King James Version

[DaveBj]

Fourth attempt to post this; I keep running into some kind of 30-second time limit.

Okay, we all know that the KJV had some problems:

1. It was ordered up by a Protestant English king whose Christian witness was, shall we say, suspect.
2. It was translated using relatively recent Greek and Hebrew texts, in spite of the fact that there were older (=closer to the source) texts on the European mainland.
3. The translators intentionally kept language from previous English translations, language that was already considered archaic in the early 17th century (although that language does give us insight into the uses of the singular and plural second person pronouns).
4. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th (NKJV) editions excluded the Deuterocanonical books (although they were included in the original 1611 KJV).
5. The KJV has been used for several centuries to beat up on Catholics.

Other than all that ( ), what are the objections that Catholics have to the KJV?

DaveBj

 

[MrS]

Did you know that King James’ mom was a Catholic (Mary Queen of Scots) who was beheaded - probably for being a Catholic.

Raised by Elizabeth, he was Protestant.

His marriage was arrainged to Anne of Denmark - a Luthern

Anne converted to Catholicism

James commissioned 50 or so court “jesters” to give him a bible… I guess cuz Henry had one.

James spent his later years not with his wife,but with his lover… the Duke…I believe of Buckingham.

There is a cool audio tape on the history of the bible.

Can you imagine Clinton appointed Ted Kennedy and 49 cohorts to develope a SWV of the bible (slick willie)

MrShttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[amarkich]

The sad thing is that the King James Versions which contain the Deuterocanonical books are closer to the correct English translation (Douay-Rheims) than the New American and almost all other English translations besides the Douay-Rheims.

 

[DaveBj]

amarkich:

The sad thing is that the King James Versions which contain the Deuterocanonical books are closer to the correct English translation (Douay-Rheims) than the New American and almost all other English translations besides the Douay-Rheims.

Sadder still, Nelson Publishing was selling a replica 1611 for a while for $35-ish, and I blew it and waited too long, and it went out of print :crying:

Edit: Hot dog! Just found it on the 'net for $52.46.

DaveBj

 

[copland]

Did you know that the KJV was written by Jesus in the sand, and Thomas wrote the NIV because he doubted that the KJV was accurate enough?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[amarkich]

There is currently a very nice hardback version of the Douay-Rheims being published (I believe by TAN). The bookstore at our parish has it, and many other great traditional prayer books, Encyclicals, devotional books, and other books. I can ask the couple who runs the bookstore about the publication (or they can order it for you). God bless.

 

[DaveBj]

amarkich:

There is currently a very nice hardback version of the Douay-Rheims being published (I believe by TAN). The bookstore at our parish has it, and many other great traditional prayer books, Encyclicals, devotional books, and other books. I can ask the couple who runs the bookstore about the publication (or they can order it for you). God bless.

I have the D-R on one of my CD-ROM libraries. My problem with it is that it is taken from the Latin Vulgate, not from the original Greek/Latin texts. Any time you translate from a translation, there’s an extra chance for error and ambiguity.

DaveBj

 

[amarkich]

The problem is that no one, except Saint Jerome, had the original Greek manuscripts. Here is the one-page 1989 Preface to my Douay-Rheims which explains this problem with other English Bibles:

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome’s translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into Latin.

The Latin Vulgate Bible has been read and honored by the Western Church for 1500 years! It was declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the original. Hear what the Sacred Council decreed: “Moreover, the same Holy Council … ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). As Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, this means the Vulgate is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” And the Douay-Rheims bible is a faithful, word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome.

In their translation, the Douay-Rheims translators took great pains to translate exactly. Contrary to the procedure of the modern Bible translators, when a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it alone, even if obscure, and “let the chips fall as they may.” The modern Bible translators, on the other hand, will often look at an obscure passage, decide what they think it means, then translate into words that bring out that meaning. The result is that the English is usually (not always!) easier to understand, but it is not necessarily what the Bible says; rather, it is their interpretation and understanding of what the Bible says. Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage. Those meanings may well be completely translated out! Sometimes the question is raised: Why translate from a translation (the Latin Vulgate) rather than from the original Greek and Hebrew? This question was also raised in the 16th century when the Douay-Rheims translators (Fr. Gregory Martin and his assistants) first published the Rheims New Testament. They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate “is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree.” (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is “more pure than the Hebrew or Greek now extant” and that “the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruption.” (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609).

