tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post1914615027738545398..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: KJV spottingWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-15950765040241849732008-04-03T15:06:00.000-07:002008-04-03T15:06:00.000-07:00I think you should check out Mark Noll's article i...I think you should check out Mark Noll's article in the Wall Street Journal from a couple years ago.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008620" REL="nofollow">The American Biblical Tradition</A><BR/><BR/>While not a linguist, he does know his history.Trierrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06747045962664313280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-11997506714397295982008-04-03T11:27:00.000-07:002008-04-03T11:27:00.000-07:00Suzanne,Your first comment touches on an interesti...Suzanne,<BR/>Your first comment touches on an interesting point. Some approximation of 17th century English usage was the standard of the church into the 20th century, at least in the "official" places, in the liturgy, in the hymnody, in the preaching, and, of course, in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>The evidence is all over the place, but it is especially obvious in the hymnody. So you find <I>Be Thou my vision</I> translated in 1915's in more than passably good Elizabethan English.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that there is still a kind of collective memory that some of that language SHOULD be part of the church, and that our discussions of Bible translations are pushing against this cultural inertia.Richard A. Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14227550014596898280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-53071851752792383022008-04-03T11:08:00.000-07:002008-04-03T11:08:00.000-07:00Steve,You might want to read God's Secretaries be...Steve,<BR/>You might want to read <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060185163/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207243510&sr=1-2" REL="nofollow">God's Secretaries</A> before you make any claims for the scholarliness of the KJV. Nicolson documents how much of a political and theological object it is.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, if you read back to earlier posts on this blog you'll see that there are many ways in which the KJV is less true to the original text. Read <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/01/christmas-nostalgia.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> and <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/01/whats-in-word.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> (pay special attention to the comment thread) and <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-we-ready-to-run.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> for starters.Richard A. Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14227550014596898280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-47548815843659561642008-04-03T10:17:00.000-07:002008-04-03T10:17:00.000-07:00Hi, I've been enjoying your blog for about a week ...Hi, I've been enjoying your blog for about a week now after I discovered it through the "Bible Design and Binding" blog. For what it's worth, I enjoy the language of the KJV. I'm no KJV onlyist and I use many translations for bible study but I do think that the KJV is the most scholarly translation.Steve Lockharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190206956105463689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-24900650149263427512008-04-03T10:13:00.000-07:002008-04-03T10:13:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Lockharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190206956105463689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-11199031628298990952008-04-03T09:32:00.000-07:002008-04-03T09:32:00.000-07:00Suzanne, you may be right that many people quote K...Suzanne, you may be right that many people quote KJV simply because it is traditional, or perhaps because the only Bible they have on their shelf is their grandmother's KJV. And I agree that RSV etc failed to replace it partly because of their clumsy wording. But I really find it hard to believe that already back in the 1950s RSV was rejected because of its gender insensitivity.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-27007755393149866262008-04-03T07:45:00.000-07:002008-04-03T07:45:00.000-07:00My sense is that it has nothing to do with snobber...My sense is that it has nothing to do with snobbery. People just don't want a sectarian Bible. They want a traditional Bible. They want a Bible that matches Handel. <BR/><BR/>The RSV flunked because nobody wants a Bible that says that the peacemakers are the "sons of God" that is just not going to fly. So the KJV of that verse is a huge banner in a public place in Vancouver. And once people gave up on the RSV, they just didn't bother to meet the NRSV, which might sound acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Besides, a lot of people associate the KJV with Shakespeare and the Quakers, etc. I'll grant you, these same people are not necessarily concerned with anyone having access to the spiritual message of the Bible.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-51490157520301795272008-04-03T04:30:00.000-07:002008-04-03T04:30:00.000-07:00The world you are referring to is that of literati...The world you are referring to is that of literati, literary snobs, who have been brainwashed to believe that KJV is great literature. I am not suggesting that your librarian or Andrew Clement are personally snobs, but they probably move in those circles, and Clement had to get his book past editors in those circles.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com