Loading...In a couple of weeks I’m going off to Los Angeles to give a lecture at Loyola Marymount University as a keynote address for their putting on of the (traveling) exhibition on the King James Bible, started in commemoration of its 400th year (in 2011). The exhibition is called Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King James Bible, and my lecture is entitled: “What Kind of a Text Is the King James Bible? Manuscripts, Translation, and the Legacy of the KJV.” In addition to celebrating the greatness of the translation – it’s obviously one of the greatest classics of the English language – I will be talking about various aspects of the KJV that make it less usable as a study or research Bible.
I haven’t written the talk yet, but I’m thinking, at this point, about talking about three topics:
- The fact that in the New Testament the KJV was based on Greek manuscripts (the only ones available at the time, of course – so it was no one’s fault) that are now recognized as being inferior in nature, leading the translators to include verses and even passages that we now believe were not originally in the New Testament;
- The problem of theological bias that occasionally crept into the translation;
- And the problem of the change of language over the past 400 years, so that English today simply isn’t the same as English then.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!!
Could the same problem apply to the Greek manuscripts themselves? How do we know that (or how) the meanings of the Greek words changed over time?
Yes indeed. Greek linguists have to study usage of Greek in different authors writing at different times. It’s a highly refined field of study!
See you in a couple of weeks! Looking forward to your talk.
The evolution of the English language is of eternal fascination to me. I don’t think most people realize how different words are now from what they meant when they were originally coined. Take the word “nice”. Originally it meant the exact opposite and at one point it meant wanton or foolish as well and then it morphed into other meanings before finally settling on the definition we have today. There are many examples of this and I’ve often wondered, having not read the Bible from cover to cover myself, just how many oddities there are in the Bible that people by and large misinterpret today (especially those weirdo Evangelicals).
Will your talk also cover the use of outdated colloquialisms found in the Bible that make no sense to us today? One that always comes to mind for me is when Jesus talks about a camel going through the eye of a needle in Matthew. I’m sure there are many others that I’m not aware of.
I probably won’t have time for that in my talk. But in the case you mention, I dn’t think Jesus meant something metaphorical (about a camel’s gate in jerusalem; or about a rope; etc.). I think it was a clever and very real image, in which he really meant camel and really meant eye of a needle!
Ha! Love this. A shame though. I was about eight when I got saved. The lady that counseled me gave me a little red book of John. I took it home that night and started reading it and it was like it was written right to me (which it was). I loved that book so much and I understood it! At eight! My sister got me a KJV when I was 12 and I loved that. Now I use the New King James from Thomas Nelson with commentary and love it. If you want to look up a word in Hebrew or Greek with a computer program, it has to be in the KJV. On blueletterbible.com it’s the same way. They say the King James translates most perfectly back into Hebrew than any other translation. I have a PC Bible from Bible Soft and love it. Use it constantly. So many helps we have nowadays. We are so blessed. Of course, the remedy is to learn Hebrew and Greek. Logos makes an interlinear with each word having underneath it every translation the word can be, but it’s not linked to the Strong’s, which is a crying shame or I’d get it. May get it anyway. Could keep my blueletterbible.com open or my PC Bible. Thanks for sharing. Sure you’ll do excellent, as always. Maybe you should do a book on EVERY mistranslation. Would love that so much, which would, of course, include the parts that were added, although you do that in your book, The NT and other early christian writings, which I’ll be happy with for now. BTW, I LOVE the format of that book and the easy handle-a-bility! Just got Gordon Fee’s/Douglas Stuart’s two books and, although they’re great, the book is hard to handle. It’s very stiff and hard to keep open. BTW2: Don’t remember you commenting on the Book of Enoch or The Book of Jasher. I’m sure you have, but what about them? Even though Enoch is quoted in Jude, when I try to read it it seems ludicrous. Probably not the same one Jude read. Shame.
Well, Enoch we have, but Jasher, alas, we do not. And yes, Jude quotes the Enoch we have.
Thank you!
Sorry, I really need to know this, but where did the Enoch we have today come from? I have a friend who really thinks it was handed down to Noah and carried on the ark. And where did the Jasher we have today come from? Thanks.
We have in in manuscript form; parts of it were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It probably dates from the 2nd century BCE or so, for the most part. But not, it is not really by Enoch!! I don’t know about the modern Jasher. If one exists it must be a modern forgery.
In the context of the meanings of words changing, I don’t think you can ignore the fact that we have several common idioms that originated in the KJV (and of course none are springing to mind as examples…) Of those, do many not mean in modern parlance what they did in the original text?
I think a lot of them still do mean the same thing. See my post today.