 

[amarkich]

continued from last post…

The present Bible is the Challoner revision (1749-1752) of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Catholics owe the saintly Bishop Richard Challoner (1691-1781) a great debt of gratitude for undertaking this work. Challoner was one of those courageous priests who traveled around offering Mass secretly for small groups during the religious persecutions in England. Such Catholics needed a Bible, and had needed one for 100 years. The Douay-Rheims Bible had been printed a few times on the Continent but had never really spread to England. Some Catholics in England were even reading the King James version – a situation which Bishop Challoner knew had to be rectified. Some of the passages in the original Douay-Rheims Bible were needlessly obscure. As an extreme example, Ephesians 6:12 read, “For our wrestling is not against flesh and bloud: but against Princes and Potestats, against the rectors of the world of this dankness, against the spirituals of wickedness in the celestials.” The spellings were archaic, and the verses were not set off by new lines for clarity. Challoner rectified these problems, checking carefully against the Clementine Vulgate and the original-language texts. On the whole, Bishop Challoner’s revisions were minor. He replaced certain anglicized Latin words and archaic words and expressions, rearranged the word order of the sentences, and yet maintained the overall word-for-word accuracy of the 16th/17th-century Douay-Rheims Bible.

The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible was a godsend. It became the standard Catholic Bible in English until the mid-20th century (when the Confraternity Bible was published). It continued to be called the “Douay-Rheims” because of its similarity to the original Douay-Rheims Bible. The great work English Versions of the Bible, by Frs. Pope and Bullough, states that English-speaking Catholics the world over owe Dr. Challoner an immense debt of gratitude, for he provided them for the first time in history with a portable, cheap and readable version of the Bible, which has stood the test of 200 years of use. Moreover, it is more accurate than any modern Bible because it is based on ancient texts, no longer extant, which were “captured” and “frozen,” so to speak, by St. Jerome (342-420) in his Latin Vulgate. The Douay-Rheims is thus the most reliable English-language Bible there is. We look forward to the day when the Christian world will rediscover this fact and come to a renewed appreciation of the monumental work of St. Jerome, of the Douay-Rheims translators and of Bishop Richard Challoner – men who were raised up by God to make the Bible available to the English-speaking world.

By the way, there is a nice little 40 (or so) page pamphlet that is called “Which Bible should you read?” that describes the reasons the Douay-Rheims is superior. Also, read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1914 or earlier) about the reasons for the Douay-Rheims and the form of translation. God bless.

 

[DaveBj]

Thanks for that, amarkich.

One of my English translations (don’t know off the top of my head which) has footnotes every place the Vulgate reading is different from the Hebrew/Greek texts that we have now.

DaveBj

 

[Jeffrey]

I don’t see what all the hubub over the KJV. Nowhere in the KJV (that I know of, I certainly don’t have it memorized) did I see that the Catholic Church was bad.

 

[pnewton]

amarkich:

The problem is that no one, except Saint Jerome, had the original Greek manuscripts. (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609).

This is so incredible, I do not even no where to begin. Do you really think that St. Jerome actually held in his hands all the original manuscripts penned by John, Luke, Mark, Paul, Matthew, Peter and maybe others?

We should never elevate the DR as many protestants have elevated the KJV as such a divine translation as to be as worthy as the original texts. I do not wish to detract from the brilliance of St. Jerome and the magnificence his achievement in the DR, but it is noto the same as the originals. That is why textual criticism is promoted by our church today.

For those who think the KJV is so divinely inspired as to be unquestionable, let me ask you a question. What other document produced by a biased beauracracy do you consider perfect?

 

[DaveBj]

pnewton:

This is so incredible, I do not even no where to begin. Do you really think that St. Jerome actually held in his hands all the original manuscripts penned by John, Luke, Mark, Paul, Matthew, Peter and maybe others?

