The unique and imperfect Oxford KJV edition in old Scofield Reference Bible

[Logos1560]

KJV-only author D. A. Waite asserted: “I used the ‘Old Scofield’ of 1917 as the standard for the KJV since it seems to be the most authoritative, having been published by the Oxford University Press” (AV1611 Compared to Today’s KJV, p. 3). William Grady maintained that the Scofield Bible “went on to become the most popular study Bible on the market” (Final Authority, p. 315). David Sorenson wrote: “The Scofield Reference Bible, perhaps more than any other one edition, was the Bible of choice of Fundamentalists in America in the twentieth century” (Touch Not, p. 214). James M. Rasbeary asserted: “The old Scofield Reference Bible is still probably the most common study Bible used by fundamental Baptists” (What’s Wrong, p. 28).

Donald Brake wrote: “One King James study Bible has quite possibly influenced more conservative Christians in the twentieth century than any other. The Scofield Reference Bible, a widely circulated King James study Bible, was edited and annotated by Cyrus I. Scofield in 1909” (Visual History of the KJB, pp. 220-221). Gordon Campbell observed: “Scofield’s Bible became immensely popular, and in its first two editions sold more than a million copies by 1930 and two million by 1945” (Bible, p. 245).

Many KJV-only advocates seem to be unaware of the fact that the Oxford KJV text in the old pre-1996 Scofield Reference Bible had some unique and different renderings from all other post-1900 KJV editions. In my examination of over 500 editions of the KJV, I did not find any pre-1917 edition of the KJV that could be the source of these unique and different renderings. Its use of hyphens in rendering such as "burnt-offerings" is in agreement with the greater use of hyphens in some KJV editions in the 1700's and 1800's. Its use of hyphens would actually mean that that KJV edition would have a different number of words than many other post-1900 KJV editions.

The Oxford edition of the KJV in the old Scofield Reference Bible had the following unique or different renderings that could be said to characterize it [“and all that” (Lev. 14:36) instead of "that all that", “unto the coast“ (Deut. 3:14) instead of "unto the coasts", “And when thou dost” (Deut. 24:10) instead of "When thou dost", “hastened” (1 Sam. 17:48) instead of "hasted", “people of the men” (2 Sam. 16:15) instead of "people the men", “the Lord“ (1 Kings 8:56, Jer. 32:26) instead of "the LORD", “anything” (Rom. 8:33) instead of "any thing", and “lusteth” (Rev. 18:14) instead of "lusted".

 

[Logos1560]

Later KJV editions in the Scofield Study Bible with an additional 1996 copyright have a Cambridge text instead of the Oxford text.

It is likely from the 1873 Cambridge or from Scrivener’s book with information from a collation of several KJV editions that post-1900 Cambridge editions adopted most of the following renderings: “all his sin” (2 Chronicles 33:19), “whom ye” (Jeremiah 34:16), “flieth away” (Nahum 3:16), “Beer-sheba, or Sheba” (Joshua 19:2), “vapour” (Psalm 148:8), “wits’ end” (Psalm 107:27), “travail” (Numbers 20:14), “travail” (Lamentations 3:5), “Spirit” (Matthew 4:1), “Spirit” (Mark 1:12), “further” (Matthew 26:39), “further” (Mark 1:19), “further” (Ecclesiastes 8:17), “wondrously” (Jud. 13:19), “floats” (2 Chron. 2:16), “clifts” (Job 30:6), and “chrysolite” (Rev. 21:20).

Most post-1900 or present Cambridge KJV editions follow the 1873 Cambridge correction at 1 Samuel 2:13 [“priests’ custom”] since the Hebrew noun translated priests here was plural in number, and they may also be following the 1873 edition in departing from around twenty spellings of proper names in the 1769 Oxford to return to 1611 spellings reintroduced in the 1873. Those spellings of proper names likely include the following: “Sabtecha” (Gen. 10:7), “Abida” (Gen. 25:4), “Zerah” (Gen. 46:12), “Jahazah” (Josh. 13:18), “Hapharaim” (Josh. 19:19), “Malchi-shua” (1 Sam. 31:2), “Shammua” (2 Sam. 5:14), “Shimea” (2 Sam. 21:21), “Naharai” (2 Sam. 23:37), “Ezer” (1 Chron. 1:38), “Geshan” (1 Chron. 2:47), “Achsah” (1 Chron. 2:49), “Shimron” (1 Chron. 7:2), “Jehoshua” (1 Chron. 7:27), “Michah” (1 Chron. 23:20), “Jeshua” (1 Chron. 24:11), “Ephraim” (2 Chron. 13:19), “Ezion-geber” (2 Chron. 20:36), “Carchemish” (2 Chron. 35:20), “Mispar” (Ezra 2:2), “Asnappar” (Ezra 4:10), and “Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:6, 15).

The Oxford edition in the old Scofield Reference Bible would likely differ from the Cambridge edition in the 1996 Scofield Study Bible in the above places.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Interesting discussion.

I've always preferred the Oxford 1769 over the Cambridge, but LOTS of small changes in editions in the first few years after they came out.

 

[Deacon]

I was surprised to find an early edition of the Scofield Bible among my dad’s books when he passed a while back.
I added it to my small collection of English Bibles.

Logos Bible Software has a number of different editions of the King James Version.
Its former owner posted a blog about the problem of developing a software version of the KJV.

In Search of the King James Version [link]

In 1991, when we started working on Logos Bible Software, we purchased a disk set with the KJV text from Public Brand Software. It consisted of the text of the verses and nothing else, but it was adequate for our initial development and testing. Larry Pierce, who wrote The Online Bible, used this same text as the basis for his electronic KJV, but he hand corrected the files to match the 1769 Blayney Edition, published by Cambridge University Press, and added Strong’s numbers.
[Snip]
After talking with publishers, Bible societies, and scholars, we concluded that the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, was the best edition to use. More than a century after the Blayney Edition, Scrivener had done an incredibly comprehensive and careful revision of the KJV text. The text was paragraphed. Poetry was formatted in poetic form. Italics and cross references were thoroughly checked. Most importantly, Scrivener thoroughly documented his work. He noted errors in earlier editions and provided a “List of Passages in which this Edition follows others in departing from the Text of 1611.”​

 

[Dr. Bob]

I was surprised to find an early edition of the Scofield Bible among my dad’s books when he passed a while back. I added it to my small collection of English Bibles.

There are more than 100 unique "King James Versions" translated from the AV1611.
One or two had just minor "technical" changes like singular into plural.
Some had typographical challenges, like the "Thou shalt commit adultery" KJV.
Some from different publishers (Oxford v Cambridge)

Actually quite an interesting study. If a friend says he is "KJVonly", I always ask him, "Which one of the hundred?"
(I no longer have many friends who are KJVonly; don't know why)

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Good day,

The new Scofield Bible changed the King James Text.

 

[Logos1560]

The new Scofield Bible changed the King James Text.

This thread was not discussing or referring to the New Scofield. It was referring to the old Scofield Reference Bible.