Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 10-06-2004, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madkins007

As for the persistance of the selected term (which is 'right' in some ways, possibly, but may not have been the best choice), there is a strong tendency amongst translaters to not stray too far from the King James choices without really strong evidence.

Some of this is tradition (it sounds/feels right using the comforting words of old), some of it is economics (people won't buy translations that seem wrong), etc., etc., etc.

However, many modern bibles do address a lot of these in marginal notes.

Surely you're not serious. I know of very few, if any,modern translations which follow the KJV. Most are based on the NA27 Greek text which derives from a completely different family of MSS than the KJV. Could you clarify?

Madkins007 · 10-07-2004, 09:26 PM

CX- I only meant in the sense of the persistance of certain rythyms, word choices, etc.- NOT in foundational documents and scholarship.

Some 'favorite phrases' are very similar in most versions- Gen 1:1, Ps. 23, John 3:16, etc. Publishers know that if they issue a version that varies too much from the familiar that it will not be as easily accepted. Look at the fury over the New Revised Standard, or the general resistance to versions like the otherwise excellent Jerusalem Bible.

(For other people's edification, the NRSV did a lot of things that the translators thought made sense- gender-neutral terms when the original languages called for it, etc. The JB is a great version based on French scholarship that has never shared any of the King James' history and thus shares few of the familar patterns.)

This of course assumes that the newer translators felt that the phrasing made sense and was sufficiently accurate.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2004, 09:26 PM	#12
Madkins007 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 591	CX- I only meant in the sense of the persistance of certain rythyms, word choices, etc.- NOT in foundational documents and scholarship. Some 'favorite phrases' are very similar in most versions- Gen 1:1, Ps. 23, John 3:16, etc. Publishers know that if they issue a version that varies too much from the familiar that it will not be as easily accepted. Look at the fury over the New Revised Standard, or the general resistance to versions like the otherwise excellent Jerusalem Bible. (For other people's edification, the NRSV did a lot of things that the translators thought made sense- gender-neutral terms when the original languages called for it, etc. The JB is a great version based on French scholarship that has never shared any of the King James' history and thus shares few of the familar patterns.) This of course assumes that the newer translators felt that the phrasing made sense and was sufficiently accurate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.