O HELL, WHERE IS THY VICTORY?

 

In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word “hell” can be found a total of 23 times. It was translated from the Greek word Gehenna (Strong’s G#1067) a total of 12 times, from the word Hades (G#86) a total of 10 times, and from the word Tartarus (G#5020) once. I will not take the time to type out every passage where these words are used, but here is the list:

 

Tartarus: II Peter 2:4

 

Gehenna: Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33

Mark 9:43,45,47

Luke 12:5

James 3:6

 

Hades: Matthew 11:23; 16:18

Luke 10:15; 16:23

Acts 2:27,31

Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14

 

The interesting thing is this: the word hades, which was rendered by the word “hell” 10 times in the Authorized Version, can actually be found a total of 11 times in the Greek New Testament! So what happened to example #11? Here it is:

 

“O death, where is thy sting? O grave [hades], where is thy victory? (I Corinthians 15:55)

 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why the Authorized Version translators failed to render the word hades as “hell” in this passage. Remember: the word hades was rendered by the word “hell” in EVERY OTHER CASE except this one! WHY? Because, in order to promote the prevailing “eternal torment in hell” doctrine of the day, the translators couldn’t allow this passage to read as follows:

 

“O death, where is thy sting? O hell, where is thy victory?”

 

Now I’m not a Greek scholar, but I would assume that the translation committee, in order to provide the people with a reliable text, should have translated these words in a more consistent manner. The simple fact that they did not leads me to believe that their decision making process was apparently influenced by others.

 

GOD’S “PUNISHMENT” AND THE KING JAMES BIBLE

 

I once did an Old Testament search of the word “punishment” on my e-sword, and was amazed at how many times I found this word in italicized print. Now whenever you see an italicized word in your Bible, it means that there is no Hebrew or Greek word in the original text that corresponds with this word. In other words, it appears to me as though the King James (Authorized Version) translators inserted this word into the text in order to portray our LORD as this angry, wrathful, and punishing God. By doing so, this helped to support the prevailing, state-approved doctrine of the day; that is, the “eternal punishment in hell” doctrine. In my opinion, it’s quite possible, even probable, that the committee, which was authorized by King James of England himself, was operating under specific guidelines which would attempt to further state control via the politics of fear. If you think this is some far-fetched conspiracy theory, need I remind you of the earlier testimonies?

 

A brief look at the scholars of the KJV produces several interesting facts worthy of our attention. For the most part, the scholars were clergymen, and most of these from the English Church. Several were selected because of patronage, rather than their ability as linguists of the Hebrew and Greek. One example of this was John Overall, Bishop of Norwich, who was a brilliant Latinist but not an authority in the Biblical languages. Although most of the scholars were skilled in the Greek or Hebrew languages, the wording of the KJV was nevertheless slanted toward the English Church.

 

In a 1659 essay, Dr. Robert Gell, the author, who was the chaplain to the renowned Archbishop Abbott (one of the scholars of the KJV New Testament), wrote concerning the KJV and its scholars. He remarked that some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by reason of state. He went on to state that the KJV ‘may be improved... by many instances.’ In collaboration with Dr. Thomas Drayton, William Parker and Richard Hunt, Gell spent two ‘sharp winters’ work researching the defects of the AV, consulting variant editions (amongst many others) in Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, and High and Low Dutch. Mistranslations, misinterpretations and human deceit conspired to make the ‘necessity of an extract and perfect translation of the Holy Bible’ urgent. The ‘wrested’ and ‘partial’ translation of 1611 ‘speaks the language, and gives authority to one sect or another.’ Gell’s aspirations in cleansing Scripture were clear: to preserve a true text was essential to upholding the authority of the priesthood.

 

“If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3)

 

The exclusion of some of the greatest minds of that day casts a definite reflection on the selection of scholars for the writing of the KJV. Had they contributed, their talents would have greatly enhanced the new Bible. Let us note one of these exclusions:

 

Hugh Broughton was not only the most intellectual scholar of the Hebrew language and customs, but also a foremost authority in Rabbinical writings. His skill in the Greek was described as rare by a contemporary scholar. English scholar and divine, he was born at Owlbury, Bishops Castle, Shropshire, in 1549. He was educated by Bernard Gilpin at Houghton-le-Spring and at Cambridge, where he became fellow of St. Johns and then of Christs, and took orders. Here he laid the foundation of the Hebrew scholarship for which he was afterwards so distinguished. From Cambridge he went to London, where his eloquence gained him many and powerful friends. In 1588 he published his first work, a little book of great pains, entitled A Concent of Scripture. This work, dealing with biblical chronology and textual criticism, was attacked at both universities, and the author was obliged to defend it in a series of lectures. In 1589 he went to Germany, where he frequently engaged in discussions both with Romanists and with the learned Jews whom he met at Frankfort and elsewhere. In 1591 he returned to England, but his Puritan leanings incurred the hostility of Whitgift. Accordingly in 1592 he once more went abroad, and cultivated the acquaintance of the principal scholars of Europe, including Scaligeri and Rabbi Elias. Such was the esteem in which he was held, even by his opponents, that he might have had a cardinal’s hat if he had been willing to change his faith. In 1599 he published his Explication of the article He descended into hell, in which he maintained that Hades means simply the abode of departed spirits, not the place of torment. On the accession of James he returned to England; but not being engaged to co-operate in the new translation of the Bible (though he had for some years planned a similar work), he retired to Middleburg in Holland, where he preached to the English congregation. In 1611 he returned to England, where he died on the 4th of August 1612. After studying a copy of the new KJV he remarked:

 

"The late bible was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches. The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt."

 

I find it somewhat interesting that this man died (perhaps he got his wish?) shortly after denouncing the new King James – approved Bible.

 

SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH KING JAMES ONLY-ISM

 

There are many people today who see the King James Version of the Bible as God’s inspired, infallible, and perfect work. For anyone to suggest otherwise is considered by the same as blasphemy of the highest order. But is this really true? Well, let’s see what the translators themselves, the ones who worked on this project for several years, had to say.

 

In the preface entitled, The Translators to the Reader, they mention that some readers may have misgivings about the alternative renderings suggested in the margin, on the ground that they may appear to shake the authority of Scripture in deciding points of controversy. But they also knew that later discoveries and research would help to clear up the meaning of the original. The preface also explicitly denied that the Authorized Version was “perfect.” The actual statement is important to grasp:

 

“To those who point out defects in our works, we answer that perfection is never attainable by man, but the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible, just as the king’s speech addressed to Parliament remains the king’s speech when translated into other languages than that in which it was spoken, even if it be not translated word for word, and even if some of the renderings are capable of improvement. To those who complain that we have introduced so many changes in relation to the older English version, we answer by expressing surprise that revision and correction should be imputed as faults. The whole history of Bible translation in any language is a history of repeated revision and correction.” [Emphasis has been added]

 

Unfortunately, this preface is no longer printed in the KJV. Its omission has been one of the major reasons why some religious groups today have been led to believe that the KJV is the only inspired Bible, that the KJV is perfect in every way. As one scholar quipped, “some people would prefer a false appearance of certainty to an honest admission of doubt.”

 

Likewise, there aren’t too many Protestants today who know that the Apocrypha (those other 14 books which are still in the Catholic Bible) was once a part of the 1611 version, but was later removed. Now I’m not defending the Apocrypha as an inspired work, but I do remember something being said about adding to or taking away from God’s Word (see Revelation 22:18,19). This fact by itself should tell the open-minded thinking person that the 1611 version was in no way perfect.

