OT: New discoveries about the KJV's translation

Page 1 of 3 (49 items) 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 48 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 519
Gordon Jones | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Apr 28 2018 11:20 PM

Candida Moss has published an article on new discoveries about who translated, and how they translated, the King James Version.

www.thedailybeast.com/bible-loved-by-christian-fundamentalists-written-using-method-they-hate?

Posts 8940
Forum MVP
Bruce Dunning | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 29 2018 5:33 AM

Interesting read. Thanks.

Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God

Posts 2467
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 29 2018 7:46 AM

The article references an upcoming book by Nicholas Hardy. I'd certainly be interested in a Logos version.

Posts 353
Virgil Buttram | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 29 2018 11:44 AM

I'm far from being KJVOnly, but the smarmy tone of the article's intro put me off of whatever the contents are.

Posts 52
Rod | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 29 2018 2:49 PM

Virgil Buttram:
...the smarmy tone of the article's intro put me off...

Coming from a KJV-only background, the article is very interesting.  And I did not find the intro at all insincere or excessive, although I can understand how KJV-Onlyists might.

Posts 2820
Doc B | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 29 2018 10:58 PM

I'm sorry, but an article about a historical translation sandwiched between the title, "Daily Beast" and an story about Castro's love child simply has no credibility. I simply can't take it seriously or have any confidence of journalistic integrity.

And FWIW, I'm *not* a fundamentalist and I'm an outspoken critic of KJV-onlyism.

My thanks to the various MVPs. Without them Logos would have died early. They were the only real help available.

Faithlife Corp. owes the MVPs free resources for life.

Posts 399
Jordan Litchfield | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 30 2018 12:12 AM

Doc B:
I'm sorry, but an article about a historical translation sandwiched between the title, "Daily Beast" and an story about Castro's love child simply has no credibility. I simply can't take it seriously or have any confidence of journalistic integrity.

Doc, for the reasons you give, I can understand your hesitation. However, the author is Candida Moss, a very highly respected NT scholar at Notre Dame. So while some might still want to disagree with her conclusions, the article and author definitely have credibility.

Posts 980
JohnB | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 30 2018 12:20 AM

Doc B:

I'm sorry, but an article about a historical translation sandwiched between the title, "Daily Beast" and an story about Castro's love child simply has no credibility. I simply can't take it seriously or have any confidence of journalistic integrity.

I could not have put that better. i am not a KJV Only fan and found it simplistic and patronising to BOTH sides on the KJV Only debate. (And for those in the UK it seemed on a level with the Sun and possibly the Express/Mail on a bad news day). 

EDIT So the writer is a respected scholar? The kindest thing I can say is that someone must have heavily edited her article and that it is unlikely to improve her reputation. 

Posts 421
Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 1 2018 12:34 AM

Just my impression - the article appears to be designed to have a go at those who hold the King James Bible in high regard (not just KJV Only-ists), those who hold to inerrancy or consider themselves 'fundamentalists'. These are 'dirty words' to a certain section of 'scholarship'. I didn't find the article very balanced.  By the way, Casaubon was a respected scholar who could read English - he simply could not speak it well. I also understand he met and had a relationship with several  KJ Bible translators, not just the one mentioned. The article might also be taken to suggest the apocrypha was part of the King James Bible, but that was for a short period and thank God it was removed as soon as possible. Keep well  Paul         

Posts 1016
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 1 2018 8:09 AM

Virgil Buttram:

I'm far from being KJVOnly, but the smarmy tone of the article's intro put me off of whatever the contents are.

It struck me the same way. I just went back and gave it another read based on Jordan's comments about the author's credentials. The article does contain some very interesting material, but there's still something about the tone that feels off to me. I've been trying to figure out why.

I don't know where her intention was, but it seems to me there are at least three directions an article like this could go in. Most obviously, it could be written as straight-up reporting with some balanced commentary on the potential implications of the new discoveries. It could also be written with the KJVOnly community in mind, to provide information and persuasion that might help them come to a more balanced view. Or it could be written to the non-KJVOnly community, to help them understand the issues involved in the KJVOnly debate.

She did none of the three. It seems clear to me that the KJVOnly community is not the target audience. At the same time, a primary focus of the article seems to be criticizing the KJVOnly view.  But there's no effort made to explain the issues involved in that particular debate.  So it ends up feeling like a self-congratulatory discussion of how "those guys" just don't get it.  I trust that's not how she meant it, but that's how it's coming across to me.

Posts 10177
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 1 2018 8:55 AM

I guess I'm the contra again. 

I thought it was great to see where the article landed (the Beast!). I always thought Jesus among the tax harvesters (eating, no less!) must have intensionally destroyed his credibility among the religious ones.

And protestants never really came to grips with the inspired writers using a bad translation.


Posts 204
Oldnewbie | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 1 2018 3:51 PM

Maybe someone can help me out, because I'm sure I missed something.  The KJV NT is said to agree between 70-80% with the previous work of William Tyndale if I remember correctly.  The author doesn't even mention him.  Doesn't that seem odd given the subject of the article?

Posts 3047
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 1 2018 7:54 PM

Jordan Litchfield:
However, the author is Candida Moss, a very highly respected NT scholar at Notre Dame. So while some might still want to disagree with her conclusions, the article and author definitely have credibility.

Dr. Moss is no longer at Notre Dame. She is now the Edward Cadbury Professor of Theology at the University of Birmingham, and her personal life recently made the NYT, presumably with her consent. I don't know whether she still professes to be Catholic, as Wikipedia presently holds. Brief research reveals a track record of dissenting from the teachings of the Catholic Church in important ways.

Posts 26507
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 2 2018 1:06 AM

Doc B:
and an story about Castro's love child

Not what I had - I got "Rod Rosenstein on House GOP Impeachment Threat: I Will Not Be Extorted" ...

Doc B:
have any confidence of journalistic integrity.

Checking a variety of sites, it appears that Daily Beast is considered biased towards the left and highly accurate on their facts.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 26507
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 2 2018 1:15 AM

Paul:
The article might also be taken to suggest the apocrypha was part of the King James Bible, but that was for a short period and thank God it was removed as soon as possible.

There are exceptions such as in America during the Revolution when paper was scarce, but in England the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals was a matter of law. From a KJV site: "The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D."

IIRC 1769 is the approximate date that "unofficial" AV editions were dropping the apocrypha.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2467
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 2 2018 1:29 AM

I would like to weigh in with a personal opinion. I am motivated not only by this thread but others I've read this past year.

The original post, I thought to be off-topic, but potentially germane to Logos. Having read that article, my takeaway was to watch out for new info or works on this issue, preferably in Logos, if not by some other source.

However, the thread ceases to be useful if posters conduct ad hominems on third party entities not related to Logos. At worst, it could expose Logos to legal liability. At best, it turns the forums into something other than it was intended and drives business away.

Posts 519
Gordon Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 2 2018 2:56 AM

Lee:

The article references an upcoming book by Nicholas Hardy. I'd certainly be interested in a Logos version.

Yes

Posts 2820
Doc B | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 2 2018 8:32 AM

Lee:
ad hominems

My thanks to the various MVPs. Without them Logos would have died early. They were the only real help available.

Faithlife Corp. owes the MVPs free resources for life.

Posts 421
Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 3 2018 1:23 AM

MJ. Smith:

Paul:
The article might also be taken to suggest the apocrypha was part of the King James Bible, but that was for a short period and thank God it was removed as soon as possible.

There are exceptions such as in America during the Revolution when paper was scarce, but in England the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals was a matter of law. From a KJV site: "The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D."

IIRC 1769 is the approximate date that "unofficial" AV editions were dropping the apocrypha.

My understanding is different as I think the apocrypha was removed as soon as possible from the King James Bible. Here's a couple of observations from my Logos library resources: 

The first Bible in English to exclude the Apocrypha was the Geneva Bible of 1599. The King James Version of 1611 placed it between the Old and New Testaments. In 1615 Archbishop George Abbot forbade the issuance of Bibles without the Apocrypha, but editions of the King James Version from 1630 on often omitted it from the bound copies. The Geneva Bible edition of 1640 was probably the first to be intentionally printed in England without the Apocrypha, followed in 1642 by the King James Version. In 1644 the Long Parliament actually forbade the public reading of these books, and three years later the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians decreed them to be no part of the canon. The British and Foreign Bible Society in 1827 resolved never to print or circulate copies containing the Apocrypha. Most English Protestant Bibles in the 20th century have omitted the disputed books or have them as a separate volume, except in library editions, in which they are included with the Old and New Testaments.

Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica – Noet Edition (Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2016) – See “OT Canon”.

...

 The first English Bibles to exclude the Apocrypha were the Wycliffe Bible (1382) and some copies of the Geneva Bible of 1560 published at Geneva in 1599. Translators of the 1611 kjv translated the Apocrypha right along with the canonical books. A few years afterwards Archbishop Abbot issued a decree threatening a year’s imprisonment to any Bible printer deleting the Apocrypha. In 1644, Parliament ordered only canonical books to be read aloud in church, which may have contributed to a more lenient atmosphere for printers of Scripture in the following years.

The first Bibles printed in America in English (1782) did not contain the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued printing Bibles with the Apocrypha altogether. Among contemporary Protestants only the Anglicans make use of the Apocrypha to any degree.

Source: Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Apocrypha, Old and New Testament,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 129.

It's a fascinating history with apparently long hostility towards the apocrypha being included in the canon by dissenters from Anglicanism. God bless. Paul      

Posts 421
Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 3 2018 1:45 AM

Lee:

...the thread ceases to be useful if posters conduct ad hominems on third party entities not related to Logos. At worst, it could expose Logos to legal liability. At best, it turns the forums into something other than it was intended and drives business away.

I respect your opinion, but this thread is about an article of interest to collectors of Logos resources and some surrounding issues. I'm sure no denigration is intended by those who have contributed. To speak or write freely people must have leeway to express how they feel and nothing written here is beyond the 'likes and dislikes' and 'to and fro' of ordinary forum expression. People's comments also don't have to be 'useful' - though sincerity helps!  As for it driving business away, I (at least) have bought many resources from Faithlife, recommended by people on this forum and even some with whom I would profoundly disagree. Have a blessed day. Take care  Paul      

    

Page 1 of 3 (49 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS