The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent

400th Anniversary of the KJV

<< < (3/3)

Wayne:
"And thou shalt not have sex with a man in the wife's bed, for cryin' out loud." - Leviticus 18:22

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה

Wayne:

--- Quote from: David In Indy on January 03, 2011, 12:48:41 am ---Wasn't King James gay? Or allegedly gay? Or at least bi? Or was that a different King James? Perhaps I should consult my good friend Google and ask him about it.

Anyway, if true, I wonder how many of these evangelicals who hate gay people so much realize their favorite bible is named after a gay king? :-\
--- End quote ---
Yeah, and just wait until they actually read the gospel of John and find out that it was written by Jesus's boyfriend.

Jeff Wrangler:

--- Quote from: Lynne di Licious on January 03, 2011, 01:20:32 am ---I doubt it was unusual, David - one in 7 - 10 throughout history, consistently.  But yes, it's nice to have one more weapon in the arsenal against the Intolerants.

--- End quote ---

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, Lynne, but, all things considered--and I do mean all things--I would not want to hold up James VI of Scotland/James I of England as an example of anything. I speak/write as someone who has read an awful lot of Tudor/Stuart English history, both in school and since. Whether or not he slept with pretty boys, the man was a biggoted tyrant and a disaster as king of England.

Lynne:
I believe by 'weapon' I just meant another historical example of homosexuality not being a fad that arose out of the free-love 60's.  I don't know the first thing about his character or most historical figures, really. I was too busy in school being a lab rat :/.

Jeff Wrangler:
I've been meaning all week to comment that over last weekend I saw a syndicated newspaper article that was attempting to debunk the influence of the King James Bible on the English language. This is all from memory, so apologies in advance for any inaccuracies, if anyone digs up the actual article.

Anyway, the author claimed to have found only a small number of phrases--somewhere in the twenties, I think, or maybe even fewer--that he said were unique to the King James  Version of the Bible that had become common usage. By "unique," the author meant that the phrases had not appeared in earlier English translations.

Well. ...

OK, but the problem I have with that is that the KJV New Testament is overwhelmingly the New Testament as translated by William Tyndale in the first third of the sixteenth century (put another way, in the time of Henry VIII), so of course most of the New Testament is not going to be "unique"--that is, it didn't appear in a previous English translation.

But I also think counting up phrases and quotations kind of misses the point. Yes, the Bible did give us some words and phrases, but to me it seems the more important influence was in the way the language was used. More English-speaking people were exposed to the language of the KJV than to Shakespeare or the Book of Common Prayer (two other big influences).

Think of Jefferson's use of language in the Declaration of Independence, and especially think of Lincoln's usage in his speeches and writings. Nothing would have prevented Lincoln from beginning the Gettysburg Address with a simple and straight-forward "Eighty-seven years ago." But no. Lincoln went with "Fourscore and seven years ago." The rhythm and the cadence are those of the KJV. The line does not quote Psalm 90:10, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten," but it echoes it, and it was probably even intended to form a connection in the minds of people who were much more Biblically literate than a lot of people are today.

When people learned to read from the KJV, when poorer and/or isolated homes didn't own any other books besides the KJV, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the KJV had a significant influence on the way people wrote and used the English language.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page