Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Faith-Promoting Rumor

Home
Latter-day Saint
OTFTW 2: Is the King James a Good Translation

OTFTW 2: Is the King James a Good Translation

Last updated on: November 27, 2009 at 11:49 am by nitsav

OTFTW 2: Is the King James a Good Translation 2009-11-27T11:49:14-05:00 nitsav

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Before discussing my 3 Bible suggestions from OTFTW 1, we need to discuss the KJV a bit. Below is a slightly fleshed-out Institute handout I’ve used in my Bible classes.

Is the King James Bible a Good Translation?

Short Answer: “No with an if, Yes with a but…”

Long Answer:

A good translation is one by which the reader can accurately understand the meaning of the original text through the language of the translator(s). “Accurately” has been understood various ways, with two theories of translation at opposite endpoints along a spectrum.

“Word-for-word” AKA “formal equivalence” or “text-oriented” = more literal, potentially less understandable.
1. Translator preserves more of the original language at the cost of being less accessible to the target language and culture.
“Thought-for-thought” AKA “dynamic equivalence,” “functional equivalence” or “reader-oriented” = more understandable, potentially less reliable.
1. Translator does more interpreting in order to smooth and adapt to target language and culture. Easier to read, but potentially introduces more translator bias.
These two points give us three more positions. More literal than formal equivalence is “literal,” between Formal and Dynamic is “mixed,” and even more translational and loosed are “paraphrases.” See http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/biblecomparison.htm for a chart and comparison.
For example, when Isaiah talks about sins being white as snow, how should it be translated for a language/culture that does not know snow? A formal equivalence translation would use “snow” anyway or a periphrastic phrase if “snow” didn’t exist, whereas a dynamic equivalence translation would translate as something white or pure in that culture, such as wool or clouds or something.
The KJV is far towards the word-for-word/formal end of the spectrum.

Problems with the KJV

Translated into English we don’t always understand because it’s so archaic. (Greek and Hebrew footnotes are helpful, but cannot entirely counterbalance this problem, because it’s not limited to simple word choice, but also syntax, punctuation, etc.)
1. The KJV was not intended as a new translation done from scratch in 1611, but was a revision of The Bishop’s Bible (1568) and others such as Tyndale’s New Testament (1526).
2. Example- What does 2 Timothy 4:2 mean? “Be instant in season, out of season.”

We now have many more, much older, and better manuscripts than were known in 1611.
1. Contemporary Greek papyri, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Hebrew mss 1000 years older than the KJV translators had.
2. Example- Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) This passage included in the KJV is more-or-less a medieval forgery created for theological purposes.

We now have better understanding of the original languages and cultures.
1. “Holy Spirit Greek” Earlier translators were unfamiliar with the dialect of the NT, and considered it a special dialect written only by those inspired by the Spirit. We now know that it was simply the common everyday Greek speech of Palestine at the time of the NT.
2. Job 7:12 and Sea. Thanks to the Ugaritic texts, we have greater understanding of this passage. (Can’t explain it in a line or two.)

Why do we read the KJV as the official public Bible?

These are reasons I think can be offered. They are not mutually exclusive, nor necessarily those offered in official publications.

1) Tradition. Nuff said.

2) KJV-like language is used by our other scriptures. That is, if you want to catch allusions, references, and quotations to the Bible in the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price, you need to be familiar with the KJV translation. Alternately, according to some, this indicates that the KJV is the best translation, based on the best manuscripts, or has divine approval lacking in other translations.

3) The foreignness of KJV language reminds us of the foreignness of the Biblical period, that the people and events we read about in the Bible are not contemporary in our time or culture. Cf. Our tendency to read the Book of Mormon as if it were a General Conference talk. (I thank Blake Ostler for pointing this out.)

4) Latter-day revelation supports the KJV in doctrinal matters. (Scroll down.) This is less of an argument than a very short statement, and I find vague and problematic in its brevity. I’m not entirely sure how it is intended. Other translations can be more doctrinally correct than the KJV, such as the NRSV or NJPS at Genesis 1:1, which do not assert creation ex nihilo. In any case, this statement, which can be read as near a KJV-only position, must be balanced with others.

Things other Bibles do that KJV doesn’t, beyond translational issues

1) Quotations and poetry are set off by highlighting, special spacing, etc.

2) Old Testament quotations are all reference and footnoted. Why our KJV does not do this, I am at a loss to explain. Compare our KJV Matthew 22:37-39 with Deut. 6:4-6 and Lev. 19:18. (How many LDS do not understand that Jesus statements here are quoted from the Law of Moses, not some new thing he’s saying?)

Bibliography-

David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2005)- More technical, scholarly and dry.

Alister McGrath, In the Beginning- The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (Anchor, 2002) – Highly recommended. Humorous and very readable.

Joe Stringham, “The Bible: Only 4263 Languages to Go” Ensign, January 1990.

John Lundquist, “The Value of New Textual Sources to the King James Bible” Ensign, (August 1983)

Harvey Minkoff, “Problems of Translation: Concern for the Text versus Concern for the Reader” Bible Review 4:4 (August 1988)

Harvey Minkoff, “How to Buy a Bible” Bible Review 8:2 (April 1992)

Philip Barlow, “Why the King James Version? From the Common to the Official Bible of Mormonism” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22:2 (Summer 1986): 19-41

Previous Post

November 25, 2009

OTFTW 1: Out of the Best Books

Next Post

November 29, 2009 Is Christ in the Old Testament?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2013 Scriptures Administrative Apologetics Atonement Bible Book of Mormon Book Review BYU Doctrine Extra-Biblical Literature Family Feminism Guests History LDS Church History Leadership Marginalia Metaphysics Mormon Culture Mormon Studies Personal Issues Political Philosophy Politics Scripture Sexuality Speculation Spotlights Studying Religion Ten Tidbits The Tenure Track Theology Tips on Applying Series Tips on Being an Independent Scholar Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz