P
patrick457
Guest
You’re welcome.
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
I don’t know for certain whether the Deutero’s were removed in 1629, but the reason you give is actually partly correct. The fell swoop that finally removed the Deuterocanon from the Authorized Version in many printings were actually caused, not by the hands of reformers, but of printers. From Wikipedia again:
English-language Protestant Bibles in the 16th Century included the books of the Apocrypha—generally in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments—and there is evidence that these were widely read as popular literature, especially in Puritan circles. By the mid—17th Century, however, Puritan theologians were increasingly uneasy at the intermingling of Biblical scripture with popular culture in general, and with the Apocrypha in particular. Further, these theologians were also inclined to reject books that owed their inclusion in the Biblical canon to ecclesiastical authority. Starting in 1630, volumes of the Geneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the Apocrypha section excluded. After the Restoration in 1660, Dissenters tended to discourage the reading of the Apocrypha in both public services and in private devotion.
The Church of England in the Thirty-Nine Articles had included the Apocrypha within the canon of “Holy Scripture”. Article VI Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation asserts:
And other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine
The Authorized Version included the Apocrypha; all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate’s Old Testament — the translation of Jerome (Hierome) — but missing in the Hebrew. Indeed, the Book of Common Prayer specifies lectionary readings from the Apocrypha to be read in Morning and Evening Prayer in October.
The standardisation of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers. With the rise of the Bible societies, most editions have omitted the whole section of Apocryphal books.
The Apocrypha were excluded from most Bibles following a withdrawal of subsidies by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826, which resolved
That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books and parts of books usually termed Apocryphal
The society revised its position in 1966.
The Authorized Version included the Apocrypha; all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate’s Old Testament — the translation of Jerome (Hierome) — but missing in the Hebrew. Indeed, the Book of Common Prayer specifies lectionary readings from the Apocrypha to be read in Morning and Evening Prayer in October.
The standardisation of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers. With the rise of the Bible societies, most editions have omitted the whole section of Apocryphal books.
The Apocrypha were excluded from most Bibles following a withdrawal of subsidies by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826, which resolved
That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books and parts of books usually termed Apocryphal
The society revised its position in 1966.
Eh, no. While Will Shakespeare did live for five more years after the KJV came out (he died in 1616), there is no concrete evidence that he had anything to do with the translation. The events and dates in the life of Shakespeare are fairly well known, and in all of the established facts about his life, not a single piece of paper or document puts him anywhere near the translation process of the King James Version.
Also, Shakespeare actually used the Geneva Bible (1560). Which, incidentally, was one of the reasons why King James I came up with the Authorized Version in the first place: the annotations in the Geneva Bible were strongly Calvinistic and Puritan in character and were thus disliked by the ruling conservative Protestants of the Church of England, James included. Even so, notes from that translation were surprisingly included in a few editions of the King James version, even as late as 1715. Instructions were actually given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible).
And BTW, there were originally supposed to be 54 translators (all CoE and - save for one, Sir Henry Savile - clergymen), but only 47 actually did the work. The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High Churchmen.
P
patrick457
Guest
I wrote a post on this a while ago in another thread:
At the time Psalm 46 was translated, Shakespeare was 46 years old. The forty-sixth word in the King James Version of Psalm 46 is “shake,” while the word that is forty-sixth from the end is “spear.” While this seems like too many appearances of 46 to be coincidential, it may very well be. At least three translations prior to the KJV use the words “shake” and “spear.” The Geneva Bible of 1560 (published 4 years before Shakespeare’s birth and therefore certainly uninfluenced by him in any way–indeed, he was influenced by it) was the Bible most commonly used in the English-speaking world during the far greater part of Shakespeare’s career. It was also the English Bible version most closely followed by the translators in their revision work.
An examination of the Geneva version of Psalm 46 reveals that both words “shake” and “speare” occur in the relevant verses (3 and 9), as in the KJV, though with a slightly different word count. “Shake” is the 48th, rather than 46th, word from the beginning of the Psalm (ignoring the title) and “speare” is the 44th word from the end of the Psalm (or 45th, depending on whether “selah” is excluded from or included in the count). It seems quite probable that the KJV picked up its use of “shake” and “speare” in the 3rd and 9th verses respectively from the prior Geneva Bible (the precise wording of Psalm 46 in the Geneva and the KJV is usually identical, with relatively few differences). Further it is entirely within reason that by merest accident these words ended up 46th from the beginning and end of the Psalm (ignoring the problem counting “selah” causes for the hypothesis).
Plus, the Hebrew words for “shake” and “spear” had been there for thousands of years prior to 1611. Also, the word “shake” is a commonly used word in the KJV (as is the word “spear”). Finding the two words together in one psalm is unremarkable.
Alsom In order to get the 46s out of Psalm 46, the word “selah” must be omitted from the text. Since the word “selah” seems to be used in many of the psalms as a type of musical punctuation, many proponents think that it would be acceptable not to count the word in order to obtain the desired result. However, the word is in the original text of the psalm. If either Shakespeare were involved in translating Psalm 46 or the translators were slipping in some inside joke, they mostly likely would have had the manuscripts that had selah, since it is in the text. Why, would they have decided not to count the word? And, if the word “spear” had come one word later in the text, would the propagators of this rumor simply say that Shakespeare or the translators did count “selah”?
Thus, we still can’t verify with certainty that Psalm 46=Shakespeare. For now, it is prudent to dismiss this as an urban legend.
I don’t know if they were required to be thus at the time of translation, but we at least know who worked on it now:
First Westminster Company (Genesis-2 Kings): Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;
First Cambridge Company (1 Chronicles-Song of Songs): Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing.
First Oxford Company (Isaiah-Malachi): John Harding, John Rainolds/Reynolds, Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne.
Second Oxford Company (Gospels, Acts, Revelation): Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten.
Second Westminster Company (Epistles): William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson.
Second Cambridge Company (Deuterocanon): John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.
J
James_Least
Guest
The DR came from the Vulgate, a Latin translation of various Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts which were copies of copies of copies of originals, the whereabouts of which are not known.
The KJV was translated from what is known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. These manuscripts were copies of copies of copies of the same lost originals—in the original languages of the Bible. It boils to: who has the best copies?
The disagreement from the above observations is that one of the lines of manuscript copies is more corrupted by human hands than the other. Obviously, both cannot be right.
The whole discussion is rather fruitless when the traditions of men are put on the same level as the Word of God. Man is very adept at messing things up.
Let God be found True and every man a liar.
This will probably not be resolved until Jesus returns.
See: Two Streams of Scripture, on the www.
Are we ready?
Peace,
James Least
The KJV was translated from what is known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. These manuscripts were copies of copies of copies of the same lost originals—in the original languages of the Bible. It boils to: who has the best copies?
The disagreement from the above observations is that one of the lines of manuscript copies is more corrupted by human hands than the other. Obviously, both cannot be right.
The whole discussion is rather fruitless when the traditions of men are put on the same level as the Word of God. Man is very adept at messing things up.
Let God be found True and every man a liar.
This will probably not be resolved until Jesus returns.
See: Two Streams of Scripture, on the www.
Are we ready?
Peace,
James Least
A
Air_Force_1
Guest
Thank you to everyone who has contributed. I have learned alot.
S
stpetric
Guest
No, the translators of the King James Version (called the Authorised Version in England) were not anonymous – although very little is known about a number of them. A couple of years ago, an English writer named Adam Nicolson published an excellent book called God’s Secretaries. It’s a history of the translation of the KJV/AV, and it really makes the people and the period come alive. Many of the translators are “fleshed out” inthe text; and all of them are listed in an appendix.
I’ve never heard the speculation about Shakespeare being involved with the KJV, and Nicolson doesn’t mention him. The translators by and large were academics or clergy – and back then, professors usually were clergy and clergy usually had substantial classical training! Although I don’t see any reason to believe that Shakespeare was involved, the early 17th century was in many ways the “Golden Age” of English writing. Aside from Shakespeare, the poets and writers known as “the Caroline Divines” and “the Metaphysical Poets” were active then – writers such as George Herbert, John Donne, Andrew Marvell, and Robert Herrick.
S
stpetric
Guest
As a little sidelight here, translations authorized for liturgical use in the Anglican church must still include the Deuterocanonical books, because the Anglican lectionaries for the eucharist and daily office still include readings from the Deuterocanonicals.
This became a minor issue at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. Continuing the practice going back to the middle ages, British coronations take place in the context of the liturgy, at Westminster Abbey – and at one point the new monarch is presented a Bible and exhorted to defend the faith. In 1953 the British and Foreign Bible Society offered to present a Bible to be used in the coronation, but their offer was politely declined. At that point, before the Bible Society changed their policy, none of the Bibles they published included the Deuterocanonicals, and thus were not acceptable for use in the Church of England!
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Nboos and Patrick,
**You wrote: Nboos: At first the KJV included the Apocrypha – later in 1629 the Apocrypha was removed because that made the book smaller and cheaper and thus the book would sell better.
It is significant to note, in printed A.V. Bibles that conform to the Cambridge and Oxford texts of it, that the Apocrypha does not bear its own title page, as it does in some other Protestant Bible versions that include it. There is merely a boldface heading, “Apocrypha”, at the head of the first of these writings as the A.V. includes them, but no separate t.p. (as there is, of course, for both the O.T. and N.T.). It would seem that the “Apocryphal” writings are meant to be considered as a section of the Old Testament itself rather than as something entirely set apart from it. That would reflect a quite Anglican attitude.
It is true that the readings from Holy Scripture prescribed for the Church Calendar’s lectionary in the Book of Common Prayer B.C.P.) include readings from the Apocrypha. This is true of the currently accepted B.C.P. of the Church of England (C. of E.); in the U.S. Protestant Episcopal 1928 B.C.P. and Canadian Anglican 1959/62 B.C.P. there are more readings from the Apocrypha prescribed than even in the C. of E.'s own 1662 Prayerbook!
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: Nboos: At first the KJV included the Apocrypha – later in 1629 the Apocrypha was removed because that made the book smaller and cheaper and thus the book would sell better.
Patrick: I don’t know for certain whether the Deutero’s were removed in 1629, but the reason you give is actually partly correct. The fell swoop that finally removed the Deuterocanon from the Authorized Version in many printings were actually caused, not by the hands of reformers, but of printers.**
Patrick is right: it was not the fault of the Church of England that the “Apocrypha” came to be omitted from so many editions of the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Bible. Some publishers and printers in England who were Dissenting sectaries (alike non-Anglican, non-Catholic) omitted the “Apocrypha” for various reasons, from not accepting their presence in printed Scriptures on sectarian principles or from base economic motives. The Stuart monarchy actively prosecuted those who left the “Apocrypha” out of the Bible. Later, there was a relaxation in such royal discipline, plus, of course, there was the baneful decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society to exclude the “Apocrypha” from its own, widely disseminated editions of the A.V. Bible.It is significant to note, in printed A.V. Bibles that conform to the Cambridge and Oxford texts of it, that the Apocrypha does not bear its own title page, as it does in some other Protestant Bible versions that include it. There is merely a boldface heading, “Apocrypha”, at the head of the first of these writings as the A.V. includes them, but no separate t.p. (as there is, of course, for both the O.T. and N.T.). It would seem that the “Apocryphal” writings are meant to be considered as a section of the Old Testament itself rather than as something entirely set apart from it. That would reflect a quite Anglican attitude.
It is true that the readings from Holy Scripture prescribed for the Church Calendar’s lectionary in the Book of Common Prayer B.C.P.) include readings from the Apocrypha. This is true of the currently accepted B.C.P. of the Church of England (C. of E.); in the U.S. Protestant Episcopal 1928 B.C.P. and Canadian Anglican 1959/62 B.C.P. there are more readings from the Apocrypha prescribed than even in the C. of E.'s own 1662 Prayerbook!
