ANSWERING “HO ESTUS” PIRKLE

The following pages contain a compilation of a series of articles, which critique Estus Pirkle’s infamous book, "The 1611 King James Bible, A Study by Dr. Estus Pirkle." Dr. Pirkle, like many other Bible Correctors, displays a double minded, double standard as he faults the 1611/1769 King James Bible in various matters, while excusing and/or ignoring the same criticisms in modern Bibles (and even in the Textus Receptus). In this case, the New King James Bible (1982) is Estus Pirkle's choice, as he answers the so-called Ruckmanites, King James Onlys, and fellow travelers. We trust that you will be amused at his vain attempt to discredit our English Bible. – Herb Evans

HO ESTUS

The 1611 King James Bible, "A Study by Dr. Estus Pirkle," is a new book and a new attack on the traditional King James Bible. Pirkle makes no bones about his desire to supplant the present KJB with the New King James bible. Estus’ 674 page denunciation has 320 pages of appendices (almost half the book), ample source material with which to rub his nose in for some time to come. One need not read more than the introduction to gain some insight to the motive, methods, and madness of the prophet.

The Motive of the Prophet Pirkle?

Did pride motivate Pirkle's book? Or did wounded pride? On page l3, Estus says, “. . . I was publicly rebuked by both the camp moderator and the pastor for bringing a Textus Receptus New Testament to the pulpit and encouraging the preachers to acquaint themselves with and make use of it." Apparently, Estus likes to flaunt his Greek proficiency. Still, public rebuke can really upset scholarly and pompous Southern Baptist Convention preachers.

The Methods of the Prophet Pirkle?

Pirkle begins his book's introduction with a pantomime. He portrays Latin Vulgate "only" folks as blindly resisting Wycliffe's and Tyndale's "up to date" English Bibles, likening them to KJB Onlys. Yet, Wycliffe's 1380 English Bible was up to date, because it was the very first English Bible. Unfortunately for Pirkle's allegory, it was translated from Latin rather than the so-called "original" languages. A Bible from Latin to English is not the same as a Bible from Greek or Hebrew to English (Tyndale). Ask any Bible Corrector! Tyndale's 1525(35) Bible was "up to date," because it was the very first English Bible from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

The five major English Bibles prior to 1611 do not afford a license to dump the AV for the NKJV any more than the hundred subsequent, unsuccessful, English bibles. The times of 1380 and 1525(35) were not the same nor were the 1950's, 1980's, and 1990's. Christendom's rise from "dark age" apostasy is not the same as Pirkle’s Southern Baptist denomination and its descent into apostasy. An English Bible with non standardized 1611 spelling, punctuation, and grammar is not the same as a standardized 1769 English Bible. The irony of Pirkle's logic is that after scorning the folly of those who resisted Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translations from non-English into English (in England), he then turns right around and scorns folks for refusing to leave our English, while urging them to go back to non-English. What does the NKJV say about a double tongued, double minded man?

Pirkle argues (p. 6) that the Holy Spirit originally spoke the 0.T. scripture in 2,000 B.C. Hebrew (Malachi also? -- Evans), something he only assumes but does not prove but. Only in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, according to Estus, can the scriptures be said to he inspired, inerrant, and infallible (p. 4, 6). Yet, Estus allows all bibles to bear the title "Word of God" (p. 5).

Therefore, Pirkle suggests both an inspired, infallible, and inerrant "Word of God" on one hand and an uninspired, fallible, and errant "word of god"on the other. Pirkle says (p. 6) regarding the "jot" of Matt. 5:18, "He (Jesus) did say that not one iota [sic] (The Hebrew letter yod) . . . would not pass from the law till heaven and earth pass." Yet is an "iota" really a "yod?" Or is it a translation of a "yod?" Neither! An iota is the Greek vowel "I." A "yod" is a Hebrew consonant. If the Holy Spirit would have wanted the Hebrew "yod" in the Greek text, He would have put a "yod" there as with many other Greekified Hebrew words, which are found in the Greek texts. After all, isn't Pirkle crusading for the "original" transmission language? Isn't Greek, namely the Greek vowel "iota," the transmission language? Or was the N.T. originally written in Hebrew? Can Estus have it both ways - the Hebrew "yod" AND the Greek "iota?”

