Clinton Moreland-Stringham wrote:
> That may have been their intention, but it certainly wasn't
> anything near what they actually did! The King James Version is plagued
> with retranslations that corresponded to James' preferences...
It would be more precise to say that the KJV is an extensive revision
of earlier English translations with reference to the original
Hebrew and Greek.
Can you cite any of these supposed Jacobite interventions?
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)