Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Introducing the English Standard Version | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 94917 | ||
Makarios -- In these days of King James Only-ism -- which for lack of any other tag I would label a crack-pot ism -- I am careful to try to tone down my unbridled admiration for this masterpiece of English literature, which among learned users of English the King James Bible has for centuries been recognized to be. There has never been another translation to match the beauty, the music, or the majesty of its sonorous English, nor can there ever be, because the beautiful Elizabethan English of 1611 is not the same English of 2003. The King James Version captured the English language at the very moment it blossomed into full flower. It was the age of Shakespeare, the age when English was so new and so malleable that masters of the language, such as Shakespeare and the team of peerless scholars who produced the remarkable King James Bible could mold it and shape it into a thing of exquisite beauty, as a master sculptor forms a work of art from a piece of clay. The manuscripts that supported the translation of the King James Bible have sometimes been brought into question, but modern research and scholarship have virtually exonerated the King James from the charge that it was produced from inferior manuscripts, and here I speak mainly of the New Testament manuscripts wherein lay the alleged inferiority. The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, known to us as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. Some 125 years ago, two scholars named Westcott and Hort theorized that this text had been edited by the church during the fourth century, but absent from their theory was a total lack of historical evidence that any such editing had ever occurred. It is now widely held that the Byzantine text, which largely supports the Textus Receptus, has as much right as any other tradition, including the Alexanderian, to be weighed in determining the text for the New Testament. ..... Confidence having been restored in the textual basis on which the King James Bible was produced, we can turn with further assurance that the painstaking efforts of the translators produced a translation that is as transparent of the biblical manuscripts as good English usage will permit. Scholars are in accord that the Scriptures in their original tongues, especially the Old Testament, are masterpieces of literature. The books of Job, Ruth, and Esther are acclaimed the world over as superlative literary masterpieces, perhaps never excelled by any other piece of writing in the long history of world literature. The King James, therefore, is the only translation in history, sacred or secular, that has ever been called a masterpiece of a masterpiece -- a masterpiece of translation of a masterpiece of writing, a classic of a classic. This Authorized Version, this King James Bible, has been justly called "the noblest monument to English prose" and for nearly four centuries has found favor with prince and pauper alike, has warmed the hearts of millions and been the lighthouse of millions more that guided them from the darkness of a stormy sea to the salvific harbor that the Light of the World provides by the grace of God. I fear that I have not toned down my unbridled admiration for this incomparable work; for, indeed, how can I curb so great an enthusiasm for so great a translation of the greatest book ever written -- the Word of God! --Hank | ||||||
2 | Introducing the English Standard Version | NT general Archive 1 | Makarios | 94924 | ||
My friend, No need to apologize for your unbridled enthusiasm! :-) And the KJV still is doing its job after all these years - Leading Souls to Christ! You know, the Roman successor to the Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims Translation of the Bible, was itself published in 1609-10 (Gregory Martin translated the whole of the OT before his death in 1584, and published the NT in 1582). The NT was actually published at Rheims in 1582 and the entire version, known as the "Douay-Rheims" translation, in Douay in 1609-10.. If you have had a chance to survey this translation, do you also see the rich Elizabethan English of that time (it itself being a comtemporary to the King James Version if there ever was one) being reflected in this version as well? I also believe that the deterioration of the English language has, in an extremely large way, affected our ability to produce a Bible version that would rival the KJV in its linguistical beauty. The sad thing is, I do not see any glorious future that would return the English language to its predominant form.. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." (Rheims New Testament) The Douay-Rheims text, as stated by the translators, was based upon "the old Vulgar Latin text, not the common Greek text..", since the Latin was preferred to the Greek where the languages disagreed. The New American Bible (official Catholic translation) is a direct descendant of the Duoay-Rheims.. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3 | Introducing the English Standard Version | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 94946 | ||
Makarios -- While it is true that the English language has experienced dynamic changes since the Elizabethan Age, I do not believe that it has necessarily deteriorated. It remains still a remarkably fluid tongue with an enormously rich vocabularly made possible by vast numbers of cognates borrowed from virtually every language on earth. What has deteriorated miserably is education in the proper usage of the powerful and expressive English language that is one of our most precious heritages. Both the New King James Version and the English Standard Version have achieved a high level of excellence in their masterful blending of good clear readable English with a remarkable degree of fidelity to the sacred manuscripts. But I am as horrified by some attempts at translation as I am pleased by the two fine examples I have cited. As an example, compare the familiar phrase of Psalm 23:4, which both the NKJV and the ESV render, "Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me" to the oddly different twist the New Century Version gives to this passage, "Your rod and your walking stick comfort me." Does this enhance your image of God, picturing Him hobbling about with a walking stick? Does a walking stick comfort you in a way that a staff doesn't? The effort to reduce the language of the Bible to the level of common street talk more often than not falls flat on its face and does nothing but make the so-called translation look ridiculous, as indeed it is. I've sampled nearly all of the new translations and paraphrased versions and find in many of them, especially the paraphrased versions, renderings of what is supposed to be the word of God that are of incredibly poor taste. The NKJV and ESV are fine examples that modern English can be stately and powerful. Some other modern versions are equally fine examples that modern English can be bland and limp. The fault lies not in English but in the hands of its users, in whether they be skilled or inept. --Hank | ||||||