The KJV Bible...
I saw a bumper sticker a few days back that declared the King James Version to be the true word of God. Presumably, other versions like the New International (my favorite in many respects) or Today's English (which I find inelegant) are not the word of God according to the driver of the van. Presumably, also, Reina-Valera, the predominant Spanish version is NOT God's word, nor are the Chinese, Russian, Hindi, etc versions any good. In fact, reductio ad absurdum - the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew as penned by St. Paul or Moses themselves would fall short.
I cannot wrap my head around the idea that the King James Version of the Bible is idolized. Why? The Puritans who landed on Plymouth rock brought along the Geneva version (currently in disfavor). In the nearly 400 years since the KJV made its debut, there has been a mountain of textual scholarship to help improve the understanding of what the was meant by the words and phrases of the original languages. Let us not forget, also, that scads of documents have been found (for instance the Dead Sea Scrolls) in that time -- documents that if not written by St. Paul and Jeremiah were at least written by people who were much closer in time to the original writers than anything the KJV compilers had access to. It is a commonly accepted principle of textual scholarship that in the case of a document that is copied and recopied by hand the closer one can get to the original, the better.
Now mind you, nothing that has been found rewrites the canonical books -- there are minor changes made based on the older (but more recently discovered) scrolls, but nothing that suggests we should really be worshipping Ba'al. Or Dagon, the fish god. Still, however minor the changes are, they should be embraced.
I'm reading from the KJV currently, because it forces me to struggle for understanding. A kind of Bible Bootcamp that is not recommended for everyone. I just want to make clear, however, that I'm NOT relying on the KJV because it's the best out there. It may be the most elegant and poetic (some would debate that) but there are certainly other versions that are as good and some will be better for some readers.
I cannot wrap my head around the idea that the King James Version of the Bible is idolized. Why? The Puritans who landed on Plymouth rock brought along the Geneva version (currently in disfavor). In the nearly 400 years since the KJV made its debut, there has been a mountain of textual scholarship to help improve the understanding of what the was meant by the words and phrases of the original languages. Let us not forget, also, that scads of documents have been found (for instance the Dead Sea Scrolls) in that time -- documents that if not written by St. Paul and Jeremiah were at least written by people who were much closer in time to the original writers than anything the KJV compilers had access to. It is a commonly accepted principle of textual scholarship that in the case of a document that is copied and recopied by hand the closer one can get to the original, the better.
Now mind you, nothing that has been found rewrites the canonical books -- there are minor changes made based on the older (but more recently discovered) scrolls, but nothing that suggests we should really be worshipping Ba'al. Or Dagon, the fish god. Still, however minor the changes are, they should be embraced.
I'm reading from the KJV currently, because it forces me to struggle for understanding. A kind of Bible Bootcamp that is not recommended for everyone. I just want to make clear, however, that I'm NOT relying on the KJV because it's the best out there. It may be the most elegant and poetic (some would debate that) but there are certainly other versions that are as good and some will be better for some readers.
posted by Steven at 12:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home