FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-12-2010, 10:49 AM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default New book on King James Version

BIBLE: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Gordon Campbell

review

Quote:
Oxford has ample reason to celebrate the KJV's quatercentennial, which it is doing with Campbell's "Bible" as well as the aforementioned deluxe edition, which it describes as "the most authentic version of the original text that has ever been published." This will reward close study by those thus inclined, for the edition deliberately preserves all the original's misprints, of which there were many, as there have been throughout the KJV's long history. Some of them, as Campbell notes, were memorable:

"In the first edition of the KJV designed for private study (1612), as opposed to reading aloud in church, Psalm 119:161 read 'Printers have persecuted me without cause'; 'printers' was a misprint for 'princes.' The 1631 edition now known as the Wicked Bible made adultery compulsory by omitting 'not' in Exodus 20:14, which read 'Thou shalt commit adultery.' The printers were heavily fined, but in 1641 the same press printed an edition in which they omitted 'no' in Revelation 21:1, which read 'And there was more sea.' The problem with negatives cropped up again in 1653, when another printer omitted the second negative in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which read 'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?' From negatives we move uneasily to murderers. A Bible of 1795 rendered Mark 7:27 as 'Let the children first be killed,' when Jesus had in fact asked that they be filled (that is, fed). Similarly, in a Bible of 1801 the murmurers of Jude 16 became murderers, and so the Bible became known as the Murderers' Bible."

My own favorite, though, occurred in the second edition of 1611, a "rushed response to the brisk sales of the first edition." In Jeremiah 31:30 "that eateth" somehow emerged as "ehat tateth," an error that, as Campbell notes with characteristic wit, "should have been noticed by any proof-reader, even one freshly returned from a pub lunch."
Toto is offline  
Old 10-13-2010, 07:12 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia
Posts: 42,473
Default

Funny. Of course, can't blame someone for a few errors in a work as large as the Bible.
Jimmy Higgins is offline  
Old 10-13-2010, 10:01 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
Funny. Of course, can't blame someone for a few errors in a work as large as the Bible.
Unless, of course, it was divinely inspired.
Blackclaw is offline  
Old 10-13-2010, 04:53 PM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Anaheim, CA, United States of America
Posts: 128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackclaw View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
Funny. Of course, can't blame someone for a few errors in a work as large as the Bible.
Unless, of course, it was divinely inspired.
It was the printer's errors though-unless of course you were talking about hyper KJV onlyists who think the translation was inspired.
General Mung Beans is offline  
Old 10-13-2010, 05:38 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

If God could inspire the translators, why couldn't he inspire the printers??

Toto is offline  
Old 10-13-2010, 06:45 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Or, for that matter, inspire the heretics.
To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

~ Woody Allen one liner
mountainman is offline  
Old 10-13-2010, 07:37 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia
Posts: 42,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
If God could inspire the translators, why couldn't he inspire the printers??

Maybe God is a Calvinist?
Jimmy Higgins is offline  
Old 10-13-2010, 07:59 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
If God could inspire the translators, why couldn't he inspire the printers??

Maybe God is a Calvinist?

Or a scribe?
Minimalist is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.