The Oldest Known Bible Translated into English

[Arthur81]

For years I've heard and read references to the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they helped with modern translations. Recently I found there is a Dead Sea Bible in English. Three scholars put together much of the OT, that which they have scrolls for, and organized it into a readable Bible. It follows rather closely our standard Bibles of today. The texts show where the scrolls are damaged and parts missing, the notes let you understand where the texts come from, and various matters of interest. It is called The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible and it is in paperback on Amazon for less than $20. I'm finding it to be an excellent support for the accuracy of the Bibles we've used for years. Just recently I was reviewing the scholarship of the KJV and found the following:

"Not since the Septuagint—the Greek-language version of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) produced between the 3rd and the 2nd centuries BCE—had a translation of the Bible been undertaken under royal sponsorship as a cooperative venture on so grandiose a scale. An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character." King James Version (KJV) | Bible, History, & Background

"The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJB Translators. (Bible – The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 Oxford, Gordon Campbell, Oxford University Press 2010.)" King James Bible Translators

Read biographies of the KJV translators -

King James Bible Translators

kingjamesbibletranslators.org

"The 1611 KJV contained thousands of marginal notes. And this despite the King’s order against ideologically motivated marginal notes (since he hated the ones in the Geneva that questioned the authority of the monarchy)." The Five Types Of Marginal Notes In The King James Bible

When I see modern translations, I do see so much translation done by preconceived theology, translated to fit. In Bible study, we do indeed need to understand the biases in our translations. I'm not KJV only, but I'm gaining a higher level of respect for the scholarship of the KJV.

 

[BlessedPeace]

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible : Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

1999 Harperlibrary id removed dd0001.jpg, dd0003.jpg, dd0681.jpg

archive.org

These are some good links for all things Dead Sea scrolls.

The “Original” Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Ancient translations of the original Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: the Scrolls show differences from the oldest Bible text we have.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Library System: Old Testament Texts: Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew/English

This LibGuide contains various texts of the Old Testament that can be found in our library and electronically.

library.gordonconwell.edu

 

[SavedInHim]

For years I've heard and read references to the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they helped with modern translations. Recently I found there is a Dead Sea Bible in English. Three scholars put together much of the OT, that which they have scrolls for, and organized it into a readable Bible. It follows rather closely our standard Bibles of today. The texts show where the scrolls are damaged and parts missing, the notes let you understand where the texts come from, and various matters of interest. It is called The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible and it is in paperback on Amazon for less than $20. I'm finding it to be an excellent support for the accuracy of the Bibles we've used for years. Just recently I was reviewing the scholarship of the KJV and found the following:

"Not since the Septuagint—the Greek-language version of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) produced between the 3rd and the 2nd centuries BCE—had a translation of the Bible been undertaken under royal sponsorship as a cooperative venture on so grandiose a scale. An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character." King James Version (KJV) | Bible, History, & Background

"The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJB Translators. (Bible – The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 Oxford, Gordon Campbell, Oxford University Press 2010.)" King James Bible Translators

Read biographies of the KJV translators -

King James Bible Translators

kingjamesbibletranslators.org

"The 1611 KJV contained thousands of marginal notes. And this despite the King’s order against ideologically motivated marginal notes (since he hated the ones in the Geneva that questioned the authority of the monarchy)." The Five Types Of Marginal Notes In The King James Bible

When I see modern translations, I do see so much translation done by preconceived theology, translated to fit. In Bible study, we do indeed need to understand the biases in our translations. I'm not KJV only, but I'm gaining a higher level of respect for the scholarship of the KJV.

I'm not KJV only either, but to me it seems more solid than modern versions. At least it was a good translation for its day. The language is pretty outdated, that's why I prefer the NKJV or the Majority Text.

The critical text that underlies the modern versions goes by another name, the "eclectic text." It gets this name because it was cobbled together by scholars based on what they think any given verse should read. Oftentimes a verse in say, the NIV for example, finds no exact match in any known manuscript; it's been been pieced together by scholars. If that doesn't make a person stop and wonder what's going on I don't know what will.

 

[Arthur81]

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible : Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

1999 Harperlibrary id removed dd0001.jpg, dd0003.jpg, dd0681.jpg

archive.org

These are some good links for all things Dead Sea scrolls.

The “Original” Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Ancient translations of the original Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: the Scrolls show differences from the oldest Bible text we have.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Library System: Old Testament Texts: Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew/English

This LibGuide contains various texts of the Old Testament that can be found in our library and electronically.

library.gordonconwell.edu

Yes, those are excellent links. I find the Archive web site very helpful with old out of print books as well.

 

[Arthur81]

I'm not KJV only either, but to me it seems more solid than modern versions. At least it was a good translation for its day. The language is pretty outdated, that's why I prefer the NKJV or the Majority Text.

The critical text that underlies the modern versions goes by another name, the "eclectic text." It gets this name because it was cobbled together by scholars based on what they think any given verse should read. Oftentimes a verse in say, the NIV for example, finds no exact match in any known manuscript; it's been been pieced together by scholars. If that doesn't make a person stop and wonder what's going on I don't know what will.

I agree on the KJV and I use the 1828 Webster's to understand some wordings. One thing I found of interest lately is where the KJV went to a Dynamic Equivalence approach on arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 and the wording if followed in the RV and ASV, which when you study the KJV words in the Webster's, you see it comes out as the literal word for word in the YLT, "sodomites". The nice thing, when you study the words used in the KJV, by using the 1828 Webster's you get a full idea what they understood as a "sodomite". Then the KJV for malakos in 1 Cor. 6:9 uses "effeminate", which as far as I can study, is the best translation, similar to "voluptuous ones" or the "self-indulgent".
I too use modern translations though I stay more with the mainline, NCC translations, or the two from the UK. The New English Bible and the Revised English Bible are not revisions of the earlier KJV line; but completely new translations, using Dynamic Equivalence and I find them refreshing to refer to as well.

I am even wondering about 1 John 5:7 and the reasons the KJV translators included it without a marginal note. Those scholars new about the question of the verse, so I wonder what their reasoning was? Some commentaries get into discussions on it that consider it in the original. The Baptist John Gill in his Commentary lays out his reasoning, and the Methodist Joseph Benson likewise accepts the KJV inclusion of the verse.

I'm eagerly awaiting the new Study Bible by the Society of Biblical Literature with the NRSVue that is available the 21st of this month. In the past I've considered the NCC Bibles too liberal, but in recent years I've come to appreciate them as I continue my studies in the men of God out of the past, who used the KJV.