Longing for Vintage Cambridge?

How about some vintage Cambridge goodness -- complete with the original gold and black boxes! This eBay seller has three unique, new-in-box finds. Two brown KJV wide margins and a KJV in blue water buffalo calf. Even if you're not in the market, it's worth having a look at the photos:

KJV Concord Wide Margin in Saddle Brown Calfskin

KJV Cameo Wide Margin in Brown Berkshire Leather

KJV Cameo in Blue Water Buffalo Calfskin

The same same seller is also offering a KJV Presentation Reference in black goatskin that's worth taking a look. It's in the Cambridge spires box from the post-gold/pre-blue era. I have one from back in the day, and they're quite nice.

I was asked recently why I still like the KJV. In addition to the highbrow answers about cultural influence and aesthetics, there's also this: that's the translation most of the vintage goodies come in.

Comments

[James Thompson]

I have a copy of the KJV Presentation Reference in goatskin and it's an excellent bible. I love it!

[Lee Miller]

I also have an older copy of the "Presentation Reference" (formerly "Turquoise") Bible in goatskin. Mine is from the 1990's, it's in a fancy presentation box with a white silk lining, quite deluxe. The Bible was apparently from someone's private library; it's notated in the back with the date of purchase, and the original purchase price--$220.00 at that time. The box is one I've never seen before: black imitation leather that folds open book-style, like some fancy chocolate candy boxes. I found it on E-bay a few years ago and won it for $50--no one bid against me. That wouldn't happen these days! I've got to confess that this copy is so "perfect" that it stays in its box. I occasionally take it out to look at it and smell it (ah, that leather), but because it's essentially irreplaceable I can't bring myself to actually use it.

As for the King James . . . there is the textual issue, which 99% of the modern evangelical church doesn't even seriously consider any more. Was the traditional text of the KJV the trustworthy text of the church through the centuries, or did God have a plan for the Bible to be defective until it was corrected by German and British scholars in the 19th century? I've never quite understood why the church so readily embraced the "critical text" approach. Those of us who believe the traditional text is the valid one are a tiny minority, but we haven't disappeared entirely.

Lee

[Jerry]

I just received an email from Amazon that my Cambridge brown goatskin ESV Pitt-Minnion shipped yesterday. Yippee!

[Alan]

Wow. The leather on those brown editions is gorgeous.

Not wishing to turn this into a KJV debate, but while I think the translation is solid, my problem with it is more a desire to use modern English than anything else. There is no reason to put a barrier in front of people to their understanding of the gospel. A translation is by definition meant to make things more understandable. If not, why stop at the KJV and not go back to even earlier English translations, or at least use the original KJV?

Doctrinally speaking, there is little of substance that the KJV/AV differs from modern conservative translations on (eg. ESV, NASB). However, if one can have a text closer to what the authors (and the Holy Spirit!) intended, why would you not want that. And if you're committed to the AV, no one is stopping anyone from using it so far as I know.

[Matthew]

Yipeeeeeeee....another KJ debate. ;/

[Lee Miller]

I also have no desire to debate the KJV/textual issue here . . . but remember Mark brought it up! I fully agree that the Bible we use should be what the authors intended, and that's exactly where the split occurs. There's an assumption that the methods and principles of the critical text did in fact create a "better" text, but that was strongly disputed even when the Westcott and Hort text originally appeared, and since. I personally believe that the traditional text--underlying the KVJ--represents the text and intent of the authors. And while some people may say the differences are not substantive, that's just not true--and that's also something that has been amply documented. Somehow the evangelical church bought into a theory of textual criticism that emerged from a very different philosophical source, and an alternate view isn't even open to discussion.

I'm not a separatist and I don't criticize anyone for using the Bible of their choice. I'm just saying there are still people around who believe that the texts underlying 100% of modern English translations are not really "corrected" or "better", but in fact quite the opposite.

Lee

[Ben Ting]

TR RULES!

[Ryan]

Interesting the TR views coming forward. To me the argument goes: Between the TR and NA27 there is over 90% agreement and none of the differences change a doctrine... okay fine if thats true the text issue should be pretty moot.

I like the KJV for the following reasons:

1. I like the language and the challenge the language brings in learning some less known vocab. This includes the rhythmic qualities of the text that has many attempts at imitations (ESV) but no equals

2. I like the fact that singular and plural is distinguished with the ye/you thee/thou.

3. Familiarity: Its been around a long time, we know all the errors and the translation is not going anywhere. Same yesterday, today, tomorrow... so hey I can memorize it and find three years later that the text hasn't been revised.

4. Western Cultural Literacy... the writers of the "Great Books" generally quote from this version

5. Utility as a standard: If I want to discuss theology with Mormon's, KJVO people, even some Christians, I would be rejected out of hand if I whip out my "corrupted" modern translation... so even if you don't use the KJV for your main study Bible it helps to have one around that you are familiar with.

6. Finally as Mark stated... the best bindings usually come in this translation

Things I don't like

1. Text Layout... when is that Cambridge Paragraph version coming out in leather/a more manageable size?

2. Not good for children or new Christians

3. No well done annotated versions (language) like what has been done for the works of Shakespeare

4. KJO fanatics

5. The Message Fanatics

[Jeff Seymour]

I use all translations; KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, etc. They all have their merits. None of them differ significantly in their content to the extant that it changes the message of Jesus Christ (read John 3:1-21). All this debate is futile in my opinion because most of us don't read Hebrew or Greek. So why all the fuss. If the KJV is the end all be all, why did God wait all those years to reveal it to society? Don't get me wrong, I love the KJV and I started out 30 years ago with NIV and NASB. My point is this; if we put all the energy that we expend on debating translation merits into study of the word of God, regardless of translation, we would better serve God and the furtherance of His Gospel. "Go into the world and preach the Gospel" (good word).

[Michael Swoveland]

I do not think of myself as a KJV only person, rather I am a person who prefers the KJV over other English translations for several reasons. Among those are the style of early 17th Century English used in the KJV, which I find more majestic than later translations and more polished than previous translations such as Geneva. I am also not convinced that an earlier manuscript is, by sole virtue of it's date of writing, necessarily better.

Having said all of that, I have no doubt that 99% of the translation staff of versions such as the ESV, NASB and someof the others are sincere and dedicated Christians who desire only to serve Christ. I will not for one second say anything negitive about those sincere and dedicated people or the value of the service they have rendered. My preference for the KJV (which I prefer to call the AV) is just that, a preference based on my opinions about English and my (limited) knowledge of the manuscripts in question.

As a person who holds a preference for the KJV, I realize that I am part of the old gaurd. The KJV section of most Christian book shops seems to be getting smaller each year and there seem to be less choices in the avaliable editions. I will often wander through the ESV and NIV areas of those shops and wish that I could find some of those binding options in a KJV. As it is, most of the avaliable "genuine leather" KJV Bibles are bound in a thin, hard cowhide that to me has more in common with rat skin that it does fine leather. Then there are the bonded leather atrocities that fall apart after a year or two (having them fall apart might be something of a blessing as it frees the reader of having to look at and hold that awful cover). TruTone is seldom seen in the KJV section, but it does seem to be making inroads, I have seen a Thompson Chain Reference and a Life Application Bible in a TruTone binding, but the publishers of KJV Bibles are far behind Crossway in that area.

I hope that one of the KJV publishers will come along with innovative ideas about binding and page layout. I believe that it is important to have a Bible that you connect with in an emotional way and that you interact with not just in terms of sight, but feel and smell as well.

[Lee Miller]

OK, one last comment and then it's "Peace, brothers and sisters!" Jeff commented: "So why all the fuss. If the KJV is the end all be all, why did God wait all those years to reveal it to society?" That's exactly the right kind of question, but it misses the point for those of us who believe the traditional text is the correct one. The real question is, "If the critical text (i.e., Westcott & Hort, etc.) is the end all and be all (as it has become the basis of all modern translations), why did God wait all those years for British scholars to reveal it to society?" Do we really believe that God left the church with a text badly in need of correction until the late 19th century?

For me that's the kernel of the dilemma. I was a committed NIV/NASB user for many many years until this nagging textual question became apparent to me.

People can choose whatever translation they want, but it's unfortunate that the textual question isn't even "on the table", because it is in fact important.

Lee

[Anthony Miller]

Michael,
While I agree that most stores in my area as well have very little in the KJV (AV), "old school" binders like R.L.Allen seems to have most of their offerings just in this translation. While we eagerly have awaited the ESV from them one could go to their website and choose from 5 different KJV editions at once.

As for what translation is "better" or even correct, are we to think that some translation teams were privey to the divine inspiration to produce a "correct" version, while other teams were not?
For me at least I see each as delivering the correct message, but each translation may "speak" to a different person better. While I favor the AV/KJV some passages strike me with the message easier when read in a different format.

Mark, any thoughts on doing a forums section so your readers can comment on topics like this and on bibles among ourselves without having to tie it to a single review? Maybe with a captive audience as you have here it would be more self-censoring instead of getting carried away as on more public forums.

[J. Mark Bertrand]

I've thought about a forum, Anthony, but for now feel free to go "off topic." As far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Bibles you want to have is fine, wherever you want to have it. If someone has an interesting topic they'd like to solicit feedback on, let me know and I'll pose it in a post if that will make things easier.

[Lee Miller]

Anthony (who has a GREAT last name!) wrote: "As for what translation is "better" or even correct, are we to think that some translation teams were privey to the divine inspiration to produce a "correct" version, while other teams were not?"

The issue is the text from which the translation is made. The traditional text, underlying the King James version, differs in significant ways from the "critical text" of the Westcott-Hort tradition. Those of us who hold to the traditional text believe that it was indeed preserved by God through the centuries; the church didn't have to wait for British scholars in the 19th century to give them the "correct" text of the scripture. Westcott and Hort (and others) relied on "critical intuition" and other mysterious processes to "correct" the Greek text of the New Testament, and people just accept their approach and the subsequent results as valid.