Pax, Jerry Parker
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Douay-Rheims-Version-UltraSoft/dp/1935302221Does anyone know where one can buy the Douay–Rheims in large print?
Thank you.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
S. Jackson,
I followed that link to Amazon.com, and one of the user reviews said that although the print size was bigger, it was not really so large as a lot of large print editions’ type size is,
so you may want to double check on that matter to be sure that the edition suits your need.
Pax, Jerry Parker
I followed that link to Amazon.com, and one of the user reviews said that although the print size was bigger, it was not really so large as a lot of large print editions’ type size is,
so you may want to double check on that matter to be sure that the edition suits your need.Pax, Jerry Parker
P
patrick457
Guest
And another reason why I believe that the KJV being in the public domain is not a totally good thing: it makes it easy for anyone to tamper with the text, since there is no copyright. I might as well print a KJV and cut out words, verses, chapters - even books - that I don’t like, since it’s all public domain, right? Unless I’m in the United Kingdom, that is.
The Brits are lucky that the translation is under crown copyright: meaning, that only authorized and licensed publishers (those who have letters patent) are permitted to reproduce the KJV and that anyone other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, are prohibited from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom (the same rule applies for the Book of Common Prayer if I’m not mistaken).
In Scotland, the rights for the KJV are held by the Scottish Bible Board - HarperCollins prints the KJV there under license from the board - while in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen’s Printer (a position currently held by Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over Eyre & Spottiswoode, Ltd. in 1990). Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant, aside from Cambridge, Oxford University Press the right to produce the KJV independently of the Queen’s Printer.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Patrick,
**You wrote: ** *And another reason why I believe that the KJV being in the public domain is not a totally good thing: it makes it easy for anyone to tamper with the text, since there is no copyright. I might as well print a KJV and cut out words, verses, chapters - even books - that I don’t like, since it’s all public domain, right? Unless I’m in the United Kingdom, that is.
Many American publishers issue A.V. Bibles that are fairly okay, so far as the text goes (aside from matters like Americanising the spellings and modernising the punctation). However, I have noticed that many U.S. editions of the A.V. play fast and loose with the marginalia, when they include it at all. Sometimes various authentic “marginal readings” are left out; Holman A.V. Bibles, for example, often omit some, rather haphazardly and arbitrarily, but retain others. Sometimes they are changed altogether (as one of the “Liberty Study Bible” editions, from Jerry Falwell’s neo-evangelical turf, as I recall, which presumptuously bumps the A.V.'s margin with its own alternate readings, references, and obnoxious text critical notes.) Most U.S. editions remove the marginal references to the “Apocryphal” writings (and yes, Virginia, my dear Catholic lass, the Old and New Testament margins in the A.V. did include cross-references to the deutero-canonical writings.) Some editions of the so-called “Open Bible” American edition of the A.V. have made alterations in the text, something that is taboo, illegal in the U.K., exceedingly vulgar, and, anywhere, grossly misleading. The A.V. Bible is sacrosanct!
So, just avoid doubt and get one of the U.K. editions, with all of the marginal readings and cross-references and with the “Apocrypha” included. The Cambridge U.P. editions are the “gold standard” and are superior even to the editions from Oxford U.P., good as the latter be.
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** *And another reason why I believe that the KJV being in the public domain is not a totally good thing: it makes it easy for anyone to tamper with the text, since there is no copyright. I might as well print a KJV and cut out words, verses, chapters - even books - that I don’t like, since it’s all public domain, right? Unless I’m in the United Kingdom, that is.
