Christians who worry about the “omissions” in new translations are usually the kind of people who have a respect for the old and reservations about the new. That’s why it can be helpful to assure them that though these issues might be new to them, they are not new to the church.
For example, while recently studying the “missing” ending of the Lord’s Prayer, I discovered that William Tyndale didn’t include it in his first in 1526. Knowing that Tyndale is someone my congregation reveres as a godly martyr as well as good translator, I made sure to share this fact with them.
I’ve also found it useful to point out that the original King James Version included textual variants in the margin, and the King James translators defended this practice against the same objections people still have:
Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.
If it was good enough for the King James translators, it’ll likely be good enough for them.
Justin Dillehay (MDiv, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is a pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Hartsville, Tennessee, where he resides with his wife, Tilly, and his children, Norah, Agnes, and Henry. He is a contributing editor of The Gospel Coalition.
Observation: This means that the original translators of the KJV did not see the underlying Greek text of the KJV as perfect without variants. They were not sure in some places. The 1611 KJV has textual critical notes, places where the translators or editors felt it important to tell readers when the Greek New Testament manuscripts to which they had access included variant readings. Such notes are not a new invention.
No comments:
Post a Comment