Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard on the KJV:
Summary of what they say about the KJV:
Though the translators did their best for 1611, many of the Greek texts they used were from the same area. Since then, a wider spread of texts and ones closer in date to the time of the original authors have been found. It is generally accepted that things closer to the date they happened are more accurate, so having earlier manuscripts should influence how we translate the Bible.
Would they recommend the KJV/NKJV as Bible scholars?
"We really ought to be thankful, for example, that Mark did not write the KJV rendering of Mark 16:18, but readers who limit themselves to the KJV will never know this. Readers of the NKJV will know the differences among manuscripts, if they read the footnotes, but they will naturally conclude that the better readings are those of the KJV. For this reason we cannot endorse the widespread use of these versions when alternatives are available." (120)
How to Read the Bible for all its Worth, Fee and Stuart:
"The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it is also a classic expression of the English language. Indeed, it coined phrases that will forever be embedded in our language ("coals of fire," "the skin of my teeth," "tongues of fire,"). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes- and we must note that there are many of them- make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognising the English of the KJV was no longer a living language- and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV)- it was decided by some to "update" the KJV by ridding it of its "archaic" way of speaking. But in doing so, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed text).
This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or the NKJV." (40)
Grasping God's Word Duvall and Hays:
They note a prominent scholar of the day wasn't happy with the translation saying:
"Tell his majesty that I would rather be rent in pieces by wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches. The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt." (Dr. Hugh Broughton, cited 162) I know nothing more about him but he's presented in the book as being against it not on religious grounds but scholarly ones.
"The King James Version was a good translation for the early 1600s since it was written in the English of the early 1600s. Today, however, most of us would have trouble even reading a page of the original 1611 version, since it was printed in Archaic English.
"To argue that we should still use the 1769 KJV edition (the one that is popular today) is to admit the necessity of revising a translation. This is the case since there have been thousands of changes from 1611 to 1769; they are literally two different bibles. Why not continue the process of revision by drawing on the latest in biblical scholarship and using language that today's readers can understand? Anything less seems to violate the intent of those who translated the original King James Version." (164)
Of the four bible study/interpretation books I found in the CCBC library, only Andy Deane's (a Calvary Chapel guy) recommended the King James as one Bible to use (but even he says you need to compare any Bible translation you choose as your main translation to others to get a full understanding of Scripture)
No comments:
Post a Comment