
Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered - everbody
https://www.neh.gov/article/first-draft-king-james-bible
======
dang
All: please avoid religious flamebait and stick to what's intellectually
interesting:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Sorry to nag, but with a topic like this, past performance predicts future
returns.

------
mc32
Obviously it’s interesting to religious people and people who study religion.
But, on top of that it’s an important document of the English language at that
time. So it’s got linguistic interest as well. But that’s the case for many
historic religious texts. One has to do with religion the other is the
linguistic aspect. Of course there are other areas of interest like culture
and so on.

~~~
stOneskull
It also has a lot of timeless wisdom

~~~
DEADBEEFC0FFEE
Such as?

I'm struggling to imaging something recorded in this draft that is useful, and
not already known?

A lot of timeless wisdom is also obvious.

~~~
gwd
> A lot of timeless wisdom is also obvious.

As another commenter said, it seems obvious to you because it's been
incorporated into our culture.

For instance, I lived in Turkey for a few months, and I had a Turkish roommate
who was a devout Muslim. He gave me an English translation of the Qur'an to
read, and I gave him a Turkish translation of the New Testament. He decided he
would come and show me the places where it must have been changed (since Islam
teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but what he says in the New Testament
obviously doesn't match what Mohammad said).

What was the first place he found that was obviously changed? Matthew 5:38-39:
"You have heard it said, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do
not resist an evil person. if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to
them on the other cheek also."

Well, there's a good example for you: Either that seems like good advice, in
which case you certainly got that from your culture; or it doesn't, in which
case it's worth chewing over to get some wisdom out of it. :-)

~~~
ensignavenger
What did he suggest was changed about it?

~~~
gwd
So this is literally 20 years ago now (plus or minus a month) we had this
conversation, and I'm not sure I 100% understood what he thought even then.

What he said was something like that Islam says that when you're attacked, you
should be strong defend yourself; and maybe let the other person know that
you're not weak. So I guess he thought that this contradicted what Allah said
elsewhere (through Mohammed), and therefore couldn't have been said by Jesus
(since Jesus also spoke for Allah); and so must have been added in by someone
later.

(To be clear, trying to repeat _what I remember he said_ , not making any
claims about what Islam does or doesn't teach.)

The thing is, the whole reason Jesus' statement stands out is because it
_does_ contradict our natural ideas about the right way to react. I can
understand someone adding in fake stories about miracles or fake claims to be
divine; but why would you add in fake teaching that's so counter-intuitive --
and on the face of it, so... pathetic?

His question honestly caught me off-guard; I was expecting him to bring up
claims of Jesus' divinity, or his death and resurrection. "Turn the other
cheek" is so firmly established in our culture as one template for "how good
religious people behave" (a la Ned Flanders from the Simpsons) that it
wouldn't have occurred to me that people would consider it "false teaching".

And because I was caught off-guard, I didn't ask him how he thought it came to
be that way in the first place. Probably he hadn't thought that far. :-)

~~~
ensignavenger
Thanks! I can understand where your friend is coming from. I think if you
polled most Christians (a least most that I know) you would find that most of
them believe it is fine to defend oneself or at least take oneself out of
harms way. So even though 'turn the other cheek' is such a common phrase in
our culture and most Christians are well aware of this saying by Jesus, they
don't interpret it literally. Most would say it means to forgive those who do
evil towards you and not take revenge against them. I think the original
saying has some cultural connotation of a strike on the cheek being more of an
insult than a physical attack, but I a not an expert. (Though this article
supports this idea: [http://learntheology.com/turn-the-other-
cheek.html](http://learntheology.com/turn-the-other-cheek.html))

