Many online writings that I have found in
favor of the King James Bible are diatribes against modern Bible versions and
offer little in the way of positive promotion of the KJV or helpful suggestions
to the reader of the KJV. There is also a plethora of “anti-KJV” material
readily available. In previous posts I have looked at the accuracy of the
“ye’s & thou’s,” sought a little clarity on verb endings, and
considered the use of archaic language. This post will be more generic praise
of the positive attributes of the King James Bible.
The King James Bible is founded on historic
texts. The Old Testament is from the Jacob ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text.
Jacob ben Chayyim, a Jewish Rabbi, published this text in 1524.[1] This text is sound and comparable to other
Hebrew texts. According to James D. Price, “The differences between the
Bomberg Ben Chayyim edition and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the text used
with most modern translations) are microscopic.”[2]
Variations between translations more often are introduced from other sources,
such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Syriac Peshitta. The New Testament is from
the Textus Receptus. According to Daniel B. Wallace,
“when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the
Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is
discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even
be translatable.”[3]
The King James Bible is an accurate
translation. Years ago I remember finding a book in Bible Book Store that
trashed the KJV Bible as the worst translation ever. Those who write and repeat such
nonsense must either have no clue what they are talking about or have an agenda of
promoting some other Bible. Nevertheless, the translators who gave us the King
James Bible were well qualified academically -- their language expertise and
ability was exceptional. These translators believed in the inerrancy and
authority of Scripture. This is recognized even by modern scholars who prefer
other translations. Today there are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts preserved and
available (fragments, uncials, cursives).[4] These
provide greater support of the Textus Receptus/KJV readings. The major
variations in modern translations arrive from the Codices Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus.
The King James Bible follows a proven method.
The method of the King James translators was verbal or formal equivalence (as
opposed to dynamic equivalence).[5] Because
of differences between original and receptor languages, all translations
combine some degree of formal and dynamic equivalence. But different versions may commit strongly to
one over the other. A comparison of First Timothy 5:10 provides a good example
of the difference of the two methods.
Well reported of for good works; if she have
brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the
saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently
followed every good work. [KJV, showing formal equivalence]
and have a reputation for good deeds: a woman
who brought up her children well, received strangers in her home, performed
humble duties for other Christians, helped people in trouble, and devoted
herself to doing good. [Good News Translation, showing dynamic equivalence]
The Good News Translation is an apt example
of preferring dynamic equivalence over a “word-for-word” translation. The Greek
text contains the words for “wash” and “saints” and “feet” [ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν] but the translators
chose to follow what they believed was the intention rather than the actual
words.
Some peripheral issues
The King James Bible is important to the
English language. It was instrumental in standardizing the language. It also
provides a common bond between its readers around the world. It underlies the meaning of many common things
we say. It contributes a musical and poetic quality to
our language. Much could be said along these lines which might be of interest. But these are more “niceties”; the larger concern is the Bible as the reliable word from God.
KJV Bible readers should not feel subordinate or inferior to the reader of modern Bible versions. They should not be embarrassed to ask for a KJV Bible when the book store clerk tries to shoo them on to something else. They have a reliable translation of the Word of God. It was reliable in its beginning and is still reliable today. They need to be diligent in study of the Word and have the Spirit of God to lead them into all truth.
KJV Bible readers should not feel subordinate or inferior to the reader of modern Bible versions. They should not be embarrassed to ask for a KJV Bible when the book store clerk tries to shoo them on to something else. They have a reliable translation of the Word of God. It was reliable in its beginning and is still reliable today. They need to be diligent in study of the Word and have the Spirit of God to lead them into all truth.
[1] It
is also known as the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic
Bible.
[2] Price,
now retired, was Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Temple Baptist
Seminary, and executive editor of the Old Testament for the New King James Version (Thomas Nelson,
1982).
[3] Wallace
is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas,
TX. He also writes that “over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the
standard critical editions agree.”
[4] Norman
Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256
[5] Though
language scholars may attach more nuanced or technical meaning at times, these
terms are commonly used to mean a “word-for-word” translation
(formal, translating the meanings of individual words and more or less in their
syntactic sequence) versus a “sense-for-sense” translation (dynamic,
translating the meanings of phrases and sentences).
No comments:
Post a Comment