A mature language has:
Preservation in the English language is found in the KJV because it was produced when English had reached full maturity.
English did not have a completely stable pronoun system in 1611. English had not reached full maturity in 1611.
Martin Manser noted: “The [KJV] translators used ‘his,’ ‘her,’ ‘of it,’ or ‘thereof’ when they needed a neuter possessive” (
I Never Knew, p. 240). David Crystal affirmed that in the KJV “
his is used for
its, as in
if the salt has lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted” (
Cambridge Encyclopedia, p. 65). Douglas Stauffer claimed: “By 1600, the pronoun
his was beginning to be used exclusively as the masculine possessive pronoun and less as the neuter possessive pronoun (which was being taken over by
its). The KJB translators decided to avoid the issue by using the word
thereof” (
One Book One, p. 262). Concerning Exodus 30:2-3, Alister McGrath observed: “The extensive and highly cumbersome use of ‘thereof’ reflects a deliberate decision to avoid the use of the possessive pronoun” [“‘his’ as a neuter possessive pronoun”] (
In the Beginning, p. 276).
In the parallel passages presenting the parable of the fig tree in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Mark, is it easier to understand the KJV referring to the same branch as “his branch” (Matt. 24:32) and “her branch” (Mark 13:28)? The NKJV has “its branch” at both verses. Is the KJV or the NKJV clearer or easier to understand at 1 Kings 13:27? The KJV translated this verse as follows: “And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled
him.” The NKJV rendered it using one more word: “And he spoke to his sons, saying, ‘Saddle the donkey for me.’ So they saddled
it.” Gustavus Paine observed: “Elizabethan grammar has a charm of its own, even when a wrong pronoun gives a comic effect; in 1 Kings 13:27, the 1611 Bible says, ‘And he spake unto his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled
him.’ The ‘him’ is in italics to indicate that it is not in the original Hebrew, so there can be no argument when subsequent versions change ‘him’ to ‘it’” (
Men Behind the KJV, p. 132). Concerning Matthew 5:13 [“if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted”], Alister McGrath asserted: “To modern English readers, ‘salt’ appears to be treated as a masculine noun in the second phrase, and a neuter noun in the third” (
In the Beginning, pp. 274-275). At Numbers 4:9, does the KJV have masculine possessive pronouns [“
his lamps,
his tongs,
his snuffdishes”] referring to the same object for which it also has a neuter pronoun “
it”? David Norton referred to “the archaic ‘his’ for the neuter possessive pronoun” (
Textual History, p. 144).
Is the English in the KJV more precise and mature with its lack of a neuter possessive pronoun?
Is the NKJV any clearer, more precise, and more understandable as a result of using gender specific third person pronouns singular in number?
The 1611 edition of the KJV was sometimes imprecise and inconsistent concerning the case of pronouns. If all the changes of “you” [accusative or objective case] in the 1611 edition to the nominative case “ye” in later KJV editions and changes of the nominative case “ye” in the 1611 edition to objective case “you” were counted, it would add to over 200 inconsistencies, showing unstable use of pronouns.
Even after 150 years the 1769 Oxford may still have some imprecise editing or printing inconsistencies concerning the case of pronouns. In an article entitled “Ye and You in the King James Version,” John S. Kenyon claimed: “In three cases [Gen. 9:7, Gen. 45:8, Job 12:3] nominative
you in the text escaped Blayney, and consequently stands in our present day Bibles” (
Publication of the Modern Language Association, Vol. XXIX, pp. 459-460). David Norton asserted: “’And you, be ye fruitful’ (Gen. 9:7) escapes him [Blayney], though he does change the one other example of this construction ‘and you, in any wise keep yourselves‘ (Josh. 6:18) to ‘and ye …’” (
Textual History, p. 113). Concerning Genesis 45:8, Isaac Nordheimer rendered it: “
Ye did not send me hither or it was not ye that sent me hither” (
Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language, p. 264). Isaac Nordheimer again commented: “
Ye did not send me hither, but God, lit.
ye did not send me hither for it was
God who sent me” (p. 287). The pronoun at Genesis 45:8 just as at Matthew 10:20 and Mark 13:11 should be in nominative case because a pronoun used as a subject complement after a be verb is put in that case. The 1660 London edition of the KJV that changed many objective case uses of “you” to nominative case “ye” has “
it was not ye
that sent” at Genesis 45:8 as does a 1675 Oxford edition.
In his article, John Kenyon maintained that “in the case of
turn ye (you), Blayney is less consistent” (
Publication, p. 463). John Kenyon asked: “Why should he change
turn ye (Zech 9:12) to
turn you, (since the Hebrew has the reflexive) but leave
turn ye in Leviticus 19:4, 2 Kings 17:13, Isaiah 31:6, Jeremiah 25:5, Ezekiel 33:11, Joel 2:12, Zechariah 1:3, 4, from the same Hebrew simple form of the verb?” (
Ibid.). John Kenyon asserted: “Similarly, Blayney should consistently have changed Jeremiah 49:14 ‘Gather ye together, & come against her, …’ for
ye was doubtless intended as a reflexive object. The Hebrew form is reflexive, as it is in 1 Samuel 22:2; 2 Chronicles 20:4,
gathered themselves; Ezekiel 39:17,
assemble your selves” (p. 464). John Kenyon claimed: “It is probable, therefore, that in Jeremiah 49:14 we have an objective
ye in our modern Bibles” (
Ibid.). The 1560 Geneva Bible has “gather you together” at Jeremiah 49:14. Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle wrote: “Yourselves is used in the nominative case, as subject of a verb, without the implied ‘ye’ or ‘you’ in 1 Thessalonians 2:1; 3:3, 5:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:7” (
KJB Word Book, p. 390).
IDK, WWJD?
...)