OT: The KJV Bible (was: Help with Greek was Re: Babel Text in
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 22:24|
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
Well, it's hard to say: the KJV is usually presented (including by me)
in a modernized orthography, whereas Tyndale's is not.
> 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.
> It was also deliberately
> literary in style, giving the impression that the scriptures as a whole
> were written in literary Hebrew and Greek - this is far from the case, at
> least in the matter of Greek (my knowledge of Hebrew is, alas, far too
> meager for me to make a similar judgment about the Hebrew scriptures).
I am not a Biblical scholar, and anyone who was would say of
my Hebrew and Greek what Samuel Johnson said (with far less
justification) of Milton's "Tetrachordon" sonnets: that the
first was execrable, and the second "not excellent".
--Northrop Frye, _The Great Code_
John Cowan <jcowan@...> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_