James 3:3

Now if we put the horses' bridles into their mouths that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also.

Now if ... Punchard criticized this rendition of this introductory remark thus:

This is a more clumsy reading than "Behold." The supporters of such curious corrections (?) argue that the least likely is the most so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than the Received Text in believers of verbal inspiration.[11]

It is high time that this kind of monkey business on the part of translators was rejected out of hand. Gerhard Maier also decried the critical bias in preferring the more difficult reading thus:

The more difficult reading ("lectio Difficilior"), which generally is given preference, could possibly be the result of a scribal error and therefore have little meaning ... The theologian should also guard against falling prey to the good-manuscripts myth, thereby following in blind confidence wherever certain manuscripts provide certain readings.[12]

In view of the above, we should accept the KJV rendition of this place, "Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths" ... Admittedly, this is a small point, the passage meaning the same either way; but what is denounced here is the fact of modern translators, through their adherence to an unscientific and unprovable methodology, presuming to "correct" the sacred text.

There are three comparisons introduced by James with this verse with reference to the tongue. These are: (1) the bit, James 3:3; (2) the rudder, James 3:4, and (3) the small fire, James 3:6. The first two of these stress the importance and power of such a small instrument as the tongue, and the third stresses the astounding damage resulting from such a small beginning.

[11] E. G. Punchard, Ellicott's Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 369.

[12] Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1977), p. 81.