from the Textus Receptus, the TR reading would appear in the apparatus at the bottom of the page.

After one semester I discovered that I had not really learned any Greek grammar and set off to educate myself while continuing to fulfill the academic requirements. My process was simple. Arbitrarily choosing I John 5, I purchased a lexicon, two grammar books, and an analytical lexicon and started translating. I made copious notes until certain vocabulary and forms became familiar.

When I got to I John 5.13 I found that words were missing and there was no footnote explaining why. This led me to realized that someone was lying. The text I was using could not be the source of the King James Bible. I had still not made an academic or scholarly decision on the text or the translation. I was driven to find the text of the KJB and to understand the reasons for the textual differences.

I discovered George Ricker Berry’s interlinear based on the Stephannus 1550 text, which was in the greatest majority the text behind the KJB. I started to translate from it and to compare it to the UBS 2nd. I started to understand the apparatus of the UBS and by analysis of Mark, the Johanine Epistles, Revelation and a few other partial books that there was a pattern.

Between 1/3 and 2/3 of the divurgences from the TR in the UBS text were NOT documented. I also noted that if I removed two manuscripts, Aleph or Sinaticus and B or Vaticanus from the equation the documentary conclusion reversed. I knew nothing about the nature of these or any other Manuscripts.

KJVO Debate:
Probably your best known contribution to textual work is the digital texts for the Scrivener and Stephanus editions of the TR that pretty much all of us who use Logos have. Tell us how that came about.

Dr. DiVietro:
Manuscripts are not readily available for observation. I found Codex W and Z on display at the Smithsonian Institute. My trips to Washington DC brought me into contact with Dr. J. Roy Stewart who headed Baptist International School of Theology. BIST and Dr. Stewart had a library of manuscripts and manuscript analysis. While in the area I found a book called Which Bible by Dr. David Otis Fuller. This book introduced me to areas of research that could prepare me to make intelligent analysis. I enrolled in BIST.

Dr. Stewart introduced me to the computer. At the time there was no computerized Greek New Testament available for the average person. I finally discovered a program which made the UBS text available and purchased it. I was able to get below the ‘program’ and modify parts of the data base back to the TR for convenience. A newer evolution of this program allowed me access to the full text of the Greek NT.

Motivated by curiosity and need I began to revise the ascii codes of the program back to the TR. Dr. Stewart encouraged me to do the entire New Testament since no TR Greek New Testament was available on computer. He provided a photocopy of an actual Stephanus 1550 which I used as the basis for my work. I typed out the entire ascii code of the UBS 2nd Greek text. Visually and mentally comparing this printed code to the Stephannus 1550

I redlined the printed codes back to the TR and then edited the computer files so that the program would produce the Greek text with Greek characters. This would form the backbone of my Ph.D. work. In producing the text I mastered the apparatus and was able to think my way through the alterations. This work and peripheral studies brought me to a convictional dependence on the TR and MT as the source of the English (or any other language) Bible.

KJVO Debate:
You have worked extensively with D.A. Waite and the Dean Burgon Society. Tell us about that association and your reasons for working with Waite.

Dr. DiVietro:
Subsequent to finishing my Stephannus text I was introduced to Dr. D.A. Waite of the Bible for Today. Dr. Waite introduced me to the text of F.H.A. Scrivener which was published in 1881 by the RV committee to show where the TR was changed by the committee. Having read Scrivener’s notes, I became convinced that the Scrivener text (the 1598 text of Theodore Beza with 190 slight alterations) was closer to the text of the KJB. Again armed with the codes of the UBS 2nd I redlined the codes to produce Scrivener’s text. Dr. Waite put me in contact with the producer of Logos Bible Research®. Logos expressed an interest and chose to use my text in their program. It was also used in the early versions of Bible Works for Windows®.

