-
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!
Why isn't the NKJV seen as being another update on KJV?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
You mean the 1769 revision by Benjamin Blayney.
thanks for the catch!
Do yuo know why the NKJV not seen as a KJV edition?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Marginal Footnotes...
This is only "marginally" related:smilewinkgrin: to the issue in the OP but part of my own personal problem with the NKJV is the fact that the editors (Thomas Nelson I guess) chose to include most,if not all of those nefarious little "marginal footnotes" that I seem to find in all the other MV's that I don't like. The reason I find them so offensive is that they almost always tend to support the contentions of the "Critical Text" and,in effect, call into question the AUTHORITY of significant word(s) and portions of the Word of God. The KJV NEVER does that. As far as I can tell....it is a complete text and it OMITS or QUESTIONS nothing. The text and its overall authority (KJV) are INTACT throughout from cover to cover...in my humble opinion.:thumbs:
One other personal observation I have is that, again in my opinion, by updating the so-called archaic words and removing the "Thees and Thous, etc." the text loses some of its majesty and readability. For that matter,when you "update" things into some of the perverted "modern language" you give people just one more reason to be lazy in their study of the Word of God. Resigning the DICTIONARY to the dusty shelves of history is NOT a good thing for students of the Bible to ever do. That's just my two cents worth...everybody else is welcome to their own.
Bro.Greg
This is only "marginally" related:smilewinkgrin: to the issue in the OP but part of my own personal problem with the NKJV is the fact that the editors (Thomas Nelson I guess) chose to include most,if not all of those nefarious little "marginal footnotes" that I seem to find in all the other MV's that I don't like. The reason I find them so offensive is that they almost always tend to support the contentions of the "Critical Text" and,in effect, call into question the AUTHORITY of significant word(s) and portions of the Word of God. The KJV NEVER does that. As far as I can tell....it is a complete text and it OMITS or QUESTIONS nothing. The text and its overall authority (KJV) are INTACT throughout from cover to cover...in my humble opinion.:thumbs:
One other personal observation I have is that, again in my opinion, by updating the so-called archaic words and removing the "Thees and Thous, etc." the text loses some of its majesty and readability. For that matter,when you "update" things into some of the perverted "modern language" you give people just one more reason to be lazy in their study of the Word of God. Resigning the DICTIONARY to the dusty shelves of history is NOT a good thing for students of the Bible to ever do. That's just my two cents worth...everybody else is welcome to their own.
Bro.Greg
So you read a KJV with its marginal notes removed.
There were marginal notes, minority translations and alternates in the original. That is the AV 1611. It had over 7,400 marginal notes (not including the Apocrypha) and even occasionally referenced alternate texts.
There were marginal notes, minority translations and alternates in the original. That is the AV 1611. It had over 7,400 marginal notes (not including the Apocrypha) and even occasionally referenced alternate texts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Hey!!!!!
HEY....how can you possibly question me....don't you know that Pickens beat Traveler's Rest 42 to 6 last Friday???:smilewinkgrin::laugh:
For all you other board members that is irrelevant...Jacob and I live close to each other. Our town has a better football team than his does!!:laugh:
Now...to the question...I KNOW THAT! But...the copy of the KJV I use most often (an Oxford Old Scofield) does not have the kind of footnotes in it that call the text into question as far as I can tell. I would also mention (so everyone knows I know this) that neither notes like Dr.Scofields, or publishers/editors footnotes are INSPIRED. I just don't like them. Truth be known, I actually am or could be happy with a copy of the Word of God that contained NO footnotes or center references. I actually do have one...it's an old Collins edition published in 1962. The ONLY things in it are a self-pronunciation chart, a scripture reading calendar/schedule, and a standard set of color maps in the back. I love that Bible. It contains NO DISTRACTIONS.
Bro.Greg:laugh:
HEY....how can you possibly question me....don't you know that Pickens beat Traveler's Rest 42 to 6 last Friday???:smilewinkgrin::laugh:
For all you other board members that is irrelevant...Jacob and I live close to each other. Our town has a better football team than his does!!:laugh:
Now...to the question...I KNOW THAT! But...the copy of the KJV I use most often (an Oxford Old Scofield) does not have the kind of footnotes in it that call the text into question as far as I can tell. I would also mention (so everyone knows I know this) that neither notes like Dr.Scofields, or publishers/editors footnotes are INSPIRED. I just don't like them. Truth be known, I actually am or could be happy with a copy of the Word of God that contained NO footnotes or center references. I actually do have one...it's an old Collins edition published in 1962. The ONLY things in it are a self-pronunciation chart, a scripture reading calendar/schedule, and a standard set of color maps in the back. I love that Bible. It contains NO DISTRACTIONS.
Bro.Greg:laugh:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
If you study an original 1611 KJV you will note that it has several alternate translations in the margins.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Well....Didn't Know That!
Well Roger...I actually did not know that. I do have one of the Olde English 1611 reproductions but I never read from it because those 1600's old english spellings just aren't my cup of tea. I'm personally very glad the spellings were updated.:laugh: I have the UPDATED "1611"! Hope you are having a nice day over there in shamrock land!:wavey:
Bro.Greg
Well Roger...I actually did not know that. I do have one of the Olde English 1611 reproductions but I never read from it because those 1600's old english spellings just aren't my cup of tea. I'm personally very glad the spellings were updated.:laugh: I have the UPDATED "1611"! Hope you are having a nice day over there in shamrock land!:wavey:
Bro.Greg
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
No problem.
I could hear the game Friday night.
There aren't a ton of alternate text references. But there are some. There are a few alternate translations, most of the New Testament stuff is clarifications.
A complete list is at this website. http://en.literaturabautista.com/exhaustive-listing-marginal-notes-1611-edition-king-james-bible
I could hear the game Friday night.
There aren't a ton of alternate text references. But there are some. There are a few alternate translations, most of the New Testament stuff is clarifications.
A complete list is at this website. http://en.literaturabautista.com/exhaustive-listing-marginal-notes-1611-edition-king-james-bible
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the link. I, too, have a copy of the 1611 and find it hard for these old eyes to read, in addition to trying to figure out English spelling of the day.
Have to leave for church in a few minutes, so I've bookmarked the site for later reading. Looks like a good resource for future reference.
It is easier to ignore the differences in the different texts.
A bible without textual notes is certainly less distracting but textual decisions were made by the translators of your translation whether you know it or not.
When we know where a difficult textual decision was make we can take extra-care studying the passage and examining the alternatives.
Surely we are not experts and will usually defer to the decision made in our favorite translation ...
...but knowing the textual history of a text can give us a greater confidence in the interpretations we make.
IMO, a decision to ignore where textual problems occur gives a false sense of security based on ignorance.
Rob
Last edited by a moderator:
Ordinarily, I don't mind marginal textual notes. However, I don't like or appreciate them when they are in an otherwise text only Bible such as I would give to a new Christian.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
There are several and too hard to bother trying to link them all, but several time the translators put 'or _______' in the margin to suggest a different translation for a word or words. I didn't have a lot of time today (my 'baby' sister (almost 50) is visiting from the US) but here is one page from 1 John that shows a couple of alternate choices.
On the topic of the OP, the NKJV is not a simple update. Though translated from the same textual body and using the philosophy of formal equivalence like the KJV it was a new translation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Editions of the NKJV can be obtained that do not have the marginal or textual notes. I have a copy of one.
As has already been pointed out, the 1611 edition of the KJV did have some textual marginal notes that are the same type notes as are found in the NKJV. Thus, it is incorrect to assert that the 1611 KJV never in effect questioned any rendering or reading in its text.
The KJV did omit verses and words found in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. The KJV [the third authorized version of the Church of England] omitted over 100 words including three whole verses in the book of Psalms that were found in the Great Bible [the first authorized version of the Church of England]. The KJV also omitted over 100 words including phrases in the book of Acts that were found in the Great Bible. The KJV also omitted a number of words and phrases that were found in the Bishops' Bible.
In the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, the translators sometimes gave the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek, sometimes gave alternative translations, and sometimes even gave variant readings. Laurence Vance cited the report to the Synod of Dort about the translating of the KJV as stating: “where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies” (King James, His Bible, p. 47). Scrivener noted that 4,111 of the 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament of the 1611 "express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee" and "2156 give alternative renderings (indicated by the word 'Or' prefixed to them) which in the opinion of the Translators are not very less probable than those in the text" (Authorized Edition, p. 41). He also pointed out that 67 marginal notes in the 1611 O. T. "refer to various readings of the original, in 31 of which the marginal variation (technically called Keri) of the Masoretic revisers of the Hebrew is set in competition with the reading in the text" (Ibid.). He observed that in the N. T. of the 1611 that 37 marginal notes relate to various readings (p. 56). He also listed those 37 notes (p. 58). The 1762 edition added 15 more textual marginal notes (p. 59). The 1769 edition is said to have added at least one more. KJV defender Edward F. Hills also confirmed that 37 of the KJV’s N. T. marginal notes give variant readings (KJV Defended, p. 216). Hills also acknowledged that 16 more textual N. T. marginal notes were added in the 1700’s (Believing Bible Study, p. 206). John Eadie also affirmed that the KJV’s N. T. has “thirty-five such textual notes,” and he listed them (English Bible, II, p. 212). In addition, Eadie referred to “at least sixty-seven notes referring to various readings of the Hebrew” (p. 210).
1611 textual notes
At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). The 1611 KJV at Mark 7:3 has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that also refers to Chrysostom.
At Luke 10:22, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'"
At Luke 17:36, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."
At 2 Peter 2:2, the marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read."
At Acts 25:6, the marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days."
At John 18:13, the marginal note in the 1611 gave a conjectural emendation found in the Bishops' Bible: "And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest."
Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:2, 11, and 18.
John R. Kohlenberger III pointed out a textual variant in the marginal note in the 1611 edition at Deuteronomy 28:22. Kohlenberger asserted: “This variant is caused by the change of a single vowel point in Hebrew (horch versus the Masoretic herch) and likely reflects the Vulgate et aestu” (Burke, Translation, p. 50). Kohlenberger noted: “An example of an alternative reading that is not clearly stated is found at Luke 2:38: ‘that looked for redemption in Hierusalem’; note: ‘Or, Israel.’ This reading is not found in printed texts, but it is in Rheims” (p. 52).
At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). The 1611 KJV at Mark 7:3 has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that also refers to Chrysostom.
At Luke 10:22, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'"
At Luke 17:36, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."
At 2 Peter 2:2, the marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read."
At Acts 25:6, the marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days."
At John 18:13, the marginal note in the 1611 gave a conjectural emendation found in the Bishops' Bible: "And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest."
Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:2, 11, and 18.
John R. Kohlenberger III pointed out a textual variant in the marginal note in the 1611 edition at Deuteronomy 28:22. Kohlenberger asserted: “This variant is caused by the change of a single vowel point in Hebrew (horch versus the Masoretic herch) and likely reflects the Vulgate et aestu” (Burke, Translation, p. 50). Kohlenberger noted: “An example of an alternative reading that is not clearly stated is found at Luke 2:38: ‘that looked for redemption in Hierusalem’; note: ‘Or, Israel.’ This reading is not found in printed texts, but it is in Rheims” (p. 52).