OK, on to serious matters, it’s my impression that the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible is notorious for its theological bias. Bart, Is my assessment accurate?
It does have that reputation. It’s translators were as a rule very fine scholars; but they also had to be committed ot the infallibility of Scripture, and that did affect how they rendered some passages (for example, to keep them from contradicting one another)
Dr Ehrman,
I would love to see this. I know you’re a busy man but is there any chance of a video of this talk being posted on YouTube or your main website, http://www.bartdehrman.com/?
Good question. I’m afraid it’s up to the organizers, not me.
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. – 1 Samuel 25:22, KJV
Yes indeed! “anyone who pisseth against the wall” is changed to “any male” in some other translations!
Actual conversation I had in church:
Her: I know we are living in the last days. I can’t believe how fast today went.
Me: What do you mean?
Her: It says in the Bible that the days will be shortened when we are in the last days.
Me: I don’t think that’s what it meant. There are still 24 hours in a day, aren’t there?
Her: Well, what DOES it mean then?
Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
It’s Eastern mysticism. Matthew 24 is a story about you and me and salvation from our thoughts. It’s not about the end of the world. Of course, this is my opinion and belief.
First, Daniel 12, which is referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24, is filled with numerology. We have a “time” of Michael “the great prince,” whose protecting the people of the nation (1), time of trouble (2), time of deliverance (3), time many shall run to and fro and knowledge increased (4), time times an half until the end (5). We have five, which means sacrifice in Eastern mysticism.
Daniel, who has sacrificed the five (senses) in meditation, saw himself on one side of the river and the man in linen, which is symbolic for the divine wisdom on the other side. And where was he standing? “Upon the waters” of the river.
The chapter concludes with Verse 11 referring to 1290 days imperfection, and verse 12 referring to 1335 days perfection. Doing some simple math, we add the numbers: 1+2+9+0=12 and 1+3+3+5=12. Twelve means perfection. In this case, it’s duality. Duality of what? Consciousness. The number 9 represents human consciousness and what is 1335-1290? 45. So, 4+5=9, i.e. consciousness.
Now Matthew 24: Again, it’s the same story, and it’s about meditation and human consciousness. It’s all symbolic and filled with numerology too. Those in Judaea fleeing to the mountains are entering meditation. They are going to sacrifice the five senses: On the housetop? don’t come down (1), In the field? don’t return to get your clothes (2), With child? (3), pray your flight be not in the winter(4) or Sabbath (5).
What happens when you go into meditation? Your thoughts go wild. You can’t calm your mind (great tribulation). Now, “except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” The day is a period of time and the period of time is the suffering you experience with your thoughts.
As you meditate, your mind will wonder. Jesus is saying, you need divine wisdom, which is God’s wisdom. However, your mind will deceive you into thinking your wisdom is divine, but it’s not. Here’s an example: You have a problem with your boss, and you are unhappy with your job. You enter into meditation to find peace of mind. While you’re waiting for this “peace” to happen, you begin to focus on your problem. You get an idea! “Quit your job, and punch your boss in the nose!” Obviously, you like the idea, but it’s not the best solution to your problem. It’s not divine wisdom, its false Christ and false Prophets. The more you think about it, the better the idea becomes, and you see yourself going through the motions. The next day, you follow through with your plan, and end up in jail.
Speaking of the King James Bible, last winter I read both ‘God’s Secretaries’, which I see you recommend, and ‘Wide as the Waters the Story of the King James Bible and the Revolution it Inspired’ by Benson Bobrick (I was familiar with Bobrick through another one of his books – The Fated Sky:Astrology in History, and he’s written a bunch of others that look good as well.)
I was disappointed that neither book commented on the theory that the KJV was finally edited by Sir Francis Bacon – who also supposedly authored some of the works done under the pen name of William Shakespeare.
This theory accounts for the lyrical and prose-like qualities of the KJV. Everyone knows that there is no way that the real William Shakespeare was educated enough to write the works that are attributed to him, and that there is no way that the KJV did not undergo a final editing that produced the cohesiveness and beautiful language.
Bobrick mentions these well-known phrases that are from the King James Bible and still widely used in conversation today : ‘eat, drink and be merry’, ‘the powers that be’, ‘the salt of the earth’, ‘let there be light’, ‘and the truth shall make you free’, ‘the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’, ‘the root of all evil’., ‘fight the good fight’, ‘a thorn in the flesh’, ‘labour of love’, ‘the fat of the land’, ‘the sweat of the brow’, ‘to cast pearls before swine’ ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’
Sounds Shakespearean, no?
Bacon’s novel New Atlantis supposedly was the model for the American colonies, and his Rosicrucian/Deistic beliefs were shared by Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, et al.
