Rick Norris (logos1560) is known for his attack on the King James Bible, especially by his bringing up of different editions and the variations within them.
Of course, there is an easy answer to this, but Norris doesn’t want an answer, he wants to make out as if it is all chaos.
Norris also is deceptive in how he presents facts. For example, he rightly indicates that various Cambridge printed KJVs from after the year 1900 follow changes made in the 1873 Edition. That 1873 Edition is Scrivener’s, but it is only a relative few of Scrivener’s changes that are accepted. In fact, the changes that are accepted are largely corrections back to the 1611 Edition, although some work in apostrophes is also accepted from Scrivener.
What Norris does not tell is the evidence that the Victorian Cambridge text was edited with some drawing on Scrivener’s book (rather than his edition) but also is a unique work on its own (e.g. Ezra 2:26 “Geba” was not drawn from Scrivener).
Norris looks at the editorial history, giving his own lists of variations, and drawing on David Norton and Lawrence Vance. He obviously likes the work of modernist David Norton, who only mentions the changes within Cambridge printings in the 20th century in passing with little detail, but also he likes Lawrence Vance because he wants to create a wedge between those who uphold the KJB.
Norris’ word lists are extensive and accurate, and Vance’s work is extremely good. Norris of course does not adhere to any KJV as being “accurate” in that he harbours views against the KJB’s text and translation in places. Norris has ideological reasons to prefer the Geneva and Tyndale over the KJB, which is based on a small-minded opinion regarding a particular Puritan view.
Vance, on the other hand, is a real gentleman and scholar, and his position is that he points to a current Cameo Reference text as the apparently providentially supplied standard. Vance’s preference differs from the critical form Pure Cambridge Edition in a few places (there are PCEs that have these things).
Genesis 41:56 “and” instead of “And”
1 Chron. 2:55 “Hammath” instead of “Hemath”
1 Chron. 13:5 “Hamath” instead of “Hemath”
Amos 6:14 “Hamath” instead of “Hemath”
These are Vance’s differences to the PCE:
Acts 11:12 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”
Acts 11:28 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”
1 John 5:8 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”
Norris has falsely said, “Matthew Verschuur does not actually demonstrate that the edition of the KJV that he compiled and calls the ‘pure’ one…”
The problem for Norris is that the Pure Cambridge Edition has been printed from 1911, so it cannot be something that I “compiled”. There are many editions from multiple publishers which present the PCE.
Regarding the 12 tests to determine the PCE, Norris claims, “Twelve individual renderings in an entire KJV edition are not enough to determine which edition is better or more accurate.”
Norris has missed the point. The 12 points are not meant to be the definitive proofs of an edition being the best, they are just identifying markers of the PCE as compared to other editions, which taken collectively, identify that a text is a PCE.
Here are some good quotes from Norris:
“KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: ‘There are 750 differences between the 1769 Blayney edition of the Authorized Version and modern King James Bibles: 461 Old Testament and 189 New Testament’ (Text of the KJB, p. 220). KJV-only author Matthew Verschuur asserted: ‘One of the most enduring myths regarding the King James Bible is that the common and standard edition in use in the 20th and 21st centuries is the 1769 Edition’ (Vintage Bibles, p. 47).”
At least Norris looked at my book!