Thread: Kerygmania: Why the King James Bible? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001282
Posted by Lolly O'Hara (# 16777) on
:
Today my pastor told me that my Bible was not as good as the one that King James translated and that I should get a King James bible as it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
When I was a child and a roman catholic I read the good news bible and when I accepted Jesus into my heart I was given a english standard version after I was baptised by full immersion.
I dont really want to get rid of my esv unless it is doctrinally faulty.
[ 02. July 2015, 23:39: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
The ESV is a fine translation and incorporates 400 years' worth of scholarship since the KJV. There are some folks who insist that the KJV is the only "real" translation, but there is virtually no objective justification for this affectation that I can see.
--Tom Clune
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
does it burn you when you lift it?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
KJV was produced in a very particular political climate. It had to be a good translation because there already was a good translation out there (the Geneva) that it was designed to beat. The problem with the Geneva was that it had foot notes which diminished the kings position. It therefore also has a political bias in its translation.
So no it never has been accepted by all Protestant churches, as someone raised in English Dissent I come from a tradition that always handled it with caution.
Jengie
[ 27. November 2011, 18:32: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Get a new pastor (or a new church).
And, anyway, the KJV was translated by a committee (a very learned committee, of course) and not by King James VI/I.
Personally (and YMMV) I can't stand the KJV. We use it at Matins (weekly) and Evensong (monthly) and I just hate the outdated language........however beautiful others may find it.
Ian J.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I'm with Bishopsfinger, the language is so out of date I find it hard to follow.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
And it was authorized for use by the Church of England (since the powers-that-be asumed there would be no other churches worthy of the name) ISTM that things have changed a bit since then.
They are even talking of allowing RCs to be in the Line Of Succession to the throne. What heresy will be next? (Not that the use of the KJV has much to do with it at this time.)
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I on the other hand really like it. I used to be a Bible memorizer, and I find the AV more memorable, and still know swathes of it by heart.
However, I think it is now more commonly used by those who view it as an art object, or a book of myths. I.e. the less you believe it to be as true as todays newspaper (Daily Mail for instance ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
) the more the archiaic language suits. If you get any quote from the Bible by St Stephen Fry, it'll always be the AV. Shouldn't that be enough to put of the fundies!
Also a few people prefer it, or other older translations because you don't get so much of the PC agenda, like gender-neutral words.
Then people like to believe in an authoritative text. Which is bollocks of course, but you can pretend it isn't if you read the KJV, 'cause you don't get all those footnotes saying "other texts add: Father forgive them for they know not what they do" and the like. And you can believe in the long ending of Mark.
It is otherwise a bit odd of God to spend so much time inspiring every word and then losing the autographs. Still I've done similar so maybe I shouldn't complain!
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
As I said in Ecclesiantics, the 1611 KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul and it ought to be good enough for you. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
The King James Version has its benefits. It is written in flowery early Modern English prose and its turns of phrase have contributed enormously to the English language. If your chief goal to is add a sense of majesty and inscrutability to a biblical text, KJV's your man.
But the kind of people that insist that the 1611 KJV is THE ONLY acceptable translation of the Bible have an agenda, and are suspicious of any more modern biblical translation, because these translations came out around the same time that we started letting the queers hold hands in public or treating Africans as more than chattels or allowing women to speak or the time we stopped burning heretics and magicians.
For certain fundamentalist Protestants, the 17th century was the golden age of the true Church, and any innovation in the intervening years is causally related to the liberal, egalitarian, godless wastes in which we now sojourn.
Be suspicious of anyone who tells you KJV or the highway. They either don't want you to be able to think too hard about the Bible or want a version of a Bible that represents the old social order.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And it was authorized for use by the Church of England (since the powers-that-be asumed there would be no other churches worthy of the name) ISTM that things have changed a bit since then.
Actually it wasn't. It was authorised also for the CofS which was not Anglican but Presbyterian.
Whether the Scots paid any attention is a mute point, but it was clearly intended that they should i.e. the Geneva was popular in Scotland at the time.
Jengie
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
There are parts of the world where there are people who say 'King James Only" but as far as I know, it's rather a rare foible in the UK. If anything, there are probably more people around who are AV because they claim they prefer the grandeur and majesty of the C17 language, and can feel superior to those of us who usually these days read their bible in modern English, than there are theological eccentrics who claim it is the one true translation, the touchstone of spurious orthodoxy.
The AV is a good translation. It's accurate. But its New Testament is based on more recent manuscripts than some that have been discovered since. It is in a language which is sufficiently far from modern usage often to conceal its meaning from modern readers. Also, its quaintness means it is easier for us to leave the message locked up in a holy' enclave where we don't have to do anything about it.
Much though I am, of course, reluctant to come between a pastor and a member of his or her flock, I'd also be reluctant to recommend that you surrender your own judgement on this issue to him or her.
There are a lot of translations these days, probably too many. There are hardly any I'd want to dissuade a person from using.
As tclune says, the ESV is a fine translation. I'd say, if you like it, stick with it.
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on
:
Any modern translation, as long as it was produced by a committee, should be OK for general reading.
The KJV follows the Hebrew and Greek a bit more closely than the modern translations, but it uses lots of words whose meaning has changed in 400 years. Furthermore, modern translators have access to better original language sources.
If you're really serious about Bible study, you can get a computer program that will put the Hebrew or Greek in one column, and multiple English translations in other columns. Where they agree, all is well. When they differ, you can learn from commentaries and academic papers.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
Today my pastor told me that my Bible was not as good as the one that King James translated and that I should get a King James bible as it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
When I was a child and a roman catholic I read the good news bible and when I accepted Jesus into my heart I was given a english standard version after I was baptised by full immersion.
I dont really want to get rid of my esv unless it is doctrinally faulty.
Tell the silly man (oops, your pastor) that he needs to go take another course somewhere. King James did NOT translate the AV. They had a set of scholars to do that, being sensible people. And it was NOT authorized by all the churches--it was a purely Brit thing done AFAIR to resolve the fact that there were several translations running around at the time, and they wanted a set one to use in all the English churches instead of the miscellany they had previously. You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
I really don't get these KJV (really AV) only people. Do they not understand that the originals were in Hebrew and Greek (and a little Aramaic)? Which means a need for translation and the best scholarship you can scare up when it comes to choosing which manuscript sources are the best. In 400+ years, a lot of new manuscripts have come to light. If we could raise them from the dead, the KJV scholars would be first in line grabbing at the newly discovered stuff to improve on their work. They knew better than to think that any translation is "best" forever. Unless someone turns up the autograph copies of all Bible books hidden in a closet somewhere...
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, calming down a bit. Sorry--brought back bad memories of abuse by a KJV-only person. Never mind.
Anyway, to the point. The ESV is fine. As others have said, basically any real translation (not the so-called "New World Translation" then) will do you just fine. If you don't have the original languages, get yourself a big thumping Bible with four versions in parallel columns, so you can see how four different sets of scholars handled a passage. Even without Greek and Hebrew, you can get a really good sense of what the original must have been like.
One of my original reasons for studying Greek and Hebrew in school was paranoia. I worried that perhaps "someone" (anyone, whatever) was trying to pull a fast one on me, and perhaps the originals of God's Word said something quite different. I quickly found out that wasn't so. The people who do this work tend to be humble, painstaking, and dreadfully conscientious (as they should be!), and they agonize over getting it right to the best of human ability. Nobody who reads English has any reason to complain about a lack of good translations. We have them coming out our ears. I only wish it were so for a lot of African and Asian languages, some of which have nothing, or only a couple of books...
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
The Authorised Version is rightly regarded as a fine example of 16th/17th English prose, composed perhaps in a self-consciously archaizing register. Many of its most memorable phrases are, however, lifted from the earlier version of William Tyndale, whose rendering, if less polished, can be, one might argue, more immediate.
I know no Hebrew, so I cannot compare the OT with the text from which it has been translated, but as a sometime classicist I can cope with the Greek original. The stylistic quality of NT Greek varies from one author to another; Luke writes fairly respectable koine, but none of the Greek is of any particular literary merit, compared with the major classical authors. Some is no more than rough and ready.
Leaving aside questions of accuracy of translation: in the case of the NT at least, is a collection of singularly elegant pieces of English prose a faithful reflection of something that was written with no such literary aspiration? I do wonder.
[ 27. November 2011, 20:33: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English?
Well if the French Catholics (drc) can... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Probably bad history showing)
one argument I've seen is that god kept us the Greek texts of the kjv and wouldn't have left 1st mil Christians in error...so using the other texts will only make things worse. (Vaguely similar to papal infallibility i guess)
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
Hi Lolly.
In some circles, the "King James" or Authorized Version is thought to be superior because it it is based on the "Received Text." This is an edited version of the Greek and Hebrew Bible. It was based on the earliest and most accurate manuscript copies of the Bible known to scholars in the 16th century.
