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

[jbh28]

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

oh I understand. Does the NKJV come from a specific TR, or is there a variant in the TR. If not, this will be the first place I've seen a deviation from the TR with the NKJV.

 

[Jerome]

NKJV NT (1979) had "robes".

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Hank, I have to point out that you are mistaken in your terminology here. First of all, in textual criticism, "text type" is a term reserved for a family of mss of the Greek NT which have similar characteristics and readings. This term is not used for a printed Greek NT, except to the extent that NT represents a certain text type of the Greek mss.

Secondly, the term Byzantine (also called majority, and called Syrian by Westcott and Hort) refers to one of those text types. The others are Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean. So it is a mistake to say that the MT is "a TR text type." The TR should actually be considered a subset (for lack of a better word) of the Byzantine/Majority, edited from a few (six I think it was) late Byzantine mss.

The TR actually differs in many places from the Byzantine Text Form Greek NT edited by Robinson and Pierpont. The book of Revelation especially is problematic, with the TR making many departures from the main Byzantine mss, including in Rev. 6:11.

 

[HankD]

Hank, I have to point out that you are mistaken in your terminology here. First of all, in textual criticism, "text type" is a term reserved for a family of mss of the Greek NT which have similar characteristics and readings. This term is not used for a printed Greek NT, except to the extent that NT represents a certain text type of the Greek mss.

Secondly, the term Byzantine (also called majority, and called Syrian by Westcott and Hort) refers to one of those text types. The others are Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean. So it is a mistake to say that the MT is "a TR text type." The TR should actually be considered a subset (for lack of a better word) of the Byzantine/Majority, edited from a few (six I think it was) late Byzantine mss.

The TR actually differs in many places from the Byzantine Text Form Greek NT edited by Robinson and Pierpont. The book of Revelation especially is problematic, with the TR making many departures from the main Byzantine mss, including in Rev. 6:11.

Yes, I realize all that you said is accurate John and I used fabricated terminology when I categorized the Byzantine majority texts as "TR text type" Perhaps I should have used "TR like" texts.

I believe those 6 or so Byzantine texts you mentioned are discussed in Norton's A Textual History of the King James Bible, one mss in particlular was their favorite whose nomenclature I don't remember, but I may be wrong about that as well.

And I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong especially when I don't get a verbal beating along with it.

Mine was not the proper terminology except to say that IMO there needs to be some kind of terminology reflecting the sharp delineation between Byzantine and Alexandrian mss as well as demonstrating the MT affinity with "the" TR developed by the scribal men and families (Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, etc).

Byzantine mss are in far greater agreement with the classical TR's than the Alexandrian, would you agree? I suppose you would seeing the TR's were distilled from them.

Of course that still doesn't negate the fact that the KJV's (depending on the year and publisher) differ even among themselves.

I really think the O/P issue is a non-issue but I chimed in anyway because it reminded me of the web site and the absurdity of the idea that the Cambridge Edition KJV is a "counterfeit" Bible because of number and gender word differences.

Thanks again John, and BTW what IYO would be the best short-hand terminolgy to verbally express the close affinity between the MT mss and the classical TR's?

I am just now putting this blurb in here. I happened to remember Burgon's terminology "The Traditional Text" about which he even wrote a book.
I think this might be a good term to cover both entities - the various TRs and the MT mss. What do you think?

May God bless your efforts in Japan.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, I realize all that you said is accurate John and I used fabricated terminology when I categorized the Byzantine majority texts as "TR text type" Perhaps I should have used "TR like" texts.

Calling them "TR like" would make the TR logically previous to the Byzantine/Majority, so personally I would not say that. As you know the Byzantine is both logically and historically previous to the TR.

And I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong especially when I don't get a verbal beating along with it.

That's what I like about you! :thumbs:

Mine was not the proper terminology except to say that IMO there needs to be some kind of terminology reflecting the sharp delineation between Byzantine and Alexandrian mss as well as demonstrating the MT affinity with "the" TR developed by the scribal men and families (Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, etc).

The terminology of "Byzantine text type" and "Alexandrian text type" doees the job in delineating the two. To go further than that, IMO, invites misunderstanding. Concerning the TR and it's connections, I believe the proper way is to say, "the TR, which was edited from Byzantine (or majority) mss."

Some like to say there is only one TR: Beza, Scrivener or whoever, depending on their view. But frankly, Stephanus, Beza et al are so close that I have no problem with just saying the TR, meaning any of them. We might say "Beza's TR" or "Scrivener's TR" or something similar to differentiate them.

Byzantine mss are in far greater agreement with the classical TR's than the Alexandrian, would you agree? I suppose you would seeing the TR's were distilled from them.

Well, I wouldn't state it this way. I would say there are many differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types, and the large majority of those differences are easily recognizable in the TR when compared with a modern Greek NT which is largely based on the Alexandrian text types (in spite of the eclectic method).

I really think the O/P issue is a non-issue but I chimed in anyway because it reminded me of the web site and the absurdity of the idea that the Cambridge Edition KJV is a "counterfeit" Bible because of number and gender word differences.

I'm still mulling the OP and may chime in on the translation issue later.

Thanks again John, and BTW what IYO would be the best short-hand terminolgy to verbally express the close affinity between the MT mss and the classical TR's?

May God bless your efforts in Japan.

HankD

We have to be sure to distinguish between the mss themselves and an edited NT such as the TR, which does not fully reflect any one manuscript. So we might say, "The TR, which was edited from Byzantine mss."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am far from a Greek scholar - but I think it is stretching to claim that the NKJV followed the CT even in this minor area.

'Robe' and 'robes' are interchangeable. I think it is probably a matter of when it was translated. I suspect that in 1611 it might be said that 'the judge gathered his robes about him and sat down' and today we would say 'the judge gathered his robe and sat down.'

It would take more research than I have the time or inclination to do, but it seems to me that 'robes' was used in that sense in older English.

 

[HankD]

Calling them "TR like" would make the TR logically previous to the Byzantine/Majority, so personally I would not say that. As you know the Byzantine is both logically and historically previous to the TR.

That's what I like about you! :thumbs:

The terminology of "Byzantine text type" and "Alexandrian text type" doees the job in delineating the two. To go further than that, IMO, invites misunderstanding. Concerning the TR and it's connections, I believe the proper way is to say, "the TR, which was edited from Byzantine (or majority) mss."

Some like to say there is only one TR: Beza, Scrivener or whoever, depending on their view. But frankly, Stephanus, Beza et al are so close that I have no problem with just saying the TR, meaning any of them. We might say "Beza's TR" or "Scrivener's TR" or something similar to differentiate them.
Well, I wouldn't state it this way. I would say there are many differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types, and the large majority of those differences are easily recognizable in the TR when compared with a modern Greek NT which is largely based on the Alexandrian text types (in spite of the eclectic method).

I'm still mulling the OP and may chime in on the translation issue later.
We have to be sure to distinguish between the mss themselves and an edited NT such as the TR, which does not fully reflect any one manuscript. So we might say, "The TR, which was edited from Byzantine mss."

Thanks John.


HankD

 

[franklinmonroe]

I am far from a Greek scholar - but I think it is stretching to claim that the NKJV followed the CT even in this minor area.

'Robe' and 'robes' are interchangeable. ...

It was merely a question: Did the NKJV follow the CT here? Perhaps not.

But since virtually all (with a few possible exceptions) TR-based English translations have "robes" (plural) in contrast with virtually all CT-based Englsih translations having "robe" that if the NKJV wanted to keep itself aligned with the TR tradition then the NKJV could have kept "robes", especially if there is no particular advantage in English.

I think the English use of "robes/robe" has partially obscured the issue here. Substituting an English synonym (such as "garments/garment") seems to help clarify the distinction between plural and singular as it stands in the Greek.

 

[franklinmonroe]

NKJV NT (1979) had "robes".

Interesting. Why would they do that if in English the difference between "robes" and "robe" is insignificant?

 

[HankD]

Interesting. Why would they do that if in English the difference between "robes" and "robe" is insignificant?

Insignificance is IMO not part of the basis of these changes.
Even the KJV over the years of revision has changed in hundreds of places certain words in gender case and number because of error on the part of the translators, typesetters, printers, new mss discoveries, etc.

i.e. :
AV1611 Matthew 16:6 ...had not root...
AV1762 Matthew 16:6 ...had no root...

AV1611 Matthew 16:16 ...thou art Christ...
AV1762 Matthew 16:16 ...thou art the Christ...

The History Of The King James Bible, Norton, Cambridge University Press, pg 328.

So, it is just as likely (and probably even more so) that the changes are out of a desire to be accurate by correcting the human errors of translation, printing and mss differences etc, and not primarily as the fringe groups propound - a satanic plot of some kind to "counterfeit" the Bible especially when it can be documented as non-malicious human error.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

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).

You're missing one.

4. The NKJV translators simply blundered.

Also, concerning your #3, there is nothing in the Greek or English grammar that would indicate a singular in English is more appropriate.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Insignificance is IMO not part of the basis of these changes. ...

I agree, and that was the point behind my (mostly rhetorical) question. The NKJV is now on record as having examined this particular word in Revelation 6:11 and determined that they definitely intend the singular form now, as opposed to the plural form they previously had in their text.

 

[HankD]

I agree, and that was the point behind my (mostly rhetorical) question. The NKJV is now on record as having examined this particular word in Revelation 6:11 and determined that they definitely intend the singular form now, as opposed to the plural form they previously had in their text.

Yes that does indeed seem evident.

HankD

 

[rsr]

You're missing one.

4. The NKJV translators simply blundered.

You're right, and that may be the simplest explanation.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree, and that was the point behind my (mostly rhetorical) question. The NKJV is now on record as having examined this particular word in Revelation 6:11 and determined that they definitely intend the singular form now, as opposed to the plural form they previously had in their text.

A scholar friend of mine is following this thread with interest, and wrote me:

Franklin Monroe is correct: "*they definitely intend the singular form* now, as opposed to the plural form they previously had in their text."

The original NKJV NT (1979) clearly read "white robes". By 1982, however, the NKJV as revised read "a white robe" (the rewording of such indicating not merely an accidental dropping of a final -s, but a real revisionistic change). And that latter reading has continued in the later editions of the NKJV, agreeing with virtually all Greek MSS, but not with the TR (any edition) that underlay the KJV.

So the change does appear deliberate, but if so, also represents a clear departure from the TR text stated to underlie the NKJV. The only question is why such a departure was made, contrary to their own stated principles

?

 

[John of Japan]

You're right, and that may be the simplest explanation.

Since as Franklin pointed out they actually started with the plural as the TR has it, then went to the singular in later editions, a deliberate change to fit the modern text seems to be the answer.

Having said that, mistakes are so hard to find sometimes, even in revisions. Just witness all of the "error Bibles" of the KJV: the "He Bible," "She Bible," "Wicked Bible" and the like.

I recently had a note from my final editor, who caught a mistake in our Japanese Romans after the first draft, 2nd draft with 3 translators, 3rd draft with two more translators, a Greek editor (my son, fluent in Greek and Japanese), and a Japanese editor.

The difference was "Die!" instead of "to die," with the two Japanese hiragana alphabet characters being similar. Even then I dismissed the editor's note, and he had to approach me the second time before I saw the error! Ouch!

 

[John of Japan]

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).

Jay Green isn't much of a expert, in spite of his interlinear. According to a friend of mine who knows him and is very familiar with his work, Green only had one year of Greek, and in editing his interlinear would simply pick and choose from renderings in the NKJV or NASB, without checking case, number, gender, verb forms, etc. Sometimes he wouldn't even notice differences in the versions of the TR, in one place having "beloved" when Scrivener had "brothers."

Nowadays I usually use my Biblos software (much better than Green), or for hard copy, Thomas Nelson's The KKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament.