What makes the Cambridge edn better than the Oxford?

[bibleprotector]

Someone might ask why the Pure Cambridge Edition is better than an Oxford Edition of the King James Bible. Why say that the Oxford Edition is impure or incorrect when compared to the Cambridge? After all, there are various godly men from history who have used the Oxford Edition. In fact, there are plenty of Christians who have used the Oxford Edition after the Pure Cambridge Edition has been in existence. In fact, plenty of good revivals and religious books came about before the Pure Cambridge Edition ever existed. So why specifically uphold the Cambridge when God has clearly honoured the Oxford?

In order to answer this, it can be shown that God has honoured the use of the King James Bible. Since the Oxford and the Cambridge Editions are presenting the same Bible version, there is no doubt that God’s blessing was where any such proper edition was being used.

The differences between the Cambridge and the Oxford are important today in regards to what is exactly God’s chosen presentation of the Scripture in English. When it comes to this level, not only does the Oxford have some small grammatical issues, but there are problems like the mistake at Jeremiah 34:16, which should read “ye” not “he”, or at Joshua 19:2, which should read “or” not “and”.

The problem is that one rendering is incorrect. It is not the King James Bible that is wrong, but one of the editions is getting it wrong in its presentation. In these examples, we have a whole list of evidence which clearly backs up the Cambridge renderings, including appeals to things such as context, the 1611 translators and even the Hebrew.

1. Lots of godly people have used the Oxford Edition. Any normal edition of the KJB is still a KJB, no matter what year (e.g. 1611, etc.), or the publisher (e.g. a London Edition from Eyre and Strahan, etc.)

2. No edition from 1611 to 1769 matches the PCE. That does not make the editions of those years anything less: God has used any and all normal KJBs.

3. The Cambridge Edition does have a better historical attestation than the Oxford, but this does not mean that the Oxford could not have been used. In reality, if historical usage was divided between Bibles from both companies, it makes no difference as far as the actual position of the KJB itself (we all know that any group of KJB users at any time in the last 200 years could all be using a different edition!)

4. What might be called the “Oxford Edition” actually might mean a Cambridge Edition of the 1800s which is fairly close to the Oxford Edition at that time. The fact is that since 1769 the Oxford Edition has changed slightly over the years, so there is no definitive “Oxford Edition”. The Scofield Oxford differs to other Oxfords from the same time frame (e.g. 1917).

5. Lots of good, godly men have used other KJB editions besides the PCE since World War Two, however, if there has been any testimony for a superior edition in that time, people have generally favoured the Cambridge. This testimony can be found from people with quite different views on the KJB.

6. The Oxford Edition of 1769 and the following printings from Oxford were superior to the Cambridge ones in that timeframe. However, Cambridge printed Bibles were superior to Oxford ones from 1629 to 1769 (though Oxford only started printing KJBs in about 1675). From 1835, when Cambridge adopted the Oxford standard, Cambridge instantly improved upon it, by superior spelling, etc. Moreover, when the PCE was made, it was indeed superior, though not specifically recognised. But the fact remains that something of the Cambridge must have been recognised, because there are several quotes from the 1980s in which KJBO people talk about how the Cambridge is better or preferred to the Oxford. (Some like Scofield’s notes, but still believe that the Cambridge text is better.)

7. The Oxford Edition of the twentieth century is not “impure”, in that the KJB is not impure. However, the Oxford Edition is impure if compared to the Cambridge, especially when the application of Psalm 12 is understood. Likewise the Oxford Edition is not “corrupt”, in that the KJB is not corrupt. However, when examining the presentation, obvious problems in the Oxford like “he” in Jeremiah 34:16, must be due to some sort of mistake, without the Word of God or the KJB itself being corrupt. In reality, it is about having the best presentation of the Version (the KJB): the Oxford contains the same Version, but there are issues with its presentation.

God has honoured the KJB, not the Oxford Edition; whereas, God has specifically honoured the Cambridge Edition among editions.

The fact that some great people or good commentaries exist with the use of the Oxford Edition cannot be used as a valid argument, in that it is possible to point to great men and works which use the Cambridge. Such an argument confuses the King James Bible as an entity with the issue of variations in presentations. We believe the KJB is right, however, we see that some presentations are better than others.

It is easy enough to point to the fact that the translators themselves were involved with the Cambridge Edition, that the Cambridge was used by the Puritans, that millions of copies of Cambridge Bibles have been scattered throughout the world by Bible Societies, and that various modern day King James Bible only teachers prefer and use the Cambridge, so to make a case in favour of the Cambridge. However the edition issue does not merely rest on such issues: in reality, the variations themselves must be examined, and it is here where people have shown that the Cambridge is superior. I have not so much as heard of a person trying to defend an Oxford rendering as superior to the Cambridge, e.g. that “and Sheba” is really superior to our “or Sheba” at Joshua 19:2, etc. (Such things clearly show the correctness of the Cambridge.)