waltzmn reviewed this|about 1 year ago
Textus Receptus of Erasmus, prepared almost a century before, and written under a printer's deadline. Erasmus was a great man, but he admitted that his text was "precipitated rather than edited"; it was based on a handful of bad manuscripts. The bottom line is, The King James Bible, for all its beauty, does not represent the original Bible at all well.Scholars and lay people can (and assuredly do!) differ on how much this matters. Theologically, it isn't tremendously important; most of the differences between the Authorized Version and the modern translations have no doctrinal significance. But to tell this tale without emphasizing what we now know is to omit a very important facet of the modern debate over the King James Bible. Admittedly this is a history of a translation, not a commentary. And it is a good history within its bounds. But its bounds are too narrow.
The King James Bible: The noblest work of religious prose in English. The most beautiful translation of the Bible ever made in any language. One of the landmarks of early modern English.An inaccurate translation of a corrupt Greek and Hebrew original.This is the sad dilemma facing anyone choosing an English Bible today. The scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible simply did not have enough knowledge of Hebrew to do well, and those who translated the New Testament worked from the