My association with Dr. Waite brought me into the Dean Burgon Society. The DBS is a group which researches textual matters. At annual meetings papers are presented on the subject. As a member of DBS, I have had greater access to many relevent documents. I was able to do more first hand research. Through the years I have become more and more firmly convinced that the Greek Textus Receptus is the very words breathed out by God the only legitimate basis for Bible translations.

KJVO Debate:
You caught quite a bit of flak in some extreme corners recently for being critical of Gail Riplinger’s views. Most people assume that TRO/KJVO people all stick together (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Why take on Riplinger?

Dr. DiVietro:
My allegiance is to truth not positions. It is that simple. Extremists are always used to discredit an unpopular position. Mrs. Riplinger is an extremist who advocates an absurd theory. Those who stand on legitimate grounds must separate from those who through foolishness discredit that position.

The Dean Burgon Society has lost many members through the last few years because of our stand on inspiration. This stand was taken to separate from the false teachings of people like Gail Riplinger. We do not believe that the King James Bible has a claim to inspiration. Mrs. Riplinger and other extremists do. We do not want to be painted with that broad brush.

II Timothy 3:16 says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The word ‘inspiration’ is a translation of ???????????. This word comes from two words meaning ‘God breathed’. The Scriptures are not inspired because they were written by inspired men. They are inspired because God breathed them out. What language did God use to breathe them out? English? NO! He used Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. Those words are the inspired words of God.

The King James Bible, the result of over 200 years of concentrated Bible translation, beginning with Tyndale and ending in 1769, has been tweaked and fine tuned until it accurately preserves the Words of God into English. A pastor or student does not have to read Greek and Hebrew to be confident that he has the words of God but he does not have the words God breathed out in the King James Bible.

If and when English changes sufficiently to demand a new translation and if and when qualified scholars are assembled to do the work and when that work is subject to intense scrutiny and use until it creates consensus and confidence then the KJB will be replaced. I don’t see that as a condition on the foreseeable horizon.

KJVO Debate:
Some say that TR/KJB proponents are marginalized and outdated. How do you respond to this criticism?

Dr. DiVietro:
Truth is not determined by popularity. The average english speaking person is lazy and does not know his own language. He will not pick up a dictionary or a grammar book to work through a difficult passage.

To say that TR/KJB is marginalized because of this phenomena is like saying since people don’t understand the word POISON we should use the term BAD THING. Is poison a bad thing? Yes. Is a bad thing poison? Not necessarily. To hand someone an inaccurate, inexact Bible because they are too lazy to read and understand the real thing is not acceptable.

Many people can’t read a map, and so we have invented GPS devices. My GPS refuses to see my driveway and insists that I drive through the neighbor’s yard to get to my house. There is a property in Maine I have to visit on a regular basis. The GPS tries to send me down three wrong turns on the way. A GPS is a wonderful invention but it is only as valuable as its accuracy. Few people buy atlases anymore BUT an accurate map is far more valuable than an inaccurate GPS.

In the same way having an accurate translation of the very words of God is far more important than having an ‘easy to read’ modern Bible. We used to live by the bromide, “If it is new it is not true. If its true it is not new.” The Bibles being offered today are not just new translations. They have altered the very content and structure of the Bible.

KJVO Debate:
What positive contribution do you believe that TR-only proponents need to make in order to move forward in the discussion of the Greek NT?

Dr. DiVietro:
I believe TR advocates have made every positive contribution they can make. They have advanced the evidence and arguments, but they are ignored. Since their evidence does not enter the mainstream, it is ‘marginalized’ but that’s a faulty premise.

I applied to the Ph.D. program of a fully accredited seminary. I was rejected primarily because I used the KJB and MT/TR. I have the letter of rejection where this was clearly stated.

Textual criticism is a ‘good old boy’ network. If you don’t support their conclusions they will not allow you to have credentials. It is not being argued on a factual basis. This is the reason that questions like yours above about being marginalized are asked. They make the argument by character assassination rather than by facts.