Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: The KJV Bible (was: Help with Greek was Re: Babel Text in

From:Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Saturday, March 16, 2002, 15:42
At 5:23 pm -0500 13/3/02, John Cowan wrote:
>Raymond Brown scripsit: > >> I am told that the KJV does not differ greatly from the Tyndale >> translations (New Testament 1525 -revised 1534 & 1535; Pentateuch 1530; the >> Book of Jonah, 1531; 'Epistles of the Old Testament', 1534), which >> essentially fixed the language of all subsequent English until the 20th >> cent. > >Well, it's hard to say: the KJV is usually presented (including by me) >in a modernized orthography, whereas Tyndale's is not.
True - indeed, it's probably impossible to find a modern edition of the KJV in the original spelling. While the KJV, the Douai-Rheims and those portions of the Great Bible that are excerpted in the Anglican 'Book of Common Prayer' have for the last couple of centuries been published in the post-Johnsonian spelling, the other versions have not. If we were to read them in their original spelling, the differences would be less great.
>> But my thesis is that the KJV was not an attempt to give a translation of >> the Greek & Hebrew scriptures in contemporary English of the early 17th >> century, but was rather a revision of editions whose language & style had >> already been set in the early 16th century. > >We violently agree, then.
And not for the first time :) Ray. ========================================= A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language. [J.G. Hamann 1760] =========================================