Is the KJB the Basis of a Translational Rut? Why Modern Versions Must Break Free from Tradition
Location
Room A
Start Date
1-10-2011 2:45 PM
End Date
1-10-2011 4:00 PM
Abstract
In my sixty years of dealing with the Greek text of the New Testament, I have discovered over one hundred texts which are significantly mistranslated, not just by one, but by most of the major versions. Most of these can be traced to original mistranslations in the KJV. Despite our far superior knowledge of New Testament Greek today and resources unavailable to the KJV translators, a significant number of mistranslations persist. Most egregious is the rendering of Luke 16:16, but many other examples will be given.
In answering how the meaning of the original text could have been missed so repeatedly, a number of factors entered in. The nature of New Testament Greek as being the common (koine) language of daily life in the Greek and then Roman empires was not understood until 1824. There were no grammars until the 1650s, but they assumed that the Greek was strongly influenced by Hebrew. Apparently there were no lexicons of the koine. Also the Anglican Church was doctrinally very diverse (including the translators), with an Anglo-Catholic party (high church), Calvinists, and Arminians, all vying to get their doctrinal biases into the resultant translation. All were amillennial, and that bias also greatly influenced the translation process (not a Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, or Mennonite among them).
Since the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (fifth century) had dominated Christendom for over a millennium, its influence was major. Erasmus, the Catholic scholar who published the first Greek New Testament, said that “the Vulgate swarmed with errors.” A most significant example is the rendering of proorizein as praedistino by Jerome, which was transliterated as "to predestinate" in the KJV and 80% of the modern versions. Indeed the KJV translators had a proclivity for transliteration, rather than actual translation of the meaning of key words, such as baptisma and eklektos. Many examples can be given, not only of mistranslations in the KJV, but of undue deference to them in modern versions. Matthew 24:34; 22:14; 16:18-19; 5:39; Luke 9:35; 17:19-20; John 15:1-2; Acts 2:38; 22:16; and Hebrews 6:6 will be highlighted.
A number of reasons can be given for the failure of modern translators to correct the KJV errors. Certainly there has been undue reverence for the KJV because of the beauty of its language. There is continued theological bias intruding into the translation process. There has been a widespread failure to do adequate in-depth research, especially in word studies. There are significant methodological errors in our lexicons and theological dictionaries, resulting in erroneous definitions. There has been a failure of perception of the problems presented, especially by the majority of the committee members. Probably one perceptive committee member gets outvoted. There seems to be a traditional mind set, which makes it hard to break away from traditional renderings.
Although we have many modern versions, we need more courageous Greek scholars who will do the in-depth research necessary to resolve the problem passages.
Is the KJB the Basis of a Translational Rut? Why Modern Versions Must Break Free from Tradition
Room A
In my sixty years of dealing with the Greek text of the New Testament, I have discovered over one hundred texts which are significantly mistranslated, not just by one, but by most of the major versions. Most of these can be traced to original mistranslations in the KJV. Despite our far superior knowledge of New Testament Greek today and resources unavailable to the KJV translators, a significant number of mistranslations persist. Most egregious is the rendering of Luke 16:16, but many other examples will be given.
In answering how the meaning of the original text could have been missed so repeatedly, a number of factors entered in. The nature of New Testament Greek as being the common (koine) language of daily life in the Greek and then Roman empires was not understood until 1824. There were no grammars until the 1650s, but they assumed that the Greek was strongly influenced by Hebrew. Apparently there were no lexicons of the koine. Also the Anglican Church was doctrinally very diverse (including the translators), with an Anglo-Catholic party (high church), Calvinists, and Arminians, all vying to get their doctrinal biases into the resultant translation. All were amillennial, and that bias also greatly influenced the translation process (not a Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, or Mennonite among them).
Since the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (fifth century) had dominated Christendom for over a millennium, its influence was major. Erasmus, the Catholic scholar who published the first Greek New Testament, said that “the Vulgate swarmed with errors.” A most significant example is the rendering of proorizein as praedistino by Jerome, which was transliterated as "to predestinate" in the KJV and 80% of the modern versions. Indeed the KJV translators had a proclivity for transliteration, rather than actual translation of the meaning of key words, such as baptisma and eklektos. Many examples can be given, not only of mistranslations in the KJV, but of undue deference to them in modern versions. Matthew 24:34; 22:14; 16:18-19; 5:39; Luke 9:35; 17:19-20; John 15:1-2; Acts 2:38; 22:16; and Hebrews 6:6 will be highlighted.
A number of reasons can be given for the failure of modern translators to correct the KJV errors. Certainly there has been undue reverence for the KJV because of the beauty of its language. There is continued theological bias intruding into the translation process. There has been a widespread failure to do adequate in-depth research, especially in word studies. There are significant methodological errors in our lexicons and theological dictionaries, resulting in erroneous definitions. There has been a failure of perception of the problems presented, especially by the majority of the committee members. Probably one perceptive committee member gets outvoted. There seems to be a traditional mind set, which makes it hard to break away from traditional renderings.
Although we have many modern versions, we need more courageous Greek scholars who will do the in-depth research necessary to resolve the problem passages.
Comments
Dr. C. Gordon Olson entered the ministry as a missionary to Pakistan during the 1950s and 60s. Returning to America, he acted as Academic Dean and professor of Missions and Theology at Northeastern Bible College for nearly 25 years. His What in the World is God Doing has been used as a mission text in hundreds of universities and seminaries, including Liberty University. Formerly an adjunct professor at Liberty, he currently travels America as a missions conference speaker.