In the 19th century, very early manuscripts were discovered that differed from the "Received Text" in crucial ways. For example, scholars learned that the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai Desert had a copy of the Greek Bible (with some other books included) made between AD 325 and AD 360. This came to be known as the Codex Sinaiticus.
A number of important passages in the Received Text (and the AV) are omitted from the Codex Sinaiticus: Mark 16: 9-20, the so-called "Long Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, for example, or the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).
Now scholars already knew that the "Long Ending" of Mark and the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery were not to be found in the earliest copy of the Bible available in the 16th century, the "Codex Vaticanus." But, because both had appeared in many other manuscripts, they had been included in the Received Text. Their inclusion was challenged when it was found that the Codex Sinaticus did not include them either.
The "King James Only" movement is surveyed here.
To be honest, I think objections to translations of the Bible not based on the Received Text are by and large objections to the methods and presuppositions of 19th century textual scholarship. (When they are not simply based on the familiarity of the AV, that is.)
Most of the Codex Sinaiticus is now in the British Library, and there's a story there....
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I have been told that Christianity would be a much stronger religion if we insisted that every Christian should learn to read the New Testament in Greek. I suspect that this would be stronger mostly in the Gideon's-army sense, though.
The obvious position for a scholar is that no translation is as reliable as the original text in the original languages. Most of us are not scholars of such languages and must trust those who are. I think that dogmatic assertions that one translation is incontestably better than another tend to weaken the Christian community.
Having said all that: I have no problem with the language of the KJV--much of which is indeed beautiful and has enriched the English language-- but it is not the version I read under normal circumstances.
Are there similar controversies about the preferred translations into French, German, etc.?
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on
:
One thing that puzzled me about "KJV only" people - as most people do not have English as a first language, what are they supposed to read? The original Hebrew and Greek, a translation in their own language of KJV as the authorised word of God, or a translation in their own language of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
If the latter, then why should KJV be the only translation in English - is English the only language in which new translations are not allowed?
But then, of course, the KJV only "debate" is not about logic or truth, and I can only wish Lolly O'Hara well in her spiritual journey. BTW, the ESV is a fine translation, as are most modern translations - none are perfect, but most are good, though (like others have said above) steer clear of the New World Translation (and the Life Application Bible) which is woeful.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You might also want to tell your pastor that there were non-Latin translations of the scriptures before the Reformation and that the monks in the Venerable Bede's time used to have Anglo-Saxon translations of the Psalms as well as Latin ones.
It's a myth that the RC Church proscribed all translations except the Latin Vulgate. They weren't against the principle of versions in the vernacular, they had particular issues with some of the English translations such as those by Wycliffe and Tyndale because, rightly or wrongly, they thought they were faulty.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Doctrinally unsound? The New World Translation produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses is a translation that is doctrinally unsound. That thing also has the delightful property of lighting itself on fire.
The ESV is in the Tyndale translation family, the King James Version is a earlier member of this family. The ESV was produced by a good committee of scholars (as the KJV, noted above) and as also noted had the benefit of four centuries of research. Put bluntly we have had 400 years to actually dig up earlier biblical scrolls and editions as well as learn more about the communities that used the biblical scrolls in question.
The ESV is an accurate, modern translation meant for general use by most churches and it is generally and widely accepted.
I think your pastor is riding a hobby-horse.
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on
:
Tangent Alert:
Re-reading, my previous post is ambiguous in its side-swipe at some versions of the Bible. The New World Translation is the JW translation, and is notoriously in error. The New Living Translation (and Life Application Bible based on it) is in my opinion a poorer translation, but clearly not of the same ilk as the NWT. My apologies for mixing the two translations together.
End Apology and Tangent
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English?
I was responding to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
Today my pastor told me ... it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin.
The pastor in question apparently has a shortsighted view of the worldwide extent of the Church. Besides some faulty ideas about history, but let's not nitpick (more) here.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Lolly, as someone whose German ancestors believed that the Luther Bible was "the" authoritative Bible translation, and who were highly suspicious of the KJV translation when they came to the US (my grandmother insisted on reading the lessons from her own Luther Bible)...I'd like to ask your pastor what Bible translation(s) he feels is/are authoritative for the millions of Christians for whom English is not a first language and/or whose translations of choice predate the KJV. Are/were these people not Real Christians[tm]?
My opinion of the KJV: I love the sound of it, and there are certain times of year (Christmas Eve and Passion Week) when I just want to hear the KJV read aloud. My advice to you is to find a translation that you find easy to understand, and with any luck in a study-Bible version with lots of helps, and use that in your personal study; save the KJV for your church, if you still think that your pastor is someone whose professional gravitas you trust.
Sidebar: You mention "accepting Jesus into your heart." I would not be the cranky Lutheran curmudgeon that I am if I did not gently point out that Jesus accepted you into his heart long, long ago. Saving faith is a gift of God. Just sayin'.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
The Best Translation for anyone is the one s/he will actually read -- frequently -- and study, and actually understand without having some preacher/teacher/high hair display head explain it first.
And, oh squeal oh joy whatta miracle, the Best Translation for anyone is the one s/he will (*gasp*) live by.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Are there similar controversies about the preferred translations into French, German, etc.?
In my very limited experience, some Germans view Luther's translation as infallible, but I think it was a modern, updated version of Luther that they were using. (I am not sure exactly how that worked as, IIRC, Luther translated the Vulgate.)
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
{PS: I have never no never not once ever met a KJV-Only proponent who actually used The Original King James. You know, the actual first-published edition?
When any KJV-Only person I've met has allowed me to look at their Bible -- it ain't the original. All the "pisseth" has been wiped up.}
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
Today my pastor told me that my Bible was not as good as the one that King James translated and that I should get a King James bible as it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
When I was a child and a roman catholic I read the good news bible and when I accepted Jesus into my heart I was given a english standard version after I was baptised by full immersion.
I dont really want to get rid of my esv unless it is doctrinally faulty.
With respect to your psdtor, he is wrong.
On several counts 1- it was translated froim fewer Hebre & Greek texts than current treanslators have 2- It s authority was only in England 3 Its English is Shakespearn so way out of common understanding in this century
one its raeson fopr being was to be scripture in the common language . So using that as a kick off point take a look at the NEB, NRSV, NIV anyt6hing that is written in English one can understand without doing mental gymnastics. And good reading is ahead. Oh I used to be a church librarian so this not a new subjecy. blessings ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Get a new pastor (or a new church).
And, anyway, the KJV was translated by a committee (a very learned committee, of course) and not by King James VI/I.
Personally (and YMMV) I can't stand the KJV. We use it at Matins (weekly) and Evensong (monthly) and I just hate the outdated language........however beautiful others may find it.
Ian J.
I also hate the KJV but on the other hand, our pastor and church uses The Message which is a little on the opposite spectrum. It tries too hard to be "with it" and makes me cringe sometimes.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I had a member of the Gideons in my Sunday School class. He was of the opinion that the KJV/AV was the only true bible. The basis for this was that God had decreed it had to be the correct translation because God would not have let it hang around so long if it wasn't.
I asked him if that meant the Vulgate was even more accurate.
I actually like the KJV for things like the psalms. The language is, at times, exquisite.
Somewhere, I read about the folks who wrote the KJV. The idea was that the translation would come from the Greek, and not the tainted Latin of the Vulgate. Unfortunately, no one could find an original enough Greek version of the Revelation. So, one of their number was sent off to translate the Vulgate Revelation into Greek so the committee could translate it into the KJV from the Greek.
Maybe I should check Snopes.
Posted by Pasco (# 388) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You might also want to tell your pastor that there were non-Latin translations of the scriptures before the Reformation and that the monks in the Venerable Bede's time used to have Anglo-Saxon translations of the Psalms as well as Latin ones.
It's a myth that the RC Church proscribed all translations except the Latin Vulgate. They weren't against the principle of versions in the vernacular, they had particular issues with some of the English translations such as those by Wycliffe and Tyndale because, rightly or wrongly, they thought they were faulty.
Wycliffe and Tyndale were deemed heretics - where the issue lay. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Moreover, the Venerable Bede's translations were probably of little use during the time of Wycliffe, by which time the language would have changed and the differences more pronounced than KJV is to us today. By then also, the Latin Vulgate was in vogue much as Sanskrit is with Hindus today re with mantras, which is almost exclusively in the 'sacred' tongue.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
I think that the KJV is important because of its beauty, yes, but there is another more overlooked quality. It is the only English translation the ever had or has the least bit of hope of becoming a truly universal and common translation. If anyone suggested that the NRSV or the NIV or the NAB or the Douay-Rheims should be the standard by which all else is judged, we would think him rather mad... but those who say the same of the KJV have at least some measure of respectability.
With the plethora of modern versions, we have lost the sense of specific words and phrases immediately hearkening the mind back to the biblical text. And I think that's a real shame. Now, even someone quite familiar with "the Bible" in general might not recognize a given allusion, because it's not from the version he tends to read. For example, when I hear "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity", then I immediately think "Oh, this must be from Ecclesiastes!". But on the other hand, something like "Utterly meaningless!Everything is meaningless" (the NIV rendering) is just a bunch of common English words strung together. It conveys the same idea, sure, but not in a memorable way, and can easily be missed.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In some circles, the "King James" or Authorized Version is thought to be superior because it it is based on the "Received Text." This is an edited version of the Greek and Hebrew Bible. It was based on the earliest and most accurate manuscript copies of the Bible known to scholars in the 16th century.
Thank you Grammatica! I was waiting for someone to say that.
The issue is the text, not the outdated language.
My denomination insists on the use of the "Recieved Text" in whatever translation it can be found. NKJV is the one we use.
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
A number of important passages in the Received Text (and the AV) are omitted from the Codex Sinaiticus: Mark 16: 9-20, the so-called "Long Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, for example, or the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).
These are only the most important omissions. In my book they are enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
To be honest, I think objections to translations of the Bible not based on the Received Text are by and large objections to the methods and presuppositions of 19th century textual scholarship.
That's it exactly. The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I said in Ecclesiantics, the 1611 KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul and it ought to be good enough for you.
"Ha, ha" (Job 39:25, KJV) "Ho, ho" (Zechariah 2:6, KJV)
[ 28. November 2011, 02:57: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
... With the plethora of modern versions, we have lost the sense of specific words and phrases immediately hearkening the mind back to the biblical text... even someone ... familiar with "the Bible"... might not recognize a given allusion, because it's not from the version he tends to read...
That all depends. Does he tend to read for understanding, or does he tend to read because he likes to memorize the pretty words?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
A number of important passages in the Received Text (and the AV) are omitted from the Codex Sinaiticus: Mark 16: 9-20, the so-called "Long Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, for example, or the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).
These are only the most important omissions. In my book they are enough.
On what basis do you assume they were there originally and dropped out, rather than were added later? particularly given the dates of the manuscripts they do and do not appear in?
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
How do you know that's why they were discarded?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
I concluded that the KJV is a disaster for modern ears ever since I lost the plot of a reading in a service from Ephesians as a teenager: if I, as a reasonably intelligent person who'd grown up in church, couldn't immediately understand its obscurities, then someone with no church background was very likely to be deterred by it. On the Archbishop Temple principle that 'the church is the only institution that exists for the benefit of those outside', this, to me, excludes it from routine use.
The debate over textus receptus v the product of modern text criticism is slightly more open, but the reality is that the difference are pretty small in terms of the implication for how we actually live. It is however interesting to note the way that the woman taken in adultery story is treated compared with the long ending of Mark. The former is popular - it fits with our modern emphasis on forgiveness and restoration for all. By contrast Mark's long ending is largely ignored because its content is far too challenging - the church is expected to prove the truth of its claims by visible signs. Funny that...
[/tangent I did once demolish a JW by pointing out that they claimed to believe the bible but ignored the long ending of Mark despite it being IN THEIR OWN VERSION. Worth considering if you want to give a JW a hard time]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think I prefer to challenge JWs by referring to the high Christology of Hebrews and other texts that support Trinitarian belief and the deity of Christ, Ender's Shadow. When was the last time you picked up a snake or drank deadly poison without it doing you any harm?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
@Pasco: indeed. I wasn't saying that people in Tyndale's time, or even Wycliffe's time, could have used and understood the Anglo-Saxon translations, of course they couldn't. All I was saying was that the RC Church wasn't against the idea of vernacular translations in principle - provided they weren't deemed heretical. Although I suspect they set the bar pretty highly on this one.
You are right, of course, that Latin became the language of sacred discourse/worship in a similar way to how Church Slavonic or older forms of Greek have become the default liturgical language in Russia and in Greek. A Romanian Orthodox friend told me, though, that the Romanian used in their services is generally understood by everybody.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow
I concluded that the KJV is a disaster for modern ears ever since I lost the plot of a reading in a service from Ephesians as a teenager:
Quite large parts of the epistles are difficult to follow in the AV. But particularly in the case of Ephesians, is this entirely the translators' fault?
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
{PS: I have never no never not once ever met a KJV-Only proponent who actually used The Original King James. You know, the actual first-published edition?
When any KJV-Only person I've met has allowed me to look at their Bible -- it ain't the original. All the "pisseth" has been wiped up.}
My KJV has "pisseth" in the text - I know this because I have actually read it all the way through. I like it though it's not the version we use at church because it has pictures in - for me pictures make up for any amount of difficult phraseology and I rather like the phraseology anyway.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
My KJV has "pisseth" in the text - I know this because I have actually read it all the way through. I like it though it's not the version we use at church because it has pictures in - for me pictures make up for any amount of difficult phraseology and I rather like the phraseology anyway.
To clarify (missed edit window) the pictures are not of the "pisseth"-ing...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Has anyone noticed that Mr Gove intends to send a copy of the King James to every school. Presumably because it is an anniversary year. I do hope that is the only reason.
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I said in Ecclesiantics, the 1611 KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul and it ought to be good enough for you.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva
To clarify (missed edit window) the pictures are not of the "pisseth"-ing...
Pity. I've never seen an illustration to that particular text. The nearest is one of Bewick's vignettes that go at the bottoms of the pages in his natural history books.
Posted by egg (# 3982) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My opinion of the KJV: I love the sound of it, and there are certain times of year (Christmas Eve and Passion Week) when I just want to hear the KJV read aloud. My advice to you is to find a translation that you find easy to understand, and with any luck in a study-Bible version with lots of helps, and use that in your personal study; save the KJV for your church, if you still think that your pastor is someone whose professional gravitas you trust.
I largely agree. There are some passages in the KJV that are bad translations but glorious poetry - perhaps due to the influence of the Holy Spirit on the translators? "Underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deut.33.27) is far better poetry than any modern (but more accurate) translation; so is "If I take the wings of the morning" (Ps.139.9).
On the other hand the 1611 translators of the epistles failed to use language that makes the meaning of the writers as clear as it could be (Ephesians is only one example); and since the epistles are largely teaching and not poetry, one needs to use a modern translation. Personally I find the Jerusalem Bible translation of the epistles about the best; but there are many that are better than the King James Version, and readings from the epistles, whether in church or at home, should be such as to make the meaning as clear as possible to the hearer or reader.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On what basis do you assume they were there originally and dropped out, rather than were added later? particularly given the dates of the manuscripts they do and do not appear in?
I think that continuity of usage is a more compelling argument than date of manuscript.
The story of the woman taken in adultery would have been in use throughout the Christian world at any point between the beginning of Christianity and the 20th century. The fact that it is missing from the majority of the oldest manuscripts found is a good reason to delete it, but not the most compelling in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
How do you know that's why they were discarded?
It's just Green's theory. It could be wrong. It makes sense to me that the manuscripts that were most avidly read and copied would disintegrate. It also makes sense to me that a manuscript was such a valuable thing that even if it was faulty it would be set aside and preserved even if not used.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Are there similar controversies about the preferred translations into French, German, etc.?
In my very limited experience, some Germans view Luther's translation as infallible, but I think it was a modern, updated version of Luther that they were using. (I am not sure exactly how that worked as, IIRC, Luther translated the Vulgate.)
Not the Vulgate. I can't speak to the Hebrew, but the Greek I believe he got from Erasmus' new edition of the Greek NT.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
... the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
Next time tell him that the AV was published nearly a century after the Reformation, that Bibles in English had been in every church and every village in England for about eighty years, and that despite being "authorised" is didn't become the normal Bible in everyday use in England till probably the 1670s or 1680s - the Geneva Bible still outsold it for years, and lots of churches read from the old Bishop's Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English?
Dunno, but some of them were, so Lamb Chopped is wrong on that one! Just as at least two Lutherans were involved in writing the English Prayerbook. And there were German Lutheran churches in North America in the 18th century where both the AV Bible and the BCP were used in their English-language services. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Tell the silly man (oops, your pastor) that he needs to go take another course somewhere. King James did NOT translate the AV.
You could try telling him that King James was a gay Episcopalian. Or perhaps for some reason these folk don't mind about them when they are dead?
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Now scholars already knew that the "Long Ending" of Mark and the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery were not to be found in the earliest copy of the Bible available in the 16th century, the "Codex Vaticanus."
IIRC the Church Fathers knew that the story about casting the first stone was not originally in John. (Or some of them did).
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Somewhere, I read about the folks who wrote the KJV. The idea was that the translation would come from the Greek, and not the tainted Latin of the Vulgate. Unfortunately, no one could find an original enough Greek version of the Revelation. So, one of their number was sent off to translate the Vulgate Revelation into Greek so the committee could translate it into the KJV from the Greek.
That's not true either! They did have Greek texts.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
But then, of course, the KJV only "debate" is not about logic or truth...
Not neccessarily. If you believe that God is protecting and guiding the Church then it is not illogical to believe that the version of the Scriptures that happens to be the most common one is in fact the correct one. Its God's providence. So the recieved text beats the odd old manuscripts. On this the AV-only people agree with the Orthodox.
And from there its not inherently illogical to imagine that the Holy Spirit might not arrange for a correct translation specially for English (or any other language)
Nor is the idea that English translation is special inherently contradictory. It is after all by far the most widely understood language there has ever been in history. OK, that's an after-affect of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution, a bit of contingent history which we suppose could easily have come out different. But if you think that God steers history for God's own ends, maybe that was part of the Plan.
Grace is always particular - these people, this time, this place. Jesus Christ was God incarnate in one place and one time - as one of a people prepared by God for centuries for that very purpose. The Bible talks of God providentially arranging for the Persian Empire to liberate the Jews and allow the return from exile. The early Church is often said to have been assisted in its spread by the Roman Empire which supposedly made it easier for missionaries to get around. If God can work through the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire he can work through the British one, or the American.
So God could have done it that way.
Its a different idea of inspiration from the normal fundamentalist Protestant one because it implies that the Spirit inspired not just the original authors but also the copyists and later the translators - so there is an ongoing tradition of inspiration of the scriptures through the traditions of the Church rather than just one act of divine dictation. But its not inherently illogical. Its very plausible if you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Nicely said Ken! Thanks.
It is surely not just by chance that the Bible is the most widely published and read manuscript in history. Approximately 7.5 billion have been printed and distributed since 1816, according to the Bible Society of the United Kingdom. There is not even a close competitor.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Somewhere, I read about the folks who wrote the KJV. The idea was that the translation would come from the Greek, and not the tainted Latin of the Vulgate. Unfortunately, no one could find an original enough Greek version of the Revelation. So, one of their number was sent off to translate the Vulgate Revelation into Greek so the committee could translate it into the KJV from the Greek.
That's not true either! They did have Greek texts. [/QB]
The Wikipedia entry on Erasmus asserts (with reference) that there were parts of his Greek NT which were translated into Greek from the Vulgate. I believe that his Greek NT was the basis for most of the vernacular translations at around that time. That is, they did not go back to the variety of early source documents.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
* sigh*
Having railed against the KJV earlier, I now learn (to my dismay - YMMV) that Father has decreed that the Lessons at our (fairly trad) Service of Carols and Lessons shall all be taken from the said KJV.
Oh, well - I suppose we could argue that it's our way of acknowledging the 400th anniversary of the KJV, but I'd prefer the congregation of once-a-year peeps to hear something less archaic....
Ian J.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The AV was an updating of previous English versions, not a complete original translation. Most of its NT preserves the exact wording of the Bishop's Bible, or Tyndale, or Wycliffe. Where it doesn't they seem to have used the Vulgate and Erasmus for reference, but their main Greek text was probably Beza's.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
* sigh*
Having railed against the KJV earlier, I now learn (to my dismay - YMMV) that Father has decreed that the Lessons at our (fairly trad) Service of Carols and Lessons shall all be taken from the said KJV.
I'm sure you know that the Christmas Eve service of Carols and Lessons broadcast from Kings College, Cambridge is world famous and heard by millions world-wide all across the English speaking world.
I have heard many people say that the sound of the KJV read in that service, in the distinctive voice of the peoples of the UK, makes shivers of joy run up and down their spines. Is any other translation ever used in that service? Would the world end if it were?
Yet in our own small service of the same type, attended by only a few hundred with perhaps a few hundred more watching online, we read the NKJV. But we all read with American accents, so what does it matter anyway?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well said, Freddy!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It may well be that, despite my personal misgiving, the Holy Spirit will indeed speak to our little congregation through the words of Scripture, in whatever translation they are presented.......
Ian J.
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It may well be that, despite my personal misgiving, the Holy Spirit will indeed speak to our little congregation through the words of Scripture, in whatever translation they are presented.......
I'm hoping that too, but am tempted to use a different translation for each reading just to help Her along.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On what basis do you assume they were there originally and dropped out, rather than were added later? particularly given the dates of the manuscripts they do and do not appear in?
I think that continuity of usage is a more compelling argument than date of manuscript.
I would think that the view that LXX is the proper OT scripture for Christians would be a better place to make that argument, as the Orthodoxen do. If you are happy to abandon that position, the rest is just blowing smoke over a personal preference AFAICS.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Oh, well - I suppose we could argue that it's our way of acknowledging the 400th anniversary of the KJV, but I'd prefer the congregation of once-a-year peeps to hear something less archaic....
Ian J.
In case it's encouraging, my experience is that the less churched the congregation, the more they want things to be traditional, possibly as it plays to their early memories of church. For example, when there's a big congregation of non-church people in, we always have to use the traditional words of the Lord's Prayer (i.e. starting "Our Father, which art in heaven") as only regular church attenders know the modern language version. I dare say anything other than the KJV opening to John's Gospel at a carol service will sound alien in non-church going ears.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
[qb]
Grace is always particular - these people, this time, this place. Jesus Christ was God incarnate in one place and one time - as one of a people prepared by God for centuries for that very purpose. The Bible talks of God providentially arranging for the Persian Empire to liberate the Jews and allow the return from exile. The early Church is often said to have been assisted in its spread by the Roman Empire which supposedly made it easier for missionaries to get around. If God can work through the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire he can work through the British one, or the American.
Though for people taking this view the story of Nehushtan would be a salutory warning against valuing the thing as it is in itself, rather than the grace the thing points to. Additionally, God may well have used the Roman Empire, but that doesn't mean that furthering the cause of the Roman Empire was necessarily to do God's work for him.
Posted by egg (# 3982) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
[QUOTE] when there's a big congregation of non-church people in, we always have to use the traditional words of the Lord's Prayer (i.e. starting "Our Father, which art in heaven") as only regular church attenders know the modern language version.
Did anyone notice that in "Master and Commander", in other respects a very good film of a naval chase and battle in about 1800, at the funeral ceremony of an officer who had been killed in the battle the Captain (Russell Crowe) said the Lord's Prayer in the modern version (Our Father WHO art in heaven etc)? It jarred horribly to me! But perhaps the script writer knew neither version and had to look it up, and used a modern prayer book to do so. Such ignorance is all too wide spread to-day.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I would think that the view that LXX is the proper OT scripture for Christians would be a better place to make that argument, as the Orthodoxen do.
Indeed, the argument that the LXX was good enough for Saint Paul so it should be good enough for you does actually work in this case ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
In case it's encouraging, my experience is that the less churched the congregation, the more they want things to be traditional, possibly as it plays to their early memories of church.
There's an interesting debate here: is it helpful to play to people's nostalgia by evoking happy memories, or are we better to break through that comfort blanket which may occlude the message? I don't think there's a simple answer, but it's a question that needs to be thought about. I think this is especially the case as we've been playing the nostalgia card for many years and its effectiveness doesn't seem self apparent IMHO; on the whole we don't see a lot of people transforming their nostalgia fix into serious engagement with the church. And to play to that nostalgia is to alienate those for whom that's not a memory or an approach that's helpful to them. THERE IS A COST TO THAT APPROACH.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
How do you know that's why they were discarded?
Point of information: That's Freddy's conclusion as to manuscripts, not mine. Actually, I'm on the other side of the debate.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Can I point out that what a lot of people think is AV or KJV is in fact ERV (English Revised Version). This came out in the 1880s but was widely adopted and tends to be very literal.
It is not the original King James Version. It may even be that that the pastor is recommending.
Jengie
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
At a one-big-bash-a-year service, I think one could draw them in with nostalgia and beautiful music and liturgy, then nail down the message with a damned good sermon. Otherwise, archaic or modern, it's all out of context to the unchurched.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Anything has got to be better than the minimalist line-drawings of the 'Good News Bible'.
For evocative language, it's got to be the KJV. But for clear, modern, scholarly text, you can't do much better than the NRSV.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
[qb]
Nor is the idea that English translation is special inherently contradictory. It is after all by far the most widely understood language there has ever been in history. OK, that's an after-affect of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution, a bit of contingent history which we suppose could easily have come out different. But if you think that God steers history for God's own ends, maybe that was part of the Plan.
Actually, thinking about it a little bit, there are two ways in which this can be read.
The first is that God orders and uses history, which is a fairly uncontroversial position to take.
The second is that God orders this particular bit of history in a way in which we can both distinguish and in such a way that we can no longer evaluate it in the way in which we'd evaluate other common grace institutions and/or historical contingencies (after all, the logical extension of this view would see to oppose the British Empire/Industrial Revolution etc would be to oppose the very will of God). It's this sense that the KJVonlyites drive at (and which a few people have alluded to in this thread).
At that level I see no reason to regard it as any more accurate than the claims of Brother Billy Bob just down the road that the Powah of the Spirit caused gold dust to form on his hands.
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
I struggled with the KJV as a child in the 1960s. Then when I was 12 in 1972 I got an RSV and found it a breath of fresh air for its clarity. In 1979 my university friends thought it was time I grew out of the RSV and gave me a copy of the NIV. That's the version I've been reading ever since. The KJV seems like some dim and distant archaic relic of my childhood.
I've realised recently that it's the KJV we have to thank for the translation of 'Jacob' as 'James' in the New Testament, to ensure King James was listed among the disciples. Presumably the translators thought the king would appreciate that and it would give him more authority!
My Kiswahili Bible of course is more faithful to the original text and refers to James as 'Yacob'.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
...at the funeral ceremony of an officer who had been killed in the battle the Captain (Russell Crowe) said the Lord's Prayer in the modern version (Our Father WHO art in heaven etc)? It jarred horribly to me! But perhaps the script writer knew neither version and had to look it up, and used a modern prayer book to do so. Such ignorance is all too wide spread to-day.
The TEC prayer book has used 'who' at least since 1928.
Moo
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
... With the plethora of modern versions, we have lost the sense of specific words and phrases immediately hearkening the mind back to the biblical text... even someone ... familiar with "the Bible"... might not recognize a given allusion, because it's not from the version he tends to read...
That all depends. Does he tend to read for understanding, or does he tend to read because he likes to memorize the pretty words?
Well you can tend to do both. But that depends on the person...
I think either text is equally "understandable". My point is that the "pretty words" of the KJV have value beyond either comprehension or prettiness.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I've realised recently that it's the KJV we have to thank for the translation of 'Jacob' as 'James' in the New Testament, to ensure King James was listed among the disciples. Presumably the translators thought the king would appreciate that and it would give him more authority!
Ha-ha-ha-ha:
quote:
The English name "James" comes from Italian "Giacomo", a variant of "Giacobo" derived from Iacobus (Jacob) in Latin, itself from the Greek Ἰάκωβος. In French, Jacob is translated "Jacques". In eastern Spain, Jacobus became "Jacome" or "Jaime"; in Catalunya, it became Jaume, in western Iberia it became "Iago", from Hebrew Ya'akov, which when prefixed with "Sant" became "Santiago" in Portugal and Galicia; "Tiago" is also spelled "Diego". Wikipedia
But since "Jacob" is also an English name I guess that they did have a choice to make.
Posted by Je' (# 16799) on
:
Inform your pastor that King James was gay. It's quite true and easily confirmed. He should leave you alone about the KJV after that.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Indeed - the failure to use the same name to translate Old and New testament names that are the same is a shame; certainly Greek has Jacob rather than 'James' - the issue is whether it's a Latin change. On the other hand the same failure is applicable to Jesus, which in the Old Testament is Joshua, I believe, though is different in Greek.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Upthread Chorister mentions KJV as a source of evocative language. Although I have been reading the NRSV for years, and before that the Jerusalem Bible, it is the KJV I remember at times like Christmas and Easter. I still have my KJV which was given to me on my reception into the Church of England in Canada when I was 8 months old.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I am presently reading Tim Grass's just-published biography of F.F. Bruce, in which Bruce is quoted as stating that those who criticise the language of the AV "lack the literary equipment to appreciate it".
As Bruce was evangelical and Brethren, and therefore so close to infallible that it doesn't matter, yar boo sucks to all those who have made snide, supercilious remarks about the KJV's Jacobean / archaic Elizabethan mode of expression.
In his autobiography, In Retrospect, Bruce reminisces about a Brethren worthy from his childhood who was a devotee of the 1881 Revised New Testament, and used to thunder (rather alarmingly, given the era and context) that "it is impossible to know the mind of God if you depend on the Authorised Version!".
He also recalls assuming, as a child, that Mrs Potiphar's words in the KJV "Come lie with me" constituted an invitation to Joseph to collaborate in perpetrating a falsehood.
Whether the NIV's "Come to bed with me" would have been any more enlightening to him is hard to say.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am presently reading Tim Grass's just-published biography of F.F. Bruce, in which Bruce is quoted as stating that those who criticise the language of the AV "lack the literary equipment to appreciate it".
As Bruce was evangelical and Brethren, and therefore so close to infallible that it doesn't matter, yar boo sucks to all those who have made snide, supercilious remarks about the KJV's Jacobean / archaic Elizabethan mode of expression.
Growing up in the Open Brethren I was relieved to find that scholarship and Brethrenism/Evangelicalism were not antithetical. In fact FF Bruce was in some way a saint.
Concerning Buce's view on the Bible I have found this link containing quote:
F. F. Bruce surmises, it is unlikely that autographs ever existed for many biblical books. For example, Bruce speculates that there was probably no signed copy of Romans; rather, Paul's scribe probably prepared several copies for distribution--each with its own peculiar scribal errors. The Bible itself does not make any distinction between autographs, copies, and translations. Furthermore, the New Testament writers' loose use of the Septuagint, Targum paraphrases, and their own translations demonstrates that inerrancy was simply not on their minds.
And it is not surprising that many English speakers "do not have the literary equipment to deal with it"; a statement that could be used as a simple statement of fact rather than snobbishly.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am presently reading Tim Grass's just-published biography of F.F. Bruce, in which Bruce is quoted as stating that those who criticise the language of the AV "lack the literary equipment to appreciate it".
The vast majority of English-speakers now alive lack the literary equipment to appreciate it. Stick a fork in it. It's a historical document to anybody but the literary elite.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Part of in interview with FF Bruce
W&LG: In North American there has been a lot of debate concerning the ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible, and ‘inerrancy’ has often been viewed as a touchstone of evangelical orthodoxy. What do you think about this concept?
FFB: Happily, from my point of view, that is a North American phenomenon which one does not find very much in Britain. The term that has been traditionally used to describe a high view of the authority of scripture in this country is 'infallibility.’
W&LG: What is the difference between the two terms?
FFB: When one looks at the words themselves, there is no difference! ‘Inerrancy’ means ‘not going wrong’ and ‘infallibility’ means ‘incapable of going wrong’ or ‘incapable of leading astray.’
But the infallibility of scripture as traditionally defined relates to its function as ‘the rule of faith and practice.’ Inerrancy seems to imply more than this.
W&LG: What term would you prefer to use in describing the Bible?
FFB: Truth. What’s wrong with that word? The truth of scripture is what we’re talking about. Or, if one says that the scripture is the Word of God, why bother about terms like ‘infallibility’ or ‘inerrancy’?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Stick a fork in it.
I Samuel 13:21 contains the only reference to forks in the whole of the KJV, and the context doesn't appear relevant to this discussion.
Are you sure you're not confusing the KJV with Blackadder ("Well, bugger me with a fishfork!")?
If you're not Brethren you probably don't know your Bible very well, so it would be easy to do.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Je':
Inform your pastor that King James was gay. It's quite true and easily confirmed.
I'm not interested in the DH issue but I am intrigued about this since Ken mentioned it too.
I though that King James' sexuality was disputed. He may well have been gay but I thought it was massively overstating to say "... it's quite true and easily confirmed."
Or were you just joking? I can't tell.
As I say, I'm interested from a historical POV. It seems a common argument today to do things like this in order to pull the rug out from under one position or another. However, IME, it is often resting on very weak foundations.
So, were you just joking or do you have overwhelming evidence? (I'm no expert in this period of history so you may well be right.)
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Whether or not King James was gay is totally irrelevant to any argument about his role in causing the KJV to be created or about its status. It's fundamental to Christian theology that your sinfulness doesn't affect the ability of God to make use of your contribution; this is because we are ALL sinful to some extent.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
There is no consensus amongst historians as to the precise nature of James's relationships with his favourites, and as ES says, it's irrelevant anyway.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whether or not King James was gay is totally irrelevant to any argument about his role in causing the KJV to be created or about its status.
I know it is completely irrelevant, I'm just interested in the history behind it since at least two posters have made the comment. I'm definitely not seeking to derail the thread with a discussion of the late King's sex life. All I'm after is whether it was a serious comment, justified with plenty of evidence.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
You can aruge that the AVis useful to be familiar to the occasional visitors at CHristmas.
However that only applies to those who attended church in the past to hear the AV.
Many of today's occasionals will have never heard it before and we may be in danger of merely re-inforcing their belief that the church is an arcane institution. One they can use for nostalgia at times like Christmas but which has no relevance to their 'real lives'.
Posted by egg (# 3982) on
:
On a point of detail, how many people read the first chapter of St John's Gospel as it was, I believe, originally written? Vesrses 6 to 8 appear to have become misplaced, probably at some very early copying stage, and should come after verse 18. (This is not an original view: there was a learned article on the point in "Theology" a few years ago.)
We in my parish church are having as the gospel for Advent 3 John 1.6-8, 19-24, which makes sense. The corollary would be that the reading for Christmas Day should be John 1.1-5, 9-18. Does anyone read the christmas Day gospel in this way, omitting verses 6-8?
