Posted on 09/09/2014 7:52:23 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
In 1611, the new British state headed by King James I issued its translation of the complete Bible, "newly translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised. By His Majesty's special command. Appointed to be read in churches." The book gave English-speaking Christians a common standard through which they could express their faith. Soon, the spread of printing technology meant that this translation above all became the definitive Bible that believers kept in their houses, and before too long, carried in their pockets.
*snip*
Even thinkers not sympathetic to the Bible's message still praise its language. Famous skeptic H. L. Mencken found in the King James "a mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and the most touching ever heard of."
*snip*
No serious study of literature in English can neglect the impact of the 1611 Bible, and that is equally true for any century from the 17th through the 20th. All the great canonical authors are immersed in that Bible, even (or especially) those who reject its fundamental religious message. To put it ironically, the Bible they reject is the 1611 version, which created the literary air we breathe. The King James language informs and inspires American literature, from Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne through Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner. It has its special power in African American tradition, from Frederick Douglass through Alice Walker.
(Excerpt) Read more at baylor.edu ...
And since no ones memory is that good, and most people don't go to daily Mass, it would behoove people to buy a bible to take home and read and study for themselves...
The books of the Apocrypha are excluded in the KJB, but that doesn't mean it is incomplete or incorrect.
There is nothing to prevent one from reading the books of the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigrapha.
I have a two volume set of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha on my bedside table and study the Book of Enoch regularly.
Fascinating stuff.
I have wondered if both sides talked with each other.
The DR had some revisions that post date the KJV. I have older translations of both, and they are different in places but very similar in others.
Also remember the old KJV had the Apocrypha in it (or at least the version I have did). The similarities are not as close, but still made me wonder if they hadn’t been talking.
Anyone who does a translation “changes” what they translate. That is why no translation should be unquestioningly accepted. However, Luther’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into German. Tyndale’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into English, and the KJV owes a great deal to Tyndale.
And since the D-R Bible is essentially a KJV with Roman Catholic theology inserted (regardless of the Greek or Hebrew), the most famous Catholic English translation owes a lot to the KJV and thus Tyndale as well!
“The earlier Catholic Bible in English, the Douay-Rheims, was published in 1589 (NT) and 1611 (OT).”
That version ceased printing around 1635. The KJV owes far more to the Tyndale and Coverdale translations from the mid 1500s. The DR Bible used today is the one largely based off the KJV, with Catholic theology added (1750).
“But in the Middle Ages, Europeans who could read, read Latin.”
Yet there was a huge demand for Bibles in English and German. How could that be, if folks only read Latin?
Luther’s translation made the German language into what it is today.
Same with the KJV.
They set the language for the people.
“The committees explicitly states that former translations are used.”
“Scholars tell us that around 90% of the King James Version is from Tyndale’s works with as much as one third of the text being word for word Tyndale. Many of the popular phrases and Bible verses that people quote today are mainly in the language of Tyndale. An example of which is Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers.” The importance of the Tyndale Bible in shaping and influencing the English language is paramount. According to one scholar Tyndale is “the man who more than Shakespeare even or Bunyan has moulded and enriched our language.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible
Not all were used equally, and none of the translations consulted overruled the Greek or Hebrew texts.
If you were educated, you have to learn Latin. Trouble is by that time it was a “dead” language.
Dante’s Divine Comedy was very controversial because he wrote in what was called “His own Romance” which later became Italian. It was viewed as vulgar since giving literature to the masses (read, middle class artisans and merchants) was not considered good by the nobles.
That is part of the reason for the instance of using all Latin by many Catholics. What is funny is that if you read about why Jerome did what he did, he was attempting to translate the Bible into a language that most people in the Empire spoke. Vulgar (common) Latin.
He did ok, but even early on people pointed out his errors. Augustine and Jerome didn’t like each other, and Augustine had a very dim view of the Vulgate and preferred other texts. Their letters back and forth make me wonder what their FReeper names would have been.
