It is no coincidence that by far the most extremist, bigoted and refractory Christian sects and preachers place all their stock in one single book: the King James Bible. As I showed in many past blogs, however, this version is so rife with errors and contradictions, most of which are not even annotated for reference, that it's of essentially zero usefulness. Worse, the text is littered with gross transcription and deliberate translation errors that leave it one of the worst ever sources for exploring revelation according to the Christian tradition. This has led many to conclude that it is largely a bible for children or untutored adults with limited vocabularies, especially as it's written with a defined limit of 10,000 words.
As an atheist who had the good fortune to receive three solid years of scriptural education (if only as a mandated part of the theology requirements for attending Loyola University on scholarship) I was able to see the defects of the "KJV" up close and personally. Most do not become apparent in a simple reading, since the simplistic beauty of the language itself tends to obscure and "wash out" any defects. Or to put it another way: one is so taken with the beauty of the language that one tends to overlook the defects, especially if one isn't searching for them in the first place.
No, the deficiencies don't emerge until one has before him (as we did at Loyola, compliments of Fr. Hecker!) multiple translations of all the antedating source texts plus the KJV passages, to view simultaneously. Then, after barely five classes, the effect is not unlike suffering a case of brain whiplash. You see all the flaws as if a beautiful woman is suddenly exposed as the most grotesque and decrepit, toothless hag full of suppurating pustules. You have to force your eyes to the comparative passages to assimilate what your brain refuses (at first pass) to admit. And then you think, almost vocalizing: HOW the HELL did they get so much WRONG?
Now, it's obvious that a person, say a would-be pastor who fancies himself the "word and authority of God" wouldn't want to go there! No, so he'd elect to choose a place, say to get his education, wherein they'd skate over these mammoth flaws and defects and actually praise the "KJV" as nearly being sent down on a golden thread from above.
But it is incumbent on us to be objective here, and not look askance merely because some may not like it. Oh, they will howl and screech as they usually do about "radical atheists" this and "militant atheists" that, but let's not mince words: they are just as exercised over fellow believers - like the Roman Catholics- who don't believe as they do. Or, who possess a superior version of the good Book, say in the Revised Standard Version.
While I still have my notes from Loyola and the Biblical Exegesis class I took, they are dense and packed with different translations - from Aramaic, Greek, Latin to the English of the KJV. To expedite this, it makes more sense to call on perhaps the best authority on these issues: Biblical scholar Bart D.Ehrman (‘Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why’, 2005). The beauty of this strategy is that Ehrman's book, unlike my 430pp. of Loyola notes, is easily accessible to any inquring reader, so all my remarks can be verified. (Last I checked the book is available on amazon, including in much less expensive used copy form)
Ehrman correctly notes that first, no stable extant versions of the bible existed before the invention (by Johann Gutenberg) of the printing press. This invention changed the whole game for the production of books, and for the Bible in particular. Before Gutenberg’s press, transcribers produced different copies of the same text by accidental and intentional variations. There was no standard format because obtaining any particular copy was a matter of the luck of the draw. If you were at the right place, and someone had a specific copy you might get one, otherwise you were out of luck. Thus tens of thousands of differing copies with different errors, translations etc. could make the rounds.
With the Gutenberg printing press all that mess became a thing of the past. By enabling the printing of books with moveable type one could finally guarantee every page of every book produced looked the same as every page of every other book- with no variations in wording. Essentially, what was set in print was set in stone.
The first major work to be so printed was Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible which required six full years to produce (1450-1456). In the next 100 years, some fifty editions of the Vulgate were produced by various printing houses in Europe. Not surprisingly, for well over 1,000 years, scholars throughout Europe had come to believe the Vulgate was THE bible of the church. (Somewhat analogous to current evangelicals believing the KJV is the “true Bible” and all others are pretenders or forgeries.)
Meanwhile, as Ehrman points out (p. 76) the Greek Bible was thought of as “foreign in theology and learning”. Not until the intervention of a Spanish cardinal named Ximenes de Cisneros, was the Greek Septuagint New Testament melded with the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Latin Vulgate into one multi-volume edition of the Bible. This edition was also published in a variety of languages. The final edition was ready by 1517, but didn’t actually appear until 1520 since (as a Catholic version) Pope Leo X had to permit it. Distribution finally occurred ca. 1522.