Pirkle has made mentions (p. 31) "Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language." His dictionary defines the ENGLISH words "jot" and "tittle" as follows: 1. jot - "an iota; a point; a tittle; the least quantity assignable." 2. tittle - "a small particle; a minute part; a jot; an iota."

Could Jesus, in idiomatic terms, be promising the preservation of the smallest part of the law with meaning as opposed to merely the preservation of vowels and consonant points? For most folks know that there are minor and major variations in the various available Greek and Hebrew texts (even in the several Receptus texts). Do you think Estus can show us how to determine which "original" Receptus is correct? Estus' favorite old English Bible is the "Geneva" (p. 61), whose main underlying source was the 1550 Receptus. Nevertheless, Estus is using (p. 8) the 1598 Receptus, which was the main underlying source of the A.V. 1611 Bible. Hm mm!

The Madness of the Prophet Pirkle?

It is a shame that Pirkle's three years of Greek and two years of Hebrew, keeping up with the Greek and Hebrew for thirty-five years (with flash cards, P. 17,18 and in "About the Author" - Ibid.), has not taught him to avoid forcing the rules of one language upon another. Or making up one's own grammatical rules or demanding that one language "uniformly" translates another.

Since Bible believers charge modern translations with downplaying the Lord Jesus Christ's deity for their subtraction of the word "Lord" from certain passages, Pirkle counter charges (p. 9) alleging that the NKJV correctly translates "HO CHRISTOS" 41 times "The Christ," while the 1611 and 1769 translators only translated the expression correctly with the definite article 56% and 50% of time, respectively. He says, "According to the 1611 KJV only measuring stick, this means that the 1611 KJV translators denied the Deity of Christ 56% of the time in the first four books of the New Testament."

Pirkle cites the nominative "HO CHRISTOS" in 41 passages, but five of these passages do not use, "HO CHRISTOS.” Luke 2:26, 4:41 (2nd occurrence), 9:20, 20:41, and 24:26 use "TON CHRISTON" (the accusative definite article). Yet, when was the term "THE Christ" or "the Messiah" ever a Jewish or even a Greek term for "deity?" If ”THE Christ” was A TERM FOR DEITY, why were the Jews NOT upset, when the term "THE Christ" was used but were very upset, when Jesus made Himself equal with God? Huh?

Why would HO ESTUS "zero in" on only the four gospels? Well, a simple check of Pirkle's beloved New King James Bible (1982) reveals that it translates "HO CHRISTOS" in Acts 9:34; 26:23; Rom. 9:5; 15:3; 1 Cor. 1:13; 10:4; 12:12; Eph. 5:2,14,23,25; Col. 3:4,13; Heb. 5:5. 9:24, 28 (you guessed it) -"Christ" and not “THE Christ.” Still, the NKJB translators must have also denied the deity of "God," when they translated "HO THEOS" in Acts 2:30, 32 and Col 1:27 as "God" and not “THE God.” HO! HO! HO! We will let HO ESTUS figure out the NKJB's percent age of deity denials of God and Jesus.

Ironically, in his exercise in senility, HO ESTUS closes his introduction with Deut. 8:3 in regard to a man living by "every" word of God. According to HO ESTUS, this cannot be done in anything but inspired Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. A Pirkelite, therefore, cannot live by "every" word of God unless he can understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

Wanted, A Snake Oil Salesman!

Estus Pirkle's new book, "The 1611 King James Bible, A study by Estus Pirkle," asks the question, "Do You Have a 1611 KJV Bible?" Pirkle theorizes that we do not have the original KJB, yet he calls his 1982 "New" KJB a "King James Bible," reminding us of the "oldie but goodie" lyrics, "Yes, We Have No Bananas!" The book is filled, with highly exaggerated illustrations, science fiction (time travel, p. 29), and "What if all you had was a _____ Bible?" scenarios. Pirkle, publicly rebuked at a camp meeting for taking a Greek Textus Receptus N.T. (p. 13) to the pulpit to promote it, and he is now on a holy crusade to criticize, question, and supplant the KJB with the New King James Bible (1982).