Posted by Pasco (# 388) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't saying that people in Tyndale's time, or even Wycliffe's time, could have used and understood the Anglo-Saxon translations, of course they couldn't. All I was saying was that the RC Church wasn't against the idea of vernacular translations in principle - provided they weren't deemed heretical. Although I suspect they set the bar pretty highly on this one.
Before the advent of the printing press, when paper was handmade and unaffordable and with only a handful of the 10 per cent or so literate, it would not have been economical to make a “version” of the bible in the vernacular, nor was it officially encouraged. In Romania and the East, as you rightly say Gamaliel, it was not an issue as the official tongue was widely spoken. For your average person, for whom affording the bible was out of question, relied on gaining knowledge through attendance of official and oft compulsory services (in the West at any rate).
Until the advent of the plague in the West, there were portions of ‘authorised’ texts outside of Latin circulated in the vernacular, never a full(er) version though, until that is Wycliffe. For their translation work principally, were Wycliffe and Tyndale deemed heretics - it had nothing to do with their standard of translation in the eyes of the inquisitors, it had the potential for posing a threat to their authority and to the state of Holy Roman Empire, which it most certainly did as later history was to prove, once the printing presses started to roll.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I say, I'm interested from a historical POV. It seems a common argument today to do things like this in order to pull the rug out from under one position or another. However, IME, it is often resting on very weak foundations.
I'm afraid that all I was doing was unfairly mocking certain of my evangelical brethren who seem to have got the strange idea from somewhere that having gay people involved in translating the Bible invalidates that translation. (If you want to have an unpleasant time reading fundamentalists making themselves look stupid and nasty, do a Google search for "Virginia Mollenkott" and "Marten Woudstra" - 9 out of 10 of the results will be some KJV-only types rabbiting on about how come having sodomites involved in the translation means the NIV is corrupted)
But, to be serious, "gay" or even "homosexual" is a social construction they didn't have then so the word can't be strictly applied to James VI&I. As to whether he was sexually aroused by men, who can tell and after four hundred years who really cares?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But, to be serious, "gay" or even "homosexual" is a social construction they didn't have then so the word can't be strictly applied to James VI&I. As to whether he was sexually aroused by men, who can tell and after four hundred years who really cares?
Thanks Ken, that was what I assumed from your original post but it was just when J said the same thing I wondered if I was missing something.
As you say, you don't need to make stuff up to parody some of the KJV debate.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I though that King James' sexuality was disputed. He may well have been gay but I thought it was massively overstating to say "... it's quite true and easily confirmed."
On the one hand, James I and VI did do his royal duty as regards procreation. On the other I'm not aware of any claims that he had any bastards. He also had a number of friendships with handsome young men. An account of James' coronation as King of England by the Venetian ambassador tells how various notables knelt before the King and kissed his hand or his crown.
quote:
The Earl of Pembroke, a handsome youth, who is always with the King and always joking with him, actually kissed his Majesty's face, whereupon the King laughed and gave a little cuff.
Kissing a man on the face may have been a more ambiguous gesture then, it is true. But outside the court, in Puritan circles, they were taken as evidence of courtly decadence. Short of an eyewitness account of someone walking in on the King and Pembroke or Buckingham and finding them in flagrante, I think the evidence is as strong as it could be.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The KJV was never 'authorised'. The 1662 BCP uses Coverdale for the Psalms and HC readings.
KJV 'took over' as other Bibles were no longer published.
It has a bias against puritans and republicans - insisting on 'church' rather than 'congregation'; 'bishop' rather than 'overseer'; 'princes are good so the rebellion against pharaoh is treated carefully.
KJV is riddled with errors e.g. Genesis 1:2 KJV "And the earth was without form, and void; . . . " should be: "And the earth became without form, and void; . . . " The word translated "was" is hayah (Hebrew: היה, Strong's Concordance Number #H1961) and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Leviticus 16:8 has 'scapegoat' (denoting an innocent victim) instead of Azazel (Satan - not innocent)
Matthew 27:49 omits mention of a spear piercing Jesus's side.
Acts 12:4 has 'Easter' instead of πάσχα 'Passover'.
1Timothy 6:10 KJV: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Better "For the love of money is a root of all evil
John 8:28 adds 'he' to 'I AM', thus obscuring the allusion to the divine name.
Romans 1:7 'called saints' (ie now - KJV adds 'to be' - as if in the future only.
1John 2:23 KJV: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) - not in the Gk., but added from the Latin =he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. "
Other KJV bits from latin buty NOT in Greek:
Matthew 27:35: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."
Acts 9:5-6 "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him . . . ."
Acts 10:6 "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 10:21 "which were sent unto him from Cornelius"
Acts 21:8 "that were of Paul's company"
Romans 13:9 "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Revelation 1:11 "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and . . . which are in Asia"
Acts 17:22 Ye men of Athens ...ye are too superstitious. - should be 'religious'
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign - aiteo means ASK, not require.
1 Corinthians 11:29 KJV: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily - krima better trans. 'in an unworthy manner'
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions (should be 'cause disputes'
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I used to think the Brethren knew their Bibles better than anyone else. Until I discovered that the Brethren were all wrong because of their warped Schofield Dispensationalism ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whether or not King James was gay is totally irrelevant to any argument about his role in causing the KJV to be created or about its status. It's fundamental to Christian theology that your sinfulness doesn't affect the ability of God to make use of your contribution; this is because we are ALL sinful to some extent.
I think you may be suffering a bit from irony deficiency.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Great list Leo. Thanks!
As to why it is called the "Authorized Version", this is what it says in Wikipedia:
quote:
In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.
And here I thought it was authorized by Royal Decree. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
A little late, maybe, but the consensus amongst the Hosts is that this thread is probably best suited to Kerygmania. That's where it is now going
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I used to think the Brethren knew their Bibles better than anyone else. Until I discovered that the Brethren were all wrong because of their warped Schofield Dispensationalism ...
C'mon Mr G, you know as well as I do that the Brethren were never all dispensationalist, and today, in my church at least, you can (almost literally) count on one hand the number of members who have even heard the term.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
And Scofield was never Brethren. Raised Episcopalian, ordained from a Congregational church, later worked as a Presbyterian minister.
Darby, on the other hand...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If you're not Brethren you probably don't know your Bible very well, so it would be easy to do.
Actually I gained the better part of my Bible knowledge through Intervarsity, which I am told had a good deal of Brethren influence in its origin, and retains (or did at the time) a measurable amount of Brethren emphasis in its practice. Also I was told that their hymnal Hymns III contains a lot of Brethren-specific or Brethren-originated hymns.
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I've realised recently that it's the KJV we have to thank for the translation of 'Jacob' as 'James' in the New Testament, to ensure King James was listed among the disciples. Presumably the translators thought the king would appreciate that and it would give him more authority!
Ha-ha-ha-ha:
quote:
The English name "James" comes from Italian "Giacomo", a variant of "Giacobo" derived from Iacobus (Jacob) in Latin, itself from the Greek Ἰάκωβος. In French, Jacob is translated "Jacques". In eastern Spain, Jacobus became "Jacome" or "Jaime"; in Catalunya, it became Jaume, in western Iberia it became "Iago", from Hebrew Ya'akov, which when prefixed with "Sant" became "Santiago" in Portugal and Galicia; "Tiago" is also spelled "Diego". Wikipedia
But since "Jacob" is also an English name I guess that they did have a choice to make.
I think that theory about Jacob and James being the same name is actually untrue and was propaganda invented by the English authorities to justify the translation of Jacob as James in the KJV. It's like when we sang 'Frere Jacques' as children and an English adult told me it meant 'Brother James'. I was mystified by that as a kid and still am. I think it's just wishful thinking.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Probly true!
Still, names are hard to convert from culture to culture. It's hilarious how names sound when pronounced in different languages. "George" is a good one, for example. I doubt that most of us would even recognize biblical names pronounced by native speakers, much less be able to reproduce the sound.
Posted by Coffee Cup (# 13506) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think that theory about Jacob and James being the same name is actually untrue and was propaganda invented by the English authorities to justify the translation of Jacob as James in the KJV. It's like when we sang 'Frere Jacques' as children and an English adult told me it meant 'Brother James'. I was mystified by that as a kid and still am. I think it's just wishful thinking.
But in a shorter period of time we have gone from ((Alexander ->)) Alasdair -> Alastair -> Alistair. To my ears the second and last of those four are certainly distinct from each other, and [wildly speculating] surely the first is likely to be distinct from the others to the majority of English speakers [\wildly speculating] (I may be influenced in my distinction between these names by knowing people with all four spellings). And with more 'unique' spellings of names being popular in several parts these days, and much less uniformity about 'correct' spelling in general in some previous ages then I'm not vastly surprised that it has been suggested that similar local versions of names have spring from one root.
This is totally independent of my (relatively delayed) understanding that the Spanish 'Jose' does not at all sound like the English 'Josie'.