I, too, had a problem with that assertion. However, it is certainly true that the texts that Jerome had were closer to the originals than the texts that we have today, and way closer than the KJV translators had. By the same token, the Hebrew texts used by the translators of the Septuagint were waaaaaaaaaaaay closer to the original than anything we have today, including the texts in the Qumran scrolls.

We should never elevate the DR as many protestants have elevated the KJV as such a divine translation as to be as worthy as the original texts. I do not wish to detract from the brilliance of St. Jerome and the magnificence his achievement in the DR, but it is noto the same as the originals. That is why textual criticism is promoted by our church today.

For those who think the KJV is so divinely inspired as to be unquestionable, let me ask you a question. What other document produced by a biased beauracracy do you consider perfect?

“Biased bureaucracy” may be going a little too far. The KJV was not James’ idea; he was petitioned by a group of English churchmen to commission the new translation. One of the reasons for doing the new translation was to get rid of the inflammatory anti-Catholic notes in the version currently in use. And the men chosen to do the translation were not a “bureaucracy” or “court jesters” (as was unkindly stated in a post above), but 54 of the finest scholars and linguists in England.

For the record, I don’t use the KJV, except to make a specific point. The Bible that I use regularly (until I can acquire a good Catholic study Bible) is the NKJV, and the two copies that I use have footnotes that inform of variant readings in the texts. Even then, when I was doing deep studies for teaching purposes I would analyze the original language and write my own translation.

DaveBj

 

[stellina]

Years ago when I was in college, I took a course called “The English Bible as Literature” and we used the KJV. While the course centered on the literary aspects of the Bible & not scholarship, it did provide some historical background. In the original KJV of several centuries ago, there was a long, rather inflammatory statement against Catholicism that prefaced the actual text, and for years this was one of the chief reasons why Catholics avoided it. The statement no longer exists in the modern versions. Anyway, since I know very little about Biblical scholarship, I can’t speak to the accuracy of the translation but I will say that the language is beautiful. Personally, I own a Douay-Rheims as my “official” Bible also because I love the language. One of these days I might learn a little about scholarship…

 

[St_Veronica]

Defects of the King James Version (KJV), some of which remain even in the much corrected Revised Standard Version, even the catholic editions thereof. Beware…

Undermining the mass and priesthood of our lord Jesus Christ:

1. Gen 14:18 Melchisedech offered the sacrifice in bread and wine for he was a priest. KJV changes “for” to “and,” as if there is no connection.
2. I Cor 11:27 Whoever eats the bread or drinks the chalice unworthily is guilty of the body and the blood of our lord. KJV changes or to and in order to attack the doctrine of the real presence of Jesus in holy communion. They insist on communion under both kinds.
3. I Tim 4:14 The grace of god is given by the laying on of hands (bishops). KJV changes “grace” to “gift,” losing the meaning of sacramental grace.
4. I Tim 5 :19 The word “priest” is here and often elsewhere changed to its verbal transliteration of “elder,” to undermine the sacredness and sacrifice of the priesthood. This in spite of I Tim 4:12, where St. Paul tells us that St. Timothy is young, not an elder!
5. Acts 20:28 Bishops are called here and in many other places overseers, again an overly-literal transliteration.
6. Mal 2: 7 Priest shall keep knowledge for he is an angel of the lord. KJV replaces “shall” with “should” and “angel” with “messenger.”
7. 1 Pet 2 :13 The Anglican church began with King Henry VIII claiming to be supreme in the state, both religious and civil head, so they changed the word of god to say “king as supreme” instead of “king as excelling.”
8. Matt 19 :11 The celibacy of priests is spoken of as a gift given to all who wish to take it on. KJV corrupts the very words of Christ to say “all cannot take it.”
9. I Tim 3:8 “Chastity” is omitted and replaced by “gravity” as a requirement for deacons.
10. Phil 4:3 “Companion” (to the apostles) is replaced by “yokefellow” to suggest they were married.
11. 1 Cor 9:5 the word “woman” is replaced with “wife” by the Prot/Mod versions to justify their clergy marrying contrary to god’s will.

For further details with quotes in Greek and Latin, and references to the Fathers of the Church, look up errata of the Protestant Bible by Thomas Ward 1841. Kennedy Pub.1899

Against the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints:

1. Luke I:28 “Hail o highly favoured daughter” means a lot less than “hail full of grace.” All Prot/Mod versions have this corruption. They also ignore Mary’s prophecy that all generations shall call me blessed, by ignoring or ill- speaking of the Blessed Virgin.
2. Gen 3:15 “She shall crush the serpent’s head.” KJV has it, avoiding this clear prophecy of the role of Mary in our redemption.
3. Gen 47:31 “Adored” becomes “bowed” in the KJV, not accepting the Catholic doctrine of relative vs. absolute worship. Also Heb 9:21 “adored” becomes “(Jacob) leaning on the top of his rod”, an evident absurdity to get out of the Catholic doctrine so clear in holy writ.

 

[St_Veronica]

Part 2

1. Exodus 20:4 The Ten Commandments are corrupted by the KJV. Graven thing (idol) becomes graven image (Catholic icons). They pretend to forbid all sacred images as did the iconoclast heretics of the eighth century.

Against the need for faith and good works in Christian life:

1. Heb 10:22 The KJV dares to add to the word of god “full assurance” to the word “faith,” to support the heresy of Martin Luther.
2. Rom 4:3 One of countless examples of replacing the word “justice” or “justification” clearly meaning good works, with “righteousness,” as if salvation were all and only God’s work regardless of our cooperation.
3. II Pet I: 10 The KJV and other heretic Bibles omit the words “by good works,” where the Holy Ghost tells us via the first pope that we must make sure our election (salvation) “by good works.”

Beware devout souls who believe in Jesus Christ and want the pure Word of God! Woe to he who corrupts, adds to, distorts or forbids the holy word of god as we received it from the fathers of old! Modern Catholic and all Protestant bibles are seriously corrupt in many ways.

The only reliable Bibles are those based on the old Latin Vulgate, such as the Douay-Rheims bible, available from TAN publishers. Ask for a catalogue, and try a small booklet by Fr. Rumble, “Bible Quiz,” or the small paperback "Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church

 

[Kotton]

pnewton:

This is so incredible, I do not even no where to begin. Do you really think that St. Jerome actually held in his hands all the original manuscripts penned by John, Luke, Mark, Paul, Matthew, Peter and maybe others?

I never read it in that sense and a complete reading of the post will clarify. In about the third paragraph we find:

He knew Latin and Greek perfectly. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome’s translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into Latin.

I believe the opening paragraph was not worded clearly so as to bring out the real meaning. He had Greek manuscripts that were copies, but not translations, therefore more accurate.

Kotton

 

[KennySe]

stellina:

Years ago when I was in college, I took a course called “The English Bible as Literature” and we used the KJV.

Personally, I own a Douay-Rheims as my “official” Bible also because I love the language. One of these days I might learn a little about scholarship…

WHOA! Are you me?

Years ag, I took a college course of that very same title and we used the KJV! Did you attend UNO?

And now, I have the D-R (Challoner) as my official Bible.

Peace.

 

[DaveBj]

Wow, thank you, St Veronica, for this extensive reply. I’m going to have to split my response to just your first section into two sections. I hope I got all the quote-endquote commands right.
St Veronica:

Defects of the King James Version (KJV), some of which remain even in the much corrected Revised Standard Version, even the catholic editions thereof. Beware…

Undermining the mass and priesthood of our lord Jesus Christ:

1. Gen 14:18 Melchisedech offered the sacrifice in bread and wine for he was a priest. KJV changes “for” to “and,” as if there is no connection.

“And” is correct, according to both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. In the Hebrew the conjunction is “va”; if the meaning had been “for,” the conjunction should have been “ki.”

1. I Cor 11:27 Whoever eats the bread or drinks the chalice unworthily is guilty of the body and the blood of our lord. KJV changes or to and in order to attack the doctrine of the real presence of Jesus in holy communion. They insist on communion under both kinds.

“Or” (Greek “he”) is correct. “And” would have been “kai.”

