Thus far I haven't spent much time talking about mistakes in the translation of the King James Bible. I have spent most of the space in this blog, and in the book that inspired it, talking instead about the beautiful aspects of the KJB.
But let's mention one important snafu, however.
It is called by biblical scholars, the Johannine Comma. It refers to the mistranslation of the verse, 1 John 5:7. The KJB reads:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This translation arose because the translators were using a manuscript for 1 John that was unreliable. The mistake first appeared in English in 1522, nearly a century before the KJB, and was perpetuated without much comment into the nineteenth century. Interestingly, Erasmus fixed the mistake in his own translations of the New Testament into Greek and a revised Latin -- but then there was an outcry that he was compromising the doctrine of the Trinity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a different perspective on issues like this. I wouldn't call this a 'snafu'. I would call it a 'decision'. My feeling is that the KJB translators seem to have had before them many editions of previous Bibles. I read, for example, that they sometimes referred to Luther's Bible, which does not contain the passage in question, I understand.
ReplyDeleteFor me the question is, why did they decide to include it? I suspect they had their reasons. We may or may not agree with those reasons, but I think the translators should be given a hearing and not summarily dismissed.
The evidence for any controversial passage is inherently ambiguous and good scholars can come down on either side of these discussions. Even today I know at least one modern translation which includes this passage: the NKJV which footnotes its inclusion with the note explaining why others do not have it. If a modern scholarly edition can include it, then why not the scholars of the KJB?
Although most modern scholars question the inclusion of this passage, it is not universally agreed upon. There are good scholars that support its inclusion. And for that reason I don't consider it a mistake on the part of the translators of the KJB. On the other hand, I don't consider it a mistake when modern editions leave it out.
Best wishes,
Jim