Did the NKJV follow the CT in Rev 6:11?

[franklinmonroe]

In the TR of Revelation 6:11 the Greek word stolai (Strong's #4749) is plural and rendered as "robes" in the KJV and Young's text--

καὶ ἐδόθησαν ἑκάστοις στολαὶ λευκαὶ, καὶ ἐῤῥέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν ἕως οὗ πληρωσονται καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτείνεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί (Stephens 1550)

And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled. (KJV)

and there was given to each one white robes, and it was said to them that they may rest themselves yet a little time, till may be fulfilled also their fellow-servants and their brethren, who are about to be killed -- even as they. (YLT)
​

In the CT Greek of this verse the same word is singular (variant spelling stole) and the NKJV renders it "robe" in agreement with the NIV & NASB--

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί (GNT)

Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. (NKJV)

Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed. (NIV)

And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also. (NASB)
​

 

[Logos1560]

When the KJV in some cases translated an original language word that was plural as singular or one that was singular as a plural, is that to be considered a departure from the original language text or a translational matter?

 

[franklinmonroe]

When the KJV in some cases translated an original language word that was plural as singular or one that was singular as a plural, is that to be considered a departure from the original language text or a translational matter?

In my opinion, in some places where the case (of number) in the KJV text does not correspond to the underlying original language it is not a translational matter since the king's revisers seemed to have followed a formal (literal) translational method.

One example (will not take this thread to far away from its purpose), where I consider the KJV to have departed from the TR is at Matthew 14:9 --

καὶ ἐλυπηθη ὁ βασιλεὺς διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους ἐκέλευσεν δοθῆναι (TR)

And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded [it] to be given [her]. (KJV)
​

The Greek noun orkous (Strong's #3727) is plural, but the KJV displays it as a singular possessive. Bear in mind that the possessive apostrophe mark was not in use in 1611, but added later. This not a variant issue; and virtually all other versions render it plural.

And the king was grieved; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat with him, he commanded it to be given; (ASV)

and the king was grieved, but because of the oaths and of those reclining with him, he commanded [it] to be given; (YLT)

And the king was grieved; but on account of the oaths, and those lying at table with [him], he commanded [it] to be given. (Darby)​

 

[rsr]

Is it certain that the original KJV spelling oathes signified a possessive and not a plural?

 

[Amy.G]

I don't know Greek but "oaths" doesn't even make sense. There was only one oath made by the king.
"Oath's" makes sense in the context.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Is it certain that the original KJV spelling oathes signified a possessive and not a plural?

No, I don't think we can be certain of it then. What we CAN be certain of is the way the KJV text is presented today.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't know Greek but "oaths" doesn't even make sense. There was only one oath made by the king.
"Oath's" makes sense in the context.

Amy, while I can appreciate your deduction, we certainly cannot allow our logic, our thoughts, or our presuppositions to be imposed upon the text. What makes "sense" to you may not make sense to some one else, or vice-versa. It says what it says. Nay, it says what God wants it to say.

How do you know that the king made only one oath? Couldn't he have also made other private ('side') oaths that are not specifically recorded in our scripture? Or, is it possible that in the 1st century Judean way of thinking when a person made an oath to an individual in public (say, in the presence of 100 other people) he was actually making an oath to each person present (101 oaths)? We are not omniscient so that we can say from this historical distance that we can be certain that the Greek text is wrong about what happened then. Please, reconsider your position.

 

[rsr]

As to the OP, there are several possibilities, including:

1. The NKJV follows the CT.

2. The NKJV follows the MT, which here agrees with the CT.

3. There may be something in grammar that convinced the translators that a singular was more appropriate for an English translation.

I note that Luther used the singular, as did Jay Green in his Literal Translation and KJ3 (which are claimed to be from the TR).

 

[Jerome]

In English, "robes", though plural in form, can denote a single garment.

 

[HankD]

Did the NKJV follow the CT in Rev 6:11?

No.

The 1611 AV is not the product of any one TR type text of which there are several.

The KJV follows after a composite-colation TR (the elements of which defined by Scrivener in 1894) and/or the BMT (Byzantine Majority) and even the Latin Vulgate.

I don't have every TR-like text (Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, etc...) but I do have Stephanus (1550) and the BMT.

The BMT has "robe" while Stephanus (1550) has "robes" both of which qualified as original language source texts for the AV.

The Vulgate also uses "robes" as reflected in the Douay-Rheims.

It was a matter of choice between two TR-like texts.

HankD

 

[franklinmonroe]

As to the OP, there are several possibilities, ...

1. Without outside authorities to the contrary, we have only the evidence before us that suggests that the NKJV followed the CT (even though I recognize that we may not be privileged to know the actual decisions that led the NKJV translators to this rendering).

2. If the NKJV follows the MT (which here agrees with the CT) the effect is the same as if the NKJV was following the CT directly as in #1 above.

3. The suggestion that there may have been something in grammar that convinced the translators that a singular was more appropriate for an English translation is an uncomfortable thought for me. Do you have any specific examples of this?

Whether at Revelation 6:11 the NKJV follows the CT or some another alternative, it certainly seems that the NKJV departs from a strict TR reading.

 

[franklinmonroe]

In English, "robes", though plural in form, can denote a single garment.

Interesting point if it could be shown that in Greek the plural form stolai could mean a single garment.

The Greek word need not be strictly rendered "robes" in English (apparently introduced by the Geneva Bible), since it merely indicates loose outer garments --

And longe whyte garmentes were geven vnto every one of them. And it was sayde vnto them that they shulde reste for a lyttle season vntyll the nomber of their felowes and brethre and of them that shulde be kylled as they were were fulfylled. (Tyndale)

And longe whyte garmentes were geuen vnto euery one of them. And it was sayde vnto them, that they shulde reste for a lyttle season, vntyll the nomber of their felowes, and brethre, and of them that shulde be killed as they were, were fulfilled. (Coverdale)

And longe whyte garmentes were geuen vnto euery of them. And it was sayde vnto them that they should reste for a litle season vntyll the number of their felowes and brethren, & of them that should be kylled as they were, were fulfylled. (Matthew's)

And longe whyte garmentes were geuen vnto euery one of them. And it was sayde vnto them, that they shuld reste yet for a lytle season vntyll the nomber of theyr felowes, and brethren, & of them þt shulde be kylled as they were, were fulfylled. (Great)

And long whyte garmentes were geuen vnto euery one of them: and it was sayde vnto them, that they should reste yet for a litle season, vntyll the number of their felowes, and brethren, and of them that shoulde be kylled as they were, were fulfylled. (Bishop's)​

 

[franklinmonroe]

... It was a matter of choice between two TR-like texts.

While that was perhaps true for the AV1611, the NKJV does not enjoy that liberty. The NKJV was supposed to be produced from the same underlying text as the KJV which in modern terms would be identified as the Scrivener text only. Scrivener's 1894 Greek text for Revelation 6:11 below (matches the plural form found in Stephanus 1550) --

και εδοθησαν εκαστοις στολαι λευκαι και ερρεθη αυτοις ινα αναπαυσωνται ετι χρονον μικρον εως ου πληρωσονται και οι συνδουλοι αυτων και οι αδελφοι αυτων οι μελλοντες αποκτεινεσθαι ως και αυτοι​

 

[Askjo]

As to the OP, there are several possibilities, including:

1. The NKJV follows the CT.

2. The NKJV follows the MT, which here agrees with the CT.

3. There may be something in grammar that convinced the translators that a singular was more appropriate for an English translation.

I note that Luther used the singular, as did Jay Green in his Literal Translation and KJ3 (which are claimed to be from the TR).

If #2 is shown, then #1 is occured.

 

[Askjo]

Did the NKJV follow the CT in Rev 6:11?

No.

Yes, it does. I have 3 NTs (gone back to 1526, 1537 and 1557) prior to the KJV. They said more than one. The NKJV disagrees with them. That is obvious.

 

[Askjo]

Robes VS robe

ASV
And there was given them to each one a white robe; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little time, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, who should be killed even as they were, should have fulfilled their course.

Common English Bible
Each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to rest a little longer, until their fellow servants and brothers and sisters—who were about to be killed as they were—were finished.

ESV
Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

HCSB
So a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer until [the number of] their fellow slaves and their brothers, who were going to be killed just as they had been, would be completed.

NIV
Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.

NLT
Then a white robe was given to each of them. And they were told to rest a little longer until the full number of their brothers and sisters—their fellow servants of Jesus who were to be martyred—had joined them.

CEV
Then each of those who had been killed was given a white robe and told to rest for a little while. They had to wait until the complete number of the Lord's other servants and followers would be killed.

As above, these modern versions followed the CT saying singular – ROBE. Did the NKJV follow the CT by its favor? Let’s look closer to what the NKJV said that matches with MVs and the CT:

NKJV
Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

WOW!

 

[HankD]

Again, the Byzantine Majority is a TR type text.

I personally am quite content with the NKJV translators choices as having aligned with the MT (a TR type text) in the case of Revelation 6:11.

I don't remember reading in the NKJV introduction that they were going to exclusively use any particular "TR" text.

Also Scrivener pieced together his "TR" from several sources several hundred years after the publication of the AV. He took his best guess as to which sources underlying each verse that the KJV translators used.

They left precious little official record as to their sources (in particular).

And in fact there are instances in which the CoE AV revisionist changed number and/or gender of words until 1769 hundreds of times and in some cases (Ruth or Esther I believe) went back and forth in a very indecisive way.

This is also true of the differences (number, case and gender) between the Cambridge and Oxford editions.

The very first verse of the Bible has a difference between these two editions of the AV.

Genesis 1:1 - Cambridge edition - In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 - Oxford Edition - In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth.

So the KJV doesn't even agree with itself depending upon the edition.
Better check the publisher because at least one group calls the Cambridge Edition a "counterfeit Bible".

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Here is the irony, they have accused the Cambridge KJV Bible editors of being counterfeitors of God's word. However the Hebrew has heavens (plural) as does the Cambridge Edition.

So you need to decide which of those two AV versions represents the truth and which (according to this group) is the "counterfeit".

Again, the KJV doesn't even agree within itself depending upon the edition.

That plus the fact that since at least one "TR" type source uses the singular "robe", the NKJV has fulfilled their adherence to the "TR" mandate.


HankD

 

[jbh28]

a white robe was given to each of them
And white robes were given unto every one of them;

This could be saying pretty much the same thing. In both the KJV and the NKJV, there is more than one robe. (Unless of course there was only one person there.)

I believe there is a difference even with the "TR" texts.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Again, the Byzantine Majority is a TR type text.

I personally am quite content with the NKJV translators choices as having aligned with the MT (a TR type text) in the case of Revelation 6:11.

I don't remember reading in the NKJV introduction that they were going to exclusively use any particular "TR" text. ...

Statement from the NKJV Preface --

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. ... ​

Those "specific Greek texts" could not include the MT (since it did not exist in 1611 as a critical edition); perhaps it is a reference to Beza, Stephanus, and the Complutensian Greek texts then available to the king's revisers. There was no "M-Text" footnote for 6:11 in the NKJV footnotes I found --

NKJV Footnotes:
(6:1) NU-Text and M-Text read seven seals.
(6:3) NU-Text and M-Text omit and see.
(6:6) Greek choinix; that is, approximately one quart
(6:6) This was approximately one day's wage for a worker.
(6:12) NU-Text and M-Text omit behold.
(6:12) NU-Text and M-Text read the whole moon.
(6:15) NU-Text and M-Text read the commanders, the rich men. ​

 

[franklinmonroe]

... This could be saying pretty much the same thing. In both the KJV and the NKJV, there is more than one robe. (Unless of course there was only one person there.) ...

I agree, but that isn't the issue. The question is: Does the NKJV ever depart from the TR?