(And having seen the 'Kerygmania - who posts there?' thread I've somehow become one of those posters who does!)
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
I listened to some random radio 4 program about the 400 year anniversary of the KJV - in which they commented the translation had been deliberately arranged to sound good when read aloud. That all the translations where read aloud before being finalised.
I think the language is beautiful - and I think that the problem with a lot of modern translations is that they haven't attended to this aspect sufficiently. It does matter because it makes the text memorable - as well as adding beauty to the liturgy. (Tis much the same criticism as is leveled at the new RC liturgy, very precise but clunky.)
[Also if you can't be nostalgic at a service *remembering* the best thing that ever happened, and that it happen 2000 years ago - when is it appropriate to have a "A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past."]
[ 30. November 2011, 00:22: Message edited by: Think˛ ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Kissing a man on the face may have been a more ambiguous gesture then, it is true. But outside the court, in Puritan circles, they were taken as evidence of courtly decadence. Short of an eyewitness account of someone walking in on the King and Pembroke or Buckingham and finding them in flagrante, I think the evidence is as strong as it could be.
Thanks for this Dafyd but you seem to miss the irony of your reply.
I do not care whether James was gay or not.
However, Ken raised the claim as a way of sending up the Puritans of our day who try to throw around wild accusations hoping that some mud will stick.
You seem to be saying that you are persuaded because the Puritans of his day did the same thing.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I read somewhere a while ago that the KJV sounded dated when it was first published and that the even-then arcahiac wording was deliberately chosen to make the text sound more holy and reverent.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I read somewhere a while ago that the KJV sounded dated when it was first published and that the even-then arcahiac wording was deliberately chosen to make the text sound more holy and reverent.
I guess that would be judged by comparing the 1611 KJV with the language of Shakespeare (1564-1616). They sound similar to me.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think that theory about Jacob and James being the same name is actually untrue and was propaganda invented by the English authorities to justify the translation of Jacob as James in the KJV. It's like when we sang 'Frere Jacques' as children and an English adult told me it meant 'Brother James'. I was mystified by that as a kid and still am. I think it's just wishful thinking.
Well, the Wiki has this to say on it:
quote:
The name came into English language from the Old French variation James of the late Latin name, Iacomus; a dialect variant of Iacobus, from the New Testament Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iákōbos), from Hebrew יעקב (Yaʻaqov). The development Iacobus > Iacomus is likely a result of nasalization of the o and assimilation to the following b (i.e., intermediate *Iacombus) followed by simplification of the cluster mb through loss of the b.
Actually sound perfectly plausible to me.
Posted by krsnv (# 16159) on
:
AFFECTATion to enjoy what is established is one thing and yet the more modern Concordant Literal Version is supposed to be accurate into as the old greek n possibly hebrew origins like the youngs except done by committee, so...
.. well it reads like the niv gone a bit stilted to keep true to ancient greek issues such as word order and explains the words basic meanings in a very useful concordance also. ..
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Actually sound perfectly plausible to me.
Me too. But Redderfreak's comment that you quote was in response to my quoting almost the same information above. I doubt he'll be convinced!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Actually sound perfectly plausible to me.
Me too. But Redderfreak's comment that you quote was in response to my quoting almost the same information above. I doubt he'll be convinced!
You may be right.
But it did get me thinking about how James VI/I was not the first King James in Britain. So I did a little digging and found (at a site to which I am for some reason unable to link) the text of a 1488 Declaration of the Scottish Parliament on the death of James III. It is written in Latin, and James III is called Rex Jacobi tertius," while James IV is Jacobi quarti Dei Gratia Scotorum Regis illustrissimi."
I also found this, which quotes an obituary for James I of Scotland -- Obitus Jacobi primi Regis Scotorum -- from 1437.
So, that's almost 200 years of usage of Jacob = James before the KJV translators would have felt any need to justify translating Jacob as James for the king's sake.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Wow! I find that very convincing.
So interesting that they would have always had that distinction, and yet fail to apply it to the Old Testament. I think that the story of "Jamie and Esau" would have had a nice ring to it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I read somewhere a while ago that the KJV sounded dated when it was first published and that the even-then arcahiac wording was deliberately chosen to make the text sound more holy and reverent.
More likely because they didn't write a brand new translation but kept wording that was already known in English. Much of it is from Tyndale, about a century earlier (and possibly with some marked west-country features) and some of it was from Wycliff or even earlier.
They also decided to use a literal second-person singular for accuracy in translation. In much of England the 2ps was already going out of use in the 17th century and where it was used it often signalled intimacy.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Wow! I find that very convincing.
So interesting that they would have always had that distinction, and yet fail to apply it to the Old Testament. I think that the story of "Jamie and Esau" would have had a nice ring to it.
[tangent] James I & VI liked to be known as the "Solomon of the North." On hearing of it, Henri IV of France said "he hoped that
David the fiddler was not his father. [/tangent]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed - the failure to use the same name to translate Old and New testament names that are the same is a shame; certainly Greek has Jacob rather than 'James' - the issue is whether it's a Latin change. On the other hand the same failure is applicable to Jesus, which in the Old Testament is Joshua, I believe, though is different in Greek.
Well in the LXX, Joshua (in the nominative) is given as Ἰησοῦς (Ex 17:10), and in the NT, Jesus (in the nominative) is given as .... wait for it ... Ἰησοῦς. (Matthew 3:15).
This website is invaluable for doing word studies in Greek (NT and LXX) and Hebrew/Aramaic. Once you search and get a verse, you get a lot of blue letters off to the left; click on the "C" to get the original languages.
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think that theory about Jacob and James being the same name is actually untrue ...
Based on what?
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed - the failure to use the same name to translate Old and New testament names that are the same is a shame; certainly Greek has Jacob rather than 'James' - the issue is whether it's a Latin change. On the other hand the same failure is applicable to Jesus, which in the Old Testament is Joshua, I believe, though is different in Greek.
Well in the LXX, Joshua (in the nominative) is given as Ἰησοῦς (Ex 17:10), and in the NT, Jesus (in the nominative) is given as .... wait for it ... Ἰησοῦς. (Matthew 3:15).
This website is invaluable for doing word studies in Greek (NT and LXX) and Hebrew/Aramaic. Once you search and get a verse, you get a lot of blue letters off to the left; click on the "C" to get the original languages.
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think that theory about Jacob and James being the same name is actually untrue ...
Based on what?
Based on the fact that they actually sound nothing like each other. I accept that King James of the authorised bible may not have been the first king James to have his name deemed the same as Jacob.
But given the power struggles in Britain over the centuries and the history of the Jacobite rebellion, which is integral to our history and dictatorships, I'm very sceptical. We're very clever at manipulating facts by applying a complex web of academia. I'm reminded of the people in the fairy tale who managed to convince each other that the emperor was wearing beautiful clothes, when in fact he was stark naked.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The use of Iame or similar in English for the New Testament Jameses (Gk. Ιακωβος) goes back as far as the Middle English Ancrene Riwle from before 1225 and Chaucer c1386. It long predates even King James the first of Scotland (1406-37), let alone James the sixth of Scotland (1567-1625) and first of England (1603-1625), and even longer predates the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745.
To my ear Jesus sounds nothing like Joshua, but I have studied and accept the evidence which demonstrates the connection.
If James doesn't come from Jacob via the Greek Ιακωβος, the Latin, Jacobus, and the later popular Latin corruption, Jacomus, with cognates in Old French (James, Gemmes), Spanish (Jaime), and Catalan (Jaume, Jacme) then where do you suggest the name does originate? And how do you suggest it became connected to Jacob/Ιακωβος so long ago?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
To my ear Jesus sounds nothing like Joshua, but I have studied and accept the evidence which demonstrates the connection.?
Try pronouncing it 'J eh shoo ah'
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I'm very sceptical.
You are also very wrong, as the Kings of Scotland and many other people had been called "James" in English and "Jacobus" in Latin for centuries before the Jacobites turned up. In fact the Jacobites were called "Jacobites" after the kings James because they wanted James VII & II to be king. Its hard to see how a 17th andf 18th century political conspiracy tcould have affected language in the 13th or 14th century!
There's a paralel going the other way in the way the name "John" developed pet forms something like "Jankin" that by the end of the Middle Ages were contracted to "Jack" which has remained an alternative form of "John" ever since.
And even odder thing is the way the sound represented by Latin initial "I", later written as "J", which really ought to be written "Y" in modern English spelling was universally replaced by English speakers with the consonant [dʒ]
[ 22. December 2011, 18:40: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
To my ear Jesus sounds nothing like Joshua, but I have studied and accept the evidence which demonstrates the connection.?