Certainly, if a team of scholars today determined to make a new translation from the traditional text, I'd be all for it. But as I've said, the "textual question" isn't even on the table, and every translation on the market except for the KJV is based on the critical text. Even the NKVJ muddled the traditional and critical texts together.

So I don't see a new translation of the traditional text happening. "Christian" scholarship has been so strongly influenced by the critical approach that the scholars out there wouldn't even consider such a project.

To me it boils down to people determining what God said (and I'm talking about the underlying texts, not the resultant translation). Did God preserve the text of scripture, or did he allow it to fall into disarray until modern scholars could fix it? Theories of the canon are nebulous at best, and if you disallow God's preservation of his word you end up with men essentially determining what God has said.

The fact that the question isn't even open for discussion is why "KJV only" people end up being separatists. If you can't talk about an issue with people, you just have to leave and follow what you believe to be true.

Lee

[Jeff Seymour]

The crux of the whole textual matter is this; nothing is changed. No matter what text you use, the message of the Bible remains the same. Man is a sinner and God in His mercy sent His Son to redeem us. We don't deserve it, but if we choose to accept Christ we can have salvation and eternal life. The real laugher is that this question only pertains to English speaking peoples. There are billions that will never even look at a KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV or any other English translation. Yet they will come to know Christ through translations in their own language. Ruminate on that for a while! We have become English-speaking snobs when the actual Bible wasn't even written in English. Quit arguing and put all this mispent energy to good use and share the good news instead of on silly agendas.

[Andrew Dunning]

Guys, please don't bash textual criticism without understanding the issues. It goes much further back than the nineteenth century, and is in fact a very well established method. The fact is that texts copied by hand for centuries have mistakes introduced into them over time, and we have better manuscripts available now than the creators of the KJV did. The book Scribes and Scholars, by L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, does a very good job of documenting the history of textual transmission (albeit from the perspective of classical texts) and explaining the methods used by textual critics.

[Anthony Miller]

Lee,
Thank you for your viewpoint. I am still quite a "new" bible scholar. I am still coming to this from viewpoint in Jeff's comments...that the message is the same. I have a great interest in the historical aspects as well and you have given me food for thought as I tend to be very traditional in most aspects of my life.
Right now my goal is a bit different. Spending time with my Amish friends over the past year has openned my eyes to something that was missing in my life, salvation. One older gentleman and I have had in depth discussions on religion and sin and one morning last year I knew I needed to start reading the bible. From that point on my life has changed. For now each translation speaks to me a bit differently, some clearly, other requiring much work on my part. Flawed or not, they have made a difference.
Lee, Jeff, Andrew, thank you all for your comments.

[Lee Miller]

Holy cow . . .that Cambridge Concord in saddle brown calfskin sold for $280.00. Wow. I wonder if the purchaser will actually use it, or if it will stay boxed away to be re-sold again some time in the future . . . it's always my dilemma with a quality Bible. I find it hard to knowck them around and take the "shine" off. But a Bible in a box really doesn't do any good, other than as a collector's item.

Lee

[Anthony Miller]

Lee,
Check this one out then,

http://cgi.ebay.com/KJV-Cambridge-Cameo-Bible_W0QQitemZ170274564363QQihZ007QQcategoryZ378QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

$610 for a Cameo edition in the box.

Tony

[SG Pearson]

Just purchased a Cambridge Personal Concord reference edition and was diappointed to find that they are not the cambridge bibles of old. The print smudges and many of the letters are only half printed. The references in the center column are so tiny they are hard to read. I returned the first copy I purchased for a replacement and found the second copy to also be the same. Also, the leather cover was uneven at the edges and many pages were creased and wavy. Very discouraging for the price. However, the concord format is great and I love the plain text without the interruption of reference letters or numbers. You have to do a Bible Yoga to break it in.

[Igor]

I myself think of ordering the KJV Personal Concord Reference Black French Morocco (the good old KJV is my preference along with the NIV) - simply cannot spend more on goatskin edition. But now I am in two minds... there are so many negative comments on French Morocco. Is it that bad?

[Ian Smith]

I enjoy the Cambridge Cameo type-set for reading the King James Version. My first Cameo was actually the NT+Psalms in Berkshire Leather. I love it, it used to go with me everywhere.

I picked up two different copies of the full Cameo bible later, both Morocco Leather Lined, one blue with red letter, and one black with full black text. I got one of them for 10$ and the other one for 30$... this was before the existence of Mark's blog, back when an internet savvy person could find vintage premium bibles for cheap.

Regretfully I sold the black one, and the blue one developed a tear in it's binding (in Genesis!)... so I'm back in the market for a new Cameo KJV, but unfortunately now they cost anywhere between 200-600$ on eBay or Amazon! Thanks Mark! I'm blaming you!

[Ben Ting]

Dear Ian,

U would perhaps consider the excellent KJV range from RL Allan? They are better & "cheaper".

[Kathy]

Ian, Ben has a good suggestion. If you like the Cambridge Cameo you will probably like the Brevier Clarendon editions by Allan. The typeface is nice and readable, and the Bibles are similar in size to the Cameo.