Where does the KJV fit into this picture? It seems that as Ehrman notes (based on his extensive research) the King James is almost entirely based on assorted translators transcribing or translating the wrong text. (op. cit., p. 209). As Ehrman observes (ibid)
“The King James version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’ edition, which was based on a single twelfth century manuscript that is one of the worst that we now have available to us!”
This is also confirmed by other biblical textual scholars, including Geza Vermes (‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’, and James Allegro as well as John Dominic Crossan)
Ehrman goes on to note that it’s little wonder most modern translations (such as The Revised Standard Version) differ from the KJV, since the modern translations are based on the correct Latin Vulgate text translations, not the erroneous hodge podge of Erasmus. Thus, the claim the KJV is “the only divinely inspired work” could only be so if the divinity that did the inspiring couldn’t discern the worst quality of mishmash text from the best.
Well, maybe “he” was blind?
As Prof. Ehrman goes on, ibid:
“The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text. Later translators based their translations on Greek texts that were better…but not perfect”
But beyond this, Ehrman’s key point (much as Oxford scholar Geza Vermes) is that all the differing versions have been changed in ways large and small – including: the New International Version, the Revised standard version, the New King James, the Jerusalem Bible, and the Good News Bible.
All therefore bear some level of defect, and the trick is to find one which has the fewest defects or false translations, or mistranslations.
Clue one: the KJV is not that one!
While Prof. Ehrman points out that all modern translations “continue to transmit what is probably not in the original text (e.g. Mark 1:41, Luke 22: 42-43, and Heb 2:9) the KJV takes the make in possessing the largest majority of these."
In other words, the KJV comes closest to being a total work of fiction with the least interjection of historical elements or reliable biographical material. It’s fine as an elegant English language work, but much like Shakespeare’s ‘As You Like It’ or ‘Romeo & Juliet’ –mainly fantasy stories. Not to be taken as serious, literal works embodying history or fact.
When I studied the bible in my Loyola University Theology class in the mid-60s, I still recall the opening remarks of our Jesuit Professor- Father Hecker:
“Read the King James in your off hours for nice, relaxing entertainment. It’s a great work of literature. But for God’s sakes don’t confuse it with being the word of God. That it surely isn’t”
I heartily concur.
As an atheist who had the good fortune to receive three solid years of scriptural education (if only as a mandated part of the theology requirements for attending Loyola University on scholarship) I was able to see the defects of the "KJV" up close and personally. Most do not become apparent in a simple reading, since the simplistic beauty of the language itself tends to obscure and "wash out" any defects. Or to put it another way: one is so taken with the beauty of the language that one tends to overlook the defects, especially if one isn't searching for them in the first place.
No, the deficiencies don't emerge until one has before him (as we did at Loyola, compliments of Fr. Hecker!) multiple translations of all the antedating source texts plus the KJV passages, to view simultaneously. Then, after barely five classes, the effect is not unlike suffering a case of brain whiplash. You see all the flaws as if a beautiful woman is suddenly exposed as the most grotesque and decrepit, toothless hag full of suppurating pustules. You have to force your eyes to the comparative passages to assimilate what your brain refuses (at first pass) to admit. And then you think, almost vocalizing: HOW the HELL did they get so much WRONG?
Now, it's obvious that a person, say a would-be pastor who fancies himself the "word and authority of God" wouldn't want to go there! No, so he'd elect to choose a place, say to get his education, wherein they'd skate over these mammoth flaws and defects and actually praise the "KJV" as nearly being sent down on a golden thread from above.
But it is incumbent on us to be objective here, and not look askance merely because some may not like it. Oh, they will howl and screech as they usually do about "radical atheists" this and "militant atheists" that, but let's not mince words: they are just as exercised over fellow believers - like the Roman Catholics- who don't believe as they do. Or, who possess a superior version of the good Book, say in the Revised Standard Version.