The Brits are lucky that the translation is under crown copyright: meaning, that only authorized and licensed publishers (those who have letters patent) are permitted to reproduce the KJV…*
How right you are (as usual)! It is best to avoid U.S. editions of the A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible. The Crown copyright is printed, in some form, in many Canadian editions, so it may hold here, perhaps elsewhere in the Commonwealth; I am not sure of that, but why else would the statement of Crown copyright appear in our Canadian A.V. Bibles? Maybe you can clear that up.Many American publishers issue A.V. Bibles that are fairly okay, so far as the text goes (aside from matters like Americanising the spellings and modernising the punctation). However, I have noticed that many U.S. editions of the A.V. play fast and loose with the marginalia, when they include it at all. Sometimes various authentic “marginal readings” are left out; Holman A.V. Bibles, for example, often omit some, rather haphazardly and arbitrarily, but retain others. Sometimes they are changed altogether (as one of the “Liberty Study Bible” editions, from Jerry Falwell’s neo-evangelical turf, as I recall, which presumptuously bumps the A.V.'s margin with its own alternate readings, references, and obnoxious text critical notes.) Most U.S. editions remove the marginal references to the “Apocryphal” writings (and yes, Virginia, my dear Catholic lass, the Old and New Testament margins in the A.V. did include cross-references to the deutero-canonical writings.) Some editions of the so-called “Open Bible” American edition of the A.V. have made alterations in the text, something that is taboo, illegal in the U.K., exceedingly vulgar, and, anywhere, grossly misleading. The A.V. Bible is sacrosanct!
So, just avoid doubt and get one of the U.K. editions, with all of the marginal readings and cross-references and with the “Apocrypha” included. The Cambridge U.P. editions are the “gold standard” and are superior even to the editions from Oxford U.P., good as the latter be.
Pax, Jerry Parker
P
patrick457
Guest
That reminds me of another element the KJV originally had: marginal notes that present alternate - oftentimes more literal - translations of a given phrase or sentence. The translators actually believed that marginal notes with alternate translations of words are necessary; and that using a variety of translations was important!
Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.
P
patrick457
Guest
Take for example, Judges 19:2, which is translated as (modernized spelling): “And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father’s house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.” The marginal note for this verse, meanwhile, gives alternate translations for the last three words: “Or, a year and four month: Heb. days, four months” (a more literal rendering of the Hebrew yomim 'arba’ah ḥodeshim, “days four moons”). A couple of another ones I’ll give are from Genesis 1:4-5:
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1966/footnote.jpg
Yet another interesting specimen is from Acts 13:18 (“and about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness”) has the footnote (original spelling): “Gr. ἐτροποφόρησεν, perhaps, for ἐτροφοφόρησέν, as a nurſe beareth, or feedeth, her childe, Deut. 1.31. 2. macc 7.27, according to the Sept[uagint]. and ſo Chryſoſt[om].” Note the reference to 2 Maccabees!
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1966/footnote.jpg
(BTW, for the interested, here’s the 1611 KJV online - where I got those from
)
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1966/footnote.jpg
Yet another interesting specimen is from Acts 13:18 (“and about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness”) has the footnote (original spelling): “Gr. ἐτροποφόρησεν, perhaps, for ἐτροφοφόρησέν, as a nurſe beareth, or feedeth, her childe, Deut. 1.31. 2. macc 7.27, according to the Sept[uagint]. and ſo Chryſoſt[om].” Note the reference to 2 Maccabees!
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1966/footnote.jpg
(BTW, for the interested, here’s the 1611 KJV online - where I got those from
)
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
The thing about a large print DRC seems to me to be a typesetting issue. All the DRC editions I have seen (I own an old TAM model and a Baronius Press edition) are photostatic repros or digitized versions of old published DRCs. When you go to large print you can’t get as many words on the same sized page so it seems to me you have to re-typeset the thing. And that is an expensive procedure for a very small market.S. Jackson,
I followed that link to Amazon.com, and one of the user reviews said that although the print size was bigger, it was not really so large as a lot of large print editions’ type size is,
Pax, Jerry Parker
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Patrick,
I have followed the writings of Peter S. Ruckman and his acolytes, who claim special inspiration from God the Holy Ghost for every word in the A.V. They seem to avoid this matter of the marginal notes in the A.V., in which the venerable translators themselves take a much humbler view of their work! One must remember that the authentic margin of the A.V. Bible was put there by the translators (not all of them, but some who did this work) and is their own work. Their marginal notes are very important and very sagacious.