I would say Luther and Tyndale (and the later versions, most importantly the KJV) solidified the language...caused it to jell, so to speak. Luther, Tyndale and others had to choose between phrases and terms that differed in various locations, and the choices they made then became the standard everywhere.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html
I can not vouch for anything else on this site, but here are a few of the letter between Augustine and Jerome.
The commoners knew enough to have a hunger for the Bible in their own vernacular. That is why Wycliffe’s awkward translation was circulated at great risk. That is why Tyndale’s translation sold as fast as they could be printed. That is why Luther’s translation flooded the country - there WAS an unmet demand for good vernacular translations.
I’ll admit to regarding Jerome much higher than Augustine. It would be fascinating to have them as Freepers, however!
The letters were awesome. The first time I read them years ago I had to laugh as they reminded me so much of discussions here.
It wasn’t just the Bible. Until the Reformation, the idea that you should even HAVE a language outside of Greek or Latin was very suspicious for many nobles. The local languages were viewed with contempt, much like we view local slang. So translating the Bible to a population that should be speaking “correctly” was considered wrong.
The issue was that in the germanic groups, Latin had never been the language. Same with the slavonic areas. So they had no attachment to Latin. The Slavonic groups did have to Greek, but still had a unique outlook.
Even the Council of Trent had some rather odd statements. The Catholic church has many rites in local languages, most dating to prior to Trent. This caused all kinds of confusion when Latin prelates demanded that Greek Catholics ditch their rite in the 19th century USA.
but the vocal Catholic proselytizers on FR
...and they, of course, would be distinct from the vocal Protestant proselytizers on FR...
Of course.
A lot of the language was very similar to KJV.
The Douay-Rheims was NOT consulted when the KJV was created. No corrupted Catholic manuscripts were consulted.
Oh please, have you ever read Fox's Book of Martyrs? The list is endless! And don't you dare label what the Albigense's did "heresy." Since when is it heresy to try to worship and love God as the scriptures call for?
“I don’t know how “huge” the demand was. In England, the Crown ordered purchases of it...”
That did not apply to Tyndale’s translation, nor to Wycliffe or Coverdale.
In the 1200s, the price of a full Wycliffe’s bible would have taken the average person 15 years to earn - IF that person had no other expenses of any sort! By Tyndale’s time, the price of a complete New Testament was down more than 200-fold.
“It is more important to get the language right than to publish in every possible language.”
By that theory, none of us would own vernacular translations, since no translation is perfect. Indeed, there are disputes about readings in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, so perhaps we all ought to ignore the Word of God!
Thankfully, men like Tyndale and Luther disagreed.
From Tyndale’s 1525 translation of John, with original spelling:
“And as Moses lifte vp the serpent in the wyldernes even so must the sonne of man be lifte vp 15 that none that beleveth in him perisshe: but have eternall lyfe. 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. 17 For God sent not his sonne into the worlde to condepne the worlde: but that the worlde through him might be saved. 18 He that beleveth on him shall not be condepned. But he that beleveth not is condempned all redy be cause he beleveth not in the name of the only sonne of God.”
I’d rather have nothing but Tyndale’s 1525 translation in 2014 than none at all!
“But God which is rich in mercy thorow his greate love wherwith he loved vs 5 even when we were deed by synne hath quickened vs together in Christ (for by grace are ye saved) 6 and hath raysed vs vp together and made vs sitte together in hevenly thynges thorow Christ Iesus 7 for to shewe in tymes to come the excedynge ryches of his grace in kyndnes to vs warde in Christ Iesu. 8 For by grace are ye made safe thorowe fayth and that not of youre selves. For it is the gyfte of God 9 and commeth not of workes lest eny man shuld bost him silfe. 10 For we are his worckmanshippe created in Christ Iesu vnto good workes vnto the which god ordeyned vs before that we shuld walke in them. ...”
BIBLE READING BY THE LAITY, RESTRICTIONS ON:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.