When the King James Version of the Bible first appeared in 1611, a
London cleric claimed that it “sounds like yesterday’s newspaper and denies the
divinity and messiahship of Christ.”
Another chaplain accused the translators of pandering to King James’s
interest in witchcraft, and when they sailed for the New World in 1620, the
Pilgrims refused to carry the King James Version with them.
–Leonard Sweet, A Cup of Coffee at the Soul Café, p. 8
The
finished product did not lack for critics. Perhaps none was more forthright in
his condemnation than Dr. Hugh Broughton, a skilled linguist himself who had
been preparing his own revision for 30 years. When the new version appeared he
replied with this colorful critique:
The late Bible was sent to me to
censure which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is
so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild
horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor
churches . . . . The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt
(Nicolson, p. 228).
Since the
translation process is not as exact a science as some would prefer; and because
literally thousands of interpretive decisions go into the making of any
translation or revision of the Bible; it is inevitable there are going to be
sincere disagreements where human judgment plays a part. Still, Broughton's
criticism seems incredibly harsh in light of the fact that he goes on to imply
that the KJV "translators might be damned on the day of judgment for their
work" (Benson Bobrick, Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English
Bible and the Revolution It Inspired, p. 257).
– Stephen Wiggins, “The Making of the King
James Version” http://grandoldbook.com/KJVinthemaking.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment