Today’s #manuscriptmonday is all about the King James Bible. Arguably the most well known English translation, a translation fit for a king! (A 🧵)…
The King James Bible was commissioned in 1604 and published in 1611. The beginning of it had a dedication to the King of England.
James was potentially the most scholarly king to ever sit on the English throne. He produced his own commentary/paraphrase of Revelation, and even his own translation of the Psalms.
Before taking the English crown, James proposed a new translation to the General Assembly in Scotland in 1601. That undertaking however, would have been a translation into lowland Scots, and therefore not a direct precursor to the KJB.
His biggest direct contribution to the
KJB was in its inception. He did not directly work as a translator for it.
Myths abound about James's supposed tampering with the translation choices. However, Final decisions fell to the translators alone.
Rumours such as James wanting the word "tyrant" removed as a translation choice are common, but easily disproved. It is true that the KJB uses "tyrant" much less than its
predecessor, the Ceneva Bible, the word can still be found throughout its pages.
The King James Bible was, of course, far from the first translation of the Bible into English. There were many versions of the English Bible that predated it.
The Venerable Bede produced a translation of the Gospel of John in Old English in the 8th century, although no surviving copies of it survive today. In the 7th century Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne and Abbot Malmesbury were reported to have translated the Pslams into Old English.
Myles Smith, in The Translators to the Reader in the original
KJV, was clear to state: "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better."
The original work of the 1611 King James Bible is therefore best understood as an update to the
1602 Bishop's Bible, which was the English version that proceeded it.
In fact, in the preface to the original 1611 KJV, Rule 14 mandated the use of 5 prior Bibles "where they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible." They sought to draw "out of many good" Bibles to make
"one principal good one,' thereby rendering "better" what prior translators had "left so good."
Though many Puritans were involved in the translation of the KJB, the Puritans generally preferred the Geneva Bible over the King James.
The Geneva Bible was the first and primary Bible brought to America on the Mayflower.
The King James Bible was not translated from manuscripts, but from printed editions of the Hebrew Old and Greek New Testaments available at that time. For the New Testament in particular, the 5 editions produced by the Dutch scholar Erasmus (in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535), and the updates by Stephanus and Beza.
What is typically called the "Textus
- Receptus" (TR) today is actually a work produced in 1894 by the English writer and scholar Frederick Scrivener. Scrivener looked at the translation choices made by the KJV translators and compiled them into a single volume. However, the KJV translators themselves were not dealing with a single document but multiple Texti Receipt (plural of Textus Receptus), mentioned previously.
In many ways what Scrivener's TR stands as is a printed Greek New Testament based on the translation choices of a printed English New Testament (the 1611 KJB), itself based on a previous collection of printed Greek New Testaments.
The KJV has also looked very different over the years. If you have a KJV today it is almost certainly not in the original 1611 English. There were revisions to the text in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. If you own a King
James Bible today it is most likely a 1769 revision.
Today's #manuscriptmonday looks at where the chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bibles come from (a 🧵).
Our earliest copies of both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament did not come with chapter and verse divisions. So where did they come from?
The chapter divisions you find in your Bible today were developed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton. Langton put the modern chapter divisions into place in around A.D. 1227. The Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 was the first Bible to use this chapter pattern.
Today’s #manuscriptmonday looks at one of the best-known elements in the Christmas story (a 🧵)..
One of the best-known elements in the Christmas story is the journey of Mary and Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem, despite Mary's advanced pregnancy, to participate in a census associated with a Roman official named Quirinius.
Writing towards the end of the Ist century AD, Josephus describes a census carried out by Quirinius just after Archelaus (a son of Herod the Great) was deposed as 'ethnarch' of Judaea by the Romans.
Does the infamous inscription in Abydos Egypt really portray a helicopter, submarine, and spaceship? Is this proof the Egyptians had advanced tech? Let’s get into it (a 🧵).
This theory concerning the Abydos Temple of Seti I has been around since the inception of the internet, flying around on forums in the 90s.
Seti left the temple partly unfinished and his son Ramesses II completed it. In more than a few places Ramesses carved his title over his father's inscriptions. Here’s a pic of me in Seti’s tomb at the Valley of the Kings.
Ever heard someone say that modern Bibles have “removed” or “taken out” verses from scripture? Let’s talk about it… a 🧵.
Although it's almost always phrased as "who took this* verse out of the Bible, and when?" it's actually a case of "who put this verse* into the Bible, and when? It's not so much the case that modern Bibles have
"missing" verses as it is that the King James has added verses.
Here’a how I articulate the position in ep.2 of Can I Trust the Bible?
Today’s #manuscriptmonday for this first Monday of Advent, features P4, a manuscript that has the nativity story from Luke 1:75-2:7. It was hidden away and survived not only over 1 500 years of time, but one of the most systematized and wide-spread government attempts to destroy Christian Scripture. A 🧵.
In 1889 a manuscript containing two treatises of the lst c. BC writer Philo of Alexandria, was discovered with portions of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used for the binding.
The document itself was hidden in a jar which was concealed in the wall of a house on the east side of the Nile in Coptos, Egypt.
Today’s #manuscriptmonday looks at what ancient documents can tell us about Jesus’s occupation prior to his public ministry. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 has villagers from Nazareth asking “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” upon Jesus’s return to his hometown. So was Jesus really a “carpenter?” How do the manuscripts help us with answering that question? A 🧵.
This is P103, a second century fragment that contains the Gospel of Matthew 13:55-56. The beginning of vs. 55 reads "Isn't this the
carpenter's son?"
This is P.Mich.inv. 4238, an early first century collection of about one of several dozen apprenticeship contracts from Roman Egypt. This one-year contract for téktovikn "carpentry", is not only an economic arrangement, but a social and relational contract.