Estus claims we really do not have a 1611 KJB but have "the 4th major revised version of the 1611 KJV Bible, which was put out in 1769" (p. 12), which Pirkle calls a "translation"(p. 9, 13) AND a "major revision"(p. 12), accusing the men responsible for the 1769 edition "translators" instead of editors (p. 9). The KJB 1769 "edition" was called a "King James Bible" and is still called a "King James Bible." The KJB 1611 was never called a "New Wycliffe Bible," a “New Bishop’s Bible,” a “New Great Bible,” a "New Geneva Bible," nor a "New Tyndale Bible." The KJB 1769 "edition" was never called a "New" KJB, because it was never a "major" revision or even a "revision." The 1769 KJB was an "edition" of the 1611 Bible, "and the men responsible for the 1769 KJB and the earlier KJB "editions" were "editors." Still, Estus’ NKJB (1982) can’t be a "translation" or an "edition," for it is a "major revision,” calling itself a "New" KJB. Still-anything but a "KJB."

The Horrible Italics

Estus complains that the King James' translators added italicized English words (p. 13), which were not in the Greek/Hebrew texts (italics that honestly signifies implied words, idioms, and departures from literal or uniform translation). He claims that this smoother, metered, more meaningful English translation is inferior to the "original" Greek and Hebrew. Still, the pot calls the kettle black, for Estus Pirkle's NKJB 1982 does the exact same thing by adding words in italics, which are not in the Hebrew and Greek! Imagine complaining about the italicized word "Jesus" being added to Luke 19:1 in both the KJB and the 1982 NKJB, because it is not in the Greek. Estus would remove "Jesus" from our Bibles in Luke 19:1, because it is italicized and is not in the Greek.

Is Estus Pirkle’s Burning Hell Burning?

Pirkle complains that the TR is not welcomed in Fundamental Baptist conferences in the 20th century (p.13, 14). Yet, "ORIGEN" welcomed the Textus Receptus in the 4th century (claims Estus, p. 14). Honest injun? Origen? The man who corrupted the Greek Text, the man behind the Alexandrian corruption . . . "welcomed" the Textus Receptus?

Did he "welcome" the 1550 or the 1598 Textus Receptus (neither agree with any manuscript)? Document that one, Estus! Alluding to his "Burning Hell" film, Pirkle goes into one of his silly hypothetical situations (p. 15, 16):

"Had the Young Man #2 ("Burning Hell"film) above known both the Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus) and the KJV 1611 Translation, he could have put up an argument (hell is the "grave") with me because of the way the KJV 1611 translators handled “hell” in 1 Corinthians 15:55 . . . In 1 Corinthians 15:55, the 1611 translators translated Hades as follows: 'O death where is thy sting? O grave (HADES), where is thy victory?' “Were the 1611 translators accurate in translating "HADES" as "grave," in 1 Cor. 15:55 and "hell" in Luke 16:23? Yes, the King James translators were very accurate! Unlike Estus, the translators knew that 1 Cor. 15:55 was a cross reference to Hosea 13:14.

. . . O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave (SHEOL), I will be thy destruction . . . -- Hosea 13:14

Estus likes the “Geneva Bible” best (of all the old English Bibles). Yet, its translators handled "HADES" the same way - "grave." (The RV and RSV handled it in a similar way, "death"). What does the NKJB (1982) do with "HADES" in 1 Cor. 15:55? Does it translate "HADES" as "hell?” No! Does the NKJB translate "HADES" as "grave?” No! Does the NKJB translate "HADES" at all? No! Does the NKJB inject the Greek word "HADES" into the English? Yes! Well, what about the O.T.? What does the NKJV (1982) do with the Hebrew equivalent of "HADES," namely "SHEOL?"

Does it translate "SHEOL" as "hell?" Yes! Does it translate "SHEOL" as "grave?" Yes! Does it translate "SHEOL" as "pit?" Yes! Does it inject the Hebrew word "SHEOL" into the English text? Yes! Do we know for sure that the words "HADES" and "SHEOL" are equivalents? Yes! How? By comparing Psalm 16:10 (1982 NKJB - "SHEOL") and Acts 2:31 (1982 NKJB - "HADES"). Does the NKJB (1982) translate "SHEOL" as "grave" in Hosea 13:14? Yes! Are the NKJB (1982) and/or Estus consistent or accurate? No! Is Estus Pirkle blowing smoke? Yes! What does Estus do with O.T. folks expecting to go to hell (SHEOL - Gen. 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31)? Will Estus Pirkle consign Abraham to a "Burning Sheol (Hell)?" Pirkle is so very concerned about the archaic KJB, which causes 70% of teenagers not even to try reading the Bible and closes the reading door to 1/3 of English-speaking adults (p. 18). However, could the real problem be the "natural man" and not the archaic English? Estus is also very concerned about folks needing to have a dictionary at their side in order to keep looking up words in the KJB in order to understand the KJB (p. 18, 49). Is Estus as concerned about what folks would do, if they would take his advice (p. 13) to try reading the "original" Hebrew/Greek? What kind of teenager/adult "closed, reading door" percentages do you think that would produce?

Inspired Vowel Points?

Pirkle presents a lengthy discourse about Hebrew vowel points (p. 12, 22-29) and their importance, giving a convincing demonstration of how certain marks and letters change the entire meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. He also presents us with a diatribe on that horrible archaic spelling in the old English Bibles. After informing us of the importance of the "original" Hebrew and Greek and his personal use of the Masoretic Hebrew text by Jay Green (p. 8), Estus makes a curious statement about the markings in the Masoretic Hebrew. He says, "They are Hebrew vowels. They were added sometime during the 6-8th century A.D. by a group of writers known as Masoretes (almost any encyclopedia can give you this information)." (p. 26)

How important are these vowel points? Well, if the various Masoretic vowel points are absent, certain Hebrew words lose their distinction. Words, such as "seh-ar' (hair), shaw-ar' (gate-keeper) shah'ar (gate), sho-ahr' (horrid), saw-ar' (fear), and saw-eer'(goat)," without vowels become the same word having the same 3 consonants (1.) Siyen/Shiyen (2.) Ayin (3.) Reysh. (English words without vowels would result in the same kind of confusion. How could you tell, whether "BT" means "BIT, BUT, BAT, BET, BOAT, BOOT, BEAT, or BEET?"). How can you add vowels to originals in the 6-8th century to produce the "originals?" Was the Masoretic Text inspired in the 6-8th century? Who authorized this change to the original originals? Pirkle has just destroyed his own "originals only" theory? Ruckmanites didn't do it! A Pirkelite did it! Did Estus Pirkle ever think about selling snake oil?

Word Game a la Pirkle

Estus Pirkle, in the second and third chapter of his attack on the King James Bible, "The 1611 King James Bible, A Study by Dr. Estus Pirkle," compares certain words from the Geneva and Wycliffe English Bibles against the KJB in order to correct it (for the sake of argument - P.61). The Geneva Bible and the Wycliffe Bible are two Bibles, which today are neither used by God nor man (two good temporary but short lived expedients in a "process," which culminated in the A.V. 1611 King James Bible). Pirkle's strategy is to copycat "King James Onlys," who compare the KJB to modern perversions (loaded with doctrinal error). Yet, Estus' "Monday morning quarter backing" approaches it to only fault and exaggerate (in chapters 2 and 3) petty KJB spelling and synonym differences from the Geneva and Wycliffe Bibles.

The Uniformity Trick

Pirkle, is a stickler for uniform translation, of Hebrew/Greek words every time that they are used. Uniformity in his view is equal to superiority and accuracy and must be maintained at all costs. This, no doubt, is the reason that Estus Pirkle deems the old stiff and starchy "Geneva Bible" to be superior to the King James Bible due to its more consistent avoidance of synonyms (p. 54-56).

Pirkle’s rigidness on this point propels him into many ridiculous examples (p. 55) in order to make his case for criticizing, scolding, and correcting the KJB. Pirkle is what we call a "Concordance Bible Corrector/Scholar." This is a very difficult science to master. First, you look up a word in a Strong's concordance to see if it is rendered the same way in every place in the King James Bible. Next, you compare it with your favorite, modern, bible perversion. If you find a KJB word that does not translate uniformly, and it appears to translate uniformly in your perversion, then you have Pirkle's license to correct, scold, and criticize the King James Bible.