1611 King James Bible

[cyberjosh]

Just imagine the gross injustice done to Shakespeare if his work was rewritten in modern English.

Romeo, Romeo, where are you, Romeo? :o

Actually Juliet's soliloquoy would read " Romeo, Romeo, Why are you Romeo." She is asking why it is the son of the other family she is in love with not where he is. Thus Elizabethan English. It has changed over the years.

Oh halelluyah! An attentive literary critic! Yay! ;)

 

[cyberjosh]

[quote="vic C.":75e08]Nope. But despite the alleged corruptness of the KJV you so fondly refer to, it has a flow and beauty to it that has never been matched. It has been lost though. Latin, though it being a dead language, has that flow to it also. Too bad I don't understand a word of it. I do understand the KJV though.

Perhaps I did not express myself well: What I was saying was: If modern English would screw up the literary flow of Shakespere as you inferred, then why wouldn't the English of the KJV screw up the literary flow of the original texts?[/quote:75e08]

For this reason I am taking a Biblical Greek course from Beeson Divinity School this summer. However your point applies to any translation since different languages require different syntax, structure, and logical flow for sentances. Latin for example can be quite wooden in many places and is more noun-oriented than Greek, thus cannot capture nuances all that well. With each language a new problem arises. One language may have 3 times as many words as another language (English has the most words of any language, 3 times more than Chinese pulling up second place), and thus more ideas and thus nuances to pull from. Although English is in no way a pure language it has inherited the best (and worst) of both worlds - but English has a larger bin from which to pick out the "best".

At any rate, I desist. :-D

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[kiwimac]

Just imagine the gross injustice done to Shakespeare if his work was rewritten in modern English.

Romeo, Romeo, where are you, Romeo? :o

Actually Juliet's soliloquoy would read " Romeo, Romeo, Why are you Romeo." She is asking why it is the son of the other family she is in love with not where he is. Thus Elizabethan English. It has changed over the years.

Oh halelluyah! An attentive literary critic! Yay! ;)

Just call me 'Kiwimac, the Cyber-Pedant.'! :-D

 

[kiwimac]

And, apparently, 'destroyer of threads.' ;)

 

[Relic]

Just imagine the gross injustice done to Shakespeare if his work was rewritten in modern English.

Romeo, Romeo, where are you, Romeo? :o

I think the "modern" version of that would be: Yo, dude, wuz up? Or, Yo, homi, wuz kick'n? I'm sure there are plenty more "modern ways of saying it that I've never even heard before. :D


.

 

[mondar]

The KJV was a good translation. Also they copied the majority of William Tyndale's translation (mostly NT) which gives us such memorable words and phrases such as "scapegoat","filthy lucre", "apple of the eye", etc. I enjoy reading the KJV, it's just not perfect, like any translation is not perfect.

P.S. I have a 1611 facimile of the the original KJV, apocrypha and all. It's pretty neat (even if difficult to read - but that's half the fun ). I also have an actual leaflet from a 1650 reprint of the KJV (laminated in the back of a book I got from a Bible Museum along with an even earlier leaflet of the Geneva Bible).

God Bless,

~Josh

It was an odd quirk of history that King James hated the Tyndale translation, and then his own translators borrowed heavily from the very English translation it was to replace. If I remember my history right, Tyndale sold the rest of the first edition to the English Government so they could burn them. The money was used to finance a 2nd edition.

Tyndale borrowed much from Wycliffe before him. Of course Wycliffe was burned at the stake in effigy right after the Babylonian Captivity was resolved. It was that very Babylonian Captivity that offered Wycliffe the chance to translate and spread a biblical theology.

I believe that the fameous Geneva Bible also borrowed from Wycliff/Tyndale tradition. It was the Geneva Bible often preferred by the puritans that came to the shores of the new world, as well as the puritans of England. The KJV was very slow to replace the Geneva Bible as the favorite English translation.

There was a problem with Wycliff, his version was more middle english. Tyndale move it to a more modern english style (similar to the language of the KJV). Here is a comparison... There are a few translation differences, but many spelling changes. A few lines from John 3:16...

Tyndale
16 For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.

Wycliffe
16 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.

1881 Westcoff Hort
16 οÅÄÉ γαàηγαÀηÃεν ο θεο Äον κοÃμον ÉÃĀε Äον Ã…ιον Äον μονογενη εδÉκεν ινα Àα ο ÀιÃĀεÅÉν ει αÅÄον μη αÀοληÄαι αλλ εÇη ζÉην αιÉνιον

*** I often notice how similar modern translations are. Despite using different the TR, critical text, or some other printed greek text, modern bibles seem more similar then the KJV to its predecessors. I think some of these early English preKJV bibles have some great value in their readings.

*** Did anyone notice that Tyndale placed the negative particle "μη" with "believe" instead of its usual place with "perish?" I also like Tyndale avoiding the term "only begotten" in favor of "his only son" for the greek μÿνογενη. I notice neither Tyndale nor Wycliffe include the word "whosoever." That term comes from the conjunctive Àα in combination with the participle that follows it. Yet both the Tyndale and Wycliffe translations are good readings without the word "whosoever," or "whoever." I guess my point is that these older translations have value, and are more then curiosities.