Why bother with new translations, if we still have the King James Version, with its incomparably beautiful English prose? Here are just a few reasons: 1. The usage of English words has changed tremendously since 1611. In 1611, the word "prevent" meant "precede." In 1611, Phil. 4: 14 was translated, "Notwithstanding, ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction." That may have been clear in 1611, but it is not very clear today. It simply means, "Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble."
2. A more basic reason for a new translation is that the sources available to the translators in 1611 were pitifully meager compared to those now on hand. The King James translators had a couple of dozen imperfect Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century, and their New Testament text had over 5,000 copyists' errors.
3. Recent archaeological discoveries have clarified our understanding of certain parts of the Biblical texts. Today there are thousands of manuscripts which have been dug up in Palestine and Egypt, and by comparing these, the translators can understand the original meaning of disputed passages much better. In 20th century, for example, in a cave near the Dead Sea, a group of manuscripts were discovered, some of which were written between the second and first centuries B.C. This is incomparably old for a manuscript -- a thousand years older than other existing manuscripts -- and the scroll that contains The Book of Isaiah has clarified passages that up until now have always been obscure.
No comments:
Post a Comment