Discussion:
Tolkien and the Old Testament
(too old to reply)
Michael F. Stemper
2018-11-10 21:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?

Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
theswain
2018-11-11 19:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.

Larry Swain
John W Kennedy
2018-11-11 20:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
He contributed to JB1, of course, which, of all English versions, comes
closest to the ideal translator he pretended to be for the Red Book.

I imagine he kept an AV in his office for academic use (though Lewis
questioned whether that was really necessary).
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Thomas Koenig
2018-11-11 22:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
He contributed to JB1, of course, which, of all English versions, comes
closest to the ideal translator he pretended to be for the Red Book.
I imagine he kept an AV in his office for academic use (though Lewis
questioned whether that was really necessary).
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
John W Kennedy
2018-11-11 23:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
He contributed to JB1, of course, which, of all English versions, comes
closest to the ideal translator he pretended to be for the Red Book.
I imagine he kept an AV in his office for academic use (though Lewis
questioned whether that was really necessary).
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.

“Authorized Version” is the British name of the version that Americans
call the “King James Version”.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Steve Hayes
2018-11-13 07:15:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.

A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Paul S Person
2018-11-14 17:24:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.

The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.

That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John W Kennedy
2018-11-14 21:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
Post by Paul S Person
In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them),
Still true.
Post by Paul S Person
and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
Not in the same way, because the official version was and is the
Vulgate. And Roman Catholics place less emphasis on the Bible, itself,
than Fundamentalist Protestants do.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Paul S Person
2018-11-15 17:12:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:37:20 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Handel. /Messiah/. How much of it can you sing from memory?
Post by John W Kennedy
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
Post by Paul S Person
In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them),
Still true.
I'm not so sure. My reading in /Christianity Today/, which started the
use of "evangelical" to avoid the stench of "fundamentalist", and
defined "evangelical" as "fundamentalist with a brain", suggests that
most of those who felt that way starting in the 1950s (when the RSV
came out and pamphlets were published detailing how the "blasphemers"
were changing God's Word with side-by-side quotations) and who were
still prominent in 1970 have long-since switched to the NIV or to some
other more recent version. Many others may well still be using the
RSV, after switching to it at one point or another.
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
Not in the same way, because the official version was and is the
Vulgate. And Roman Catholics place less emphasis on the Bible, itself,
than Fundamentalist Protestants do.
Then all Protestants do -- it is the foundation of their belief and
clearly superior to any tradition. "Sola scriptura", after all, is one
of the hallmarks of Protestantism.

Of course, some do (or did) treat it as a "Paper Pope", while others
adopted a more ... relaxed ... approach. And there are some /very/
strange things turning up nowadays in /Christianity Today/ related to
the Bible and to tradition, as some of them appear to be sucking up to
the current Pope. But that is really just another sign of Modernism
finally taking hold of them -- 100+ years after the Modern era ended
per (IIRC) Toynbee (whoever it was that dated the end of Modernity to
the start of WWI).

Of course, there are many differences in /interpretation/ which,
together with historically-conditioned traditional practices, produces
differences between Protestants.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John W Kennedy
2018-11-15 18:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:37:20 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Handel. /Messiah/. How much of it can you sing from memory?
That’s not “influence” so much as direct quotation for quasi-liturgical
purposes.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by John W Kennedy
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
Post by Paul S Person
In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them),
Still true.
I'm not so sure. My reading in /Christianity Today/, which started the
use of "evangelical" to avoid the stench of "fundamentalist", and
defined "evangelical" as "fundamentalist with a brain", suggests that
most of those who felt that way starting in the 1950s (when the RSV
came out and pamphlets were published detailing how the "blasphemers"
were changing God's Word with side-by-side quotations) and who were
still prominent in 1970 have long-since switched to the NIV or to some
other more recent version. Many others may well still be using the
RSV, after switching to it at one point or another.
Believe me, it’s trivial to find King-James-Only cultists on da interwebz.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
Not in the same way, because the official version was and is the
Vulgate. And Roman Catholics place less emphasis on the Bible, itself,
than Fundamentalist Protestants do.
Then all Protestants do -- it is the foundation of their belief and
clearly superior to any tradition. "Sola scriptura", after all, is one
of the hallmarks of Protestantism.
Of course, some do (or did) treat it as a "Paper Pope", while others
adopted a more ... relaxed ... approach. And there are some /very/
strange things turning up nowadays in /Christianity Today/ related to
the Bible and to tradition, as some of them appear to be sucking up to
the current Pope. But that is really just another sign of Modernism
finally taking hold of them -- 100+ years after the Modern era ended
per (IIRC) Toynbee (whoever it was that dated the end of Modernity to
the start of WWI).
Of course, there are many differences in /interpretation/ which,
together with historically-conditioned traditional practices, produces
differences between Protestants.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Steve Hayes
2018-11-19 04:17:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:37:20 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
I somehow doubt that.

Some time in the 1960s (before the Jerusalem Bible came out) the
Church of England produced a Revised Psalter. It was based on the
psalter in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), which was Coverdales
version. Apparently C.S. Lewis had a hand in that -- see here:

https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/08/07/the-revised-psalter/

The revision produced a much syndicated article in which well-known
(at the time) literary characters castigated the CiofE for "tampering"
with the wording of the much-loved King James version by changing
things like "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" into "The Lord
is my Shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing."

Actually in that phrase, the Revised Psalter had changed nothing. It
was exactly as Coverdale wrote it, and Coverdale's version was older
than the KJV.

So it seems that all the literary types who had commented on the
Revised Psalter were far more influenced by the KJV (or AV if you
prefer) than theyb were by the BCP.

