Is this a real Oxford KJV error?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In another thread, the actual evidence showed that D. A. Waite's three so-called Oxford errors were actually first introduced in Cambridge KJV editions.

    There were some actual errors introduced in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition.
    An actual error that seems to have been introduced by printers or editors at Oxford is at 1 Chronicles 2:47 [“Gesham“ for “Geshan“]. James D. Price affirmed that the Masoretic Text and the 1611 edition of the KJV correctly read “Geshan” at this verse (King James Onlyism, p. 290). The 1762 Cambridge edition still has the correct “Geshan.” Scrivener indicated that this error was introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition (Authorized Version, pp. 33, 220). This error is found in Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1821, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, and in today’s Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. Some Cambridge editions printed in 1790, 1824, 1833, 1842, 1865, 1869, 1872, and 1887 have this same error. A present American Bible Society KJV edition and a present Thomas Nelson KJV edition also still have this error. Why do some present KJV editions still have a printing error introduced over 200 years ago?

    All present KJV editions do not have this error, but it is surprising that any editions would still have it after over 200 years. The 1873 Cambridge edition as also found in present Zondervan KJV editions, the present Cambridge Standard Text Edition, and the 1997 Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press have the correct “Geshan.”
     
  2. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tilting at windmills again???
     
  3. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gesham is in the first quarto edition of the KJV (1612).
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do you think that a minor error is not an error?

    James D. Price wrote: "Those who place final authority in the English words of the Authorized Version do so to avoid the problem of variant readings in the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. To them, any degree of uncertainty is intolerable--a Bible with flaws is not Bible at all. But they have the same problem with variant readings in the current editions of the Authorized Version. They still must ask which English variant is the authentic one, but they do not have a flawless Standard English text of the King James Version to which they can appeal for final authority" (King James Onlyism, pp. 122-123).
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    If that is the case, it means that the Oxford printers were not the first to introduce this rendering. It is said that some of the editions around that period were bound with sheets mixed from different printings. Do you know if "Gesham" was typical of all the 1612 quarto edition? Are you suggesting that this is the correct rendering?

    If "Gesham" was first introduced in 1612, why has this variant remained in some KJV editions for 390 years?
     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    1. No. 1612 quartos are very rare. The one in the British Library collection does have m.
    2. No.
    3. Ignorant or negligent publishers?

    The phenomenon predates the KJV: some Wyclif and Tyndale Bibles also have m.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes, if the windmill issues a challenge.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    God is incapable of error no matter how small.

    HankD
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1769 Oxford edition introduced the mistaken rendering “Zithri” into the text at Exodus 6:21. A printer may have taken this rendering from Exodus 6:22. This actual Oxford “error” may have remained in Oxford editions for over 100 years since it still can be found in several later Oxford editions [1795, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880]. The 1790 Cambridge edition also has this rendering “Zithri” at Exodus 6:21. Cambridge editions printed in 1824, 1833, 1842, 1844, 1865, 1869, and 1872 still have “Zithri” at this verse.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1769 Oxford KJV rendering "Zithri" was corrected to "Zichri" at Exodus 6:21 in an 1885 KJV edition printed at Oxford. Since the error "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 was still in an 1880 Oxford KJV edition, it seems that this error was finally corrected after 1880 and before 1885.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    But not people.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    were any of these 1769 renderings errors?

    Are KJV-only advocates actually using editions that have every word 100% identical to the text of the 1769 Oxford edition? If some of the changes and alterations made by Blayney are accepted as perfect, why are some of the other alterations ignored or rejected? For example, Cambridge editions after 1769 continued to have some differences when compared to the 1769 Oxford edition. The actual evidence will show that while many present KJV's may be based on the 1769 Oxford edition, they are not 100% identical in text to it. David Norton observed: “Most of the changes were made by 1769, but work of this sort has never quite ceased” (Textual History, p. 3). The evidence will also show that some changes were made in the text of the KJV after 1769.

    Some of Blayney's alterations in his 1769 edition were perhaps made to bring the KJV into conformity with Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755. Scrivener made a list of some errors in Blayney's quarto edition of 1769 (Authorized Edition, pp. 33-34). For one example, he noted that the 1769 edition had "the earth" instead of "the world" at 1 Corinthians 4:13 (p. 33). The 1769 edition had “coast“ instead of “coasts“ at Judges 19:29, “priest‘s custom“ instead of “priests‘ custom“ at 1 Samuel 2:13, “on the pillars” instead of “on the top of the pillars“ at the end of 2 Chronicles 4:12, “unto me” instead of “under me” at Psalm 18:47, “feared” instead of “fear” at Psalm 60:4, and “part“ instead of “parts“ at Psalm 78:66. It has “about” for “above” at 2 Corinthians 12:2 and “our joy“ for “your joy“ at 1 John 1:4. Scrivener also noted that the 1769 edition had “Heman“ at Genesis 36:22 instead of “Hemam“ (p. 156, footnote 2), “brakedst” at Deuteronomy 10:2 instead of “brakest” (p. 32), and "thy companions" at Job 41:6 instead of "the companions" (p. 223). The 1762 Cambridge edition had “Heman” at Genesis 36:22 and may be the source of the 1769 Oxford rendering. Eadie asserted that the 1769 edition had “thy progenitors” for “my progenitors’ at Genesis 49:26 (English Bible, II, p. 366).Norton pointed out that the 1769 had “you were inferior“ instead of “ye were inferior“ at 2 Corinthians 12:13 and “the mighty is spoiled” instead of “the mighty are spoiled” at Zechariah 11:2 (Textual History, pp. 113, 298). McClintock maintained that the 1769 edition had “children of Gilead” for “elders of Gilead” at Judges 11:7 and “gates of iron” for “bars of iron” at Psalm 107:16 (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 563). McClintock also claimed that the 1769 edition omitted the following words at Revelation 18:22: “at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” (Ibid.). Several of the above renderings in the 1769 Oxford edition remained in Oxford editions over 70 years since they can still be found in a 1840 Oxford edition, and one remained over 100 years.
     

Share This Page

Loading...