13 ms·
Earliest Known Draft of King James Bible Is Found, Scholar Says
- dang 11y agoUrl changed from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/origins-of-the-king-james-bible-180956949/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/origins-of-the-king..., which points to this.
- hcrisp 11y agoAmazing! Although the draft is actually of 1 Esdras and Wisdom of Solomon, part of the intertestamental Apochrypha and not found in many editions that have only the New and Old Testaments. What happened to the translation drafts of the other 66 books? Does this mean we have more information on J. R. R. Tolkien's work (12 volumes) than we do of the original translators of the KJV bible (a fact that probably would have astonished and annoyed Tolkien)?
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoThe KJV originally had the deuterocanonicals, the canonical text for most of non Protestant Christendom.
- pgeorgi 11y agoThere was much less time for losing Tolkien's work
- baakss 11y agoWhy would that have annoyed Tolkien? He was Roman Catholic, and KJV is a protestant translation.
- protomyth 11y agoTo add, the Vatican has the posted the text of the bible for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm
- hcrisp 11y agoI meant he would be dismayed more because of his love of language and ancient translation, and contrasted to the distaste of his fans' excesses. But I looked it up, and I was surprised to find that he did read the KJV. "The exact Bibles in Tolkien's library are not publicly known, but he probably used the Catholic Douay Version, as well as the Authorized (King James) Version" [1]. "Tolkien knew well the King James Bible of 1611" [2]. [1] (https://books.google.com/books?id=B0loOBA3ejIC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=tolkien+kjv+bible&source=bl&ots=hiFE8CebWi&sig=iiI1VgQDYhhGDkDZ4Y669MUGbXw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMI44Hus4TQyAIVTJINCh2gmgMq https://books.google.com/books?id=B0loOBA3ejIC&pg=PA63&lpg=P... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=O5WvohegkLcC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=tolkien+kjv+bible&source=bl&ots=L1EVV2Gg9C&sig=2F39Hlp-wSzriv3NORmxlR71IWk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBGoVChMI44Hus4TQyAIVTJINCh2gmgMq https://books.google.com/books?id=O5WvohegkLcC&pg=PA76&lpg=P...
- Aloisius 11y agoCould someone explain how it is that someone discovers something that is already in a University archive? It seems people are discovering these kinds of things every few years.
- astine 11y agoFun fact about archives: a lot of the time, people have no idea what's actually stored in them. Obviously the University didn't know they had the bible or didn't know what it was because of a lack of bookkeeping. Now they know.
- cbd1984 11y agoI feel compelled to mention here that archives and libraries aren't the same thing. Libraries do (or should do) collections management, whereby the librarians go through the records and find out which resources aren't being used and weed them. Ideally, if it isn't used, it's taking up space, and it's gone. This is balanced by acquisition, such that the net effect is a constant churn of what's there, so there shouldn't be much chance for anything to sit and molder where nobody knows where, let alone what, it is. Archives don't do collections management of that sort. They do preservation, and ideally they never get rid of anything. Moldering (in a metaphorical, but hopefully not physical!) sense is very possible in an archive.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- edmccard 11y agoIn this case, the notebook was long known to be there, but the relevant section had been cataloged as a "verse-by-verse bible commentary". What was discovered was that the verses are part of a draft for a new bible, instead of just being verses copied from an existing bible.
- rancur 11y agoI love skipping straight to comments.
- monopolemagnet 11y agoThis is not news and has no place on HN. Religion is a fantastical illusion of foolish beliefs. The sooner civilization rids itself fanatical, magical thinking, the sooner there will be fewer fools blowing themselves up for 473 virgins that don't exist and telling others their happy-clappy means something. Replace all that nonsense with logic and humanism, hear and now.
- aaronbrethorst 11y agoThis is not news and has no place on HN. Sure it is, and yes it does. And please note that I say this as an agnostic. The King James Bible is a part of modern Western history. In fact, if you'd read the article, you would've discovered that this bible was intended to act as a bulwark against puritanical influences in England, which I'm sure you'd agree is a good thing. Like it or not, religion is a major component of our history—and our modern world.
- stevoski 11y ago> modern Western history I'd say, modern English-speaking history. The KJV has little relevance to German-speakers, French-speakers, etc. In German, Martin Luther's translation established, more or less, what is now Hochdeutsch (or Standard Germany), and significantly predates the KJV.
- baldfat 11y agoFormer Seminary Student here. Not really that significant for religious reasons. This is purely a Historical and Literacy finding regarding the Middle Ages.
- samwisethethird 11y agoIs it not significant because of the content (ie very similar to other texts), or because theology has such inertia that it couldn't be changed? Suppose it definitely was the first KJB, and said something that strongly contradicted modern theology. Wouldn't modern theocrats just ignore or discredit it? [possibly worth noting I am as cynical about politics. Suppose Americans found a "true" first version of the Constitution that clearly outlawed private citizens gun ownership* (versus miiltia). Wouldn't most gun advocates simply ignore / explain away that text? Thought experiment also requires the pretense that the differences were due to transcription changes, not actual belief changes] * instead of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," imagine it read, "Private citizens may own firearms if and only if, and while registered and paid entirely by a state-run militia, may access guns, but cannot use them except in their active attempts to overthrow a tyrannical government."
- baldfat 11y agoFormer Seminary Student here. Not really that significant for religious reasons. This is purely a Historical and Literacy in the Middle Ages finding. King James version is not very important at all in academia for theology besides historical understandings (My main focus and where I was going to do my PhD). We have the original documents that the King James used and we also have MUCH better originals than the KJ.
- Splendor 11y agoSlightly off topic, do you have a favorite translation?
- cheepin 11y agoNot OP, but if you want faithfulness to the original languages, English Standard Version is really good. New American Standard Bible is also good.
- xeromal 11y agoESV is a good version. It does well at being accessibly but remaining true to the meaning of the OG script as much as possible.
- wyclif 11y agoThe ESV has a lot going for it, particularly that it is both modern and embraces the "word-for-word" translation philosophy which I believe is more accurate than the "dynamic equivalence" methodology ("thought for thought" or functional, like the NIV).
- timv 11y ago(Also) Not the OP, but the Holman [http://www.hcsb.org/ http://www.hcsb.org/] has become my translation of choice. As mentioned by other, the NASB and the ESV are also both good choices. I really like the NASB for study, but find the language choices make it a little jarring (compared the ESV or HCSB), so I tend not to use it for regular personal reading.
- henrik_w 11y agoI feel compelled to add the link to the hilarious King James Programming site: http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/ http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/
- lifeisstillgood 11y agoWhilst happily an atheist, this is still fascinating. Now does the draft contain the famous "Thou shalt commit adultery"? I bet they just blamed the typesetter but really ... :-)
- giancarlostoro 11y agoWhilst I'm happily a Christian, I've always believed the same about that KJV mishap, somebody somewhere did something wrong. They are mere men after all.
- lifeisstillgood 11y agoI was always under the impressionist was a publishers mistake. It would be fun to find out the translators slipped it in ... I would of course be very surprised anyone meant to put it in maliciously.
- giancarlostoro 11y agoI think it was one of those "typo" issues we see today that really screwed up the final output. Like a tired scribe (or translator I guess) who totally didn't write an entire word, and then when they copied it over to be printed (I'm not entirely sure the way they did it, but I imagine they handwrote it first) it totally missed a word, but that's just my own view, I never truly researched it. Would be tough to figure out how and why without some sort of journal(s) from the translators themselves.
- justinator 11y agoCool. So what are the notes around John 10:36 say? That's always been a pretty contentious adding of a, "the" in there.
- jkldotio 11y agoFirst paragraph of the article. "The King James Bible is the most widely read work in English literature, a masterpiece of translation whose stately cadences and transcendent phrases have long been seen, even by secular readers, as having emerged from a kind of collective divine inspiration" From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale "In 1611 the 54 scholars who produced the King James Bible drew significantly from Tyndale, as well as from translations that descended from his. One estimate suggests the New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's and the Old Testament 76%."
- danielvf 11y agoHere's the article mentioned that contains the details of what was found in the draft. http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1619318.ece http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1619318.ece It's certainly interesting to get a view into a the processes behind a a four hundred year old, geographically distributed, 50 scholar collaboration.
- jfmercer 11y agoRegarding this discovery, I would argue that debates about the quality of the KJV translation are beside the point. This is a tremendous historical discovery, especially for historians of the early English Reformation. The KJV formed the mind of British Christianity for centuries, which in turn formed the mind of the British Empire. In other words, the KJV translation is important not merely for early Reformation studies, but for world history more generally. Anything that could give historians greater insight into the process of the KJV translation, as well as the theology (theologies?) of its translators, is a great discovery. (A side-note regarding the Empire and Christianization: in the early centuries of the Empire, the British were primarily interested in trade and conquest, but not so much in evangelization and conversion of native peoples. The East India Company (EIC) was a good example of this: as long as profits and goods flowed in from India, the leaders of the EIC were content not only to leave native religions alone, but even to intermarry with native Muslims and Hindus and allow each wife to raise her children in her own particular faith tradition. Hence the creation of a new ethnicity: the Anglo-Indian. However, in the 19th century, an evangelical revival effected a sea-change in British Christianity, and thus the Empire became a vast instrument of evangelization and conversion. At this point, I think, the KJV became important for world history, rather than British history in particular.)
- lentil_soup 11y ago"The King James Bible is the most widely read work in English literature" I've read this many times, but is it true? Are there real sources to support this claim?