Can't figure out if 1 Chronicles 9:41-42 is correct in NKJV in Logos Bible app
In the Logos Bible app on my Android, 1 Chronicles 9:41-42 in the New King James Version has "and Ahaz" in italics in verse 41 and "And Ahaz" in italics in verse 42. I can't find a NKJV that has italics in these verses. Can anyone shed light on this?
Comments
-
It's a textual issue. My Logos NKJV has a note:
[quote]
So with Arab., Syr., Tg., Vg. (cf. 8:35); MT, LXX omit and Ahaz
Two (cheap) print editions have the italics but not the note.
My NRSV simply notes, "Heb. lacks and Ahaz."
0 -
Sean said:
It's a textual issue.
Sean, does the NKJV use italics for textual issues? I don't recall the NKJV using italics for textual issues. I thought it was just for implied words.
Sean said:So with Arab., Syr., Tg., Vg. (cf. 8:35); MT, LXX omit and Ahaz
Is this for verse 41 or 42 or both?
Sean said:My NRSV simply notes, "Heb. lacks and Ahaz."
Yes, I believe the Masoretic and LXX do not have "and Ahaz" in verse 41. I think there are multiple issues going on here. 1. Why the italics? 2. Which of the two verses, or both, have textual issues? 3. Why does every NKJV print edition I have lack italics and the Logos Bible app has them?
0 -
From the Preface of the NKJV:
• Words or phrases in italics indicate expressions in the original language which require clarification by additional English words, as also done throughout the history of the King James Bible.
The New King James Version. (1982). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
0 -
My older printed NKJV has it in italics and no note. I'd suspect they appealed to implied to match the next sentence and then later appealed to odd translations.
It's a very interesting note ... usually nobody goes with not-LXX not-MT unless there's a Qumran. Then appealing to not-Jerome on the Vulgate and an edited Pestitta/Targum seems a real stretch. They should have stuck with implied!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
My older printed NKJV has it in italics and no note.
Thanks Denise. I guess this brings up another question. I thought there was only one NKJV that is from 1982? How can there be varying versions of the 1982 NKJV?
0 -
Hmmm ... my last copyright date is 1982, but my mom got it around 1992. Major family issue, since my father clearly demonstrated the ASV before we were even born.
I'd be curious who supplied the note. Logos?
EDIT: My KJV is also italics. This is why we need the old latin (vs relying on Clementine vs Jerome), and the older Bibles collection, that apparently few Logosians value.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Hmmm ... my last copyright date is 1982, but my mom got it around 1992. Major family issue, since my father clearly demonstrated the ASV before we were even born.
I'd be curious who supplied the note. Logos?
EDIT: My KJV is also italics. This is why we need the old latin (vs relying on Clementine vs Jerome), and the older Bibles collection, that apparently few Logosians value.
I did a bit of digging and I'm not a huge amount of help. We received SGML files for NKJV back in 1997. I believe they came from Thomas Nelson. At that time we didn't care as much as corresponding to the print, so it's possible that there doesn't exist any print with that preface.
0 -
Thank you, Kyle!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0
