-
15 Rules of Translation for the King James (KJV)
When King James commissioned the King James Version, he approved 15 principles of translation which were instituted by Richard Bancroft, the bishop of London in 1604. These translation principles are as follows: Translation rules 1, 6, and 14 are interesting. Rule #1 mandated that their translation use the Bishop’s Bible as a base text whenever possible. This was likely because the Bishop’s translation was the official Bible of the Church. However, Tyndale’s translation ended up being far more influential, accounting for 4/5 (80%) of the KJV New Testament. Rule #6 mandated no study notes in the margins of the new translation. The Geneva Bible (which was the most popular English translation of the time) had many marginal notations, some of which King James read as challenges to his royal authority. This was the main motivation for a new translation. Thus, the KJV translation was limited from study notes. Translation rule…
-
New Evidence for the Validity of the Text in Our Bibles
Two days ago, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Modern Technology Unlocks Secrets of a Damaged Biblical Scroll.” The sum of the story is as follows. Archaeologists found a badly damaged ancient scroll in En-Gedi around the Dead Sea in the 1970s. Until recently have been unable to read it due to its fragile condition. However, there is now a computer technology (spearheaded by the University of Kentucky) which allows this scroll (and others like it) to be read. This particular scroll has now been analyzed and contains the first two chapters of Leviticus. What is most amazing about the find, however, is that the experts who examined the scroll claim it is an exact match with the Masoretic text. The Mastoretic text refers to the Hebrew manuscripts which certain scribes, called the Masoretes, copied from the 6th to the 11th centuries. In other words, this En-Gedi scroll…
-
Bible Translations and the Myth of a Literal Translation
Bible translations are traditionally classified as literal-formal or dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is normally used to refer to translations which attempt to emphasize the meaning of phrases rather than each individual word (NIV is often used as an example). Literal-formal equivalence is touted as emphasizing a word-for-word approach, and trying to be more objective in its translation (KJV and NASB are common examples). Although Bible versions are often referred to as either dynamic or literal-formal, I think it is too simplistic to refer to translations in an “either/or” kind of way. The truth is, there is no such thing as a completely literal-formal translation. Any time you have one language being translated into another, you have idioms, grammatical irregularities, and vocabulary discrepancies that are impossible to translate in a one-for-one correspondence. In addition to that, you also have certain cultural oddities that can be confusing. One such example of cultural…
-
Calvin and Luther on Greek and Hebrew
Almost two weeks ago I had the privilege of being a part of our Far West Regional ETS conference. I presented a paper on the importance of Greek and Hebrew for Martin Luther and John Calvin. It was a lot of fun researching, and I hope it encourages those thinking about ministry. In essence, the paper proposes that without attention to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, the Reformation would never have happened. It was the return to attention to detail in the original languages that prompted the break from the Church of Rome, which had drifted into stark heresy. Although not everyone has the opportunity to learn Greek and Hebrew, those who can should learn it. It is a tremendous blessing from God to have all the resources for learning Greek and Hebrew available for us today. To get the full paper, look at the publications part of…