SUGGESTION - An interlinear from the King James Bible (Authorized Version)

Dear Brothers and sisters

I would like to see an interlinear facility included for both the OT and NT in the King James Bible (Authorized edition - 1769). The absence of the interlinear apparently prevents certain kinds of searches that can be undertaken in more modern versions. For example, the functional capability of the Authorized Version in the Concordance is limited to "word" and "reference" to search rather than word, lemma, root, sense, biblical entity, reference and works cited.

I'm aware there are available within Logos the King James Version (Pure Cambridge Edition - 1900) and the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (Scrivener's edition - Authorized Version of 1873) which possess an interlinear and that is excellent. However, many people do prefer reading and studying the Authorized Version as their preferred Bible. For them, the addition of further modern Bibles with full search capability is less important than possessing the ability to fully use and search the long trusted Authorized Version.

Another reason to ensure that the Authorized Version is made fully functional is that it may be regarded as a foundational Bible in the English speaking world. Logos would do a great service to many by updating the capabilities of this Bible. Grace and peace to you. Paul

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

To make an interlinear/reverse-interlinear Logos must have the original language manuscript as used by the translators - including, I believe, the choices they made between alternative readings. Is that available for the original KJV?

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798562#Comment_798562

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/5359/42181.aspx

The blog post referenced by Bob has a link which no longer works, but pointed here: https://blog.logos.com/2006/03/in_search_of_the_king_james_ve_1/

However, the KJV and the AV are the same thing. The differences in the 1769 and 1900 edition are just of things like spelling and italics. There is a comparison here, but you really should be able to use the 1900 KJV for all of the advanced tools (like Concordance, Clause Search, etc) without any loss. If you can explain what meaningful differences you see in the 1900 edition, we may be able to help with a work around, but I do not know of any.

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798562#Comment_798562

It's a very good question and one which I can't presume to have any expertise to answer. My broad understanding is that the Received Text (Textus Receptus) is the basis of the NT and Masoretic Text for the OT. I believe Scrivener may have worked from the original Greek, making amendments (which he studiously noted) in his published version in 1873.

I notice Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus is used for the interlinear for both the 1873 and 1900 King James Bibles in Logos. While this may or may not be appropriate, it raises the question as to whether or not there are differences in the English NT text between those two Bibles and whether there is any disconnect between Scrivener's Greek text and the 1900 version. It may be that there is no issue here, but I do not know.

While the 1873 and 1900 versions of the KJV are well regarded, Scrivener noted that he changed text and although its likely that he did so with good reason, I would still like to be able to read a copy of the 1769 version with the appropriate Greek text as an interlinear so that I may do comparisons. My interest is not really directed to whatever manuscript may have existed in 1611 (with text variants) but rather whether an interlinear is possible for the 1769 version.

Although I may be wrong, I believe that when people are talking about their King James Bible (or Authorized Version), they are largely referring to the 1769 English text. Keep well Paul

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798566#Comment_798566

Thanks Justin - the links are very helpful and I appreciate your offer of assistance.

At the moment I'm using the 1873 and 1900 versions for general reading and for that purpose these are sufficient. However, if I'm undertaking a closer examination of the text, I would like to be sure I have the most appropriate Greek text (as an interlinear) for what I am reading. Please see my earlier comment to MJ regarding the use of the Scrivener edition of the Textus Receptus for both the 1873 and 1900 texts.

Although there may be practical difficulty in obtaining the relevant Greek text for the 1769 version, its something on my wish list ! [:)] Keep well Paul

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798575#Comment_798575

Okay. I think you just misunderstand the differences in the KJV editions, which are essentially non-existent. Take the Logos "Compare Versions" tool and check any two passages against each other.

This website compares text files and is a little easier to use, so I took the plain text of Ezra 1-6 in the 1769 KJV and the 1900 KJV. The difference is 15 spelling changes in 6 chapters. 10 of these are dashes added to names to aid pronunciation. 1 is the all caps NOW changed to Now at the beginning of the book. That leaves 4 words which are spelled differently, and no real changes.

When most people think of the KJV, I do not think it is accurate to think they have the 1769 in mind. My church is an old conservative church, where I preach out of the KJV (but I am not KJVO, it is just what I inherited and is not worth fighting at this stage to me). The (Holman) pew Bibles have the hyphenated spelling, so I assume they are the 1900 edition. I preach out of a Cambridge Bible (because they are so durable). You might look at your pew Bibles and your personal Bible and see if Ezra 2:21 says Beth-lehem (1873 or later) or Bethlehem (1769 and (?)earlier). I think you might be surprised.

Here is a list of all changes in the KJV from 1769 to 1873: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html This list is short enough that you could adapt any Concordance changes manually by printing the list out and keeping it on your desk. I think you will probably be comfortable reducing the list to a single page, by deleting items like "precious stone" (1769) vs "precious stones" (1873).

About Scrivener: His TR is available in Logos. According to that product blurb, he did not work from the original languages, but created a Greek text to match the KJV readings (I assume they made textual decisions without keeping a record of the Greek text they chose). Here is the description: "The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version. The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version."

Scrivener's book might also be of interest to you: http://www.forgottenbooks.com/books/The_Authorized_1000626675

Hope this helps boost your confidence in your search results and empowers your Bible study!

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798707#Comment_798707

Thanks Justin - I'll look with interest at into the material and links you have provided. .

I'm interested in Scrivener himself as I once read that he was the leader of the minority group often outvoted by Hort and Westcott and his followers in the committee developing the Revised Version. Thanks for referring me to his book.

It's interesting that you preach using the Cambridge Bible. I've never actually been in a church that used a King James Bible text, though I've listened to sermon online that used the text. The church I attend provides good teaching, but unfortunately seems to use any version that suits the moment including "The Message' which is no Bible at all. At a given service several versions might be quoted by different people. The confusion of versions is one reason that software such as Logos produces is so valuable in being able to make the comparisons that are needed.

Thanks once more for your comments and advice. Keep well Paul

delete12066188

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798730#Comment_798730

Just a short Questian for understanding. Scrievener took the King James and create from it the Textus Rezeptus??

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798734#Comment_798734

Hi Sasha - I think that what is being referred to is the idea that Scrivener did not possess a copy of the Greek text of the translators of the King James Bible (KJB) of 1611. What he did was to reconstruct that text by using the primarily using the Greek texts of Stephanus (1550) and Beza (1598) which were available to the translators of the KJB. It is said that the translators of the KJB did not publish a Greek text from their work.

I'm uncertain about the accuracy of that account, but one thing I can say is that Scrivener did go to great lengths to explain what he was doing in his introductory notes within the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873. Keep well Paul