Try pronouncing it 'J eh shoo ah'
is Jesu / Jesu's Name in the Book of Common Prayer a midstep (and if so was it Anachronistic then?)
a quick check at French&German has French Jesus with umlaut and German varying between Jesu&Jesus seemingly at random.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
No - just sentimental spelling/grammar
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The use of Iame or similar in English for the New Testament Jameses (Gk. Ιακωβος) goes back as far as the Middle English Ancrene Riwle from before 1225 and Chaucer c1386. It long predates even King James the first of Scotland (1406-37), let alone James the sixth of Scotland (1567-1625) and first of England (1603-1625), and even longer predates the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745.
To my ear Jesus sounds nothing like Joshua, but I have studied and accept the evidence which demonstrates the connection.
If James doesn't come from Jacob via the Greek Ιακωβος, the Latin, Jacobus, and the later popular Latin corruption, Jacomus, with cognates in Old French (James, Gemmes), Spanish (Jaime), and Catalan (Jaume, Jacme) then where do you suggest the name does originate? And how do you suggest it became connected to Jacob/Ιακωβος so long ago?
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_Gospels
The Wessex Gospels of 990AD translate his name as Iacobum. If James and Jacob are the same name, because of the Spanish and French origins, why don't the Spanish (Jacobo, Santiago)and French (Jacques) versions of the bible use the name Jaime or Gemma? I maintain that there must be some political reason why some of the English translators equated two names that are different. It could have been to do with Jaime 1 of Aragon, the Inquisition and Augustine's 'just war' with the Moors in Iberia. I don't know, but I smell a rat.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The Wessex Gospels do little more than transliterate the Latin (itself more or less a transliteration of the Greek). In that sense they don't represent a translational decision one way or the other.
The evidence is strong, consistent and widely accepted both for the continuity between Jacob and James, and for the linguistic shift that gives the changed sound.
Jaume/ Chaime/ Jaime/ Jacme/ James 1 of Aragon was only 17 at the time a 'James' form of the name was already being used in written English (Ancrene Riwle) which in the absence of evidence to the contrary suggests its general acceptance in spoken English.
Have you some evidence of controversy over the name?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
bump
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Because it's Simply The Best?
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
Today my pastor told me that my Bible was not as good as the one that King James translated and that I should get a King James bible as it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
1. I would be very interested to see the documentation that states that EVERY Church after the reformation has authorised the KJV. Of course it would be interesting to see what your pastor actually means by ‘Church.’
2. It is called the authorised version because it was authorised by King James for use in the Church of England (or Scotland, perhaps).
3. Perhaps unrelated, but I find it interesting that those who hold fast to the KJV are often low church evangelicals. The KV is nowehere near a ‘low church’ translation. Bishopric, anyone?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
I think the language is beautiful - and I think that the problem with a lot of modern translations is that they haven't attended to this aspect sufficiently.
I understand that the Greek of some of the NT is bad, as would be expected of those who had Greek as a second language (Mark). That being the case, beautifying its translation could be seen as a loss e.g by inferring that the Gospel is to be removed from its roots in the poor and common people.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I read somewhere a while ago that the KJV sounded dated when it was first published and that the even-then arcahiac wording was deliberately chosen to make the text sound more holy and reverent.
I guess that would be judged by comparing the 1611 KJV with the language of Shakespeare (1564-1616). They sound similar to me.
Tha's 'cos he wrote bits of it , innit?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Well, if you're having a BCP liturgy it makes sense to have the readings from a text that, broadly, sounds the same. So, in our place, that means that for the 8am said service, Matins and Evensong its Authorised Version all the way.
On other occasions - for example the Nine Lessons and Carols - because it is the expected version and (again) fits better with the majority of the text of the sung items.
Horses for courses, really.
As for new translations: one of the many jarring notes is in how they render 1 Corinthians 13. Gongs do NOT "boom" - they can't. There are two types of gong: the smaller kind (such as found in Gamalan orchestras) are tuned and produce a sound akin to a bell with tintinnabulation (harmonic hum or ring tone). Larger gongs - tam-tams - make a crash sound.
In both types of gong, the sound produced is made by the sound of the metal being struck.
A boom type noise, on the other hand, is caused by the forced movement of air - sometimes caused by an explosive force (sonic boom) sometimes by compressing the air into a tube - brass instruments.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
I think the language is beautiful - and I think that the problem with a lot of modern translations is that they haven't attended to this aspect sufficiently.
I understand that the Greek of some of the NT is bad, as would be expected of those who had Greek as a second language (Mark). That being the case, beautifying its translation could be seen as a loss e.g by inferring that the Gospel is to be removed from its roots in the poor and common people.
Somehow, I want to attend to both of these insights. The distinction I want to keep in mind is that language can be beautiful with or without being 'high.'
I have on my windowsill a carving of the Holy Family that I bought in Haiti. It is not high art in any sense of the word, and its technique can probably be roundly criticized by anyone more conversant with carving than I. It is, however, very beautiful.
I would strongly agree that beauty matters and we need to render our scriptures in beautiful language. But, it's a mistake, a category error (maybe even a heresy) to think that to speak beautifully means to shun the mundane, the language of the poor and common.
Did Our Lord teach us nothing by being born in a manger?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Christ was NOT born in a manger - he was LAID in a manger. To be born in a manger the BVM would have had to perch on something (probably fixed to the wall) at waist height: on the whole, labouring women have better things to do that worry about falling roughly 3 feet onto a hard surface...
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I have been using an old, very slender AV NT with Psalms as a travel Bible. For years I dragged around a Greek/English NT, together with an NRSV/BCP('79) "Brick". I got tired of being a mule and switched the almost weightless AV NT.
I find that the archaic sentence structure and vocabulary force me to sloooow down. I think about the Greek behind the olde timey English. I'm more likely to pick up repeated use of identical or similar words in a book or pericope. I'm frequently more likely to pickup on OT quotes or allusions.
More, since the place where I minister has a zillion cheap KJVs and few better translation, I'm forced to prepare myself to lead folk through bible studies where a large fraction of folk will be using the KJV.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Lolly:
Before making your selection, read thoroughly about the Bible and its development through history from -- very important -- a variety of sources, and how & why it got translated into various versions, especially those bits which scholars argue about.
FYI, I'm a former Christian, though reading about the Bible (not just in it) had little to do with my leaving the faith. Personally, I have 5 different translations (including the KJV) and still read in them.
Posted by Happy Pebble (# 2731) on
:
I was raised on the RSV and KJV, and that is still my comfort zone, FWIW. I've branched out to some more modern versions--J.B. Phillips' New Testament and the New English Bible come to mind--and I have probably 25 to 30 different translations in my collection, but when it all gets too much I run back to old KJV.
I know enough German to read Martin Luther's Bible, and I have to recommend it--Luther's German is very clear and simple.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I read somewhere a while ago that the KJV sounded dated when it was first published and that the even-then arcahiac wording was deliberately chosen to make the text sound more holy and reverent.
I guess that would be judged by comparing the 1611 KJV with the language of Shakespeare (1564-1616). They sound similar to me.
Tha's 'cos he wrote bits of it , innit?
I wondered why it had taken so long for that to be mentioned! Similarly, Tolkein was on the committee for the 1960s (forgotten the exact year sorry) Jerusalem Bible.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh, that explains it. I'd always wondered why the JB version of Matt 10 2-4 reads
quote:
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Bilbo and Frodo; Samwise Gamgee and Peregrin Took; 4 Meriadoc Brandybuck, and Gollum, the one who betrayed him
[ 11. January 2014, 16:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Quotes file!
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
To my ear Jesus sounds nothing like Joshua, but I have studied and accept the evidence which demonstrates the connection.?
Try pronouncing it 'J eh shoo ah'
is Jesu / Jesu's Name in the Book of Common Prayer a midstep (and if so was it Anachronistic then?)
a quick check at French&German has French Jesus with umlaut and German varying between Jesu&Jesus seemingly at random.
As this thread has been resurrected, I shall take the opportunity to inform shipmates that 'Jesu' is the vocative case inflection of the name Jesus. Nothing to do with sentimentality.
(The vocative case is the form of the noun which is used when addressing a person. For the vast majority of instances it has the same inflection as nominative case. For 'Jesu' see also the Wiki entry for Icelandic. Incidentally, while on the subject 'ye' is the vocative form of 'you'. Not used in contemporary English, but useful to know for the KJV.)
Angus
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
'Ye' is the nominative; English has never had a vocative in its recorded history and has always used Nom. forms in the Voc.
[ 14. January 2014, 07:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Wow, I didn't realise that. I just thought Jesu was used because Jesus ends with an s and it sounds ungainly to talk of Jesus's.
Of course, if I'd thought harder, I'd have realised there was more to it than that. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
(The vocative case is the form of the noun which is used when addressing a person. For the vast majority of instances it has the same inflection as nominative case. For 'Jesu' see also the Wiki entry for Icelandic. Incidentally, while on the subject 'ye' is the vocative form of 'you'. Not used in contemporary English, but useful to know for the KJV.)
Not sure that's true. See Karl's comment and Etymonline: "Jesu, common in Middle English, is from the Old French objective case."
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0