Now, in Muslim culture (I am again not an expert) it may be that they teach a
more strict sense of a right to take revenge/justice on those that do them
harm?

~~~
gwd
> So even though 'turn the other cheek' is such a common phrase in our culture
> and most Christians are well aware of this saying by Jesus, they don't
> interpret it literally.

Jesus often says things hyperbolically to shock people enough to get them to
think outside their boxes. It's a bit like that quote from Suits: “What are
your choices when someone puts a gun to your head? ... You take the gun, or
you pull out a bigger one. Or, you call their bluff. Or, you do any one of a
hundred and forty six other things.”

In certain cultures, if you're insulted or attacked, people feel like they
basically _have_ to respond in kind. But this sets up a cycle of violence:
someone attacks you, you "have" to attack them; but then they "have" to attack
you back, and so on until one of you is more or less destroyed. (Furious 7
probably unintentionally demonstrated this perfectly: _both_ the main hero and
the main villain were revenging attacks done by the other on their own
family.)

Saying "Turn the other cheek" is basically along the same lines as the gun
quote: "What are your choices when someone smacks you in the face? ... How
about this: You turn the other cheek. Or you ignore it and move on. Or, you do
any one of a hundred and forty six other things. You don't _have_ to respond
in violence."

------
kozak
Could someone please explain to a non-English speaker why is it considered
correct (in non-religious context, as many of the commenters here do) to write
"the bible" instead of "the Bible" and "new testament" instead of "New
Testament"? Aren't they proper names of the books? We don't say "the art of
computer programming" instead of "The Art of Computer Programming" when we
reference Donald Knuth's book, do we? Looks like there is some English
language rule that I don't understand.

~~~
ithkuil
English also has a specific convention for spelling titles:
[https://www.grammar-
monster.com/lessons/capital_letters_titl...](https://www.grammar-
monster.com/lessons/capital_letters_title_case.htm)

~~~
hu3
That link says the correct form is The Bible:

> Titles should be written in title case. This means only using capital
> letters for the principal words. Articles, conjunctions, and prepositions do
> not get capital letters unless they start the title. For example:

> The Last of the Mohicans

~~~
ithkuil
But the article is not necessarily part of the title.

E.g.

> Bible scholar N.T. Wright says ...

source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

------
gerbilly
Does anyone know whether or not the language of the king James bible was
typical of early 17th century English?

I heard that the translators use archaic expressions no longer commonly used
in 1604 for stylistic reasons.

~~~
chrismorgan
Compare it with Tyndale’s translation from about eighty years earlier
(normalising the spelling of both), and, where they vary, Tyndale’s is
normally the easier to read and understand. Tyndale intended that the
ploughboy could understand the Scripture, while the KJV was “appointed to be
read in Churches”.

(Most of the time they do not differ substantially, as the KJV drew most
heavily from Tyndale’s translation.)

See also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Style_and_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Style_and_criticism).

~~~
nemosaltat
IIRC Tyndale was burned at the stake for his efforts.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You can understand why, the meaning of the NT goes pretty hard against
established religion as it cuts priests out of the loop entirely. It also has
a very strong, communist/shared wealth message.

If you're rich or powerful and don't believe it would be anathema. Letting
just anyone read that ...

~~~
whatshisface
There's also a whole lot of "give unto Cesar what is Cesar's," and some "come
on guys, don't start the Jewish-Roman wars, they're going to be a bad idea." I
don't see why rich people should be bothered by that.

~~~
chrismorgan
However, for contrast, consider also John 11:47–53; the leaders both political
(chief priests) and religious (Pharisees) were considering Jesus and his
teachings to threaten the relatively stable situation they had with the
Romans—that was a key reason they claimed in why they sought his death.

------
Crontab
This may be off-topic but is there any consensus on what is the most accurate
translation of the bible into English?

~~~
gumby
Not only is there to such consensus, but there is an important (important
beyond religious issues) lack of consensus of what is the most accurate text
to be translated.

Modern societies weren't the first to find absurdities and contradictions in
holy texts. Early scholars decided to search for the "actual" underlying
meaning. For if the gods are infallible, and failures in the text must be
human failures trying to translate their gods' word into lowly human
expression. In christianity this "hermeneutic" scholarship laid the groundwork
for modern linguistics, hermeneutics and semiotics.[1]

As for translations: I was surprised to learn that the biblical supposed
prohibition on homosexuality dates in the English bible as far back as...1946.
[2]. Which makes some sense; until at least Pope Urban, the Catholic Church
was happy to perform both mixed sex and same sex marriages [3]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hermeneutics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hermeneutics)

[2] [https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-bible-does-
not-...](https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-
homosexuality-seriously-it-doesn-t-13ae949d6619)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-
sex_unions#Pol...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-
sex_unions#Policy_of_the_early_Christian_Church_and_Middle_Ages)