1. I Tim 4:14 The grace of god is given by the laying on of hands (bishops). KJV changes “grace” to “gift,” losing the meaning of sacramental grace.

This one could go either way. The Greek is “charisma”, meaning a “gift of grace.” “Grace” is more often “charis.”

1. I Tim 5 :19 The word “priest” is here and often elsewhere changed to its verbal transliteration of “elder,” to undermine the sacredness and sacrifice of the priesthood. This in spite of I Tim 4:12, where St. Paul tells us that St. Timothy is young, not an elder!

The primary meaning of “presbuteros,” used here, is “someone who is advanced in age, an elder.” The normal word for “priest” is "hiereus. If anything, it should have been translated “bishop,” since it is used in the same meaning as episkopos in other parts of the NT.

1. Acts 20:28 Bishops are called here and in many other places overseers, again an overly-literal transliteration.

I agree with that.

1. Mal 2: 7 Priest shall keep knowledge for he is an angel of the lord. KJV replaces “shall” with “should” and “angel” with “messenger.”

“Should/shall”–the Hebrew is ambiguous, but the Septuagint says “shall.” “Messenger” is certainly more accurate here; this was written in the context of the Old Testament, and the OT priesthood were certainly not literally angels; they were supposed to be God’s messengers. Both the Hebrew “mal’akh” and the Greek “aggelos” are used for both ordinary people sent as messengers and angels of God.

1. 1 Pet 2 :13 The Anglican church began with King Henry VIII claiming to be supreme in the state, both religious and civil head, so they changed the word of god to say “king as supreme” instead of “king as excelling.”

“Excelling” doesn’t really convey the meaning of "huperecho, which has the meaning of being superior in rank.

More to come…

 

[DaveBj]

More:

1. Matt 19 :11 The celibacy of priests is spoken of as a gift given to all who wish to take it on. KJV corrupts the very words of Christ to say “all cannot take it.”

You misquoted. What the KJV says is “All [men] cannot receive this saying,” which is precisely what the Greek says.

1. I Tim 3:8 “Chastity” is omitted and replaced by “gravity” as a requirement for deacons.

“Grave” doesn’t quote carry the meaning of “semnos;” “honorable, reverend” would have been better. “Chaste” would have been “hagnos.”

1. Phil 4:3 “Companion” (to the apostles) is replaced by “yokefellow” to suggest they were married.

Actually, current thinking is that was a woman’s name, Suntuche. In any case, it is a feminine noun. Translating it “companion” would lead even closer to the meaning that you are trying to avoid.

1. 1 Cor 9:5 the word “woman” is replaced with “wife” by the Prot/Mod versions to justify their clergy marrying contrary to god’s will.

The Greek “gune” is used in both meanings throughout the NT. Paul is speaking hypothetically here, but what woman would he have been leading around, if not a wife? And it is true that Peter and some others of the apostles were married.

We can go around and around from now until Judgment Day over a correct translation of “kecharitomene.” KJV does not say “highly favoured daughter;” it says “thou that art highly favoured.” Both of those are pretty weak. “Full of grace” is much better.

1. Gen 3:15 “She shall crush the serpent’s head.” KJV has it, avoiding this clear prophecy of the role of Mary in our redemption.

You are unclear here, and you have the wrong verse–it’s 3:16. The Hebrew, literally, is “He-will-crush-you head,” translated in the KJV as “it [meaning the seed of the woman] shall bruise thy head.” The Septuagint has it “he shall watch against thy head.”

[QUOTE14) Gen 47:31 “Adored” becomes “bowed” in the KJV, not accepting the Catholic doctrine of relative vs. absolute worship. Also Heb 9:21 “adored” becomes “(Jacob) leaning on the top of his rod”, an evident absurdity to get out of the Catholic doctrine so clear in holy writ.

The text here is problematic. Two readings are attested in Genesis–“he leaned on the top of his staff” and “he bowed at the head of his bed.” The Septuagint has the former, and it is accurately repeated in Hebrews 11:21 (not 9:21). Aren’t you confusing a physical posture (leaning/bowing) with an internal attitude (adoration)?
[/quote]