http://churchrelevance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wide-margin-NKJV-bible-cambridge-press-10.jpg
Now, why did you have to go and post that for?
But as I suspected, it has red letters.
The other day I was in a store and noticed that the latest edition of Nelson's NKJV Study Bible is actually Smyth Sewn. And this was the hardcover edition, which in my experience are usually not constructed as well. A faint glimmer of hope! The quality of the first year or two of ESV's produced were no better than Nelson's usual fare but now they are considered one of the better quality publishers. Hopefully Nelson will figure it out! I remember being almost cynical when I saw the promotional case for Nelson's Signature Series several years ago. (Apparently now discontinued.) It said something like, "In an age when quality is hard to come by, the Signature Series is an exception." I thought "But you're basically the company that led the race to the bottom!"
I think another issue is that some probably prefer the ESV's paragraphed format as opposed to the verse per line format usually found with the KJV, NKJV and NASB. That's probably especially the case with those who are looking to switch from the NIV, which is almost always paragraphed. Until recently, the only paragraphed NKJV's available were a handful of Study Bibles. Many will argue that it's easier to preach or teach from a version with verse per line formatting, as it's easier to quickly locate a particular verse that way. I tend to agree. But I think that for many, especially those who haven't been use to reading the Bible often, the paragraph formatting flows more smoothly.
(Edit: I see that the Cambridge edn. that Ben posted is paragraphed. If I recall correctly the Pitt Minion is as well.)
---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------
Rev. Wallace,
I'd be interested to discuss this point. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving an unbeliever or a new believer a Bible that had a bunch of notes about varying manuscripts if I had the option of giving him one that didn't. Those notes may be useful for pastors and educated laymen, but for others they can be an unnecessary hindrance toward receiving the Word with faith. I'm a bit skeptical that the average believer really needs to have all those variants in front of him, unless he is willing to study Greek and manuscript history. I will study those things eventually out of mere interest, but one very accurate English translation, along with a pastor educated in the original languages to minister the Word to me, is enough. In your pastoral experience, have you found that this has not been a problem?
Austin
The point you make is an important one. The last thing we need is confusion on the part of God's people on this matter, and so they need to be taught a little about textual variants etc. Unless that happens encountering such things will really shake their faith in the authority of Scripture. In my opinion once instructed people have no problems with this, on the other hand if the normal Christian in the pew hears Bart Erhman or such saying the Scriptures are unreliable because of textual variants then they could be blindsided because they are ignorant about them.
I guess I also like the transparency of the editors 'admitting' this word or phrase may or may not be included, rather than ignoring the problem. I also for example like the practice of italicising words inserted for understanding for the same reason.
The bible's function is to deliver God's Word and our printed editions should do so humbly and transparently and honestly. The original AV included a host of notes on word meanings etc. (and I think some textual notes as well?) so this stands in a good tradition.
Paul,
I agree. The KJV does have a host of notes on word meanings/equivalents, "Heb: xyz," some textual notes, etc. (Well, better reference editions have them, but some will substitute other notes.) There are a ton of notes in the book of Job in particular. I've even noticed a reference or two to certain Church Fathers! (I want to say it was Chrysostom.)
I recently noticed that the ESV does not so much as even have a marginal note in 1 John 5 regarding the
Comma. Given the controversy over that verse, I don't see that as being responsible, no matter what side of the debate one is on. Someone who didn't know better (such as one who isn't "up" on textual controversies) might think that is an indication that they are trying to hide something. That's where Ehrman or Ruckman could come in.
