05-02-2009, 07:39 PM
...
Can we say that the 1611 "King James Version" is "plagiarized" then, when it is well documented that over 85% of it's readings are a word for word verbatim copy of the Original English Translation of the 1526-1534 New Testament from the Greek language by William Tyndale?
In the 1611 edition of the "KJV" you can read the "Translators to the Reader" where it says that they consulted the "former Translations" and "Compared them" and where they thought changes should be made, they made their own Translations and when no changes were thought necessary they went with that former Translation's reading.
So, the "King James Version" is not a "Fresh Translation" at all, but is mostly only a revision of Tyndale's Translation.
They (The Translators) state quite clearly, that their intent was to make one good one i.e. Translation, out of other good ones i.e. Translations...
I see that this is pretty close to what Andrew has stated about his work in the AENT if not the same thing. Although, it may be that it could have been made clearer in the introduction, and if so, may have averted this whole issue.
All one needs to do is look at a copy of William Tyndale's NT and compare it with the "King James Version" and see that most of it's readings are William's Translation...and yet, William is nowhere given any credit whatsoever as the Translator of those numerous and unique turns of phrases.
If we are to agree with Dave's interpretation of "Plagiarism" then the KJV is no less a "Plagiarized" work.
Dave, are you prepared to level this same charge against the Translators of the 1611 Edition of the Bible?
If not, then please explain why not?
...
Can we say that the 1611 "King James Version" is "plagiarized" then, when it is well documented that over 85% of it's readings are a word for word verbatim copy of the Original English Translation of the 1526-1534 New Testament from the Greek language by William Tyndale?
In the 1611 edition of the "KJV" you can read the "Translators to the Reader" where it says that they consulted the "former Translations" and "Compared them" and where they thought changes should be made, they made their own Translations and when no changes were thought necessary they went with that former Translation's reading.
So, the "King James Version" is not a "Fresh Translation" at all, but is mostly only a revision of Tyndale's Translation.
They (The Translators) state quite clearly, that their intent was to make one good one i.e. Translation, out of other good ones i.e. Translations...
I see that this is pretty close to what Andrew has stated about his work in the AENT if not the same thing. Although, it may be that it could have been made clearer in the introduction, and if so, may have averted this whole issue.
All one needs to do is look at a copy of William Tyndale's NT and compare it with the "King James Version" and see that most of it's readings are William's Translation...and yet, William is nowhere given any credit whatsoever as the Translator of those numerous and unique turns of phrases.
If we are to agree with Dave's interpretation of "Plagiarism" then the KJV is no less a "Plagiarized" work.
Dave, are you prepared to level this same charge against the Translators of the 1611 Edition of the Bible?
If not, then please explain why not?
...