Originally posted by josephw
The original autographs are dust by now. I base what I believe on the extant manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV, to be the best there is.
Is that wrong? If so, then please tell me what manuscripts you believe are the most reliable.
I'm going to assume that you know very little about the
art and
science of translation.
I apologize if this post reëxpresses things you already know.
Generally in the translation of those texts where we do not have the originals, the older the source,
the more likely it is going to be pure (as in free from editorial changes and scribal errors). So,
given two sources, one from the 2nd century, another from the 8th, the former is presumed better
if no other mitigating factors are considered.
Second, amongst contemporary sources, majority rules. If ten sources from the 4th century read,
'Jesus ate a pickle' and one sources reads, 'Jesus ate an apple,' the 'pickle' translation is preferred.
Third, amongst contemporary sources, those which communicate a simpler idea are preferred over
those which communicate a more complicated one. So, if three 3rd-century sources read, 'Jesus
danced,' and three 3rd-century sources read, 'Jesus danced, with sweat pouring down until he wore
holes in his shoes,' the former is preferred.
These are some basic translation guidelines. There are dozens of others. They aren't rules to be
followed slavishly, but merely standards from which deviation requires justification.
The Greek text for the Christian Scriptures upon which the KJV is based is called the
Textus Receptus.
It was compiled by a brilliant man named Stephanus in the mid-16th century, who using the
formidable Erasmus' research, represented the best scholarship
of the time. However the
scholarship was made on late Byzantine Greek texts (8th or 9th century). It was also not utterly free
from typographical error (it was a print edition that Tyndale used for his English translation, not a
series of manuscripts like Erasmus used for his transcription).
Two
critical discoveries have been made since then. First is the Codex Sinaiticus which derives
from the mid-4th century. The other is the Codex Vaticanus which appears to be slightly older
(perhaps a few decades, but no earlier than 300).
Note that these are four centuries earlier than the
best manuscript sources used by Erasmus
which were the basis of the Greek edition printed by Stephanus used for the KJV. Additionally,
there are points of agreement between these two
independent texts (i.e., they were prepared
independently of each other) where they are in disagreement with the
Textus Receptus.
Furthermore, we have discovered many independent fragments (some only as large as a postage
stamp, some of several folios in length) which are older yet than either of the Codices mentioned
above. Some derive as early as the 2nd century -- within 4 generations of Jesus' Crucifixion!! Of
the passages represented here, some reflect an earlier purer translation than many passages in the
Textus Receptus and even (occasionally) the two Codices.
This is why no one takes the KJV seriously anymore as a reliable translation reflecting modern scholarship.
It's main source was from eight centuries after Jesus, and four centuries after two excellent sources
that have since been discovered.
Nemesio
What is a 'translation?'
05 Jul '07 11:39
Back to Top