An Improvement to the so-called "Pure Cambridge Edition" (2006) of Matthew Verschuur

Matthew Verschuur published his own minor edition of the King James Version, which he refers to as "the Pure Cambridge Edition."  This edition was first published in 2006, although it is sometimes promoted as "circa 1900."  Verschuur has managed to attract some measure of following to his position that the PCE is absolutely perfect, although Verschuur's position has been criticized by King James advocates, such as the Trinitarian Bible Society, and many others.  Quite recently, Bryan Ross has offered a devastating critique of the PCE position in a series of lectures accompanied by a book-length (200+ pp.) set of notes (link to "Assessing the Pure Cambridge Edition Position"). MV has offered a few responses to Bryan Ross (most recently on March 24).  If you want to see the hubris of MV, you may consider this table his most recent response offers (March 10 post):

The Scripture is more pure than other writings.

The KJB’s version is more pure than any TR or version.

The KJB’s translation is more pure than any other English Bible.

The PCE is a more pure Edition than any other Edition/edition.

Bible Protector’s text file and collation of the PCE is more pure than any other text file or representation.

MV claims that that this edition is correct even as to such things as the capitalization of words.  In fact, he provides capitalization as being an important reason for his edition.  For example, he states (Guide to PCE):

I thought my Cambridge Edition was correct, but when I examined the case of the letter “s” on the word “spirit” at various places, I discovered that in 1 John 5:8 my Cambridge book differed from Pastor Savige’s Collins Bible. I then inquired concerning this area, and wrote to various King James Bible experts about it. One said, “follow Scrivener” (see below), another said, “it is up to the interpreter”, another said, “probably capital”, another said to effect, “both are correct concurrently”, and yet another, a textual critic and Cambridge King James Bible editor, plainly said, “there is no ‘correct’ edition”. I was unsettled on the matter for a while. 

In another place, he states (Guide to PCE):

In November 2005, it became apparent that there must be a settling of a difference found in Collins editions as opposed to Cambridge printed Bibles of the Pure Cambridge Edition, that is, at 1 Chronicles 14:10 where Collins capitalised the “A” of “and wilt thou”. In addressing this particular issue, I understood that while there were differences between all representations of the Pure Cambridge Edition, none was necessarily definitive, neither was there one that I could be sure was free from typographical errors. I saw that the Scripture indicated, and that it was in line with God’s nature, that there should be a definitive and scrupulously correct representation. Therefore, I reasoned that such a text would have to be resolved, and that it would be commendable to create it in an electronic text which would be able to be disseminated abroad and become a universal standard. 

Moreover, when it comes to the marks of a PCE, MV points to 12 readings, six of which have to do with the capitalization of the English word "spirit" (source) -- this is beyond the capitalization of "and" in "and wilt thou" in 1 Chronicles 14:10, mentioned by MV above  (Guide to PCE):

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

MV distinguishes between something being "actually an 'error' in the Bible" and something being a "presentation error." He states (source): "A typographical error is not actually an "error" in the Bible, because it is only a presentation error." 

I have a few problems with this kind of distinction, which I have seen in various King James advocacy circles.  They seem to be aiming to distinguish between the source of the errors (namely the translators/editors vs. the printers; in his March 24 post, MV seeks to divide amongst "Scripture," "Version," "Translation," "Edition," and "Setting Forth."), but they are arguing it as though it were a difference in the kind of error.  However, these (alleged) errors are the following kinds:

• word (1, 2, 4);
• spelling? (6, 8, 9); and
• capitalization (3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12)

In theory, these could be attributable to the translators (either in terms of their translation text or their translation choices/methodologies) or to the printers (either in terms of failing to read the translators' notes correctly or failing to print what the translators requested).  There may be good reasons to argue for a particular source of a particular error.

However, I must point that when it comes to capitalization, MV sometimes goes so far as to say (Guide to PCE):

The Pure Cambridge Edition is consistent in its usage of “Son of David”, as the Oxford is consistent in its blasphemous “son of David”. The Oxford is obviously wrong. 

Notice that even if MV is willing to say that matters of capitalization are not "actually an error" but "only a presentation error," he's also willing to call the Oxford editions reading "blasphemous".  He does this also with the Oxford capitalization at Matthew 4:1.  MV writes (Guide to PCE):

Matthew 4:1

If Jesus was led of the “spirit” lowercase, then He was relying on something out of the realm of the normal believer, being His own spirit. Yet, the Scripture teaches that Christ is our example, and that we ought “to walk, even as he walked.” (1 John 2:6a). The Scripture even shows that Christ promised, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” (John 14:12). If Christ was led merely by his own spirit, then this would disallow believers to be able to walk or do exactly as Christ had done. Such a thing could not be walked in by anyone without the Holy Ghost — no one in their own merits could even get close to the standard of Christ. However, if Jesus was relying on the “Spirit” as the Cambridge reading shows, then He was relying on something that became available to all believers, namely, the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Oxford reading makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity. Whereas the Cambridge shows that man needs the Spirit of God to lead him to Christ, and this would eventually lead to the Pentecostal manifestation, which is available for all. There are many indications that the Spirit would come upon or fill certain people in the Old Testament or before the day of Pentecost, but Christians who follow Christ as an example are able to do so after Pentecost because the Spirit has been made available to all since that time, if people will believe and receive that baptism. 