The marginalia of modern versions are full of trivia. They also give far too much prominence to ramshackle 4th century manuscript readings that are mere curiosities, given the poor quality of the texts of these sources (e.g. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus), despite the physical allure of the beauty vellum on which their defective texts put down; the reverence for these eccentric sources, which differ wildly among themselves as well as with the Ecclesiastical Text, amounts to outright fetish. Giving these particular MSS. so much attention exaggerates what little worth they have. The A.V. translators did not make such pedantic blunders. There is no equivalent to that kind of madness in the work of the A.V. translators, which is so sane and even-handed.
Catholics and Orthodox should admire their conscientious attention to the need occasionally (even if one would wish that notes to such effect were more numerous) to mention variant readings in the Greek and Latin MSS. of the Old Testament, which they do not by any means despise, depite their choice of the Masoretic Hebrew text from which to translate. These and many other features of the A.V.'s own authentic marginalia are truly admirable and genuinely scholarly, compared to the detritus in the margins of later translations.
I wish that the sublime Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version had attained a standard text, or only very tiny variances, as is the case with the A.V.! Challoner’s various editions account for the more important differences (compared to the A.V.) that one finds in various British, American, and Canadian editions of the Challoner Version. However, now is decidedly NOT the time to attempt such a standardisation! Today’s scholars would not have Bp. Challoner’s humility for the Sacred Text. Modern scholars, too, would not demonstrate Challoner’s faithfulness to the Latin Vulgate itself, on its own terms (and by that I mean the Clementine Vulgate, not the disastrous, recent “New Vulgate”), as well as his only limited resort to the Greek and Hebrew that Challoner consulted, wisely, on only a very selective basis. Modern scholars, in their hubris, simply would not be likely to produce a new edition of Challoner’s work that is worthy of their predecessor’s accomplishments. It is better to live with the differences in Challoner’s translation that transatlantic texts of Challoner’s work perpetuate. In reading Challoner’s version, one reads what is in the Clementine Vulgate, not some mish-mash of what Latin, Hebrew, and Greek underlying texts say. The Latin Bible deserves Challoner’s respect for it!
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** That reminds me of another element the KJV originally had: marginal notes that present alternate – oftentimes more literal – translations of a given phrase or sentence. The translators actually believed that marginal notes with alternate translations of words are necessary; and that using a variety of translations was important!
How full of good things your comments are in the posting from which I quote above and in the following one, in which you wisely convey some words from the A.V. translators’ own introductory comments to the readers (so often left out of editions of the A.V./K.J.V. Bible, though the fulsome dedicatory preface to the King so often is included in them).I have followed the writings of Peter S. Ruckman and his acolytes, who claim special inspiration from God the Holy Ghost for every word in the A.V. They seem to avoid this matter of the marginal notes in the A.V., in which the venerable translators themselves take a much humbler view of their work! One must remember that the authentic margin of the A.V. Bible was put there by the translators (not all of them, but some who did this work) and is their own work. Their marginal notes are very important and very sagacious.
The marginalia of modern versions are full of trivia. They also give far too much prominence to ramshackle 4th century manuscript readings that are mere curiosities, given the poor quality of the texts of these sources (e.g. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus), despite the physical allure of the beauty vellum on which their defective texts put down; the reverence for these eccentric sources, which differ wildly among themselves as well as with the Ecclesiastical Text, amounts to outright fetish. Giving these particular MSS. so much attention exaggerates what little worth they have. The A.V. translators did not make such pedantic blunders. There is no equivalent to that kind of madness in the work of the A.V. translators, which is so sane and even-handed.
