1. <661308>REVELATION 13:8
KING JAMES: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
AMERICAN REVISED: “And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.”
Even in 1583, thirty years before the King James Version was published, this text with all its possibilities was the subject of heavy controversy between the Jesuits and the Puritans. The Protestants, even then, rejected the way it is now written in the American Revised Version.f417
9. A SUBSTITUTE NUMBER FOR THE BEAST:
“616” OR “666”
1. <661318>REVELATION 13:18
KING JAMES: “And his number is six hundred threescore and six.”
REVISED: “And his number is six hundred and sixteen” (margin).
Throughout the ages, the certainty of this number, “666,” and the certainty of applying it to the Papacy, has been a source of strength and comfort to Protestant martyrs. Behold the uncertainty and confusion brought into the interpretation of this prophecy by offering in the margin the substitute
number “616.” Did not the Revisers by this change strike a blow in favor of Rome?
“But why is not the whole truth told? viz., why are we not informed that only one corrupt uncial (C): — only one cursive copy (11): — only one Father (Tichonius): and not one ancient Version —
advocates this reading? — which, on the contrary, Irenaeus (A.D.
170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is ‘found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face.’ is unquestionably the true reading. Why is not the ordinary reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen, — by Hippolytus, — by
Eusebius: — as well as by Victorinus — and Primasimus, — not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, — even by Westcott and Hort. Why therefore — for what possible reason — at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English speaking people?
“Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because ‘it would not be safe to accept’ 666, ‘to the absolute exclusion of’ 616?... ‘We have given alternative readings in the margin,’ (say they,) ‘wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.’ Will they venture to claim either ‘interest’ or ‘importance’ for this ? or pretend that it is an
‘alternative reading’ at all ? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage ‘those that have understanding,’ and would fain
‘count the number of the Beast,’ if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt — one more miserable suspicion — into minds which have been taught (and rightly) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of the SPIRIT: minds which are utterly incapable of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one- sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman’s N.T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of
obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.”f418
10. THE ENTIRE MEANING TOUCHING OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES CHANGED
1. <400215>MATTHEW 2:15
KING JAMES: “Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
REVISED: “Out of Egypt did I call my son.”
The comment of Dean Farrar on this change proves how systematically the Old Testament prophecies were robbed of their typical meaning by the
“modern rules” used to translate that Greek tense known as the aorist. He says:
“‘Out of Egypt did I call my son.’ What could the Revisers do but alter the incorrect rendering of the Authorized Version? The
Authorized Version confuses the entire meaning of the passage, and hides the invariable method of St. Matthew in his references to Old Testament prophecies. Hosea’s reference, <281101>Hosea 11:1, is to the calling forth of the Israelites from Egypt... It is by a restoration of the tenses actually used that we may expect, in this and HUNDREDS
OF OTHER TEXTS, to rekindle a light of understanding which has long faded away.”f419 (Capital letters mine.)
When Hosea, who prophesied 700 years after Moses, said, “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” was he talking history or prophecy? Did he refer back to the Israelites leaving Egypt, or forward to the flight of the infant Jesus into and out of Egypt? The King James translators considered it a prophecy and wrote “have called;” the Revisers wrote “did call” to express history. The King James translated it by the perfect, “have called,” which shows the action to have effects still continuing. The Revisers said that this was wrong, claiming that the aorist should always be translated by the past tense and not by the perfect. This new rule, Farrar claims, changed
hundreds of texts affecting both Old Testament prophecies and “the great crises of Christian life.”
As to the unfairness of this rule, we could quote from many witnesses. We will let only one testify. Sir Edmund Beckett, LL.D., says:
“No one rule of that kind has produced so many alterations in the Revised Version as that an aorist always means an action past and gone, while a perfect tense implies action continuing up to the present time... But if we find that forcing the English translation to conform to those rules produces confusion, or such English as no master of it writes, and no common person uses; that it is neither colloquial or solemn, nor impressive, nor more perspicacious than the old phrases, and often less so; such facts will override all general rules in the minds of men of common sense, not bewildered by too much learning or the pedantry of displaying it.”f420
How serious have been the effects upon doctrine by this “self-imposed rule,” as the Forum says, in the Revised Version, we will now proceed to show.