~~~
goto11
Just to be clear, the oldest texts unambiguously condemns male-on-male sex
under penalty of death:

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of
them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads."

(NIV translation
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A...](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=NIV))

The translation just doesn't use the specific word "homosexuality" which would
be misleading and anachronistic anyway. The modern idea about homosexuality is
about being attracted to persons of the same sex. Leviticus doesn't concern
itself about any of that, it condemns the specific act of two men having sex.

You can argue that the Bible doesn't condemn sex between women though.

~~~
gumby
Interesting that you chose a modern translation (1973). I just randomly
scrolled to another (the orthodox jewish bible) and it says no such thing: "If
an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..." So I don't think you
can say "just to be clear"

I am neither gay nor part of any religion so I don't have a dog in this fight.
But I am interested in hermeneutic philosophy, translation, and, separately,
the nature of disagreement.

~~~
goto11
> "If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha..."

What does that mean then?

------
amerine
Do religious groups in the US, specifically, Christians, talk about the
history of the King James Bible? Why is it, uh, trusted by so many, when stuff
like this hints at a storied construction?

~~~
anon1m0us
I grew up in a religious family and community and I asked the same question!
There was a debate among people about which version to use and anything but
the King James version was wrong.

Why?

Because of Revelation 22:18,19

18\. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book:

19\. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

So my first question was: The King James version is a translation, so it had
to be changed at some point. No translations are perfect!

Their responses to the question ranged from: King James didn't experience
those plagues, he must have translated it correctly, ... to the King James
version is the first one translated into English and since The Living Bible or
another version is different, then King James must be right as the change
happened between the time of the King James and the subsequent translations.

~~~
dbtx
I believe that taking the warning to mean the entire modern collection called
the Holy Bible, and not strictly the book of Revelation, is up to you. It does
say 'book of prophecy' which clearly narrows it down, but it's all you.

I believe that teaching this interpretation to others (that it means our
entire Bible, which didn't yet exist in one book when that was written) also
constitutes adding to or removing from the things in Revelation, violating the
same warning.

~~~
dbtx
I was remembering Ed Decker explaining that Joseph Smith arbitrarily edited
bits all over the Bible. He was explaining this as a problem in the context of
that warning from Revelation, when a Mormon pointed out that it was strictly
about the book of Revelation, so Ed simply rolled out a list of edits that
were made _to Revelation._

I didn't piece it together at the time (yesterday). I think I was responding
to the supposed case where "someone" thinks it means that, or not, but parent
didn't actually say that so it doesn't really matter. I think I strawmanned a
thing for no real raisin and I think it's because I'm violating my own
warning: someone else's stupidity is a profoundly stupid thing to concentrate
on / obsess over. And IRL I'm surrounded. But that's never an excuse... that I
consciously & voluntarily got myself into this situation is already a bad
sign.

------
russellbeattie
The King James version is the best version: It has unicorns.

[https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicor...](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV)

~~~
overcast
"an unicorns"

------
xamuel
It's a pity so few people realize that beside all the usual stuff (love or
hate it) that society associates with the Bible, the Gospels contain
discourses of Jesus which are genuinely brilliant purely in their own right as
philosophical works.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love
to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that
they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
(Matthew 6:5)

~~~
Nition
Over in the Old Testament, Ecclesiastes has a strong Greek philosophy feel to
it. It's quite different from the books around it.

~~~
pram
Ecclesiastes is one of the finest works of existential literature ever.

------
wiz21c
The paper still holds the text after a 400 years. That's some kicking MTBF.

