1611 King James Bible...Existing English Revision or New English Translation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wife.of.Gabriel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is commonly called the “Septuagint” version (from the Latin for “seventy”) because according to the traditional account of its origin, preserved in the so-called Letter of Aristeas , it had seventy-two translators. This letter tells how King Ptolemy II commissioned the royal librarian, Demetrius of Phaleron, to collect by purchase or by copying all the books in the world. He wrote a letter to Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting six elders of each tribe, in total seventy-two men, of exemplary life and learned in the Torah, to translate it into Greek.

o, perhaps for all the plaudits the Septuagint supposedly received from Ptolemy II, it should come as no great surprise that the Septuagint did not receive a universally favorable reception among the Jews: "

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2016/03/31/A-Brief-History-of-the-Septuagint.aspx
 
Last edited:
I am a converted Methodist. The pulpit Bible of the United Methodist Church of my youth (in the 1960s and 1970s) contained the deuterocanonical books. I can’t remember for sure if they were in a separate “Apocrypha” section, but I think they were.
 
mcq72 said:
it should come as no great surprise that the Septuagint did not receive a universally favorable reception among the Jews: "
Click to expand...
The rabbi quoted in this connection is not criticizing the Septuagint as a translation. He is not comparing one translation with another. He is saying the Bible should never have been translated at all. It was God’s will that it should only ever be read in Hebrew.
 
Last edited:
I think you are very much mistaken about the textual basis for the King James Bible. The King James bible was in fact a translation using the Masoretic text as its basis for the Old Testament books, and the Textus Receptus as its basis for the New Testament books. That being said, the King James translators also used other sources in their translation methodology such as the Latin Vulgate.
 
BartholomewB said:
The rabbi quoted in this connection is not criticizing the Septuagint as a translation. He is not comparing one translation with another. He is saying the Bible should never have been translated at all. It was God’s will that it should only ever be read in Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Obviously there was no other translation to compare it to at the time. Yet one can be critical of the translation on its own. Indeed criticism could come because as you say, that maybe it should remain Hebrew…do you have other source suggesting this, for the quote is this, dealing with accuracy of the translation ( and maybe as you suggest, any translation ?)

That day was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made since the Law could not be accurately translated "
 
Hodos said:
The King James bible was in fact a translation
Click to expand...
Okay, 1611 KJB is a Translation, not a Revision. If that’s the case, then why did King James, on June 30, 1604, approve a list of authorized “revisers” instead of a list of “translators”?

Could it be a difference between British English & American English? Like, maybe in British English, “reviser” actually means “translator”?
 
mcq72 said:
That day was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made since the Law could not be accurately translated "
Click to expand...
No, just that one primary source that you italicize. I think the author of the web page you linked to was overstating his case a bit when he wrote, “It should come as no great surprise that the Septuagint did not receive a universally favorable reception among the Jews.“ What he meant, as he goes on to show, is that he found one sentence in one extra-canonical tractate where the rabbis object to the idea of translating the Bible at all.

There are some interesting books online about the Septuagint as a translation. Here is one by Edwin Hatch, best known as the main author of the Hatch-Redpath concordance.

 
Hodos said:
The King James bible was in fact a translation using the Masoretic text as its basis for the Old Testament books, and the Textus Receptus as its basis for the New Testament books.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right.

Thanks for the correction.
 
Not a big KJ fan but the N.T. translation came from the common Greek text which today is no longer readable. It is the only English translation coming from the oldest Greek text. But an interesting side note: the founders of our country were persecuted by king James. He was no real pusueer of freedom. The Geneva bible was their trusted bible for the Protestant movement.
 
… But not before the Mayflower sailed from Plymouth in 1620.
 
Wife.of.Gabriel said:
Okay, 1611 KJB is a Translation, not a Revision. If that’s the case, then why did King James, on June 30, 1604, approve a list of authorized “revisers” instead of a list of “translators”?

Could it be a difference between British English & American English? Like, maybe in British English, “reviser” actually means “translator”?
Click to expand...
Given the methodology the translators used, I would say yes, that is precisely what occurred, because they did in fact go use the printed greek and Hebrew texts of the day to provide a new translation. That being said, the KJV did undergo several revisions over the years where errors were corrected, or wording revised. I want to say that latest revision of the KJV which is currently in use is the 1789.
 
Hodos said:
they did in fact go use the printed greek and Hebrew texts of the day to provide a new translation
Click to expand...
There were printed Greek & printed Hebrew texts of day printed? What year were the Greek & Hebrew alphabets type settings created so anything could be printed in those languages?

Do you have a historical reference to the 1611 KJV being based on Greek & Hebrew?

A reference to revisers actually meaning translators would also be helpful. Revisers was who King James approved to work on this project in 1604, 7 yrs before the first KJV was ever published in 1611.

If the 1789 version is what’s most commonly used today, then the OT would contain all the books, right?
They’d have to since the KJV OT wasn’t shortened until 1885.
 
Wife.of.Gabriel said:
There were printed Greek & printed Hebrew texts of day printed? What year were the Greek & Hebrew alphabets type settings created so anything could be printed in those languages?
Click to expand...
There are books in existence, printed from movable type in both Hebrew and Greek, produced in Italy before 1500, more than a century before work began on the Authorised Version of the Bible. This is common knowledge. You could easily google for it if you cared to.
 
Last edited:
Wife.of.Gabriel said:
There were printed Greek & printed Hebrew texts of day printed? What year were the Greek & Hebrew alphabets type settings created so anything could be printed in those languages?
Click to expand...
The Greek New Testament, produced by Erasmus was available in 1516, I forget which year Cardinal Jimenez Greek Polyglot was available, it would have been shortly thereafter. There were 5 additional revisions to Erasmus texts between 1516 and 1604 when the King James Version was initiated.

I don’t know off hand about the Hebrew Masoretic text, but it was widely available by 1604. As you can see from the facts above, this wasn’t some kind of out of reach technological innovation.
Wife.of.Gabriel said:
Do you have a historical reference to the 1611 KJV being based on Greek & Hebrew?
Click to expand...
Yes, you might try reading the Preface. Not sure what axe you are trying to grind, but you might try looking up the history yourself before trying to get into a historical discussion.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
you might try looking up the history yourself before trying to get into a historical discussion.
Click to expand...
I did, what I found is that it’s documented that King James hired Revisers and that they used the existing English Translations to create a new English version. In my research, I was unable to find any thing indicating there were any Translators at all involved in the process whatsoever. I posted here to if there’s proof out there any where that there were any actual Translators involved & if so, which manuscripts they were using.

It’s also interesting to note it’s known as the King James Version & not known as the King James Translation.
 
Last edited:
ELCore said:
I am a converted Methodist. The pulpit Bible of the United Methodist Church of my youth (in the 1960s and 1970s) contained the deuterocanonical books. I can’t remember for sure if they were in a separate “Apocrypha” section, but I think they were.
Click to expand...
Until it’s recent closure, the Anglican parish I was part of used such a KJV, as the 1928 Book of Common Prayer often has readings from the DCs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top