Penguin Classics Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Sep 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The text of the 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton may now be available in a paperback edition called the Penguin Classics Bible edited by David Norton and just printed [ISBN 0141441518].
    It is listed on the web at amazon

    I don't have a copy of this new paperback edition, but I do have the 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. This new 2005 Cambridge edition goes back to many of the renderings of the 1611 edition while it updates the spelling and punctuation.

    In the "Editor's Introduction" to the 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE, David Norton claimed that "the King James Bible or Authorised Version of 1611 has never been perfectly printed" (p. vii).

    Norton wrote: "What we now read as the King James Bible contains numerous deliberate and some accidental changes to the text, and these can be revised to make it more faithful to the King James translators' own decisions as to how it should read" (p. vii).

    David Norton maintained that the present KJV text "is not the translators' text but has had many readings changed according to the judgements of editors who had made it into a revised version: not a heavily revised version, but still a revised version" (p. viii).
     
    #1 Logos1560, Sep 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2006
  2. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always thought the 1611 translator's text was lost. Did Mr. Norton find it?
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The final prepared text given the printers is said to have been lost or destroyed.

    David Norton did make use of some other first-hand evidence in his editing, including a manuscript thought to be made by the Westminster NT group of KJV translators [Lambeth Palace MS 98], the notes made by KJV translator John Bois, one complete 1602 Bishops' Bible with annotations made by the KJV translators themselves, and the two original 1611 printed editions. This 1602 text with the changes made by the KJV translators themselves is a bound copy of one or more of the 40 unbound copies of the 1602 Bishops' Bible originally printed for the translators' use. This copy does not have notes and changes indicated for all the books of the Bible.

    Thus, David Norton could not determine with 100% certainty the intended text of the KJV translators. Norton went back to the renderings in the 1611 edition unless it was fairly obvious or unless he found some evidence from the sources above that it was an actual error made by the printers. Norton did not attempt to correct any errors that may have been made by the KJV translators themselves.

    David Norton wrote: "If we accept that the text of the KJB should present the translators' understanding of the originals as they meant to express it, then only mechanical errors can be corrected--errors where an accident of some sort has led to a misrepresentation of the translators' understanding or expression. Intellectual errors must stand unless one is making a new version" (TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE, p. 29).
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I estimate that there would be over 3,000 differences that affect the sound of words between the 2005 Cambridge edition edited by David Norton and the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.
    After comparing the books of Genesis thru 2 Kings, I have found over 1500 differences.

    Hundreds [perhaps a thousand or more] of the differences are because the 2005 Cambridge edition goes back to the rendering of the 1611 edition of the KJV. There would probably be over 2,000 differences in sound where the moderization of the spelling changed how words would be pronounced and where this edition standarized the use of "thy" or "my" and "a" or "an."

    The updating of the spelling of many words would affect the sound over 1,700 times [examples include “baked“ for “baken,” “bore” for “bare” used as a past tense verb, “begot” for “begat,” “broke” for “brake,” “built” for “builded,” “”dug” for “digged,“ drove” for “drave,” “dwelt“ for “dwelled,” “got“ for “gat,” “show” for “shew,” “showed” or “shown” for “shewed,” “shone“ for “shined,” “strewed“ for “strawed,” “swore” for “sware,” “tore“ for “tare,” “waxed“ for “waxen“]. In addition, the 2005 Cambridge used “a” instead of “an” before several words starting with h (over 100 differences). The 2005 Cambridge also used “thy” or “my” when used as adjectives instead of “thine” and “mine” in many cases (over 300 differences). Some other example changes include the following: “And Abram” for “But Abram” (Gen. 16:6), “innocence” for “innocency” (Gen. 20:5), “seethed” for “sod” (Gen. 25:29), “endowed” for “endued” (Gen. 30:20), “chided” for “chode” (Gen. 31:36), “hindmost” for “hindermost” (Gen. 33:2), “aught” for “ought” (Gen. 47:18), “excellence” for “excellency” (Exod. 15:7), “showbread“ for “shewbread“ (Exod. 25:30), “always“ for “alway“ (Exod. 25:30), “rearward” for “rereward” (Num. 10:25), “ribbon” for “ribband” (Num. 15:38), “diverse“ for “divers“ (Deut. 22:11), “avowed“ for “avouched“ (Deut. 26:17), “haemorrhoids” for “emerods” (Deut. 28:27), “hocked” for “houghed” (Josh. 11:9), “arrogance” for “arrogancy” (1 Sam. 2:3), “situated” for “situate” (1 Sam. 14:5), “cleaved” for “clave” (1 Kings 11:2), and “attentive“ for “attent“ (2 Chron. 7:15).



     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    After comparing Genesis through Malachi, I have found over 3200 differences that would affect the sound. Thus, the actual evidence confirms my estimate that there would be at least 3,000 differences.

    Some other example differences are
    “wrung“ for “wringed“ (Jud. 6:38), “sawn“ for “sawed“ (1 Kings 7:9), “upheld“ for “upholden“ (Job 4:4), “shaped“ for “shapen“ (Ps. 51:5), “shook“ for “shaked“ (Ps. 109:25), “ploughmen“ for “plowman“ (Isa. 28:24), “tablet“ for “table“ (Isa. 30:8), “cockatrice‘s eggs“ for “cockatrice‘ eggs“ (Isa. 59:5), “insatiable“ for “unsatiable“ (Ezek. 16:28), “overflowed“ for “overflown“ (Dan. 11:22), “vats“ for “fats“ (Joel 2:24), “tablets“ for “tables“ (Hab. 2:2), “priced“ for “prised“ (Zech. 11:13), astonished“ for “astonied“ (Matt. 13:54), “unwashed“ for “unwashen“ (Matt. 15:20), “writing-tablet“ for “writing table“ (Luke 1:63), “thanks“ for “thank“ (Luke 6:32), “others“ for “other“ (Luke 23:32), “Canaan“ for “Chanaan“ (Acts 7:11), “aware“ for “ware“ (Acts 14:6), “immovable” for “unmoveable” (Acts 27:41), “incorruptible” for “incorruptible” (Rom. 1:23), “Timothy“ for “Timotheus“ (2 Cor. 1:19), “engraved“ for “engraven“ (2 Cor. 3:7), “sometime” for “sometimes” (Eph. 5:8), “example” for “ensample” (Phil. 3:17), “establish“ for “stablish“ (1 Thess. 3:13), “braided“ for “broided“ (1 Tim. 2:9), and “Luke“ for “Lucas“ (Philemon 1:24).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...