Jump to content

The King James Version of the Bible: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:


=Where did the KJV come from?=
=Where did the KJV come from?=
The translation work of what we now refer to as the KJV of the Bible was commissioned by King James 1 in 1604.


==Who translated the KJV?==
==Who translated the KJV?==
      
      
The translation work of what we now refer to as the KJV of the Bible was commissioned by King James 1 in 1604 and was carried out by a group of 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.  The Old Testament was translated largely from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the New Testament was translated from what is now known as the '''Textus Receptus'''.
The Old Testament was translated largely from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the New Testament was translated from what is now known as the '''Textus Receptus'''.  The work of translation was carried out by a group of 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.   
 
The completed translation was first published in 1611, and became the third official translation into English.  By the mid-18th century, this Authorized Version was the undisputed leading English version of the Bible.  It underwent a revision in 1769, resulting in the text that is commonly referred to as the King James Version, even today.


==The Textus Receptus==
==The Textus Receptus==


The Textus Receptus came from the work of Erasmus, a Catholic priest, who compiled five or six very late Greek manuscripts dating from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries. Earlier, more accurate, manuscripts had not yet been discovered. The completed translation was first published in 1611, and became the third official translation into EnglishBy the mid-18th century, this Authorized Version was the undisputed leading English version of the Bible.  It underwent a revision in 1769, resulting in the text that is commonly referred to as the King James Version, even today.
The Textus Receptus came from the work of Erasmus, a Catholic priest.
 
Erasmus was not the first to print an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1514, the first of six volumes of the Complutensian Polyglot was the Greek New Testament with a Greek glossary. However, the last volume of the Old Testament did not appear until 1517, and the entire project did not attain the sanction of Pope Leo X until March 1520; even then distribution did not occur until about 1522.  
 
Meanwhile Froben, a printer at Basle, Switzerland, heard of the work of Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros (1437–1517), the cardinal primate of Spain, on the Complutensian Polyglot and determined to anticipate its publication by hiring Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469–1536), the finest Greek scholar of the day.  
 
These men agreed on this project in March of 1515; Erasmus began his work in July of 1515, finishing by March of 1516! Such speed was detrimental to both thorough research and accuracy. Erasmus had only seven very late manuscripts (none earlier than the eleventh century) for his research and primarily relied upon two of themHe simply entered corrections in these manuscripts where he believed necessary and sent them to the printer for typesetting. In fact, Erasmus himself admitted that his edition had been “thrown together rather than edited.”
 
Erasmus’ single copy of the book of Revelation was missing its last leaf containing the final six verses of the book; for these verses as well as for a few others throughout the book Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek! The result was the invention of some Greek readings found nowhere else in any Greek manuscripts. The Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson remarked, “If Erasmus had known that he was working for the ages, instead of getting ahead of Ximenes, he might have taken more pains to edit his Greek Testament.” Moreover, the printed edition contained hundreds of typographical errors; Scrivener declares that Erasmus’ first edition was “in that respect the most faulty book I know.”<ref>James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds., God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 169.</ref>


==Manuscript discoveries since the Textus Receptus==
==Manuscript discoveries since the Textus Receptus==
Line 54: Line 66:


:''In the studying of the Scripture, I have been accused, and do a great deal of typology. Which typology is typing the Old with the New. I'll tell you why I do that. It's because of this. Maybe sometimes the--the great words that scholars and so forth try to give the Bible Its--Its terms or pronouncing... I'm satisfied to take the King James for mine. It's waved the storms longer than any translation yet, and I just believe it that way.''<ref>53-0325 ISRAEL.AND.THE.CHURCH.1_ JEFFERSONVILLE.IN</ref>
:''In the studying of the Scripture, I have been accused, and do a great deal of typology. Which typology is typing the Old with the New. I'll tell you why I do that. It's because of this. Maybe sometimes the--the great words that scholars and so forth try to give the Bible Its--Its terms or pronouncing... I'm satisfied to take the King James for mine. It's waved the storms longer than any translation yet, and I just believe it that way.''<ref>53-0325 ISRAEL.AND.THE.CHURCH.1_ JEFFERSONVILLE.IN</ref>
He also believed there were errors in the KJV:
:''“And we noticed what that woman said. She turned with startled eyes, and she said, ‘Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.’” Now, that… Really, in the King James is mistranslated.<ref>William Branham, 62-0726 - A Testimony Upon The Sea, para. 46</ref>
            
            
Though William Branham did preach and quote primarily from the King James Version, '''he never claimed the King James Version was the only real Bible''', and in fact, used several different versions, including the Darby Translation, and the Amplified Bible.  His quote above simply states that he was satisfied to keep the KJV, because it had stood the test of time.  That is a personal preference, and, especially in 1953 when he said it, an understandable position.  Regardless, the Bible itself did not need vindicating, by William Branham or anyone else.  Christians have always, and will always, believe the original manuscripts to be the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. Therefore, any faithful translation into English is, by definition, also the Word of God.  So what constitutes a faithful translation?  
Though William Branham did preach and quote primarily from the King James Version, '''he never claimed the King James Version was the only real Bible''', and in fact, used several different versions, including the Darby Translation, and the Amplified Bible.  His quote above simply states that he was satisfied to keep the KJV, because it had stood the test of time.  That is a personal preference, and, especially in 1953 when he said it, an understandable position.  Regardless, the Bible itself did not need vindicating, by William Branham or anyone else.  Christians have always, and will always, believe the original manuscripts to be the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. Therefore, any faithful translation into English is, by definition, also the Word of God.  So what constitutes a faithful translation?  


There are a number of translations available today, that are not only much clearer to read, but also more faithful to the original texts than the King James Version.  
There are a number of translations available today, that are not only much clearer to read, but also more faithful to the original texts than the King James Version.


=What is the best Bible translation?=
=What is the best Bible translation?=