 

A HISTORY OF REVISION AND CORRECTION

 

Altogether, nearly 100,000 changes have been made to the 1611 KJV, the vast bulk of these being rather minor spelling and punctuation changes. With all the revisions made to this translation over the centuries, printer’s errors were bound to creep in. Even though the goal was to eradicate all mistakes, every printing of the KJV added more! For example:

 

1.      In 1611 the so-called “Judas Bible” was printed. In Matthew 26:36, the KJV says that Judas came with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, even though Judas had already hanged himself in the previous chapter!

2.      The very first edition of the Authorized Version is the “Basketball Bible” because it speaks of “hoopes” instead of “hookes” used in the construction of the Tabernacle.

3.      A 1716 edition has Jesus say in John 5:14 “sin on more” instead of “sin no more!”

4.      The next year, the famous “Vinegar Bible” appeared; this name was attached to this printing because the chapter title to Luke 20 was “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of the “Parable of the Vineyard.”

5.      In 1792, Philip, rather than Peter, denied his Lord three times in Luke 22:34.

6.      Three years later the “Murderer’s Bible” was printed: It was called this because in Mark 7:27 Jesus reportedly told the Syro-Phoenician woman, “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled!”

7.      In 1807 an Oxford edition has Hebrews 9:14 say, “Purge your conscience from good works” instead of “Purge your conscience from dead works.”

8.      A printing of the KJV in 1964 said that women were to “adorn themselves in modern apparel” instead of “modest apparel” in 1 Timothy 2:9.

 

But none of these printing mistakes can equal the Bibles of 1631 or 1653. These are the two “Evil Bibles” of the King James history, for they both left out the word “not” at key junctures. The 1653 edition, known as the “Unrighteous Bible,” said, “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” in 1 Corinthians 6:9. And the 1631 edition, the infamous “Wicked Bible,” wrote the seventh of the Ten Commandments as “Thou shalt commit adultery!”

 

The Wicked Bible was such an embarrassment to the Anglican Church that the archbishop ordered the Bibles to be burned, and he fined the printer, Robert Barker, 300 pounds, no small sum in those days. Barker, who had been the king’s printer since the Authorized Version came out, died fourteen years later in debtor’s prison.

 

Not only have there been these occasional but bizarre printing mistakes, but several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. For example, in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 the name “Jesus” appears when Joshua is actually meant! Hebrews 4:8 in the Authorized Version says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” The passage is saying that although Joshua brought his people into the Promised Land, he could not give them the eternal rest that they needed. But by having “Jesus” here, the KJV is thus saying that Jesus was inadequate, that he was not able to save his people from their sins. In Greek, both “Joshua” and “Jesus” are written the same way, “jIhsou.” The issue is not one of textual variant, but of inattention to the details of the interpretation of the text.

 

Or consider that Matthew 23:24 of the Authorized Version reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The Greek text here means to “strain out a gnat,” not “at a gnat.” Jesus’ point is the same as what he says in Luke 6:41: “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” The religious leaders focused on the tiny problems of others without taking care of the big issues in their own lives.

 

Now please understand: I am not listing these errors to poke fun at the KJV! But I also don’t want anyone to have the illusion that it is a perfect translation. No translation is perfect, not the KJV, not the RSV, not the NIV, not the NASB. But in spite of the many problems associated with the KJV, it has endured the test of time. It has been called the single greatest monument to the English language. Another scholar wrote, “The supremacy of the King James is one of style, not of scholarship.” In a word, it is its elegance. The KJV has rhythm, balance, dignity, and force of style that is unparalleled in any other translation. It may not be the most accurate, but it is the most elegant. And you only deny your own rich literary and religious heritage if you do not own and read a King James Bible. Like someone once exclaimed:

 

“If the King James Bible was good enough for Christ, then it’s good enough for me!”

 

Sources:

 

Ages or Eternity and the King James Version, by John Dokas

Apocrypha Canon and Criticism from Samuel Fisher to John Toland 1650-1718

Love to Know Article – Broughton, Hugh - 1911 Encyclopedia

The History of the English Bible, Part II, by Daniel B. Wallace