Scattered thoughts on the KJV
I have written about the King James Version before in very positive terms. But the diction is varied and there is much to like and much to dislike. It is better for me to come clear on what irritates me first and then look at what can be learned.
Primary among the transgressors are the latinizations - words like justification, sanctification, salvation, propitiation, redemption, temptation, fornication, damnation, etc. They can't be disposed of entirely but they can be used minimally, choosing only those that are essential. The Greek itself uses words that were already present in the language. It would be nice to do the same with English.
Along with these intruders in the text are the ecclesiastical terms: church, bishop, deacon, etc. Then come the transliterations: synagogue, mystery, and baptism. All of this vocabulary lends an unevenness to the English that the Greek does not have. It makes for an awkward mix.
Next, and most offensive are those terms which owe nothing to either Latin nor Greek in origin, and don't sound like much in English either.
'Quicken' is the same. The Greek says 'made alive'. So the translators were indeed improving on the original. But this kind of translation obscures the compound nature of these words; it covers up the genius of the Greek.
Here is another set of phrases, delicately configured alliteration and imagery. But they do not in any way reflect the structure, or evoke the style, of the original.
I cannot reverence the KJ version, but I can appreciate its position in English literature and consider what it has to teach us. Whether this in any way inspires me to think of how a new version might look, I don't know. I don't want to think about one more translation - not right now!
Primary among the transgressors are the latinizations - words like justification, sanctification, salvation, propitiation, redemption, temptation, fornication, damnation, etc. They can't be disposed of entirely but they can be used minimally, choosing only those that are essential. The Greek itself uses words that were already present in the language. It would be nice to do the same with English.
Along with these intruders in the text are the ecclesiastical terms: church, bishop, deacon, etc. Then come the transliterations: synagogue, mystery, and baptism. All of this vocabulary lends an unevenness to the English that the Greek does not have. It makes for an awkward mix.
Next, and most offensive are those terms which owe nothing to either Latin nor Greek in origin, and don't sound like much in English either.
- former conversation
the old man
whoremonger
bowels of mercies
quicken
knit
purloin
confound
- That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love Col. 2:2
'Quicken' is the same. The Greek says 'made alive'. So the translators were indeed improving on the original. But this kind of translation obscures the compound nature of these words; it covers up the genius of the Greek.
Here is another set of phrases, delicately configured alliteration and imagery. But they do not in any way reflect the structure, or evoke the style, of the original.
- world without end Eph. 3:21
peculiar people Titus 2:14
often infirmities 1 Tim. 5:23
do thy diligence 2 Tim. 4:21
in times past Gal. 1:13
tossed to and fro Eph. 4:14
- singleness of heart Col. 3:22
lowliness of mind Phil 2:3
breathing out threatenings Acts 1:9
nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph.6:4
bringing into captivity every thought 2 Cor. 10:5
- according to his mercy he saved us Titus 3:5
I cannot reverence the KJ version, but I can appreciate its position in English literature and consider what it has to teach us. Whether this in any way inspires me to think of how a new version might look, I don't know. I don't want to think about one more translation - not right now!
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 8:28 PM
5 Comments:
Anon, isn't there another alternative: "Read the Bible in an English version which" does not fall "short of literary greatness" but has not yet been "widely recognized as literature proper". Of course the question is whether there is any such translation, but you did mention Alter's version as a candidate. But it seems that your only criterion for literary greatness is "widely recognized", except that I'm sure you would qualify that by accepting only certain people as qualified to recognise this, because if you went for a strict democratic vote you would probably have to count The Da Vinci Code as great literature! So, don't we come back to a subjective and elitist definition of literature, rather than the objective one some of us have been asking for?
By 1611 the English rendering had become completely literal: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. Now to the modern ear, this has logical and and linguistic weaknesses: To kiss with a kiss is tautologous; even more with a kiss of the mouth. Consider instead the NLT's Kiss me and kiss me again. The NLT avoids the rebarbatively alien tautologies with a recognizable and acceptable phrase (although it shares the error of Coverdale's Bibles). But in rejecting in the alien and introducing the familiar, the modern version has ceased to be a translation.
Hm, what a strange definition of translation.
"To kiss with a kiss" is a wonderful example of a structure where the verb is amplified by a following noun, known from many Semitic languages, especially Arabic. It would be most appropriately referred to as an idiom. To translate an idiom using an idiom is the best translation practice there can be. Now we might argue about whether "Kiss me and kiss me again" is the most suitable one. I quite like it, or perhaps something along the lines of "Kiss me again and again" would be good, too. But to say that by using an idiom the translation "has ceases to be a translation" is simply ridiculous.
One must go beyond a dictionary, for the feel of a word. There is some artistry, some sense of weighing a word for its various qualities.
Amen.
Were students to always use annotated editions, it would hardly explain the popularity of unannotated editions (such as facsimiles of the Shakesperian folios and quartos
Oh the many shelves of libraries where the volumes stacked have never been opened but only laid out as a symbol of vanity and fruitless ambition!
In other words, not everything bought is actually read.
I assure you, sir, I have read the entire paragraph.
While I cannot comment on NLT in general, I have the following to say concerning SOL 1:2:
Coverdale and the Authorized Version embedded in their readings the implication that the kissing will be of the frankest and most mutual kind: mouth to mouth
As opposed to...? Do we really know that much about the practice of kissing in the ancient Israelite community?
As for the "mutuality" - to quote a poet, even in kissing, there is a giving and a receiving side. And considering the nature of the text I would say that "one-sided abundance" is the perfect description of what is going on between the Bridegroom (God) and the Bride (Israel, humanity).
Even if I would accept that "kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" does indeed imply mutuality, it does not cease to imply the abundance and intensity conveyed by the structure. The KJV translation keeps the former while losing the latter. NLT loses the former while keeping the latter. Which is better when both are equally bad?
I think that to one who has kissed passionately, my description is perfectly clear and rings true.
Well then I guess it's the fault of this reader and his linguistic-obsessed mind that he cannot agree with your position :o)
Shir ha-Shirim can be viewed as an allegory, certainly, but it is also a highly erotic love poem
I'd be the last person to dispute that.
something that clearly comes out in the KJV and not in the NLT
Alas, I am not sufficiently familiar with NLT to comment on this. But I have seen my share of Canticles translation to know that there are many cases when the translators ignored the aforementioned aspect of this poem. In the light of the enormous learning you have displayed here and elsewhere, sir, I will gladly accept your judgement.
"if they consider Da Vinci Code as literature... theirs will be a minority view."
Don't count on it! There are a lot more people out there raving (in more senses than one, sometimes) about The Da Vinci Code than there are scholars defining and supporting the "cultural canon". But I think we can agree that, fortunately, these things are not decided by majority vote.
"A more interesting question to ask is: is the elevated status of the KJV mere caprice or snobbery or herd-instinct, or is there a reason that so many people who speicalize in studying literature esteem it so highly?"
I'm not sure that I would quite go for the first alternative. I would add other parts to the description here: tradition, and originally royal and ecclesiastical sponsorship. I guess you would go for the latter. But if so, what is the reason? The whole thrust of this thread has been to push for some good reason to be given.
PS Don't worry about shocking Bulbul, see (adults only!) this posting on his own blog.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home