Circumstantial evidence only for this fascinating theory.
Actually, there’s scarcely a Shakespeare scholar on the planet (i.e., a real scholar — not someone who writes books to sell) who doubts that Shakespeare wrote his plays. But I take your point.
Yes, I’ve read that the Shakespeare debate is highly contentious, even though it dates back almost contemporaneously? I know very little about it actually, as you can probably tell! So no horse in this race.
Someone HAS to be willing to challenge authority, though, and have a certain irreverence for the Powers That Be. I would think that just about all great discoveries have been made by someone challenging authority. (You’ve done a little bit of yourself, I think.)
That’s a good gig, a keynote speech at Loyola Marymount University. Nominally Catholic school—would you call it roughly “neutral turf”?
Now if you ventured down the road about 20 or so miles to BIOLA University, and gave an Ehrman talk there, then I think NC Governor McCory should authorize hazardous duty pay and a combat ribbon for you!
In all seriousness, how frequently do you receive invites to talk at the BIOLAs and Fullers of the world?
Well, the gig is because one of my closest friends, Jeff Siker, has long been the chair of their theology department. He’s a NT scholar, and a Presbyterian! Head of Theology at LMU!! Ecumenics in action.
On the KJV, I read somewhere that some think the KJV won’t survive with the test of time. Meaning, it won’t be published as much in say, 100 years. Agree? Also, have you seen a drop in young people (students) who use the KJV? Thanks in advance.
I best it’s still around. But no, young people don’t seem as a rule to be reading it.
Are the words “verily” as in Luke 4:24 or Luke 4:23 the word “Ye” used in the ancient Greek?
Yes, their Greek equivalents are.
One of my favorites in the KJV is an example of where this noble translation now sounds like urban slang.
“…and it was noised that he was in the house.” Mark 2:1
Yo, all them boys noised that Jesus was in tha hizzy.
I wonder if folk know just how small a buckler is–though the term has carried-on into the NRSV.
Bart,
When are you speaking in Southern California at Loyola Marymount?
This coming Thursday, Jan 24. It’s probably on their webstie someplace.
I recall once being caught up in the superfluity of naughtiness (James 1:21). At that time I was listening to some sackbut music (Dan 3.5) and had eaten an abominable ossifrage (Lev 11:13) for dinner. I ended up suffering from a fever and of a bloody flux (Acts 28:8). But I have already said way too much – sorry for my vain jangling (1 Tim 1:6).
Would very much appreciate your thoughts on the new Norton Critical Edition of the KJV, edited by Gerald Hammond and Austin Busch. I haven’t given it more than a cursory glance, but the annotations and commentary seem fairly thoroughgoing…
I’m afraid I don’t know it. Sorry!
Among my favorite quotations from the KJV are “And Jacob sod pottage” (Gen. 25:29) and “Lay aside all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness” (James 1:21)
I just subscribed to your blog, and I have enjoyed your books over several years. I think you and your readers exaggerate how much English has changed over the last 400 years. It seems to me it has changed remarkably little. I don’t know about everyone else, but I can read something like 98% of the KJV and have no problems understanding it. Sure, a few passages are puzzling, and some footnotes are needed here and there. To give yet another example: “[the chief priests and scribes] were sore displeased” (Matth. 21:15) ‘sore’ meaning ‘very’. Of course the KJV is stylistically anachronistic, but that is what many people find appealing. It sounds more “holy”. But none of these language issues, as far as I can see, are really theologically significant. What do you think? BTW, what’s your opinion of the New KJV? And are you familiar with the LOL Cat Bible (a work still in progress)?
Yes, anyone with a good vocabulary will certainly be able to understand most, but not all, of the KJV. The problem with it sounding more “holy” is that the original Greek was not stilted and antiquated, but was simply the common Greek of the day — none of it sounds particularly holy.
I don’t think the new KJV solves the big problems, for example that the translations is based on late and inferior manuscxripts.
Nope, don’t know about the Cat bible.
On youtube I found a video about KJV. It was a lecture by you, and the vidoe was named “Bart Ehrman: What Kind of a Text is the King James Bible? (Manifold Greatness exhibition opening)”
There you say that “The KJV is one of greatest classics of English literature”
I thought “English literature” would mean a text written in English origially. Or a text that originated from England. That anything translated wouldn’t be. My point of view might be wrong though. I just wanted to say this, because it sounds confusing to me. But I am not a native English speaker so I might be wrong. Please enlghten me. Thanks
I suppose the phrase could be used both ways, but I think it is a standard usage to say that a work in translation that affected the translation-language is a classic in that language. Same would apply to Luther’s translation in relation to German.