Which is correct?

Amy, would not cloak mean covering and therefore mean the same. As in
"no covering (hiding from)"
Gwyneth

 

Both are correct, with the only difference being smoother English. That's all!

 

I was thinking they meant the same thing too - as in when an 8th grader comes in making excuses for not doing his/her homework. What is he really trying to do? Cloak that he doesn't have it. If s/he could hide it completely, s/he would.

 

Well, I went back and looked at the KJV and instead of cloke it has cloak, which is different. With cloak being to reading, then it means "something you hide with."

 

What exactly are you referring to?

 

HA! I'm always glad I'm not the only one to do that little ol' thing

 

I haven't used it since I was in junior high. I won't share the year so you guys don't have to strain your math brains here.

 

I'll take that

 

I must ask. Why are you studying the KJV in particular?

I understand why one would study the Bible in general, but why this particular version?

 

Amy, you were correct for seeking clarity here. My 1611 reprint has "cloke"; it also has a translator's alternate word in the margin: "Or, excuse". So, King James' men agree with NASB (the NKJV, and some others) that "excuse" is at least an acceptable rendering. My 'modern' KJV has "cloak".

The Greek word is prophasis (Strong's #4392) and is defined by Thayer as: pretext, or show. That is, there is an alleged reason, or a pretended cause; alternatively, its putting on a show.

In context starting in verse 21, Jesus is telling his disciples that "they" (now referring to worldly unbelievers) will persecute followers of Christ because "they" do not know the Father; and in verse 22 indicates that if Jesus Christ had not come into the world "they" would not have recognized their sin (ostensively, as if the sin was not their responsibility). Verse 23 states that "he" (singular, instead of plural) that hates Christ, also hates God; verse 24 confirms the identity of "they" as those that would have "had not sin" had He not completed His work.

Today, we may think of a "cloak" as a cape-like garment, but "cloke" (just an antique spelling of "cloak") as a noun can also mean a deceptive outward appearance. I'm not real strong in English grammar, but I don't think "cloke" is being used as a verb in this verse, so I won't cover those definitions. The second definition of "cloke" (after a garment) found in Webster's 1828 dictionary is --

A cover; that which conceals; a disguise or pretext; an excuse; a fair pretense.​

Modern readers might interpret the KJV as that a disguise has been lifted. From whom were they hiding their sin? God certainly was aware of their sin. They knew their own sin (else they would not know to try to hide it, just like Adam and Eve). The remaining answer would be: others. Do people hide their sin from others? Sure. Technically, this is a possible interpretation; but is that what Jesus was teaching here?

I favor the reading of the NASB and NKJV: that since Christ was crucified and risen "they" may no longer deny their culpability. They no longer can ignore or divert their own guilt. The Pharisees thought their heritage would obsolve them. While it is true that their sin is covered under Christ's blood, there is no acceptance here by these persons. I don't think the emphasis is on hiding or covering of sin. Quite the contrary, I think Jesus has made the ownership of sin very clear!