Steven Avery

Hi Clouseau. There were approximately fifty translators, all skilled in classical or semitic languages or both, working in committee for about 3 years in the Oxford and Cambridge areas, and these men were largely Oxford and Cambridge University scholars.

Is it your serious contention that they were simply looking at the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Rheims and the other English versions and not going over verse-by-verse from the source languages as well, as directly stated ("from the original tongues") ?

If so, what is the basis of your contention ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Clouseau

Little is known about most of the translators. The reputations of Oxford and Cambridge Universities were not as high then as they were to become. James, who had declared bishops to be an essential political instrument of his 'divine right' rule, made it clear that no remuneration would be paid, and that the most that translators could expect was potential career preferment. The only people to be paid, apart from the official printer, were the diocesan bishops who chose the translators. Two of the most prominent scholars in England at the time were not chosen, and of course many of the best had fled to the Continent. I don't see how circumstances such as these can be regarded as auspicious, except by right-wing reactionaries, for producing a good, unbiased, reliable translation. And they weren't, imv.

I don't doubt that at least one person checked out the proof texts against their original languages as they were then known. But it would be quite mistaken to suppose that these men started out with blank sheets of paper. They were ordered by Bancroft to keep to the existing translation used in Anglican places of worship, the unpopular, stilted Bishops' Bible, 'and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.' So you can come to your own conclusion as to what that meant.

Then, in addition, there was another rule: five other translations (inc. Tyndale's and the competitor Geneva) were to be used when 'they agree better with the Text than the Bishops' Bible'. My interpretation of all this is that the 'translators' made sure that they could not be accused of egregious departure from the Greek and Hebrew, while formulating phrases and clauses that met the king's agenda. Their real role was not translation, but getting a plausible result, a balance between accuracy and political expediency. They were Establishment men, doing what Establishment men do, and their knowledge of the subtleties of English was far more important than their knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. When they had finished, they had Greek and Hebrew experts to check for obvious errors.

The significant difference about the KJV is that it was the first popular Bible to be produced for political purposes. It wasn't the last of those, of course, but it still carries advantages for those with reason to obscure the real content of the Bible.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Nice political rant. Not worth much time. A couple of small point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau it would be quite mistaken to suppose that these men started out with blank sheets of paper.

Pretty much everybody is aware that the King James Bible was designed as an update of the existing excellent English Bibles, which they honored in the Preface (Translators to the Readers). It would have been the height of ignorance and arrogance to start with "blank sheets of paper".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau They were ordered by Bancroft to keep to the existing translation used in Anglican places of worship, the unpopular, stilted Bishops' Bible, 'and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.' So you can come to your own conclusion as to what that meant.

Obviously since the result was what is often considered the masterpiece of English literature the translators failed miserably in keeping to any stilted sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau their knowledge of the subtleties of English was far more important than their knowledge of Greek or Hebrew.

Actually some of the translators were considered only fair in English polemic, but excellent and masterful in the source languages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau it still carries advantages for those with reason to obscure the real content of the Bible.

:-) For those of us read the King James Bible daily this is a bit funny.

So, what do you consider a version that makes clear "the real content of the Bible" and why not give a couple of examples so we have a little idea what is your own view.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

Clouseau

King Praxeus <edit> hath spoken.

You are, now!

What a volte face!

As modern translators do.

Stalin rides again!

You really don't have the first clue what you are talking about!

Nobody does that, unless it is to a hated audience.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Incidentally if you have a King James Bible with the original footnotes ,
the 1611 is on the web :
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...PagePosition=1 you can see many places where they show the difference between a literal Hebrew and the English translation. My favorites are Isaiah 53:9 and Psalm 12 however they are throughout. You can actually see them (spelling updated) at sites like crosswalk.com:
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...rentChapter=53
How this would be accomplished from English versions that did not have these notes is a bit of a puzzle.

For those who wish to really learn about the King James Bible translators and history .. here is a bit of a reading list. These are books that I too plan to buy, most of them. The McClure book has some good summaries on the web and there are other discussions you can find and the reviews of course. These are likely more edifying and helpful than most of what takes place here and most are inexpensive and available through Abebooks or other used resources as well as new.

Translators Revived: A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible - Alexander McClure (1855)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/9994076493/internetinfidels

Translating for King James - Ward S. Allen (1994)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0826512461/internetinfidels

The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators' Work-In-Progress - Ward S. Allen Edward C. Jacobs (1995)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1557283451/internetinfidels

The King James Bible Translators - Olga Opfell (2001)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0786411570/internetinfidels

In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture - Alister McGrath (2002)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0385722168/internetinfidels

The Bible in English: Its History And Influence - David Daniell (2003)

http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0300099304/internetinfidels

A Textual History of the King James Bible - David Norton (2005)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0521771005/internetinfidels

God's Secretaries : The Making of the King James Bible - Adam Nicolson (2005)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0060838736/internetinfidels

King James, His Bible, and Its Translators - Laurence M Vance (2006)
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0976344815/internetinfidels

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Clouseau

I take this as due, grovelling and abject apology for use of the word 'rant', and recognition of something approaching genuine scholarship. Commendable, in the circumstances.

Steven Avery

Actually I was just bypassing your earlier post and sharing with the readers. Thanks for recognizing the good source list though. If you can find any references in them to your idea that the translators in committee did not actually work with the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic sources as mentioned in the Preface (Translators to the Readers) you can share away. Until you retract that accusation, or supply substantive evidence, your earlier comments are properly called unscholarly. And combined with King Praxeus, Stalin, etc the word rant is actually quite mild for your writings. (Yes, those particular two rants may have been after the original rant.)

I just noticed that the 'moderators' take it upon themselves to 'infidelize amazon links' meaning that the infidel enterprise will make a profit on books that are mostly honoring to the King James Bible, the word of God. A bit ironic and imho not the proper path. Thus I will in the future look for other ways to reference Christian and Bible-oriented-books. And I would suggest that if Christians don't want infidels to make money on books on the Bible please don't ferget to take out the last section of the link when you visit the site (especially if you are considering purchase).

And those who from conviction would prefer to purchase a non-extra-infidel-royalty-version of the books can use the links at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia.../message/14091
KJB translation history books

Also don't ferget:

Abebooks
http://www.abebooks.com/

and similar resources, which often will give you a lower price on used books than will Amazon and will offer a wider availability.

Shalom,
Steven

Toto

Hi Steven - is it Christian to freeload and not pay your way? The Amazon revenue does not come close to covering the cost of these boards that you use so freely.

Internet Infidels is a non-profit enterprize in any case. And infidelized Amazon links can be added even if you don't put them in.

Your 'moderator'

Toto

Clouseau

I think readers might have an alternative perception of what you were 'just' doing, and whether the rest of your post is of any different nature.

Steven Avery

Hi Toto, I simply stated my conviction on the matter when the books are God-honoring, such as those that express the history of the King James Bible properly. And I am quite aware that we are not talking big bucks involved. There is no compelling reason to go into the topic more.

And if the IIDB 'rules' are changed to say that we have to 'pay our way' to post here, then I, and likely others, will consider that change when it occurs.

I realize that you can change the links here under the covers, however you cannot modify the links when I link to another site that has the Amazon links. You can only censor the master link.

Shalom,
Steven