Notice that by something as seemingly trivial as a capital letter, MV claims: "the Oxford reading makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity."

Knowing that capitalization issues are half of the marks that MV offers and that capitalization is especially important to MV when it comes to God, I happened to read Philippians 3.  There I found this reading in MV's text:

Philippians 3:19 (source) 

Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

(screenshot from p. 1071 of MV's pdf)

Notice that "God" is capitalized in Philippians 3:19.  However, notice that in places where something other than the true God is referred to as "god," the convention is to use lowercase:

(Exodus 7:1, p. 59)

(Judges 6:31, p. 252)

(1 Kings 18:27, p. 363)

(2 Kings 1:6, p. 371)

Notice especially the last example, where "a God" (true God) is contrasted with "the god" (not the true God). 

This English convention is one that is done out of reverence and respect for God.  It is also the underlying premise behind MV's rather provocative claim that "son of David" is "blasphemous" or that Jesus being led of the "spirit" "makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity."

If one were to apply the same standard to MV's reading at Philippians 3:19, one could just as easily argue that MV's reading blasphemously portrays God as someone's belly, making a sort of Buddhist mockery of Christianity.

Naturally, I don't agree with MV's standard, though I do like the capitalization convention that we use in the 21st century to distinguish between a "god" and the "God".  Following that convention, MV's reading is "obviously wrong" - much more so than the Oxford's, "son of David," where - in fact - the Oxford's capitalization is better, because Jesus is the Son of God according to his divinity and the son of David according to his humanity, being both God and man in two distinct natures and one person.

These are not faults of the 1611 KJV, because at that time English capitalization conventions were not the same as today, and it would be anachronistic to judge the 1611 by modern capitalization conventions.

Additionally, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek contains capital letters.  Thus, using a capital/lowercase distinction in the KJV to argue for some doctrinal conclusion is to rest upon the wisdom of the translators, as distinct from relying on the underlying text of the Holy Scriptures, as inspired by God.  

2 John 1 and the Textus Receptus - Room to Improve the King James Version

Nick Sayers (in his 2 John Bible Study video) has identified an interesting difference between Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament, the primary basis of the New Testament of the King James Version, and Scrivener's Textus Receptus, the usual TR edition that TR advocates reference.  This difference highlights an opportunity to improve the King James Version.

Here is the KJV:

2 John 1 (KJV) The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

The phrase "in the truth" should be rendered "truly" or "in truth" (for a more word-for-word translation) rather than "in the truth."  Beza identified this issue as early as 1556, and suggested changing the Vulgate translation of "in veritate" ("in truth" or "in the truth" - Latin lacks articles) to "verè" ("truly") to better convey the sense of the Greek.  Beza, in his annotations (discussed in more detail below), recognized the connection between John's Greek phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (en aletheia - in truth) and a corresponding Hebrew word b'emet, which has the sense of "in truth" or really/seriously.  Thus, Beza argued that the text ought to be translated with "verè" to convey the sense rather than "in veritate," though the latter is a word-for-word formal equivalent translation.

An odd thing happened, though, and Beza's main text in 1598 did not align with his Latin text nor with the (much, much later) text of Scrivener.

Beza's 1598 edition has the text of 2 John 1 as follows: 

(source)

The relevant difference is the presence (in Beza) of an article before the word aletheia (truth) the first time it appears in the verse:

2 John 1 (Scrivener) ὁ πρεσβύτεροσ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν

2 John 1 (Beza) ὁ πρεσβύτεροσ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν

One might wonder whether Beza's annotations shed any light.  Beza's Annotation is as follows:

(source)

In the following transcription, I've added modern vowel points to the Hebrew b'emet, meaning "in truth" or "really/seriously" although for reasons unknown to me, Beza used unpointed letters (perhaps it was all his printer had available?).

¶ Verè, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, Heb. בֶּאֱמֶת [beemeth.] Vulg. & Erasm. ad verbum, In veritate. ¶ Veritatem, τὴν ἀλήθειαν. i. Christum, vel Evangelium. quae phrasis saepe, apud Ioannem praefertim, occurrit. Idem itiam eiusmodi unius verbi geminatione gaudet: sicut singulis penè paginis licet observare, tum in Evangelio, tum in epistola superiore.

My own amateurish translation:

¶ Truly, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, Heb. בֶּאֱמֶת [beemeth.] Vulg. & Erasm. word for word, In veritate (“In truth”). ¶ “The truth,” τὴν ἀληθείᾳ. that is, Christ, or the Gospel; which manner of speaking occurs often, especially with John. He also indeed delights in such a doubling of one word: just as in almost every single page it can be observed, both in the Gospel and in the former epistle.

