Advanced Search. Privacy Copyright. DigitalCommons Cedarville. The Revisions. Printing is not supported at the primary Gallery Thumbnail page. Printers had to set type into the plates by hand from boxes and boxes of metal type, one letter at a time. I am quite amazed that the first KJV Bible had as few typos as it did. Some do worse. The or so typos were noted and corrected in subsequent editions, most within a few years.
About were corrected by the time of the second printing of the original KJV edition still in , and almost three fourths were corrected by As may be expected, it has proven impossible to keep errors like these from creeping into later printings and editions. For example, the edition of came to be known as the Wicked Bible because it omitted "not" from the seventh commandment in Exodus The second class of changes had to do with the choice of type, or font.
The original edition was set in Gothic font. The change to Roman font resulted in numerous changes because of the differences in certain letters. Thus, for example, "Mofes" allowing that I cannot remove the cross in the "f" was changed to "Moses".
There were approximately 30, such changes. This resulted in over 45, more changes, e. Thus, "Iesus" was changed to "Jesus" times, etc. Another graphic abbreviation sometimes used is the form y e properly pronounced, the instead of a fully written the. The use of capital letters in the edition was somewhat irregular, but in general it may be observed that, in addition to proper nouns, common nouns referring to important persons were often capitalized, after the custom of the times.
Pronouns referring to persons of the Trinity were not capitalized. Because each verse of the translation was printed as one paragraph, the first word of every verse was also capitalized. Below are listed all changes from the first chapter of Matthew. The edition was more heavily punctuated than our modern editions, as is generally true for older books; but it appears that sometimes the punctuation was influenced by mere considerations of space, as in the second example below.
In the first edition of the King James version, marginal notes indicating various renderings or readings appeared in places in the New Testament. Of these notes, 34 evidently referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts. They appear in the following places: Mat , , , ; Mark , ; Luke , , ; John ; Acts , ; Rom. The editors of the edition left all of the original marginal readings and renderings unchanged, but added 87 more notes, of which 17 referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts.
The following is a list of all notes added to Matthew. Below are listed all of the alternatives added to the margin in which evidently refer to various readings of the Greek text. The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in is Of this number, are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:. For the student who wishes to learn more concerning the history of the King James version, the following books will be of interest.
Abingdon Press: Nashville, An excellent layman's history of the English versions up to Oxford: Oxford University Press, This is an edition of the King James version which exactly reproduces the spelling, punctuation, marginal notes, and chapter headings of the first edition.
An exhaustive collation with the printing of was prefixed to the Oxford edition, but left out of the Nelson reprint. By Thomas Curtis, London, , 8vo]. It is needless to revive the controversy that ensued, in which the case of the priveleged presses was successfully maintained by Dr Cardwell in behalf of Oxford, by Dr Turton for Cambridge, in the pamphlets which have been already cited in this section [ Oxford Bibles , The consequent publication of the standard text in the Oxford reprint of , which we have found so useful, virtually settled the whole debate, by shewing to the general reader the obvious impossibility of returning to the Bible of , with all the defects which those who superintended the press had been engaged, for more than two centuries, in reducing to a more consistent and presentable shape.
Scrivener, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible. This book is a critical edition of the Authorized Version. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years.
In in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. Within a few years, all the bibles printed used the Roman Type Style. Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does.
However, the modern reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed.
For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v.
This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the edition, love is loue , us is vs , and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus notice the middle s changed to f and joy becomes ioy.
Even the Gothic d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible. Spelling Changes Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling.
Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year Therefore, by the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 's spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people.
Some of you reading this today would have found the 's a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of was standardized.
What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e's were often found at the end of the words such as feare , darke , and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find ee , bee , and mooued instead of me , be , and moved. Double consonants were also much more common.
What would ranne , euill , and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran , evil , and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible.
None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions. Textual Changes Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for.
We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: 1 the character of the changes, 2 the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and 3 the time the changes were made.
First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible. The changes from the edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes.
They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.
Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book.
The reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal.
I am referring to Psalm where the edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God.
0コメント