King James Only?

Blogging our way through the King James Only debate

The article before God in Titus 2:13

In the King James Version, the final verse of Titus 2 reads, “Looking for the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” The small word that attracts attention is “the” in “the great God.” Its Greek source is τοῦ, the inflected definite article. The KJV renders it as the English “the”; it neither drops it nor substitutes a Hebrew divine name. That observation opens a larger question about what grammatical definiteness can and cannot prove.

The phrase behind the English is ἀναμενόντες τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Within τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ, τοῦ is a genitive masculine singular article governing μεγάλου θεοῦ, “the great God.” The KJV maps the construction closely: “of the glory of the great God.” The first task is grammatical rather than sensational.

A definite article identifies something as a particular, known referent. It does not itself supply a personal name or settle which individual a title denotes. Context here connects the designations “God” and “Saviour” with “Jesus Christ.” Whether the verse is read as an affirmation about Christ’s identity must be argued from the syntax and the wider canonical context; the article cannot carry the whole doctrine by itself.

Australian readers know that translation rarely matches one word with one word. We retain “Saviour” and “favour” while using “recognise” and “analyse”; congregations may preserve archaic wording for habit or reverence. At Greek Orthodox Easter services in Sydney, listeners may hear Σωτήρ alongside English “Saviour.” These contrasts show why sound, custom, theology and syntax must be separated before one article is blamed for an error.

What the Greek article is doing

The construction is not an English label attached after “God.” Greek writes the article as a separate inflected word, τοῦ, with the adjective μεγάλου and noun θεοῦ in the genitive. It can be translated demonstratively, as “that God,” or as the ordinary definite “the,” but it remains an article. It marks the group “great God” as definite in relation to what follows.

The article does not mean Jehovah. The lexical counterpart is θεός, “God,” while the KJV normally renders the Hebrew divine name as “LORD”; the English capital in “God” follows the convention of treating the referent as divine, not a secret signal attached to τοῦ. An argument that the article “proves” a doctrine must show how that particular function follows from Greek usage, rather than moving straight from the word’s form to a disputed conclusion.

Nor does every Greek use of θεός with an article require an English “the.” Greek may use an article where English needs none, and translators may choose a possessive or omission when context carries definiteness. The test is whether the KJV preserves the source’s identification and relationships. Here it does by saying “the great God,” so a claim that the article was lost must address the quoted verse itself.

Reading God and Saviour as one phrase

More nuance appears in τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The word ἡμῶν, “our,” occurs once and follows σωτῆρος, “Saviour,” so the KJV’s “our Saviour Jesus Christ” reflects its immediate attachment. Jesus Christ identifies the person described by the coordinated titles “God” and “Saviour.” The possessor’s scope is therefore partly a matter of English construction and partly a matter of how the clause identifies one person.

Modern versions sometimes place “our” before “God,” producing “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and sometimes omit “great” in light of manuscript and stylistic considerations. Those differences concern the adjective, the possessive and the coordination; they do not show that the article before God has suddenly become optional. A translation is not disproved merely because another translation finds a different way to express the same relationship.

The mixture of languages is familiar in Melbourne’s Greek Precinct around Lygon Street, where English signs sit beside Greek businesses. A translator may move a possessive for clarity without denying the referent identified by the article. Precision about what changed is more useful than treating every variation as doctrinal sabotage.

Textual variants behind the English wording

Some manuscripts omit μεγάλου, “great,” and witnesses differ over the placement or attachment of “our.” Those variants help explain why the KJV reads “the great God and our Saviour” while other published versions may read “God and Saviour” or “our great God and Saviour.” Textual questions must be settled from the witnesses themselves, with attention to date, provenance, agreement and scribal context, rather than from the wording an English reader happens to prefer.

The 1611 translators used a particular Greek and Latin textual tradition and also made editorial decisions; the King James Version is therefore evidence of early English biblical translation, not a substitute for a manuscript catalogue. Some King James Only arguments treat “the Received Text” as though its label settled every question. Historical scholarship can affirm the value of the Textus Receptus and still examine its readings and transmission. The linked analysis of KJV divine images shows why claims about divine language need occurrence-by-occurrence attention to source wording and English construction.

The National Library of Australia in Canberra is a better place to test such a claim than a reposted caption: catalogues let a reader identify a KJV edition, consult its apparatus and move to a critical Greek text. A responsible examination may find a reading well supported, reconsidered or genuinely divided; it should not predetermine the verdict.

Testing the movement’s strongest claims

Three propositions need testing. First, an articular θεός must refer to God the Father; the article’s definiteness does not by itself identify a person, and this verse connects “God” and “Saviour” with Jesus Christ. Second, every Greek article must appear as “the” in English; translation recognises functional correspondences, and English syntax may require another construction. Third, precise translation requires every Greek word to occupy the same grammatical position as its English counterpart; fixed order is not the test. The KJV’s placement of “our” can be discussed, but no rule of divine titles comes from it.

Wider KJV apologetic discussions, including Dawn of First Light, are useful for seeing how translation questions are framed, but a persuasive essay still has to be tested against morphology and manuscripts. At Adelaide’s Central Market, a bilingual shopper uses the whole sign and its context to identify a stall; a missing article does not prove a change of identity. Biblical interpretation follows the same principle, asking what the wording communicates and what the surrounding text supplies.

A practical method for checking the verse

The most defensible verdict on Titus 2:13 is therefore narrow: the KJV translates τοῦ as “the” in “the great God,” while presenting “our” with “Saviour.” Its wording can be discussed, but the verse does not demonstrate that the article has been mistranslated. Other claims require their own textual and contextual case. Working through that case is easier when each step remains visible.

Use a consistent sequence rather than selecting isolated words. Begin with the Greek clause, then examine morphology and syntax before consulting a lexicon. Compare the earliest and diverse witnesses rather than merely counting appearances, check how a particular English edition was produced, and read the paragraph before assigning theological weight to a grammatical marker.

At the next Australian church Bible study or online discussion, read the verse in the KJV, place a critical Greek text beside it, and record each difference before sharing a verdict. Read the text, check the witnesses, and let the grammar govern the verdict.