Reina-Valera Translation
The classic Spanish translation of the Bible is that of Casiodoro de Reina, revised by Cipriano de Valera. It was for the use of the incipient Protestant movement and is widely regarded as the Spanish equivalent of the King James Version.
The first whole Bible in Spanish was printed in Basel in 1569, authored by Casiodoro de Reina, although some think that this Bible was a collective effort of some monks of the San Isidoro community in Spain, who, led by Casiodoro de Reyna, escaped Inquisition and persecution. This was the first version of the complete Bible in Spanish (including Apocrypha), and is known as "Biblia del Oso" because of the honey-eating bear on its title page. Reina presented the University of Basel with some volumes, one of them with Reina's dedicatory and signature.
For the Old Testament, the work was possibly based on the Ferrara Bible (printed 1553), with comparisons to the Masoretic Text and the Vetus Latina. The New Testament probably derives from the Textus Receptus of Erasmus with comparisons to the Vetus Latina and Syriac manuscripts. It is possible that Reina also used the New Testament versions that had been translated first by Francisco de Enzinas (printed in Antwerp 1543) and by Juan Pérez de Pineda (published in Geneva 1556, followed by the Psalms 1562). After the publication of the whole Bible by Reina, there was a version from Cipriano de Valera (printed in London 1596) which became part of the first Reina-Valera print (Amsterdam 1602).
This edition of the Reina-Valera Bible has been revised in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century (1862, 1865, 1909, 1960, 1995, 2004, 2009, 2012). The discussion on these revisions especially concerning the 1960 version resulted in the "Monterrey Revision Project", as well as others, aiming at a revision of the original version of 1602 according to the Textus Receptus.
Read more about this topic: Bible Translations Into Spanish
Famous quotes containing the word translation:
“Whilst Marx turned the Hegelian dialectic outwards, making it an instrument with which he could interpret the facts of history and so arrive at an objective science which insists on the translation of theory into action, Kierkegaard, on the other hand, turned the same instruments inwards, for the examination of his own soul or psychology, arriving at a subjective philosophy which involved him in the deepest pessimism and despair of action.”
—Sir Herbert Read (1893–1968)