Essay Translation Group KJV:
Summarize the approach used in developing the translation:
From the front page of my King James Bible by Zodervan it says this: Containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty’s special command. This does not give us much information of how the translation was actually developed so let’s take a look closer. This is an English translation of the Christian Bible that began in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The original printing was published by Robert Barker the King’s printer as a complete folio Bible. The KJV was the first Authorized Version issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII. There were 47 scholars all were members of the Church of England. The New Testement was translated word for word or Textus Receptus (received text) series of Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text. This version was meant to replace the earlier Bishop’s Bible as the official version for reading in the Church of England. The phrase King James Version first appeared in print in 1884.
Discuss common/popular perspectives (what others have to say) regarding this translation:
There are some groups termed the King-James-Only Movement –that mistrust all changes to the Authorized Version. The original translators were trying to provide a Bible worthy of public reading without adding contemporary idioms. I did not know what an Idiom was so again I looked it up- (a phrase whose meaning cannot be determined by the literal definition of the phrase itself, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use. I have heard many say that it is the only bible they will read from while others insist that it is written in a language that is just way outdated. I tend to agree with the language being outdated; however it is the only bible I read when speaking to or spending time with the Lord.
Provide an evaluation on how this translation may or may not fit into the Bible interpreter’s toolkit:
I originally thought this would be the main translation I would use when doing a word study or research. I now however believe that I would use several references and not just a word for word translation. The reason being because even though it is word for word the original text being Greek or Hebrew translated does not necessarily match the actual English meaning. Here is what the Wikipedia web site has to say about it: Translation must take into account constraints that include context, the rules of grammar of the two languages, their writing conventions, and their idioms. A common misconception is that there exists a simple word-for-word correspondence between any two languages, and that translation is a straightforward mechanical process; such a word-for-word translation, however, cannot take into account context, grammar, conventions, and idioms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation Therefore not always the result we might think.
References: My King James Version Bible, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV
February 23, 2009 at 2:35 am |
I agree completely with your point about the difficulty with having a straightforward, mechanical process assumed in the word-for-word translation. I think that this shows the value in having multiple translation techniques used in an interpreter’s toolkit. I certainly believe that the word-for-word technique brings a great deal of value, but is certainly not the only thing of value considering this weakness in the technique. Good stuff dude!