BACKGROUND
A spiritual confusion seems to hang like a fog over some people’s attempted understanding of the PCE. It’s not as if they are wholly wrong, but that they don’t seem to be thinking clearly. I write therefore to help clarify in case anyone is being confused. Surely we shall be all better for clarity.
Pastor Bryan Ross has recently been making a series of videos, which discuss me and the PCE. His attempted analysis is often mistaken, while in part quoting me accurately, he too often misinterprets what I have written and ascribes things to me and my views which are simply wrong.
I stand for the correctness of the King James Bible, leading me to the correctness of a specific Edition. The editing for this Edition was made in the early 20th century, and has been following in a body of printings of the KJB from Cambridge University Press. Then, in 2007 I published an electronic file of that same Edition.
Part of Ross’ problem is because he is trying to make a case about some sort of Pentecostal motives behind promoting this Edition, which is clearly not as directly or as overwhelming as he makes out. Also, while Ross believes that the King James Bible is good and right, he does not state overtly that it is a perfect text or a perfect translation, but rather seems to think it is the best or most acceptable Bible in English. Because he doesn’t recognise the providences that brought about the KJB’s perfect text (set of readings) or translation, he further certainly does accept a perfect Edition (set of editorial choices), nor a perfect edition (a specific setting of typesetting with associated copy-editing).
Ross wrongly applies the variation found within Scripture, where the Scripture quotes itself, to also apply to the doctrine of sufficiency or gracious sufficiency, which is the leeway we observe in the valid history of Texts/readings/versions, translations, Editions and edition-setting.
Variation in Inspiration is not the same as variation in text and translation. The variations in inspiration are all true, the variations in text and translation can be true, less true or erroneous.
Ross misunderstands the nature of various works I have written, specifically, my Guide to the PCE (which is still in its draft form), Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy (and further refinements), A Century of the PCE (which itself went through significant editing over a period of months) and Vintage Bibles.
Consider that I have been up front, open, candid and provided my documentary information (free of charge) of the historical record around how the PCE was made and promoted. Yet Ross has tried in vain to make out some sort of Pentecostal (what he almost implies as self-delusionary) and arbitrary (what he almost applies is self-aggrandising) motives in the process or promotion of the PCE by Bible Protector (me).
At the same time, Ross is trying to sell his own work, including promoting his attempted novel doctrine of “verbal equivalency”, let alone his questionable perspective on interpreting the New Testament which forces only Romans to Philemon to be of special weight beyond the Gospels, General Epistles and Revelation.
Ross has been making a series of teaching videos about the Pure Cambridge Edition which are so often factually off. I will address a few things, but first a timeline:
Early 20th century, Pure Cambridge Edition begun with a concerted edit at Cambridge
2000 Cambridge no longer prints the PCE
2000 Matthew Verschuur begins investigating editions
2001–2006 Matthew Verschuur, with the Elders of his church, identify and study the PCE
2007 Bible Protector website launched, numerous booklets released
2009 Monograph Glistering Truths written (several editions over the years)
2013 Sixth draft of the Guide to the PCE encompasses 10 years of research, which lays out a Providentialist framework
2014/5 Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy book (other books written and materials build/refine) which lays out a Historicist prophecy framework
2015 https://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf
2024 A Century of the Pure Cambridge Edition gives a summary of the history of the PCE (numerous editions made in 2024), which lays out a promotional documentary history framework
2025 Vintage Bibles, which emphasises a documentary history framework as well as Historicist prophecy framework
ANSWERING ROSS ON NUMEROUS ACCUSATIONS
Ross purports to be doing an “expose” on the PCE and Bible Protector but much of the content of his review is coloured by his own biases and is more designed to either ridicule or misrepresent (often unwittingly) in a propagandistic framework which is unfair and misleading.
While Ross does tend to quote me fairly accurately, he too often does not interpret me correctly, and often selects quotes and marshal them in such a way as to give an unreasonable perspective. One case is where I wrote once in a draft of a book that I published that a certain (way of) reading about the “spirit” instead of “Spirit” leading Jesus into the wilderness could be blasphemous. Ross took that one statement and said to effect, look he is calling all these editions, all these historical KJBs, blasphemous. I concede that I have to revise that one statement, and that I am talking about anyone who, especially in the future, would insist that Jesus was not led by the Holy Ghost but something else, would be a blasphemy, and that ensuring “Spirit” (which most editions of the KJB have now any way) in Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 would be correct, and would ensure no one would insist on a blasphemous statement.
Ross does this sort of things a number of times. Like perhaps once in passing I might have mentioned that the Pentecostal revival began in the early 20th century just when the PCE also appeared, which is a Providentialist argument (not specifically a Historicist one). But Ross has taken that like it a central main stay of my world view, which it has not been in my thinking as a point.
ANSWERING THE ACCUSATION ABOUT THE KNOWN EDITIO PRINCEPS
Ross tries to argue that because there is not a known first edition of the PCE, that therefore something is to be questioned. Now, logically, one Edition does exist, known as the Pure Cambridge Edition, because of agreement in readings in all those editions that have the PCE. Such agreement is detectable by an easy application of test passages.
If this is consistently true, then something like “Sara” at Romans 9:9 or “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 would also be consistent. Obviously, there is a real consistency with these editions.
In relation to newly printed KJB editions from that era, we find consistency in these sorts of things. In the editing of existing editions, we find consistency in these matters too, but because Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 were not part of the PCE changes, but had already been made previously in some editions (e.g. the Interlinear Bible and I have a copy of a Clay 1910 Small Pica Bible from Cambridge, for BFBS, which has Victorian readings but these changes), then it came through that process.
In fact, so far, the most early PCE I have found, which may well be the editio princeps is a Quarto (Lectern) edition from 1911.
This is where Ross is thinking like original languages people, where they want to point to autographs. He would want to point to the lectern edition, if it were the first, and say, look, it may have a typo in this or that place (it is not impossible), it may be questioned to disagree with the Bible Protector text file in places like Song of Solomon 6:12 or Joshua 17:11.
Taking this logic even further, are we to falsely be locked to say that only the typographical exactness with the lectern printing is, to the very impression of the ink onto the paper? This is exactly the view of Ross and his friends, because they want to create a false wedge. They don’t want to accept the correct copy-editing I did in the electronic text file of the PCE, because they want to set up a false method of measurement.
But their points are not sound, and I’ve answered these sorts of things for years, e.g. this 2015 document: https://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf And besides I am sure that booklets I have on my website and other writings also explained the same thing.
ANSWERING THE ACCUSATION ABOUT DATES
Bryan Ross is playing a game. Watch out it unfolds. I started off with no information really about the PCE, so I had to construct from investigation and research everything. The facts were, from David Norton and from known sources, that the PCE came about around 1900. Generally I stated circa 1900s, which means around or near to the first decade of the 20th century. That means we didn’t know, but could guess that it came from the late 19th century to perhaps World War I.
The earliest evidence I had was the early 1930s, then the late 1920s, then the early 1920s, then the early to mid 1910s, then 1911 being the earliest known copy. Here is what I knew:
2001 to 2020s — late 1920s
2020s — early 1920s
2024 — mid 1910s
2025 — at least 1911
Now, Ross has this whole misinterpretation about my Guide to the PCE, which he has incorrectly invented this whole scenario about it suggesting that the first edition of the KJB was linked specifically to his misunderstanding of my Historicism and his some avid Pentecostalism, as though I was arguing for some sort of “verbatim identicality” for some mystical “first PCE edition”, and then later not. This is not the case, because:
- When I made the text file of the PCE over the years, particularly in 2006 and formatting it as late as 2011, I was fully aware of places where printed copies differ where I had to make a choice.
- I was never trying to “reconstruct” a first editing, or place some sort of emphasis as though the first printing of the first editing was of “verbatim identicality” quality.
In fact, Ross himself half understands that of course no printed copy of the PCE was immaculate from 1911 or before until I made an electronic copy.
Here I talk about it in 2006! https://www.bibleprotector.com/God’s_chosen_edition_of_the_King_James_Bible.pdf
And also here in 2006! https://www.bibleprotector.com/revelation_pure_word.pdf
ROSS CONFUSED
What Ross has done is mix together two different concepts in the hierarchy of different levels or kinds of purity.
Here’s the chart:
Purity of Scripture
Purity of readings/version
Purity of translation
Purity of Edition
Purity of setting
Each level is measured in different ways. Ross already has tried to refute this concept with nonsensical arguments and vain philosophy, where he basically ended up saying that editorial changes are translation changes. But then he has tried to explain something about it, it’s very hard to understand what he is saying. He does think that since editing includes checking the Hebrew and Greek, that editing is a translation level enterprise. This of course is a false standard, in that editing (except for italics) is to do with English, not Hebrew and Greek.
Well, he has mistakenly now confused the purity of an Edition with the purity of a setting. There can be many editions of an Edition. An Edition is a set of choices of an editor. We can see that the many editions of the Pure Cambridge Edition throughout the 20th century exhibit the same set of editorial choices. Thus, the designation (of or as), Pure Cambridge Edition.
Now, if we go to the 1769, there’s typos in Blayney’s “more perfect” folio copy. We could undertake to correct any such typos and make a critically correct 1769. Of course, no such thing exists, and such a thing shouldn’t exist, because it has been the years of editorial work which has progressively dealt with that situation. The 1769 stands literally as it does, but no one should be foolish enough to think that the typos of 1769 are God’s perfect and purely intended truth.
The answer is not only to have the Pure Cambridge Edition, but to have the Pure Cambridge Edition presented in a standard form. Well, computer checking and computer files and the internet and modern technology all mean that it is all possible now. So, that’s what Bible Protector specifically is responsible for: having actually a typographically correct copy of a book, and not just any book, but the King James Bible.
I’m sure I’ve seen typos in an NIV copy I’ve had back in the early 1990s. And, in fact, my parents found differences between my mother’s NIV printed in the UK versus ours printed by Zondervan. I don’t know how much it is a Dutch thing in particular that we picked up such things, but there you have some foreshadowing. (I mention this in particular because I suspect there’s a few people of Dutch descent connected to Bryan Ross.)
So, to be clear, an Edition is different to copy-editing editions of an Edition.
ROSS ALL OVER THE SHOP
Ross tries to focus on my “editorial interventions” in making an electronic text. I mean, if we start from an edition of the PCE and compare to a different edition of the PCE, we still have the PCE because they are all editions of the PCE. So, there are no “editorial interventions”. There would be copy-editing.
Ross says I made “actual changes”. Of course, he is confused. I made no “actual changes”, except I made LORD’s instead of LORD’S. So Ross is wrong to say I made “actual changes”, when we have 100 years of anything that is in the electronic text file. Literally, 100 years ago you would see what it is in the text file in printed copies.
Ross makes up a whole story. He says that I made interventions, or claimed interventions to create a reconstruction of the PCE. Actually, I just presented in one exactly correct form the PCE that already existed in myriads of copies, but Ross wants to create fog around this.
Ross tries to say that I chose editorial readings when Cambridge printings differed to one another. But these are copy-editorial choices, not editorial choices. Because it is a matter of choosing what already existed in PCEs.
And these differences between PCE copies might be something like a hyphen in a place.
Ross says that I standardised out of many Cambridge and Collins printings. Well, it suddenly becomes a whole different picture when you understand that it might have been one or two things in this printing and one or two in that. We are talking about something like a hyphen here or there.
But by far the more was comparing computer text files which could be riddled with typographical errors.
And what Ross is saying is confusing because I didn’t pick something from Collins over Cambridge. The main focus in copy editing was and is to eliminate typos out of electronic texts, typos like a missing full stop.
And Ross gets even more confused, saying that I picked between “Geba” and “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26. Except, all PCEs have “Geba”, so he is misrepresenting the case.
Again, he says “Hammath” over “Hemath”, which is actually a change made in the late 1940s, and not in the many PCEs printed between 1911 and the Second World War.
Even stranger, Ross says that choices were made around the twelve tests, e.g. “bewrayeth” versus “betrayeth”. This is complete nonsense. Ross has completely got this wrong, no Cambridge had “betrayeth”. Again, to compare “spirit” and “Spirit” criteria of the PCE, it can never be said that choices were made between PCEs on this, since no PCE contains anything that the tests find negatory. The tests are not differences in PCEs, they are not differences between Cambridge printings (in many cases) and they are not something I edited or copy-edited.
To make it clear: I copy-edited, not edited. I made one innovation, in line with copy-editing, though in the area of formatting, which is to make “LORD’s” with a lower case “s”.
And Ross gets everything wrong, he says, “Bible Protector enforced the PCE’s key criteria, in cases where historical PCE’s occasional violated them. Historical PCEs sometimes contained lower case “spirit” where he requires capital “Spirit”, or “betrayeth” where he requires “bewrayeth”. But Verschuur’s electronic text enforces the 12 point test absolutely. Whenever a printed PCE disagreed with the 12 tests even once he fixed the reading in the electronic text. Verschuur introduced one unique typographical convention, LORD’s, using small cap s.”
Everything is wrong there. Everything. There’s no PCE with variants on the 12 points. Many copies of the KJB use small caps for the “ORD’S” lettering on LORD’S. I made the “s” lower case not small cap. Or, as young people say, “no cap”.
This one paragraph of complete nonsense from Ross should be illustrative of how bad, wrong and confused his “review” is of my position or of the PCE.
The reality is that the electronic text does represent printed Bibles from Cambridge, and specifically, those designated PCE by the twelve tests.
CONCLUSION
Ross has tried to use AI in his work, and also his pals to help look into the matter, but it just isn’t what they think. The so-called logical issues they have come up with are based on misinterpretations.
Now, obviously, on the best intentions and best information, the question about who edited the PCE to start with and when has become more clear. But it is not certain. What is important is that I have been honest and public in what I have done.
By this time in 2026, having written Vintage Bibles and A Century of the PCE, my knowledge on the history of the PCE and Cambridge has become a lot more than what I knew in 2023. But everything learned has not undermined the PCE in any way.
I understand that Ross could wish to say that I, in fact, made the PCE. So, he could, if he was going to honestly appraise the situation, say:
I recognise that Verschuur drew on a plethora of agreeing editions of the KJB from the 20th century and was wholly in line with normal and capable copy-editing techniques, that he weighed correctly based on Cambridge printed KJBs themselves, and only then other relevant sources, such as the 1769 and 1611, that he also showed in line with a wider lens the Geneva, Bishops’, Scrivener, Revised, 1911 Wright 1611 and Norton for comparison, and that his one innovation appears to have been already done by David Norton himself. Therefore, what is called the PCE is fairly a representation as a standard edition of the 20th century Cambridge KJV Bibles, and it is perfectly legitimate.
He could also honestly say, Taking the PCE on its own, I am fine if we agree to use it as a point of standard reference in an ordinary sense, especially going forward into the future. I personally disagree with Verschuur on some aspects of his theology, view of Bible prophecy, but that is no more relevant than as much as my views differ to Dr Blayney’s, Dr Mede’s, Lancelot Andrews’, Miles Smith’s or King James Stuart I of Great Britain as well.
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Cor. 14:33.