spin

Strangely enough, as a translation it was very good for its time. They didn't know so much about ancient Hebrew and they depended on the Greek and Latin translations and they lacked better Greek sources than the textus receptus, but the effort was a singular success.

The major problem with using the KJV is that the English language has change so much that much of it, though seemingly we understand, is foreign to us. We assume we understand the text when it uses words whose meanings have changed.

KJV rightly deserves the kudos it garnered. However, it wouldn't be too wise to try to use it straight out of the box these days -- you'd need a translator.


spin

Faid

It's funny that, when dave bailed out of this thread 3 weeks ago (saying "more Monday| ), his last post was basically saying "no wonder you can't see I'm right, you're just a bunch of infidels".

I wonder who he was writing that for? Us, or himself?

-Jay-

You're right, of course. At the time, it was as good as you could hope for. However, for the linguistic reasons that you noted and because of subsequently discovered sources, there are better translations available now.

I remember in high school hearing Shakespeare performed in the contemporary English of the his day. It was an eye-opening (ear-opening?) experience. The take-away from that is that it's not always correct to assume that "English" is "English", and one has to be aware of the evolution within the language.

regards,

NinJay

spin

The sad ugly truth is that it still better than many versions around today, knowing its limitations. You get translators these days who fall over their presuppositions and cloud their own understanding of the texts, so you can't expect them to do what they should do from the first, ie translate what the text actually says.

I don't advocate much of the teaching of Shakespeare that goes on because it's just painful to those who are supposed to believe it's important when they can't read the stuff. (And I'm a great fan of English Elizabethan and Jacobean literature.)


spin

-Jay-

Oh, don't get me started. Some of the modern popular translations (The Message comes to mind) just amaze me at how much they reinterpret the material. I think I'll start a thread on this. In the morning. When I'm less annoyed at my university football team getting their helmets handed to them and pretty much losing any chance at a bowl bid.

The value in Shakespeare, in my opinion, is less in the work itself and more in the influence it has in the literature that came after.

regards,

NinJay

jbarntt

This thread is pretty old, but I just today read about the Wiseman hypothesis and found the comments here either overly optimistic, (Hawkins), or overly derisive, (most of the rest).

First, it is not clear to me that the documentary hypothesis, (D-H), is either true or false, or that the Wiseman hypothesis, (W-H) can be assigned a truth value either. Strong evidence for the D-H would be an early document that clearly is from one of the JEDP traditions. Evidence for the W-H is harder to imagine, but given that the W-H has some archaeological evidence to support it, I find it hard to dismiss.

The W-H rests on the following:

The use of colophons and repeated phrases in Genesis, to end and begin sections does indeed mirror the usage of cuneiform on clay tablets in Mesopotamia going back to the appropriate time.

This usage is rare in the OT outside of Genesis.

Much of the action in Genesis does take place in Mesopotamia.

These facts make the W-H interesting, as it connects a specific Mesopotamian scribal usage to our received text of an OT book, much of which is situated in that land and the stories are from the time of such usage.

Now I do not believe that Adam wrote anything, if he even existed, but that there could have been pre-Mosaic tablets with the early Genesis stories is not unbelievable, esp. given the similarities between the Genesis accounts and the Sumerian myths. Also, note that Genesis does describe a Sumerian origin for Abram, in the city of Ur.

It is also notable that Hebrew is a Semitic language, as is Sumerian. Cuneiform is a hieroglyphic written language, hence reading it is not dependent on speaking the specific language. Cuneiform was used for written purposes by a variety of Semitic speaking peoples, including those in Palestine in the time of Moses, (I'm not taking a position on the historicity of of Moses).

The W-H is not as dumb as it might first seem, esp. if one were to assume the colophon attributions, while ancient are pseudo-epigraphical, not an unusual thing in those days.

spin

Repeated phrases are common in ancient literature generally. As to colophons, the idea misunderstands the use of the Hebrew term TWLDWT, "toledoth", which mostly appears not at the end of a passage but at the start, while a colophon appears at the end of a document. The word "toledoth" usually initiates a genealogy, not strangely because it means "generations/bringings forth/descendants", eg "these are the generations of Shem", Gen 11:10. Wiseman's notion is ridiculous and no-one in the field accepts it.

Actually toledoth occurs more times in Numbers than in Genesis.

You mean Gen 11:1b-12:4? Do you consider that as much of the action of Genesis?

It's dumber. The proponent was apparently clueless of the material he was fiddling with. The colophon notion shows ignorance of colophons. "toledoths" are in no sense analogous with colophons. The issue was dead before it was conceived.


spin

jbarntt

You mean Gen 11:1b-12:4? Do you consider that as much of the action of Genesis?

I meant Genesis 1.1-12.4

jbarntt

Repeated phrases are common in ancient literature generally. As to colophons, the idea misunderstands the use of the Hebrew term TWLDWT, "toledoth", which mostly appears not at the end of a passage but at the start, while a colophon appears at the end of a document.

My point exactly, the use of colophons indicates a pre-Hebraic origin. Consider:

Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created - when the Lord God made the earth and heavens. (NET Bible)

This scripture makes far more sense if seen as referring to Genesis 1.1-2.3 than it does to Genesis 2.5 and above.

Note that from 2.5 we are reading details after the Creation, not an account of the creation itself, which is found prior. This is a colophon, a brief recap of what has just been told. That this usage doesn't correspond to later Jewish usage is of no interest, because the text predates that.

jbarntt

Wiseman was not "fiddling" with anything. Of course Toledoth is is not equivalent to a colophon. A Toledoth is a history, esp. a family history. A colophon is a reference at the end of a work ascribing authorship, place or date of the work.

You seem to be the one who is confused.