Why historical testimony deserves examination even when its textual origin cannot be established
When investigating what we believe to be supernatural changes to the King James Bible, one of the greatest challenges is determining the origin of remembered biblical wording.
A preacher may have quoted a passage in 1838. Another may have used nearly identical wording in 1855. Still another may have repeated the same expression in 1901.
But where did those words originate?
Were these men reading directly from their King James Bibles? Were they quoting from memory? Were they repeating something they’d heard preached throughout their lives?
In many cases, we may never know.
Does that make their historical testimony worthless? Certainly not.
It means we must examine the evidence according to what it can actually establish.
1. Verbiage: What Did They Actually Say?
The first consideration is the wording itself.
The King James Bible has a distinctive vocabulary, sentence structure, and rhythm. Generations of English-speaking Christians became familiar with expressions such as “shall in no wise,” “verily I say unto you,” and “it shall come to pass.”
When we discover historical writings containing wording that resembles a remembered KJV passage, we should examine that wording carefully.
Is it a casual paraphrase? Does it resemble another translation? Is it a familiar religious expression? Or does it preserve an unusual combination of words associated with a particular Scripture?
These questions matter.
A single familiar expression may tell us very little. But a longer, distinctive combination of words can be considerably more significant, particularly when it appears repeatedly in connection with the same biblical passage.
The verbiage is our starting point because it establishes what the historical witness actually said.
2. Era: When Was That Wording Being Used?
Our second consideration is the historical era.
This is particularly important when examining wording remembered by longtime readers and preachers of the KJV.
Suppose we discover an expression in an 1838 publication that resembles wording remembered by Christians in the twentieth century.
We have established something important: that expression was in circulation long before the modern discussions surrounding alleged Bible changes.
The date also helps us evaluate possible influences.
For example, an 1838 publication predates the English Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901. Neither of those translations could have influenced the original wording of that 1838 publication.
Of course, other English Bible translations existed before 1838. Earlier translations, sermons, commentaries, and religious traditions must also be considered.
Nevertheless, the era helps us narrow the possibilities.
The verbiage tells us what was said. The era tells us when it was already being said.
Together, they provide a historical foundation for further investigation.
3. Source of the Opinion: Who Was Saying It?
Our third consideration concerns the person responsible for the statement.
Was the writer a Baptist preacher who ordinarily preached from the King James Bible? Was he a theologian who regularly consulted several translations? Was he a historian, a commentator, or an ordinary Christian writing about his faith?
These distinctions can affect the weight we give the testimony.
Consider a preacher whose published sermons consistently quote the KJV. If that preacher repeatedly uses an unusual biblical expression, we have good reason to investigate the relationship between his wording and the Bible he ordinarily used.
That doesn’t establish that every expression he used appeared in his printed Bible.
Preachers quote from memory. They paraphrase. They combine passages. They also repeat expressions learned from earlier generations.
But their religious background and documented habits of quotation are relevant.
We must also distinguish between the source of an opinion and the source of its exact wording.
We may know who expressed a particular understanding without knowing precisely where that person acquired the words.
Identifying the witness helps us evaluate the testimony, even when identifying the original textual source remains impossible.
4. Corroboration: Were Others Saying the Same Thing?
The fourth consideration is independent corroboration.
One historical witness may be interesting. Several witnesses using substantially the same unusual wording may be more significant.
But numbers alone aren’t enough.
Five writers copying the same earlier commentary do not necessarily provide five independent testimonies.
We should look for witnesses from different decades, denominations, geographical locations, and publishing traditions.
We should also examine whether the wording occurs in sermons, personal letters, theological discussions, or direct quotations of Scripture.
The more independent the witnesses, and the more distinctive their shared wording, the stronger the evidence that the expression was established in historical religious usage.
Corroboration strengthens the historical record, but it does not automatically establish the wording of a particular Bible edition.
5. A Historical Example: Matthew 5:18
Consider the present wording of Matthew 5:18 in the King James Bible:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Now consider the wording found in historical publications.
