10 February 1899 A.D. Revised Version?
10 February 1899 A.D.
Revised
Version?
Graves, Dan. “What’s in a
Revised Version?” Christianity.com. May 2007. http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1801-1900/whats-in-a-revised-version-11630654.html. Accessed 9 Feb 2014.
What's in a Revised Version?
A
Bible version long in use can become cherished through familiarity. Today, when
we have a plethora of versions it is difficult for us to understand the
excitement the revision of the Authorized version evoked. Three million copies
of the revised New Testament sold within a year and the text was printed in
full in two Chicago newspapers within two days of reaching the United States.
Such interest could the Word of God generate back then!
When the King James
version was first made, it was based on the Latin Vulgate, on early
English translations, all of which traced back to Tyndale's translation, whose
New Testament was in turn made from the Greek text of Erasmus and some
comparison with Luther's translation. King James required the translation
committee to follow several rules which were designed to ensure accuracy and
readability. Each tranlator's section was carefully reviewed by the other
translators. The authorized version adopted the verse markings of the Geneva Bible,
a translation done by Puritan exiles.
After the making of the King James
version, several Greek texts came to light, all older than Erasmus'
manuscript. Among these were the Sinaitic, Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts.
A manuscript of the Septuagint (the early Jewish translation into Greek of the
Old Testament) also turned up. Each of these finds underscored the need for
revisions in the accepted text to bring it into closer conformity with the
original writings.
Although scholars agreed that the
King James was inaccurate in some details (although not any essential doctrine
or important emphasis), laymen were loath to part with its familiar wording.
Not forgotten were the fierce battles by which the Bible had been won, often
over the ashes of martyrs. In a way the opposition was ironic, for the King
James itself had been greeted with just such grumbles in its own day. Those who
used the Geneva or Coverdale versions did not wish to relinquish
phrasing which was familiar to them! But the King James' musical prose soon earned
it the status of a literary masterpiece. No one can say how greatly its
cadences have molded the English tongue.
As a concession to those who loved
the beauty of the old, the revisers retained much of the archaic language of
the King
James. In fact, they sometimes opted for idioms predating even
Shakespeare. The revised translation was not a modern language version by any
stretch of the imagination! It had, however, solved some textual problems.
Despite criticism, tens of thousands of copies were sold at once. On this day,
February 10, 1899 its use was authorized as the standard for the Church of
England. Coverdale's translation of the psalms remained in the English psalter.
Bibliography:
1. "Bible
(English Version)." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.
2. "Bible,
the. Section 17." Encyclopedia Americana. Chicago:
Encyclopedia Americana, corp., 1956.
3. "English
Revised Version 1891-1895." February, 2001. 2006.<
www.bible-researcher.com/erv.html>.
4. Goodsped
Edgar J. How Came the Bible? Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1940.
5. McGrath,
Alister E. In the Beginning: the story of the King James Bible and how it changed a
nation, a language, and a culture. New York: Anchor Books, 2002.
6. Various
web sites such as http://www.twickenham-museum.org.uk/detail.asp?ContentID=22.
Last
updated May, 2007.
Comments
Post a Comment