Note, however, that Beza's own Latin follows "truly" (verè) not "in the truth" in all his editions, including the 1598.  Moreover, while we may question the Greek and/or Hebrew skills of some of the King James translators, we certainly must believe that they knew how to read Latin, and could tell the difference between the Latin for "Truly" and the Latin for "In [the] truth".  

Moreover, note that while Beza's annotation may be a little confusing in view of the text as printed, Beza's annotation is best understood not as proposing the alternative reading "love in the truth" for "truly love" but rather as referring to the portion of the text about "knowing the truth".  In other words, Beza is saying that John is making a play on words, referring to his sincere love and also knowing about Christ and/or the Gospel.

It does not seem that there is any textual critical basis for adding the article into the text.  For example, 

Stephanus' 1550 (Beza's primary source for textual critical material) does not offer any textual variant information regarding 2 John 1 and does not include the article in the main text:

(source)

Furthermore, Beza's own editions, before and after the 1598 edition, are inconsistent.  

1604. The 1604 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source, vol. 2)

1594. The 1594 Annotations-only printing contains the same annotation:

(source at [1237])

1590. The 1590 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source, at [899])

1589. The same text (with the article) and annotation as in the 1598 are present in Beza's 1588/89:

(source)

1582. Likewise in Beza's 1582, the article and the annotations are present:

(source, at [990])

1580. The 1580 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source)

1575. The Latin-only 1575 edition has the same Latin text as Beza offers consistently throughout:

(source)

1567. In the 1567 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations), the text omits the article:

(source, at [775])

1565. Likewise, in his 1565 edition, his text omits the article, despite his annotations:

(source, at [1073])

(source, at [1074])

1557. Beza's Latin edition of 1556/57 includes the same annotation:

(source, at vol. 2, [1178])

In summary, all his editions have the Latin for "truly" and all his editions with annotations seem to have essentially the same annotations.  On the other hand, Beza's three final major editions of 1582, 1589, and 1598 all have the article, but the first major Greek edition (1565) and all the other minor editions lack the article.  

The article issue is not listed among the NT Conjectures. Likewise, I could not find any mention of this change in "Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament," by Jan Krans.  Based on the collation provided via INTF, I was not able to locate any transcribed manuscript with an article in the position that Beza places it here.  So, if a deliberate insertion, it would seem to be a conjectural emendation of the text.

Given the presence of the "truly" reading in Beza's Latin and the presence of the seemingly conflicting annotation in all of the editions that have article present in the text, I think it's most reasonable to assume that the presence of the article in the text in the major editions of 1582, 1588/89, and 1598 was a typographic error in the 1582 that was subsequently copied in the following major editions without being noticed by Beza.

The King James translators, who we believe relied upon Beza's 1598 as their primary text, seem to have followed Beza's main text over his annotation.  They did not translate as "in truth," "truly," "indeed," or the like.  Instead, they translated as "in the truth" without any indication that "the" was being supplied:

(source)

Blaney's 1769 KJV similarly does not italicize the "the" in the verse:

(source)

Matthew Verschuur's "Pure Cambridge Edition" (published in 2006) claims to be scrupulous about italics and likewise does not italicize:

(source)

On the other hand, although Wycliffe's 1398 had "in treuthe" (source), English translations starting with Tyndale had included the English article (I have not extensively researched whether there were any better English translations available at the time).

1568 Bishops' Bible (per BibleHub)

2 John 1: The elder to the elect Lady & her chyldren, whom I loue in the trueth: and not I only, but also all that haue knowen ye trueth:

1560 Geneva Bible (scanned)

2 John 1: The Elder to the elect Ladie, and her children, whome I loue in [a] the trueth: and not I onely, but also all that have knowen ye trueth, [a: According to godliness & not with anie wordlie affection.]

Tyndale New Testament (per WikiSource) 

2 John 1: The elder to the electe lady and her chyldren which I love in the trueth: and not I only but also all that have knowe the trueth

Given that the King James translators were aiming to edit the Bishops' Bible only where the originals demanded it, and given that Beza's 1598 seemed to support for the article present in the Bishops' Bible, it seems that King James translators followed Beza's main text over his Latin translation and his annotations, thereby maintaining Tyndale's improvable translation.

As can be seen from Beza's notes, Tyndale did not have a Greek text with the article in front of him.  He had Erasmus' 1516 text and annotations.  The annotations on 2 John (reproduced below in their entirety) did not mention this issue, and the main text lacked the article:

(source)

(source) 

An interesting collision of a weak (but by 1611 already traditional) translation by Tyndale coupled with either a typographic error or conjectural emendation in Beza's 1598 resulted in the King James Version at 2 John 1 having some room for minor improvement by omitting the definite article.