homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: Why the King James Bible? (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Why the King James Bible?
Coffee Cup
Shipmate
# 13506

 - Posted      Profile for Coffee Cup   Email Coffee Cup   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!)

Posts: 66 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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: Think² ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
krsnv
Apprentice
# 16159

 - Posted      Profile for krsnv   Author's homepage   Email krsnv   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
AFFECTATion to enjoy what is established is [Razz] 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. ..

Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191

 - Posted      Profile for redderfreak   Author's homepage   Email redderfreak   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see

Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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'

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No - just sentimental spelling/grammar

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191

 - Posted      Profile for redderfreak   Author's homepage   Email redderfreak   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see

Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
bump

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because it's Simply The Best?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

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.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Biased]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

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?

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Happy Pebble
Shipmate
# 2731

 - Posted      Profile for Happy Pebble   Email Happy Pebble   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Creamy Wibbibs. Mr. Habib, you're the evils of Darkon!

Posts: 62 | From: Kingdom of Deseret | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Biased]
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.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quotes file!

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'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 ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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."
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools