-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
- Status
That would be about the same as the Majority text though, correct?
We've had a lot to say about Jay Green since I brought him up. If any of you are familiar with both Jay Green's translations of the Textus Receptus and the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) -- how would you compare them? Prefer one over the other?
I haven't spent much time looking at the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) at Bible Gateway, but it seems to me that it might likely be very similar to the New Scofield Reference Bible that was a King James Bible with word changes in the text.
I haven't spent much time looking at the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) at Bible Gateway, but it seems to me that it might likely be very similar to the New Scofield Reference Bible that was a King James Bible with word changes in the text.
That would be a really nice study bible, but think no longer in print...
There are new scofields now, but they are Kjv, and not the one that put the word changes right in text!
I have some inside information on this translation. First of all, Jay Green wasn't TR-only. He claimed to favor the Byzantine/Majority. The interlinear (which I wore out, but still have the OT) used Scrivener's TR per the Trinity Bible Society because it was readily available in 1976. That was before computers (BC), for you whippersnappers, so this was literally a cut and paste process. (I've done that at a Christian publisher's myself).
More tomorrow.
More tomorrow.
The New Scofield Reference Bible with a slightly modified KJV text, published in 1987, is no longer in print.
But the New Scofield Notes are still published with the text of the NKJV, and NIV, published by Oxford University Press. But now they call it The Scofield Study Bible III.
For the most part, the 1994 KJ21 and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible merely updated some archaic language in the KJV. Rarely, they may make a change that would be considered more than updating.
Jay Green's Modern KJV or the Literal Translation in his Interlinear Bible would make more revisions and changes to the KJV than just updating archaic language. They would be more like the NKJV than like the KJ21 although they would differ some from the NKJV. In the Old Testament, Green's Literal Translation used "Jehovah" consistently instead of "LORD" while his Modern King James Version did not.
For one example, at Leviticus 11:30, the KJ21 and TMB keep the KJV's rendering "ferret" while the NKJV, Green's Literal Translation, and the Modern KJV have "gecko."
From the book of Genesis, here are five more comparisons of the 1994 KJ21 and Green's English translations along with the KJV and NKJV.
Gen. 1:28
replenish the earth [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
fill the earth [NKJV, Green's Literal, MKJV]
Gen. 6:5
God [1611 KJV]
GOD [1769 KJV, KJ21, TMB]
LORD [NKJV, MKJV]
Jehovah [Green's Literal Translation]
Gen. 30:37
hazel [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
almond [NKJV, MKJV, Green's Literal]
Gen. 36:24
mules [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
water [NKJV]
hot springs [Green's Literal, MKJV]
Gen. 39:1
officer of Pharaoh [KJV, NKJV, KJ21, TMB]
eunuch of Pharaoh [Green's Literal, MKJV]
Gen. 1:28
replenish the earth [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
fill the earth [NKJV, Green's Literal, MKJV]
Gen. 6:5
God [1611 KJV]
GOD [1769 KJV, KJ21, TMB]
LORD [NKJV, MKJV]
Jehovah [Green's Literal Translation]
Gen. 30:37
hazel [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
almond [NKJV, MKJV, Green's Literal]
Gen. 36:24
mules [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
water [NKJV]
hot springs [Green's Literal, MKJV]
Gen. 39:1
officer of Pharaoh [KJV, NKJV, KJ21, TMB]
eunuch of Pharaoh [Green's Literal, MKJV]
Concerning the OT of Green's interlinear, Dr. Robinson was the general editor of that. He worked to cut and paste various sections, and to finalize the contributions of about 7 others, though Green would often override the renderings, since there were space limitations due to having to manually type the English below the original Hebrew & Aramaic. Note that Green himself did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and depended on his team to do the actual OT translation.
According to a knowledgeable source, Jay Green himself did the interlinear NT, so all errors of translation (and there are many) are his. He actually had very little Greek training, believe it or not. He only had training in beginning Greek, which he learned privately from J. Oliver Buswell in his home for a year. This explains why I myself didn't use Green's interlinear NT that much, though it wore out very quickly, and bought a better one when I could.
Thanks to JoJ and Logos for the clarification on Green's textual proclivities. Green did show himself sympathetic to the Majority Text even as early as his first interlinear.
"Although it is admitted that Erasmus has added to his
Received Text two or three readings from the Latin Vulgate,
without Greek manuscript authority (e.g. Acts 9: 5, 6), and one
from the Complutension Bible which as no Greek manuscript
authority (1 John 5: 7), we have not deleted these from the Greek
text as supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society - though we do
not accept them as true Scripture."
Yet although the MKJV, his last translation, appears to be more than updating archaic words, it also is true that he maintains the TR text in several spots in contradiction to the MT; for example, "book of life" in Revelation 22:19 (both Pickering and the English Majority Text Version have "tree of life); both Pickering and the EMTV reject the Comma Johanneum, while Green — who had already said it is not "true scripture" — maintains the TR reading. If he were an MT proponent, he certainly must not have been a thoroughgoing one.
"Although it is admitted that Erasmus has added to his
Received Text two or three readings from the Latin Vulgate,
without Greek manuscript authority (e.g. Acts 9: 5, 6), and one
from the Complutension Bible which as no Greek manuscript
authority (1 John 5: 7), we have not deleted these from the Greek
text as supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society - though we do
not accept them as true Scripture."
Yet although the MKJV, his last translation, appears to be more than updating archaic words, it also is true that he maintains the TR text in several spots in contradiction to the MT; for example, "book of life" in Revelation 22:19 (both Pickering and the English Majority Text Version have "tree of life); both Pickering and the EMTV reject the Comma Johanneum, while Green — who had already said it is not "true scripture" — maintains the TR reading. If he were an MT proponent, he certainly must not have been a thoroughgoing one.
A ragtag Evangelist came by this week. He accosted me about "are you Kjv only?" I said I have almost every English translation but personally love the old book. He press a bit more by asking about the octagenarian parish. My reply, I believe in the priesthood of the believer and they choose their bibles. I just wish they would read ... any of them. Most carry them but never read let alone study them. God save us all
From a consumer standpoint, I can't decide which three people would buy the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21). People like me who have been using the KJV for years don't need it, and people who want updated language won't want it. So I'm not sure what niche it fills. A very small one, apparently.
My NKJV has 'donkeys.'
- Status