------
debbiedowner
Interesting comment that there is evidence for the translators working
independently.

A curious fact is that in 1610 Shakespeare was 46, and in Psalm 46 you will
find 46th word from the beginning put together with the 46th word from the end
is Shake spear. (Start counting at line 1 excluding the directions and Selah)

~~~
jb_s
that's cool but 1610 doesn't link up to the other numerology, so the first
statement is equivalent to "shakespeare was 46 at one point"

~~~
imustbeevil
> when Ward was still just a young man, he was tapped to be one of the
> translators of the King James Bible, published in 1611.

I would imagine this meant the translation occurred sometime around then.

------
sdegutis
The Douay-Rheims is actually a decade or two older and the first English
translation, if memory serves.

~~~
maxlybbert
Douay-Rheims is a translation from Latin to English. King James is a
translation from Hebrew and Greek to English.

But neither translation was the first of their kind. The Wycliffe Bible was
translated from Latin in the late 1300s. Likewise, Tyndale started publishing
a translation from Hebrew and Greek in 1494.

The article is about the discovery about a piece of paper from one of the King
James translators. So it’s the earliest handwritten manuscript from the King
James translation effort.

------
blotter_paper
I'm ignorant enough to have only read the first five books (Genesis through
Deuteronomy), Ecclesiastes, and a scattering of quotes from other books of the
bible. I started reading that piece of the old testament after going through
some translated Sumerian/Babylonian works and commentary about the relation of
the old testament to other pan-Mesopotamian theology, and I feel like it's
pretty interesting from that perspective. Yahweh is clearly Enki/Ea with some
aspects of Marduk sprinkled in. The flood stories are funny, because in When
The Gods Instead Of Man we have a story about a bunch of gods deciding to kill
all humans and one god (Ea) deciding to warn the flood hero (Atrahasis) about
the flood; when all the other humans die and Atrahasis is the only one
sacrificing food to the gods, the other gods realise their mistake and are
thankful. In the old testament version they have to tell the same story with
only one god, so the same god who wants to kill everybody also wants to save a
specific person/family due to their righteousness, rather than as an act of
desperation in the face of other gods' foolish plans. That whole sacrificing-
food-by-burning-it thing carries over into the old testament too, with god
consuming offerings in the tabernacle via flames. It also struck me how human
the Sumerian/Babylonian gods were. Before creating humans they had to grow
their own food, one of the gods was in charge of controlling a canal. Like,
that's some mundane shit. Then you have the old testament being super unsure
of how to portray god. Sometimes he seems abstract, he'll appear as a burning
bush if he feels like it, sometimes he seems to consume people/offerings in
flames, and a couple of times (Moses looking at his back, Jacob wrestling with
him) he appears downright human. The book Who Wrote The Bible? has an
interesting take on the first five books of the old testament (the "Torah of
Moses") being written by at least five separate people/groups and compiled by
Ezra the lawgiver. I know that some people think Ezra is entirely mythical,
and there are other objections to some details of that book, but I still think
it's an interesting take. It claims that the early books often repeat
themselves because they're a blending of two earlier narratives meant to unify
the people of Israel after a north/south divide. Since one group said that
Noah sent out a dove, and one group said a raven, he just does both. There are
a lot more examples of things that look like two versions of the same story
spliced together. I place no religious significance in the texts, and I
haven't cared enough to read more (though I might read through
Jeremiah/Baruch's works at some point), but I think it's a fascinating work
just due to the age. Ecclesiastes is legitimagely beautiful, and while I
wouldn't say it's unparalleled for it's time (props to Lao Tzu) I think it's
one of the few works of that era I've been exposed to which I found that
beautiful.

~~~
dddddaviddddd
Comparison with other contemporary religious practices is a much neglected
aspect of lay Bible study. For many people the Old Testament is the only
ancient Middle Eastern text they'll ever read.

------
pcunite
The Bible is amazing.

------
diogenescynic
I bet Hobby Lobby hires someone to steal this.

