The KJV, strictly speaking, is not a translation but a revision. In fact, it is a revision of a revision (Bishop’s Bible) of a revision (Great Bible) of a revision (Matthew’s Bible) of a revision (Coverdale’s Bible) of Tyndale’s translation. “A great deal of praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version.”1
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Ephesians 5:11, ESV). THIS BLOG CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE. READER DISCRETION IS ADVICED.
Jul 15, 2025
To make a good one better
Over the decades and even centuries, the process of review and revision has very likely eliminated gross translation errors from this line of Bibles. That is, if Tyndale made any errors, it would seem that they would have been corrected in the Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, Bishop’s, or King James Bible. How much more, then, should the RV, ASV, RSV, and ESV be perfected—or so one would think. 2
1. B. Metzger, The
Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 76-77. D. Daniell
points out that 83 percent of the KJV is from Tyndale; The Bible in English: History and Influence (New Haven: Yale,
2003), 152.
2. Ray E. Clendenen and David K. Stabnow, HCSB - Bible Translation: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2013).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
God's inspiration does not necessarily result in good results
The Theology of the Costly Call: From Zechariah to Stephen In the economy of the Kingdom of God, there exists a profound paradox that often ...
No comments:
Post a Comment