In 1838, Edmund Pray’s A Discourse on the Second Death, page 115, contains:
till heaven and earth shall pass away, not one jot nor tittle of the law shall fail, till it was fulfilled.
In 1848, Richard Cobbold wrote in A Voice from the Mount, page 150:
till heaven and earth shall pass away, not one jot or tittle of the word shall remain unfulfilled.
In 1855, Edwin H. Lake’s Key to Truth, page 159, contains:
till heaven and earth shall pass away, not one jot or tittle of the law shall fail till all be fulfilled.
Notice the recurring expression:
“Till heaven and earth shall pass away.”
That is not the wording found in the present KJV text of Matthew 5:18.
Yet these nineteenth-century publications demonstrate that the expanded expression was being used in connection with the teaching of that passage.
What does this establish?
It establishes that the wording existed in historical religious literature. It also provides dated witnesses whose language can be examined in its original context.
What does it not establish?
It does not, by itself, prove that a printed King James Bible once contained those exact words.
Some of these statements are paraphrases or explanations rather than explicit, verbatim Scripture quotations. Matthew 5:18 may also have been influenced by related passages, including Luke 16:17.
The distinction is important.
We should neither dismiss the historical testimony nor claim more than it demonstrates.
6. What If the Textual Origin Cannot Be Proven?
This brings us to one of the most important principles of historical Bible research.
The inability to prove the textual origin of historical biblical verbiage does not invalidate the historical existence of that verbiage.
A nineteenth-century publication is evidence of what was written in that publication.
Its date, author, wording, and context are historical facts that can be investigated.
Whether those words originated in a particular printed Bible is a separate question.
Sometimes the evidence may permit a reasonable inference. Sometimes it may support several possible explanations. Sometimes the question will remain unanswered.
But unanswered questions should not cause us to discard genuine historical witnesses.
Likewise, the existence of historical witnesses should not cause us to overlook plausible alternative explanations.
Our responsibility is to examine what survives.
7. Substantiated, Partially Substantiated, and Unsubstantiated
At Amos8.org, our investigation concerns what we believe to be prophesied supernatural changes to the Scriptures, particularly in light of Amos 8:11–12 and Daniel 7:25.
That conviction provides the reason for our investigation, but the historical evidence must still be examined on its own merits.
For that reason, we distinguish among different levels of substantiation.
Substantiated historical wording: The claimed expression is documented in an identifiable historical source, with sufficient context to establish its use. This does not necessarily substantiate the separate claim that a KJV text changed.
Partially substantiated: Historical evidence supports some important aspect of a remembered expression, but the precise wording, biblical connection, independence, or textual origin remains uncertain.
Unsubstantiated: We have not yet located sufficient reliable historical evidence to support the particular remembered wording.
These categories describe the present state of our research, not necessarily the final answer.
An unsubstantiated entry may eventually yield historical evidence. A partially substantiated entry may gain additional corroboration. And evidence once thought persuasive may require reconsideration when new information becomes available.
Research demands that willingness.
Conclusion: Following the Historical Trail
There may be occasions when we cannot establish the original textual source of a remembered biblical expression.
There may even be occasions when we cannot determine whether several historical witnesses were independently repeating the same wording.
But that doesn’t mean the investigation has reached a dead end.
We can still ask four important questions:
- Verbiage: What exact words were used?
- Era: When were those words demonstrably in circulation?
- Source: Who used them, and what was that person’s relationship to the Scriptures?
- Corroboration: Do other independent historical witnesses preserve the same distinctive expression?
These considerations do not guarantee certainty. They provide a disciplined way to evaluate the evidence we possess.
Our purpose is not to manufacture proof where none exists, nor to discard historical testimony because every question cannot be answered.
It is to preserve the witnesses, investigate their language, and report our findings as accurately as possible.
Historical testimony should be judged by what it establishes, not dismissed because of what it cannot establish.
And sometimes, the verbiage and the era are where the most promising investigation begins.
Amos8.org — Prophesied Bible Changes Research