Catholics and Orthodox should admire their conscientious attention to the need occasionally (even if one would wish that notes to such effect were more numerous) to mention variant readings in the Greek and Latin MSS. of the Old Testament, which they do not by any means despise, depite their choice of the Masoretic Hebrew text from which to translate. These and many other features of the A.V.'s own authentic marginalia are truly admirable and genuinely scholarly, compared to the detritus in the margins of later translations.
I wish that the sublime Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version had attained a standard text, or only very tiny variances, as is the case with the A.V.! Challoner’s various editions account for the more important differences (compared to the A.V.) that one finds in various British, American, and Canadian editions of the Challoner Version. However, now is decidedly NOT the time to attempt such a standardisation! Today’s scholars would not have Bp. Challoner’s humility for the Sacred Text. Modern scholars, too, would not demonstrate Challoner’s faithfulness to the Latin Vulgate itself, on its own terms (and by that I mean the Clementine Vulgate, not the disastrous, recent “New Vulgate”), as well as his only limited resort to the Greek and Hebrew that Challoner consulted, wisely, on only a very selective basis. Modern scholars, in their hubris, simply would not be likely to produce a new edition of Challoner’s work that is worthy of their predecessor’s accomplishments. It is better to live with the differences in Challoner’s translation that transatlantic texts of Challoner’s work perpetuate. In reading Challoner’s version, one reads what is in the Clementine Vulgate, not some mish-mash of what Latin, Hebrew, and Greek underlying texts say. The Latin Bible deserves Challoner’s respect for it!
Pax, Jerry Parker
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Jerry Parker:
Very well put. I would think, that with today’s stress on where a Biblical Text actually originated, some publishers might consider republishing one of Challoner’s own original texts. For the duration of the 18th Century, the English preferred Challoner’s 1752 revision, whereas in the 19th Century a preference was given to the 1749 revision. But for today’s English reader, I would suspect either would be excellent. This is opposed to the version that is so often reprinted today, being the Haydock Bible using the McMahon hybrid version. McMahon’s editing of Challoner was not particularly felicitous either. Reprinting in full Challoner’s notes with that edition would also make it a special treat.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Ambrose,
Now, if some publisher or sponsoring committee out there is listenting—. Present yourself, ye Christian typesetting warrior(s) of the Cross and of our Lord!
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** I would think, that with today’s stress on where a Biblical Text actually originated, some publishers might consider republishing one of Challoner’s own original texts. For the duration of the 18th Century, the English preferred Challoner’s 1752 revision, whereas in the 19th Century a preference was given to the 1749 revision. But for today’s English reader, I would suspect either would be excellent. This is opposed to the version that is so often reprinted today, being the Haydock Bible using the McMahon hybrid version. McMahon’s editing of Challoner was not particularly felicitous either. Reprinting in full Challoner’s notes with that edition would also make it a special treat.
That’s a most excellent idea, Ambrose and Patrick! Just stabilise the text for our times with one of Bp. Challoner’s own texts, as you, Ambrose, recommend. I just do not trust anyone today to come up with some fusion of them (plus his own rotten ideas), given the perfidy of modern Bible translators and scholars.Now, if some publisher or sponsoring committee out there is listenting—. Present yourself, ye Christian typesetting warrior(s) of the Cross and of our Lord!
Pax, Jerry Parker
S
SJackson
Guest
This is good. I’m bookmarking it and will likely get it, but the last poster mentioned (thank you too, my friend) that the users said it’s not as “large print” as other editions.
Usually a “large print” ranges from 10-12.5tp. Anything bigger is giant print.
Thanks again – both of you!
Q
Quarles47
Guest
The Douay Rheims is poetic, eloquent, and an easy read. Those that claims the contrary are only showing their lack of familiarity with the Douay Rheims.
On the other hand, I believe that fundamentalist preachers prefer the KJV because of the arcade language it uses which allows them to put a spin on the verses and their audience are slow to catch on.
On the other hand, I believe that fundamentalist preachers prefer the KJV because of the arcade language it uses which allows them to put a spin on the verses and their audience are slow to catch on.
- Status