While I still have my notes from Loyola and the Biblical Exegesis class I took, they are dense and packed with different translations - from Aramaic, Greek, Latin to the English of the KJV. To expedite this, it makes more sense to call on perhaps the best authority on these issues: Biblical scholar Bart D.Ehrman (‘Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why’, 2005). The beauty of this strategy is that Ehrman's book, unlike my 430pp. of Loyola notes, is easily accessible to any inquring reader, so all my remarks can be verified. (Last I checked the book is available on amazon, including in much less expensive used copy form)
Ehrman correctly notes that first, no stable extant versions of the bible existed before the invention (by Johann Gutenberg) of the printing press. This invention changed the whole game for the production of books, and for the Bible in particular. Before Gutenberg’s press, transcribers produced different copies of the same text by accidental and intentional variations. There was no standard format because obtaining any particular copy was a matter of the luck of the draw. If you were at the right place, and someone had a specific copy you might get one, otherwise you were out of luck. Thus tens of thousands of differing copies with different errors, translations etc. could make the rounds.
With the Gutenberg printing press all that mess became a thing of the past. By enabling the printing of books with moveable type one could finally guarantee every page of every book produced looked the same as every page of every other book- with no variations in wording. Essentially, what was set in print was set in stone.
The first major work to be so printed was Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible which required six full years to produce (1450-1456). In the next 100 years, some fifty editions of the Vulgate were produced by various printing houses in Europe. Not surprisingly, for well over 1,000 years, scholars throughout Europe had come to believe the Vulgate was THE bible of the church. (Somewhat analogous to current evangelicals believing the KJV is the “true Bible” and all others are pretenders or forgeries.)
Meanwhile, as Ehrman points out (p. 76) the Greek Bible was thought of as “foreign in theology and learning”. Not until the intervention of a Spanish cardinal named Ximenes de Cisneros, was the Greek Septuagint New Testament melded with the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Latin Vulgate into one multi-volume edition of the Bible. This edition was also published in a variety of languages. The final edition was ready by 1517, but didn’t actually appear until 1520 since (as a Catholic version) Pope Leo X had to permit it. Distribution finally occurred ca. 1522.
Where does the KJV fit into this picture? It seems that as Ehrman notes (based on his extensive research) the King James is almost entirely based on assorted translators transcribing or translating the wrong text. (op. cit., p. 209). As Ehrman observes (ibid)
“The King James version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’ edition, which was based on a single twelfth century manuscript that is one of the worst that we now have available to us!”
This is also confirmed by other biblical textual scholars, including Geza Vermes (‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’, and James Allegro as well as John Dominic Crossan)
Ehrman goes on to note that it’s little wonder most modern translations (such as The Revised Standard Version) differ from the KJV, since the modern translations are based on the correct Latin Vulgate text translations, not the erroneous hodge podge of Erasmus. Thus, the claim the KJV is “the only divinely inspired work” could only be so if the divinity that did the inspiring couldn’t discern the worst quality of mishmash text from the best.
Well, maybe “he” was blind?
As Prof. Ehrman goes on, ibid:
“The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text. Later translators based their translations on Greek texts that were better…but not perfect”
But beyond this, Ehrman’s key point (much as Oxford scholar Geza Vermes) is that all the differing versions have been changed in ways large and small – including: the New International Version, the Revised standard version, the New King James, the Jerusalem Bible, and the Good News Bible.
All therefore bear some level of defect, and the trick is to find one which has the fewest defects or false translations, or mistranslations.
Clue one: the KJV is not that one!
While Prof. Ehrman points out that all modern translations “continue to transmit what is probably not in the original text (e.g. Mark 1:41, Luke 22: 42-43, and Heb 2:9) the KJV takes the make in possessing the largest majority of these."
In other words, the KJV comes closest to being a total work of fiction with the least interjection of historical elements or reliable biographical material. It’s fine as an elegant English language work, but much like Shakespeare’s ‘As You Like It’ or ‘Romeo & Juliet’ –mainly fantasy stories. Not to be taken as serious, literal works embodying history or fact.
When I studied the bible in my Loyola University Theology class in the mid-60s, I still recall the opening remarks of our Jesuit Professor- Father Hecker:
“Read the King James in your off hours for nice, relaxing entertainment. It’s a great work of literature. But for God’s sakes don’t confuse it with being the word of God. That it surely isn’t”
I heartily concur.
No comments:
Post a Comment