The KJV has not remained unchanged since 1769

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Aug 25, 2016.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The final KJV text was not established in 1769. While some KJV-only authors have made that claim, it is not true.

    While most [not all] of the present varying KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, their varying KJV texts are not 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition text. The editions of the KJV printed in and after 2000 based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener did not follow the 1769 text. The present Cambridge editions edited by David Norton also do not follow the 1769 text. The text of the KJV has been revised and changed since 1769.

    There are likely more than thirty editions of the KJV in print today that differ in some places from each other. Even editions of the KJV printed by the same publisher today may have some differences. In 2011, Cambridge printed six varying editions of the KJV [the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text or Emerald edition, the Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton].

    There would be as many as 400 differences between the 1769 Oxford edition text and a typical present KJV edition. Examples of some of the actual differences were listed in another thread.

    While most Cambridge KJV editions in the 1800's [besides the 1805/1817 Cambridge editions and the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener] were based on the 1769 Oxford edition as revised in the 1800's, the typical 1800's Cambridge KJV text was changed in 1900's Cambridge editions.

    If a Cambridge KJV edition printed in 1887 is taken as an example, 1900's Cambridge editions changed the spelling of around 30 proper names as found in the 1769 Oxford edition to the spelling found in the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener. Scrivener went back to the spelling of these proper names in the 1611 instead of the spelling found in the 1769 Oxford.

    Another twenty spellings and changes were made to the KJV text as found in this 1887 Cambridge edition.
    The 1887 Cambridge in agreement with the 1769 has "travel" at Numbers 20:14 and Lamentations 3:5 while 1900's Cambridge editions have "travail."

    The 1887 Cambridge in agreement with the 1769 has "Most High" (Deut. 32:8) while 1900's Cambridge editions have "most High."

    At Joshua 19:2, the 1887 Cambridge has "Beersheba, and Sheba" while 1900's Cambridge editions have "Beersheba, or Sheba."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Besides its 1900's editions that made some changes to the 1769 Oxford or that followed some of the differences in the 1873 Cambridge, Cambridge has printed at least three other important editions that involved different editing/revision decisions than those in the 1769 [an 1805 or 1817 edition by unknown editors, the 1873 edition as edited by Scrivener, and the 2005 edition as edited by David Norton].

    At some point likely in the early 1800‘s, Cambridge departed from that Oxford standard [especially in its 1816 and 1817 editions] before later returning to a revised edition of it. David Norton indicated that the text in this 1817 Cambridge edition “goes back at least as far as 1805” (Textual History, pp. 125-126). Norton noted: “It is an eclectic combination of old and new work that is most interesting for the number of 1611 readings it restores” (p. 126). Norton also pointed out that “in places some of Blayney’s readings appear” (p. 126). In another book, Norton wrote: “On occasions a great deal of work was done on the text with no fanfare at all. By 1805, for instance, Cambridge had revised its text, restoring a number of 1611 readings, but it is not clear what principles lay behind this work, nor who did it” (KJB: A Short History, pp. 173-174). A KJV that Cambridge published for the British and Foreign Bible Society and identified as being printed in 1812 has this same text. The text of a KJV edition printed in Albany, New York, in 1816 and of a KJV edition printed in New York by Collins and Company in 1816 provide additional evidence that this text goes back before 1817. Someone took some time and effort in the editing and making of the text that served as the basis for this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition. Evidently, three or more earlier KJV editions were compared and consulted in its making. For the period that Cambridge printed this stereotype edition [likely from 1805 until 1818 or 1819], it served as a Cambridge standard. This KJV text served as a Cambridge standard for a longer period [14 years] than the earlier 1629 Cambridge edition had been [9 years]. This is a Cambridge standard edition and revision overlooked or ignored by KJV-only authors. Facts from a KJV edition in John Brown’s Self-Interpreting Bible printed in London in 1821 show that it followed much of the same KJV text as that in this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition. Facts from some American editions of the KJV (such as Phinney’s Stereotype Edition, Holbrook’s Stereotype edition, and Harding’s Fine Edition) indicate that they have been influenced by the same KJV text that was the basis for this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition. A KJV edition printed in 1827 in New York by Daniel Smith and stereotyped by J. Howe and a KJV edition printed in 1835 in Philadelphia by Alexander Toward also may have been influenced by it. These KJV editions in the early 1800’s would suggest that the 1769 Oxford edition was not firmly established as the standard or was not yet known or recognized as the standard by all printers of the KJV. In addition, this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition may also have had some influence on the later 1873 and 2005 Cambridge editions.

    Later with its 1873 edition, Cambridge departed from its version of the Oxford standard text of the KJV. This 1873 KJV is one of the most highly praised and acclaimed editions ever printed by Cambridge. KJV defender Edward Hills noted: "In the 19th century the most important edition of the King James Version was the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873), with F. H. A. Scrivener as its editor" (KJV Defended, p. 217). David Norton indicated that Scrivener was “more conservative” as an editor than Blayney was (Textual History, p. 124). Norton described this 1873 edition by Scrivener as “by far the most substantial and responsible work on the text after the work of the translators themselves” (p. 122). W. F. Moulton maintained that "the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Dr. Scrivener, is the classic edition of the Authorised Version, and is a monument of minute accuracy and unsparing labour" (History of the English Bible, p. 211). Dean John Burgon wrote: “English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener’s is the only classical edition of the English Bible” (Revision Revised, p. 238 note). In its review of this 1873 Cambridge edition in 1878, The London Quarterly Review stated: “The true restorers are critics like Dr. Scrivener, who set themselves to remove modern additions and bring out the original fabric in its ancient form and outline. Such a work demands high qualifications of learning, judgment, and discriminative skill, as well as great care and labour; and of all these the present work furnishes conspicuous proof” (Vol. 49, p. 451). J. Boyes asserted: “The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Dr. Scrivener, has been rightly designated the classic edition of the authorised version, and certainly seems to have reached as high a pitch of excellence as the version is capable of attaining” (Englishman’s Bible, p. 121). In his 1881 book, Samuel Newth described the Cambridge Paragraph Bible as “the most carefully prepared edition” of the KJV “that has ever been issued” (Lectures on Bible Revision, p. 56). In 1885, P. W. Raidabaugh wrote: “The most accurate edition, in all respects, of the Authorized Version ever published is the one issued from the Cambridge Press in 1873, under the editorship of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener” (History, p. 62). In 1891, J. M. Freeman asserted: “Probably the most accurate edition, in all respects, of the Authorized Version ever published is the one issued at Cambridge, under the careful editorship of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener” (Short History of the English Bible, p. 58). Some publishers have printed editions that follow this 1873 revision instead of the 1769.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    In Search of the King James Version [LINK]

    quote "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.
    Larry’s text of the KJV was clearly the best available. Subsequent analysis has shown it to be error-free in its transcription of the Blayney Edition, and the addition of Strong’s numbers made it even more useful. With permission, we used it as the first electronic book released for Logos Bible Software.

    Still, we got calls, letters, and emails from users who claimed it did not match their printed KJV. We discovered that, contrary to widely-held views, there is not one single text of the KJV. Almost no one is using (or even could use) the original 1611 text, and in the years since then there have been many intentional and unintentional typographic, editorial, and spelling changes propagated in hundreds of different editions.

    Moreover, we did not even have a paper copy of the Blayney Edition we were distributing. Our electronic text was simply the Bible text, and we were missing front matter, notes, bibliographic information and more. While this isn’t a problem for Bible study, it is a problem for people comparing editions and preparing academic papers.

    We went on a hunt for a definitive King James Version in print that we could reproduce completely, with all the bibliographic and supplementary material. We wanted a text with a clear pedigree and the smallest chance of errors introduced in multiple settings and printings.

    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.”

    Scrivener’s edition of the text has been reprinted in later editions, but we wanted the whole thing, with all of the appendices and notes, straight from the original. So we began a year-long search for a printed copy that we could borrow long enough to photograph at high resolution using our robotic book scanner."
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  4. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    2,781
    Likes Received:
    493
    The 1769 KJV has been changed?!?!

    :eek: :eek:
     
  5. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    2,781
    Likes Received:
    493
    I have several KJV's with Timotheos and one with Timothy. What gives?
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    So what?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would think that believers would want to know the truth and learn accurate information about editions of the KJV instead of incorrect information.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since 2000, some Zondervan KJV editions were based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener with a few spelling updates such as “more” instead of “moe.” The Hendrickson Parallel Bible of 2005 and the New Hendrickson Parallel Bible of 2008 included the 1873 Cambridge edition as its KJV edition. Some other KJV editions printed by Hendrickson Publishers are also based on this 1873 edition.

    These present 1873 Cambridge-based KJV editions have many differences when compared to most other typical present KJV editions.

    A good number of these differences involve places where the 1873 went back to 1611 renderings or spellings. There are also a few differences where the 1873-based editions may follow renderings in the 1611 “She” edition [“possession” (Gen. 47:27), “ye shall” (Lev. 18:30), “thou shalt” (Num. 10:2), “the valleys” (Deut. 8:7), “it is true” (Deut. 17:4), “she rose” (1 Kings 3:20), “bondman” (1 Kings 9:22), “maidens” (Job 19:15), “from afar“ (Isa. 49:1) “thine hand” (Isa. 64:8), “mine hands” (Isa. 65:2), “mine hand” (Jer. 25:15, Ezek. 6:14), “with the sword” (Ezek. 31:18), “in pieces” (Dan. 2:34), “they be drunken” (Nahum 1:10), “unto a grain” (Matt. 13:31), and “have I stretched” (Rom. 10:21)]. Some differences in placement of apostrophes can also be found in them [fathers' house (1 Chron. 7:2, Ezra 2:59), mercy's sake (Ps. 6:4, 31:16, 44:26), adder's poison (Ps. 140:3), fools' back (Prov. 26:3), father's (Ezek. 22:10), oaths' sake (Matt. 14:9, Mark 6:26)]. The 1873-based editions have “strain out” (Matt. 23:24), “ye believe not” (John 10:25), “were entered” (Acts 25:23), “or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15), and “profession of our hope” (Heb. 10:23).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Why?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So you'd rather that KJVO-types remain in the dark, hold onto myths and nobody should bother telling them the truth?!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,177
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    There are no KJVO types in this thread and none have made any claims which the long, boring, cut an paste tries to refute.

    It is a non-issue issue. Who cares?
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    OK I'll give credit where credit is due.

    Thanks Logos1560.

    Besides you never know if non-member KJVO are occasionally lurking about and just might providentially happen upon this thread and be shocked into reality.

    HankD
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,177
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Except the purpose of the post is to stir up controversy. :(
     
  14. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    986
    I don't agree that this is a non-issue nor do I know the motive or heart of the OP here.

    What I am convinced of is that any KJVO doctrine is nothing but a myth, and that sound doctrine should be used to dispel that myth, 2 Timothy 4:1ff, along with some historical facts, and other facts.

    If there is a fear of destroying one's faith in Scripture, I don't think it is a valid fear. The whole entire thing needs to be shown as being invalid and false. Allowing person's to go on in ignorance and man made doctrines is the problem.
     
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,177
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    So who, in this thread, is the person who is going on in ignorance? Whose ignorance is being addressed by this thread?
     
  16. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    986
    I didn't think we were allowed to address a person on this site in a thread?

    You don't like the topic or something. I just happen to disagree with you that it is useless. Someone, including me, will learn something from what was written.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    yes, but interesting and very informative (from Logos1560 and others).

    Lurkers Lives Matter.

    :)

    HankD
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,177
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Yeah, but after the 16th time of seeing it posted it starts to get a little old! :rolleyes:
     
  19. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    can I be# 17?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    You know the old saying! The 17th time is a charm!

    HankD
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1

Share This Page

Loading...