The syndicated article in which their complaints were registered
continued to be reprinted up to 20 years after it first appeared,
presumqably when some downtable sub needed some filler from the morgue
to make up a page.
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them),
Still true.
Post by Paul S Person
and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
Not in the same way, because the official version was and is the
Vulgate. And Roman Catholics place less emphasis on the Bible, itself,
than Fundamentalist Protestants do.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Jerry Friedman
2018-11-19 05:02:47 UTC
Permalink
[r.a.b.t. only]
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:37:20 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
I somehow doubt that.
Some time in the 1960s (before the Jerusalem Bible came out) the
Church of England produced a Revised Psalter. It was based on the
psalter in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), which was Coverdales
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/08/07/the-revised-psalter/
The revision produced a much syndicated article in which well-known
(at the time) literary characters castigated the CiofE for "tampering"
with the wording of the much-loved King James version by changing
things like "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" into "The Lord
is my Shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing."
Actually in that phrase, the Revised Psalter had changed nothing. It
was exactly as Coverdale wrote it, and Coverdale's version was older
than the KJV.
This version of Coverdale has "The LORDE is my shepherde, I can wante
nothinge."

https://www.studylight.org/bible/mcb/psalms/23.html
Post by Paul S Person
So it seems that all the literary types who had commented on the
Revised Psalter were far more influenced by the KJV (or AV if you
prefer) than theyb were by the BCP.
Lewis distinguishes between influence and quotation.

"It would, I suppose, be possible, to say that we are influenced
by a book whenever we quote it; but probably no literary historian would
wish to use the word influence in that way. It would seem to me
reasonable to say, for example, that my own habit of immoderate
quotation showed the Influence of Hazlitt, but not the Influence of the
authors I quote; or that Burton’s habit of immoderate quotation might
be influenced by Montaigne, not by the authors he quotes. [...] If
English literature is full of Biblical quotation, I would not describe
this as the influence of the Authorised Version, any more than I would
call Virgilians all those who quote Virgil. I am not saying that to do
otherwise would be necessarily an improper use of language: I only think
mine useful for the purpose in hand."

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf
Post by Paul S Person
The syndicated article in which their complaints were registered
continued to be reprinted up to 20 years after it first appeared,
presumqably when some downtable sub needed some filler from the morgue
to make up a page.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul S Person
2018-11-19 17:46:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 22:02:47 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[r.a.b.t. only]
<earlier bits snipped>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Some time in the 1960s (before the Jerusalem Bible came out) the
Church of England produced a Revised Psalter. It was based on the
psalter in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), which was Coverdales
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/08/07/the-revised-psalter/
The revision produced a much syndicated article in which well-known
(at the time) literary characters castigated the CiofE for "tampering"
with the wording of the much-loved King James version by changing
things like "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" into "The Lord
is my Shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing."
Actually in that phrase, the Revised Psalter had changed nothing. It
was exactly as Coverdale wrote it, and Coverdale's version was older
than the KJV.
This version of Coverdale has "The LORDE is my shepherde, I can wante
nothinge."
https://www.studylight.org/bible/mcb/psalms/23.html
Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that all the literary types who had commented on the
Revised Psalter were far more influenced by the KJV (or AV if you
prefer) than theyb were by the BCP.
Lewis distinguishes between influence and quotation.
"It would, I suppose, be possible, to say that we are influenced
by a book whenever we quote it; but probably no literary historian would
wish to use the word influence in that way. It would seem to me
reasonable to say, for example, that my own habit of immoderate
quotation showed the Influence of Hazlitt, but not the Influence of the
authors I quote; or that Burton’s habit of immoderate quotation might
be influenced by Montaigne, not by the authors he quotes. [...] If
English literature is full of Biblical quotation, I would not describe
this as the influence of the Authorised Version, any more than I would
call Virgilians all those who quote Virgil. I am not saying that to do
otherwise would be necessarily an improper use of language: I only think
mine useful for the purpose in hand."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf
IOW, we are dealing here with a /technical definition/ of "literary
influence" known only to the scholars involved in discussing the
topic, and not to any definition an ordinary person might come up
with.

The problem with it is that Lewis is talking about quotations in
literary works, while the influence (as understood by normal people)
of the KJV was in the lives of the people, and did indeed involve a
lot of quotation.

And not because of Hazlitt (whom I don't recall hearing of before, not
being a scholar) or Montaigne (who I read a while back, as his
/Attempts/ (yes, I am sure it is actually titled "Essays") is in the
Great Books of the Western World collection, but knew only as the
inventor of that torment of all High School English students -- the
essay (as I understand it, "attempt" in French is "Essai", so the
French name of the book is "Essais" and this became "essay" to denote
the new literary form; one of these "attempts", it appears, caused a
woman to faint when she read it but, of course, she was French, so who
can say what associations it may have had with her psychology?).

Rather, it was quoted because it was /internalized/: it had become a
part of their psychology. And affecting a person's psychology is a
form of influence.

It also promoted mutual understanding, since everyone knew the
quotations and what they meant. At least, virtually everyone for a
while.

But even today most people recognize a few of them.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jerry Friedman
2018-11-20 18:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 22:02:47 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[r.a.b.t. only]
<earlier bits snipped>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Some time in the 1960s (before the Jerusalem Bible came out) the
Church of England produced a Revised Psalter. It was based on the
psalter in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), which was Coverdales
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/08/07/the-revised-psalter/
The revision produced a much syndicated article in which well-known
(at the time) literary characters castigated the CiofE for "tampering"
with the wording of the much-loved King James version by changing
things like "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" into "The Lord
is my Shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing."
Actually in that phrase, the Revised Psalter had changed nothing. It
was exactly as Coverdale wrote it, and Coverdale's version was older
than the KJV.
This version of Coverdale has "The LORDE is my shepherde, I can wante
nothinge."
https://www.studylight.org/bible/mcb/psalms/23.html
Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that all the literary types who had commented on the
Revised Psalter were far more influenced by the KJV (or AV if you
prefer) than theyb were by the BCP.
Lewis distinguishes between influence and quotation.
"It would, I suppose, be possible, to say that we are influenced
by a book whenever we quote it; but probably no literary historian would
wish to use the word influence in that way. It would seem to me
reasonable to say, for example, that my own habit of immoderate
quotation showed the Influence of Hazlitt, but not the Influence of the
authors I quote; or that Burton’s habit of immoderate quotation might
be influenced by Montaigne, not by the authors he quotes. [...] If
English literature is full of Biblical quotation, I would not describe
this as the influence of the Authorised Version, any more than I would
call Virgilians all those who quote Virgil. I am not saying that to do
otherwise would be necessarily an improper use of language: I only think
mine useful for the purpose in hand."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf
IOW, we are dealing here with a /technical definition/ of "literary
influence" known only to the scholars involved in discussing the
topic, and not to any definition an ordinary person might come up
with.
The problem with it is that Lewis is talking about quotations in
literary works, while the influence (as understood by normal people)
of the KJV was in the lives of the people, and did indeed involve a
lot of quotation.
...

Yes, Lewis was talking about the /literary/ impact, and I agree
that it's a rather surprising idea of Influence.
--
Jerry Friedman
Steve Hayes
2018-11-21 03:29:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:44:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 22:02:47 -0700, Jerry Friedman
IOW, we are dealing here with a /technical definition/ of "literary
influence" known only to the scholars involved in discussing the
topic, and not to any definition an ordinary person might come up
with.
The problem with it is that Lewis is talking about quotations in
literary works, while the influence (as understood by normal people)
of the KJV was in the lives of the people, and did indeed involve a
lot of quotation.
...
Yes, Lewis was talking about the /literary/ impact, and I agree
that it's a rather surprising idea of Influence.
The people quoted in the article I referred to were probably a
literary bunch who had been asked their opinions, and were more
familiar with the KJV than the BCP.

I suspect that the BCP has been gradually losing its influence as the
Anglicans revise their liturgical texts and fewer and fewer people are
familiar with it.

I'm not sure if the Jerusalem Bible is still available, and whether
Tolkien's influence has carried over to its successor, but I still
found it the best version for reading aloud, and to get back to the
origibnal question, I'd think that Tolkien would have used that in
preference to other versions.
--
Stephen Hayes, Author of The Year of the Dragon
Sample or purchase The Year of the Dragon:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/907935
Web site: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail: ***@dunelm.org.uk
John W Kennedy
2018-11-21 21:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:44:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 22:02:47 -0700, Jerry Friedman
IOW, we are dealing here with a /technical definition/ of "literary
influence" known only to the scholars involved in discussing the
topic, and not to any definition an ordinary person might come up
with.
The problem with it is that Lewis is talking about quotations in
literary works, while the influence (as understood by normal people)
of the KJV was in the lives of the people, and did indeed involve a
lot of quotation.
...
Yes, Lewis was talking about the /literary/ impact, and I agree
that it's a rather surprising idea of Influence.
The people quoted in the article I referred to were probably a
literary bunch who had been asked their opinions, and were more
familiar with the KJV than the BCP.
I suspect that the BCP has been gradually losing its influence as the
Anglicans revise their liturgical texts and fewer and fewer people are
familiar with it.
I'm not sure if the Jerusalem Bible is still available, and whether
Tolkien's influence has carried over to its successor, but I still
found it the best version for reading aloud, and to get back to the
origibnal question, I'd think that Tolkien would have used that in
preference to other versions.
The original “Jerusalem Bible” of 1966 (red) seems to be available from
Amazon. The “New Jerusalem Bible” of 1985 (blue) was unhappily
translated from English to Femspeak, and replaced much poetry with prose
masquerading as “free verse”.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Julian Bradfield
2018-11-21 22:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Amazon. The “New Jerusalem Bible” of 1985 (blue) was unhappily
translated from English to Femspeak, and replaced much poetry with prose
masquerading as “free verse”.
Could you explain what you mean by these comments? Hebrew poetry had
no notion (as far as is known) of metre or rhyme - if you have neither
metre nor rhyme, what else is it but free verse? Rather, the structure
lies in the content of the words, not the words themselves.
John W Kennedy
2018-11-22 16:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Bradfield
Post by John W Kennedy
Amazon. The “New Jerusalem Bible” of 1985 (blue) was unhappily
translated from English to Femspeak, and replaced much poetry with prose
masquerading as “free verse”.
Could you explain what you mean by these comments? Hebrew poetry had
no notion (as far as is known) of metre or rhyme - if you have neither
metre nor rhyme, what else is it but free verse? Rather, the structure
lies in the content of the words, not the words themselves.
The main poetic device of ancient Hebrew poetry is parallelism, but
another one that is frequently encountered in the Psalms is alphabet
acrostics. There is also a suggestion of meter in that most lines have
equivalent weights.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Paul S Person
2018-11-22 18:30:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:52:55 -0500, John W Kennedy
The original “Jerusalem Bible” of 1966 (red) seems to be available from
Amazon. The “New Jerusalem Bible” of 1985 (blue) was unhappily
translated from English to Femspeak, and replaced much poetry with prose
masquerading as “free verse”.
"femspeak" sounds like the same sort of criticism the RSV received
from lovers of the KJV (and why shouldn't they love it, having been
raised from birth hearing it, memorizing it, reciting it ...). But,
not having read it, I cannot say that I disagree with you.

The NEB uses "free verse" indeed, and most pairs of line have about
the same length (not all though -- and would you really expect this to
carry over from Hebrew into English, since there are always words in
one language that require multiple words in another?) which are
centered, thus distinguishing them visibly from prose. It also sticks
the verse numbers in the margin, forming paragraphs which, of course,
have no more to do with the original text than -- well, than the
chapter and verse numbers do.

So, does the "femspeak" version print the poetry left-justified and
all run together or what?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John W Kennedy
2018-11-23 04:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:52:55 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
The original “Jerusalem Bible” of 1966 (red) seems to be available from
Amazon. The “New Jerusalem Bible” of 1985 (blue) was unhappily
translated from English to Femspeak, and replaced much poetry with prose
masquerading as “free verse”.
"femspeak" sounds like the same sort of criticism the RSV received
from lovers of the KJV (and why shouldn't they love it, having been
raised from birth hearing it, memorizing it, reciting it ...). But,
not having read it, I cannot say that I disagree with you.
The NEB uses "free verse" indeed, and most pairs of line have about
the same length (not all though -- and would you really expect this to
carry over from Hebrew into English, since there are always words in
one language that require multiple words in another?) which are
centered, thus distinguishing them visibly from prose. It also sticks
the verse numbers in the margin, forming paragraphs which, of course,
have no more to do with the original text than -- well, than the
chapter and verse numbers do.
So, does the "femspeak" version print the poetry left-justified and
all run together or what?
It’s set up on this sort of
arrangement with no effort beyond the
merely typographic to justify
it’s being called “verse”.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Paul S Person
2018-11-23 18:12:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:53:28 -0500, John W Kennedy
<snippo>
Post by Paul S Person
So, does the "femspeak" version print the poetry left-justified and
all run together or what?
It’s set up on this sort of
arrangement with no effort beyond the
merely typographic to justify
it’s being called “verse”.
So, it is left-justified with each line indented? The NEB would look
more like:

It’s set up on this sort of
arrangement with no effort beyond the
merely typographic to justify
it’s being called “verse”.

taking the second line as full-width so a center can be found.

So, what were you expecting?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John W Kennedy
2018-11-23 22:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:53:28 -0500, John W Kennedy
<snippo>
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
So, does the "femspeak" version print the poetry left-justified and
all run together or what?
It’s set up on this sort of
arrangement with no effort beyond the
merely typographic to justify
it’s being called “verse”.
So, it is left-justified with each line indented? The NEB would look
It’s set up on this sort of
arrangement with no effort beyond the
merely typographic to justify
it’s being called “verse”.
taking the second line as full-width so a center can be found.
So, what were you expecting?
I have no idea about the left margin.

I expect the lineation to have some informational or aesthetic purpose,
and something reflecting the original other-language text.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Paul S Person
2018-11-24 07:47:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 17:13:39 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:53:28 -0500, John W Kennedy
<snippo>
Post by Paul S Person
So, does the "femspeak" version print the poetry left-justified and
all run together or what?
It’s set up on this sort of
arrangement with no effort beyond the
merely typographic to justify
it’s being called “verse”.
So, it is left-justified with each line indented? The NEB would look
It’s set up on this sort of
arrangement with no effort beyond the
merely typographic to justify
it’s being called “verse”.
taking the second line as full-width so a center can be found.
So, what were you expecting?
I have no idea about the left margin.
I expect the lineation to have some informational or aesthetic purpose,
and something reflecting the original other-language text.
Well, that's OK, because, exercising my one true talent (getting
things completely wrong when I rely on memory and don't check), I
managed to be 100% wrong.

The /actual/ NEB pattern may or may not be intended to serve an
aesthetic purpose:

The whole thing is indented,
and verses tend to be split between lines,
usually, but not always, in phrases.
But some verses are split and also indented,
usually those with a repetition/expansion of the idea
New versus can then continue at the same level
for quite some time
or even drop to a third level.
But it must not be believed that
only /in/dents are used, for sometimes
the next line moves back out.
And, of course, a new verse can begin
and stay a previous indent.

which is certainly more varied and so less boring than every line
starting at the same left position, even if it is an indent from the
prose text.

Note that blank lines (indicating new stanzas) can occur at /any/
level.

The rules used appear to be known only to whoever determined the
style. They are not obvious upon examination of the text.

Although it seems at first that an informational purpose may exist,
the fact is that any of the patterns above can occur at any time. A
verse consisting of two non-repetitive clauses can be (or not be)
indented just as one with a repetitive structure can. New verses, even
at the start of a stanza, can start at any indent level. And
"outdents", so to speak, also occur, from time to time.

So indentation does not really imply subordination, nor the lack of it
equality.

Sorry for any confusion caused by my error.
I have /no/ idea why I thought they were, in any way, centered, when
they clearly are not.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2018-11-22 18:22:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:44:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
<snippo to quick>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul S Person
The problem with it is that Lewis is talking about quotations in
literary works, while the influence (as understood by normal people)
of the KJV was in the lives of the people, and did indeed involve a
lot of quotation.
...
Yes, Lewis was talking about the /literary/ impact, and I agree
that it's a rather surprising idea of Influence.
IIRC, the KJV was /deliberately/ written in an older form of language
(something called the Great Vowel Shift having apparently occurred
recently), so I would think the first literary influence to look for
is a /fashion of writing books in the older form/ after the KJV was
published (go back far enough before that and you will, of course,
find plenty of books in that form). Can't think of any off-hand.

Then there is the treating of each snippet (usually a clause,
occasionally a single name) as a separate paragraph [verse]. And not
distinguishing between prose and poetry. And using "and" a lot more
than English normally does (which, to be fair, is what the Hebrew
does).

But if we look at films up to, say, as late as the early 70s, if we
see a Bible or a verse is quoted, is it not always (or nearly always)
the KJV? With maybe the Douay on occasion? But the RSV? the NEB? I
think not.

The original Sunday Schools were set up to teach /literacy/ to the
working classes, and they used the KJV as their text. In the film
/M*A*S*H/, when the religious nut is teaching a mess boy to read, what
text does he use? Why, the KVJ, of course. (What else, during the 50s
or 60s, would have the phrase "for thou art with me" in it?).

/That/ is impact. /That/ is influence.

And, sadly, it has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John W Kennedy
2018-11-19 21:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[r.a.b.t. only]
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:37:20 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
I somehow doubt that.
Some time in the 1960s (before the Jerusalem Bible came out) the
Church of England produced a Revised Psalter. It was based on the
psalter in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), which was Coverdales
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/08/07/the-revised-psalter/
The revision produced a much syndicated article in which well-known
(at the time) literary characters castigated the CiofE for "tampering"
with the wording of the much-loved King James version by changing
things like "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" into "The Lord
is my Shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing."
Actually in that phrase, the Revised Psalter had changed nothing. It
was exactly as Coverdale wrote it, and Coverdale's version was older
than the KJV.
This version of Coverdale has "The LORDE is my shepherde, I can wante
nothinge."
That is from Coverdale’s own edition of the Bible, published in 1535.
The Book of Common Prayer version is from the Great Bible of 1539, which
was also prepared by Coverdale. In unscholarly and even informal
scholarly work, both tend to be referred to as Coverdale’s without
distinction.

The Book of Common Prayer, by the way, did not incorporate the Psalms in
any version until 1662.

Coverdale’s version(s) are generally regarded as the most speakable in
English, which is why Prayer-Book revision has traditionally preferred
to revise Coverdale than to accept newer translations wholesale.
Post by Jerry Friedman
https://www.studylight.org/bible/mcb/psalms/23.html
Post by Paul S Person
So it seems that all the literary types who had commented on the
Revised Psalter were far more influenced by the KJV (or AV if you
prefer) than theyb were by the BCP.
Lewis distinguishes between influence and quotation.
"It would, I suppose, be possible, to say that we are influenced
by a book whenever we quote it; but probably no literary historian would
wish to use the word influence in that way. It would seem to me
reasonable to say, for example, that my own habit of immoderate
quotation showed the Influence of Hazlitt, but not the Influence of the
authors I quote; or that Burton’s habit of immoderate quotation might
be influenced by Montaigne, not by the authors he quotes. [...] If
English literature is full of Biblical quotation, I would not describe
this as the influence of the Authorised  Version, any more than I would
call Virgilians all those who quote Virgil. I am not saying that to do
otherwise would be necessarily an improper use of language: I only think
mine useful for the purpose in hand."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf
Post by Paul S Person
The syndicated article in which their complaints were registered
continued to be reprinted up to 20 years after it first appeared,
presumqably when some downtable sub needed some filler from the morgue
to make up a page.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Jerry Friedman
2018-11-19 22:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Jerry Friedman
[r.a.b.t. only]
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:37:20 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
I somehow doubt that.
Some time in the 1960s (before the Jerusalem Bible came out) the
Church of England produced a Revised Psalter. It was based on the
psalter in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), which was Coverdales
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/08/07/the-revised-psalter/
The revision produced a much syndicated article in which well-known
(at the time) literary characters castigated the CiofE for "tampering"
with the wording of the much-loved King James version by changing
things like "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" into "The Lord
is my Shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing."
Actually in that phrase, the Revised Psalter had changed nothing. It
was exactly as Coverdale wrote it, and Coverdale's version was older
than the KJV.
This version of Coverdale has "The LORDE is my shepherde, I can wante
nothinge."
That is from Coverdale’s own edition of the Bible, published in 1535.
The Book of Common Prayer version is from the Great Bible of 1539, which
was also prepared by Coverdale.
Thanks. I see that's the one that says, "therefore can I lack nothing."
Post by John W Kennedy
In unscholarly and even informal
scholarly work, both tend to be referred to as Coverdale’s without
distinction.
Makes sense, though in that verse the difference is pretty
noticeable.
Post by John W Kennedy
The Book of Common Prayer, by the way, did not incorporate the Psalms in
any version until 1662.
Coverdale’s version(s) are generally regarded as the most speakable in
English, which is why Prayer-Book revision has traditionally preferred
to revise Coverdale than to accept newer translations wholesale.
...

Interesting.
--
Jerry Friedman
John W Kennedy
2018-11-19 20:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:37:20 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence
Although, as I also said, C. S. Lewis casts considerable doubt on that
notion in his “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version”. The Book
of Common Prayer really has more influence, even (through its influence
on other service books) among non-Anglicans.
I somehow doubt that.
Some time in the 1960s (before the Jerusalem Bible came out) the
Church of England produced a Revised Psalter. It was based on the
psalter in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), which was Coverdales
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/08/07/the-revised-psalter/
The revision produced a much syndicated article in which well-known
(at the time) literary characters castigated the CiofE for "tampering"
with the wording of the much-loved King James version by changing
things like "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" into "The Lord
is my Shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing."
Actually in that phrase, the Revised Psalter had changed nothing. It
was exactly as Coverdale wrote it, and Coverdale's version was older
than the KJV.
So it seems that all the literary types who had commented on the
Revised Psalter were far more influenced by the KJV (or AV if you
prefer) than theyb were by the BCP.
The syndicated article in which their complaints were registered
continued to be reprinted up to 20 years after it first appeared,
presumqably when some downtable sub needed some filler from the morgue
to make up a page.
How many of them were practicing C of E?

Heck, the American Book of Common Prayer of 1979 actually /added/ the
KJV of “The Lord is my Shepherd”, not in the Psalter proper (where
revised Coverdale still rules), but specifically for alternative use at
funerals, lest non-Episcopalians be upset.

But that’s a single quarter of a page, and hardly typical.

And when it comes to the history of English literature, I am only a
village idiot compared to Lewis. Here is hhis essay:
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Paul S Person
In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them),
Still true.
Post by Paul S Person
and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
Not in the same way, because the official version was and is the
Vulgate. And Roman Catholics place less emphasis on the Bible, itself,
than Fundamentalist Protestants do.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Steve Hayes
2018-11-20 15:18:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:56:02 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that all the literary types who had commented on the
Revised Psalter were far more influenced by the KJV (or AV if you
prefer) than theyb were by the BCP.
The syndicated article in which their complaints were registered
continued to be reprinted up to 20 years after it first appeared,
presumqably when some downtable sub needed some filler from the morgue
to make up a page.
How many of them were practicing C of E?
Heck, the American Book of Common Prayer of 1979 actually /added/ the
KJV of “The Lord is my Shepherd”, not in the Psalter proper (where
revised Coverdale still rules), but specifically for alternative use at
funerals, lest non-Episcopalians be upset.
I suspect that most of them were not practising anything -- Perhaps
like Philip Pullman, liked the idea that the church was there
providing beautiful music, but not believing anything the words said.
Post by John W Kennedy
But that’s a single quarter of a page, and hardly typical.
And when it comes to the history of English literature, I am only a
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf
Thanks for that -- looks interesting.
--
Stephen Hayes, Author of The Year of the Dragon
Sample or purchase The Year of the Dragon:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/907935
Web site: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail: ***@dunelm.org.uk
theswain
2018-11-26 00:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
Paul S Person
2018-11-26 17:47:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:38:20 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
Who can say?

But the person reporting it is quite reliable.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-12-02 18:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:38:20 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
Who can say?
But the person reporting it is quite reliable.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Who is reporting it? And reliable or not, what is the evidence? The fact that you keep side-stepping my question does not lend the claim that Tolkien used the KJV professionally.
Paul S Person
2018-12-03 17:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:38:20 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
Who can say?
But the person reporting it is quite reliable.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Who is reporting it? And reliable or not, what is the evidence? The fact that you keep side-stepping my question does not lend the claim that Tolkien used the KJV professionally.
Try reading the thread. All of it.

And try to have a nice day.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-12-09 23:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:38:20 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
Who can say?
But the person reporting it is quite reliable.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Who is reporting it? And reliable or not, what is the evidence? The fact that you keep side-stepping my question does not lend the claim that Tolkien used the KJV professionally.
Try reading the thread. All of it.
And try to have a nice day.
--
Lol! Ah, the troll's first tool....I have read the thread, all of it, thanks. I am having a delightful day, but I know you are miserable. You made a claim you can't back up and are too pig-headed to retract. So you resort to traditional troll tactics. Congrats.
Paul S Person
2018-12-10 17:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Try reading the thread. All of it.
And try to have a nice day.
Lol! Ah, the troll's first tool....I have read the thread, all of it, thanks. I am having a delightful day, but I know you are miserable. You made a claim you can't back up and are too pig-headed to retract. So you resort to traditional troll tactics. Congrats.
Had you /actually/ read the thread, you would know who first stated
(on the thread) that JRRT had a KJV in his office for professional
purposes. It wasn't me.

So, clearly, you have not, in fact, read the thread. Which leads to
the question: are you a bot? or just a troll?

But I /am/ glad you are having a delightful day, if not a particularly
nice one.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-12-16 22:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Try reading the thread. All of it.
And try to have a nice day.
Lol! Ah, the troll's first tool....I have read the thread, all of it, thanks. I am having a delightful day, but I know you are miserable. You made a claim you can't back up and are too pig-headed to retract. So you resort to traditional troll tactics. Congrats.
Had you /actually/ read the thread, you would know who first stated
(on the thread) that JRRT had a KJV in his office for professional
purposes. It wasn't me.
So, clearly, you have not, in fact, read the thread. Which leads to
the question: are you a bot? or just a troll?
But I /am/ glad you are having a delightful day, if not a particularly
nice one.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Apparently you didn't either...since your "evidence" is John's statement beginning with "I imagine"...nice. Your obstruction and obfuscation in answering a simple and direct question is so very Trumpian.
Paul S Person
2018-12-17 17:21:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:48:38 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Try reading the thread. All of it.
And try to have a nice day.
Lol! Ah, the troll's first tool....I have read the thread, all of it, thanks. I am having a delightful day, but I know you are miserable. You made a claim you can't back up and are too pig-headed to retract. So you resort to traditional troll tactics. Congrats.
Had you /actually/ read the thread, you would know who first stated
(on the thread) that JRRT had a KJV in his office for professional
purposes. It wasn't me.
So, clearly, you have not, in fact, read the thread. Which leads to
the question: are you a bot? or just a troll?
But I /am/ glad you are having a delightful day, if not a particularly
nice one.
Apparently you didn't either...since your "evidence" is John's statement beginning with "I imagine"...nice. Your obstruction and obfuscation in answering a simple and direct question is so very Trumpian.
Yes, I mis-remembered how the statement began.

But I was still relying on it. A mis-quotation is still a quotation.

There is no other evidence to give.

And, as to whether you are a bot or a troll -- I'm inclining toward
bot, since trolls don't usually reply to responses.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John W Kennedy
2018-11-26 20:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
theswain
2018-12-02 18:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
John W Kennedy
2018-12-03 03:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Does “professional purposes” include popularizations? I’m serious about
that; I’m not a professional scholar, though I have stumbled over the
edge a few times.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
theswain
2018-12-09 23:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Does “professional purposes” include popularizations? I’m serious about
that; I’m not a professional scholar, though I have stumbled over the
edge a few times.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Hi John,
I'm not sure what you mean by "popularizations." Vernacular retellings in various formats?
John W Kennedy
2018-12-10 02:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Does “professional purposes” include popularizations? I’m serious about
that; I’m not a professional scholar, though I have stumbled over the
edge a few times.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Hi John,
I'm not sure what you mean by "popularizations." Vernacular retellings in various formats?
Or nonspecialist criticism (such as Asimov’s “Guide to Shakespeare”).
Anything, really, more likely to be published by Random House than by
Garland.


--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Paul S Person
2018-12-03 17:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express
some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Ah ... I see the problem.

You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.

Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-12-09 23:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express
some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Ah ... I see the problem.
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
Well, my first questioning of the "professional purposes" was more general, or meant to be. But you have continued to insist on it, until I asked for further evidence, and then you prevaricate. That's all.
Paul S Person
2018-12-10 17:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to
express
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Ah ... I see the problem.
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
Well, my first questioning of the "professional purposes" was more general, or meant to be. But you have continued to insist on it, until I asked for further evidence, and then you prevaricate. That's all.
The only thing I have been insisting on, recently, is that I did not
say it originally but was merely stating what a much more reliable
source had stated.

And, IIRC, I have already said this, but I will again in case it
helps:
as to JRRT's /use/ of the KJV, since I am not in the field and you
are, I bow to your judgment
but, if you want to debate whether he /had/ a KJV in his office, you
will have to do so with someone else.

Provided, of course, you are not a bot or a troll.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-12-10 00:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express
some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Ah ... I see the problem.
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I meant to add: John W. Kennedy is the first one to state that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes. So why is John a more reliable source? Personal choice? Does John have some kind of special insight? Did he provide a list of Tolkien's books? A list of AV quotations or references in Tolkien's scholarly works? None of these. Yet both you and John repeat this and refuse to provide evidence, you claiming, while insisting I read the thread, that you picked up from a more reliable source, yet refuse to comment why it is more reliable as a source, and what evidence is provided that the source's statement is supported by evidence. This isn't that hard: is there any evidence whatsoever to support the now oft repeated contention that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes...and you will not escape by claiming John is a more reliable source unless you can prove that John has more information.
John W Kennedy
2018-12-10 02:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here....
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express
some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Ah ... I see the problem.
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I meant to add: John W. Kennedy is the first one to state that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes.
I said I “imagined it”.
Post by theswain
So why is John a more reliable source? Personal choice? Does John have some kind of special insight? Did he provide a list of Tolkien's books? A list of AV quotations or references in Tolkien's scholarly works? None of these. Yet both you and John repeat this and refuse to provide evidence, you claiming, while insisting I read the thread, that you picked up from a more reliable source, yet refuse to comment why it is more reliable as a source, and what evidence is provided that the source's statement is supported by evidence. This isn't that hard: is there any evidence whatsoever to support the now oft repeated contention that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes...and you will not escape by claiming John is a more reliable source unless you can prove that John has more information.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles
Paul S Person
2018-12-10 17:33:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 21:17:15 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
I meant to add: John W. Kennedy is the first one to state that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes.
I said I “imagined it”.
Post by theswain
So why is John a more reliable source? Personal choice? Does John have some kind of special insight? Did he provide a list of Tolkien's books? A list of AV quotations or references in Tolkien's scholarly works? None of these. Yet both you and John repeat this and refuse to provide evidence, you claiming, while insisting I read the thread, that you picked up from a more reliable source, yet refuse to comment why it is more reliable as a source, and what evidence is provided that the source's statement is supported by evidence. This isn't that hard: is there any evidence whatsoever to support the now oft repeated contention that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes...and you will not escape by claiming John is a more reliable source unless you can prove that John has more information.
For obvious reasons.

Since I appear to have misremembered what he said, I do apologize (to
him) for mis-characterizing his statement.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-12-16 22:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 21:17:15 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
I meant to add: John W. Kennedy is the first one to state that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes.
I said I “imagined it”.
Post by theswain
So why is John a more reliable source? Personal choice? Does John have some kind of special insight? Did he provide a list of Tolkien's books? A list of AV quotations or references in Tolkien's scholarly works? None of these. Yet both you and John repeat this and refuse to provide evidence, you claiming, while insisting I read the thread, that you picked up from a more reliable source, yet refuse to comment why it is more reliable as a source, and what evidence is provided that the source's statement is supported by evidence. This isn't that hard: is there any evidence whatsoever to support the now oft repeated contention that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes...and you will not escape by claiming John is a more reliable source unless you can prove that John has more information.
For obvious reasons.
Since I appear to have misremembered what he said, I do apologize (to
him) for mis-characterizing his statement.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
o yes...quite obvious...he didn't call you out on your mistake. You should have read the thread again....huh.
Paul S Person
2018-12-17 17:23:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:44:27 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 21:17:15 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
I meant to add: John W. Kennedy is the first one to state that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes.
I said I “imagined it”.
Post by theswain
So why is John a more reliable source? Personal choice? Does John have some kind of special insight? Did he provide a list of Tolkien's books? A list of AV quotations or references in Tolkien's scholarly works? None of these. Yet both you and John repeat this and refuse to provide evidence, you claiming, while insisting I read the thread, that you picked up from a more reliable source, yet refuse to comment why it is more reliable as a source, and what evidence is provided that the source's statement is supported by evidence. This isn't that hard: is there any evidence whatsoever to support the now oft repeated contention that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes...and you will not escape by claiming John is a more reliable source unless you can prove that John has more information.
For obvious reasons.
Since I appear to have misremembered what he said, I do apologize (to
him) for mis-characterizing his statement.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Still not removing the Sigs, I see.
Post by theswain
o yes...quite obvious...he didn't call you out on your mistake. You should have read the thread again....huh.
That is because, as I have noted, I am known for my generally
unreliable behavior. No doubt he felt that that was just my normal,
and so not worthy of comment.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-12-16 22:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
Post by theswain
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:15:29 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:59:44 -0500, John W Kennedy
Post by John W Kennedy
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here....
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
And in my experience the Jerusalem Bible was the best recent version
for reading aloud in church -- perhaps because people like Tolkien who
had a feel for language were involved in the translation.
A contemporary version was the New English Bible, which was stilted
and (sometimes) pompous by comparison with the JB.
The Jerusalem Bible, it appears, came out in 1966.
The NEB NT came out in 1961, but the OT/Apocrypha didn't appear until
1970. I got one for Christmas that year (with the revised, 1970 NT as
well), and that is what it says on the reverse of the title page.
That did leave 3 years or so for JRRT to have acquired the NEB, but,
being Roman Catholic, would he have done so? The KJV, for professional
purposes, as noted by another post, certainly -- but the KJV had a
massive cultural influence and recorded a particular phase of English.
I would expect that the version used at home would have been and
remained the Douay. In 1970 there were still plenty of people in the
USA insisting that God Himself had specified every single letter in
the KJV (if the concept of "printer's proofs" had been explained to
them they would doubtless have claimed that God Himself reviewed and,
where necessary, revised them), and I suspect the Douay was just as
much beloved among the RC (even if they were not subject to the same
level of hysteria over the very /thought/ of changing the Sacred
Text).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I'm not sure why Tolkien would need a KJV for professional purposes. KJV came out in 1611 in its first edition. The texts that Tolkien worked on in his scholarship and in his teaching all pre-date that by several centuries. Why would he be consulting the KJV to check out the Latin or Middle English or Old English of a passage?
For remarks such as “(or, as the Authorized Version puts it, ‘...’)”, or
“(in [name’s] translation of 1875, it is rendered ‘...’, obviously
echoing [book, chapter, verse], ‘...’ in the Authorized Version)”. Of
such trivia is scholarship made.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
O indeed....but in my own professional work in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and early modern texts, I have never had occasion to refer to the KJV, or so and so's translation from 18?? Refer to the Vulgate? to a Vetus Latina reading? To the West Saxon Gospels? to Aelfric of Eynsham? to some Middle English translation or recasting of the text? to Wycliffe? Coverdale? Tyndale? the Bishop's Bible? O yes, all of those in some context or other. And when referring to some text in the Bible and a modern rendering is needed, I translate myself (because that is scholarship), I don't refer to a translation made centuries after the fact of the text I am examining. I do own a couple of KJV editions, and a Douay Rheims, and other modern translations, but I don't *need* them for professional purposes nor do I use them And a similar situation pertains to pretty much everyone I know in the field. So someone saying that Tolkien needed the KJV or used the KJV for professional purposes and to express
some surprise that he would go the Vulgate or even the Greek of the NT or LXX before the KJV seems to me to need some actual evidence to support the statement.
Ah ... I see the problem.
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
I meant to add: John W. Kennedy is the first one to state that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes.
I said I “imagined it”.
Post by theswain
So why is John a more reliable source? Personal choice? Does John have some kind of special insight? Did he provide a list of Tolkien's books? A list of AV quotations or references in Tolkien's scholarly works? None of these. Yet both you and John repeat this and refuse to provide evidence, you claiming, while insisting I read the thread, that you picked up from a more reliable source, yet refuse to comment why it is more reliable as a source, and what evidence is provided that the source's statement is supported by evidence. This isn't that hard: is there any evidence whatsoever to support the now oft repeated contention that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes...and you will not escape by claiming John is a more reliable source unless you can prove that John has more information.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
You did, and when I asked further, you replied in an adult and professional way. You even had a good assumption/imagining....it was well constructed. Unlike others though, you didn't hold on to it well past its usefulness. Thanks for that.
Paul S Person
2018-12-10 17:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
You think /I/ asserted that JRRT had and used a KJV.
Read the thread. I was picking it up from a more reliable source.
I meant to add: John W. Kennedy is the first one to state that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes. So why is John a more reliable source? Personal choice? Does John have some kind of special insight? Did he provide a list of Tolkien's books? A list of AV quotations or references in Tolkien's scholarly works? None of these. Yet both you and John repeat this and refuse to provide evidence, you claiming, while insisting I read the thread, that you picked up from a more reliable source, yet refuse to comment why it is more reliable as a source, and what evidence is provided that the source's statement is supported by evidence. This isn't that hard: is there any evidence whatsoever to support the now oft repeated contention that Tolkien would have used the AV for professional purposes...and you will not escape by claiming John is a more reliable source unless you can prove that John has more information.
Then why are still on me about it? I didn't assert it, so defending it
is not my responsibility.

John W. Kennedy is a more reliable source than I am because I
frequently get side-tracked, make mis-statements, and engage in other
activities which can only serve to reduce my reliability.

John W. Kennedy, OTOH, has a long record of reliability on rabt.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-11-26 00:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
He contributed to JB1, of course, which, of all English versions, comes
closest to the ideal translator he pretended to be for the Red Book.
I imagine he kept an AV in his office for academic use (though Lewis
questioned whether that was really necessary).
Mind explainnig what JB1 and AV are? You sort of lost me here...
The “Jerusalem Bible” is a Roman Catholic English version that
originally came out in 1966. Tolkien was a contributor to the first edition.
“Authorized Version” is the British name of the version that Americans
call the “King James Version”.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
As long as we are being precise....La Bible de Jerusalem was a French translation that was published in 1954. The English Jerusalem Bible was originally meant to be a translation of the French with new apparatus and notes. It was for this that Tolkien provided a translation of Jonah. But this was abandoned and the English JB1 quickly became a translation from the original languages and manuscripts with light explanatory notes and no apparatus. To this Tolkien contributed some editorial work. The JB1 came out as you say in 1966.
theswain
2018-11-26 00:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
He contributed to JB1, of course, which, of all English versions, comes
closest to the ideal translator he pretended to be for the Red Book.
I imagine he kept an AV in his office for academic use (though Lewis
questioned whether that was really necessary).
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
His contribution to the JB1 was fairly limited and more editorial, and came in the 50s and early 60s. By this point he had already done his abandoned Beowulf translation, and worked on the Exodus, as well as Pearl, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Sir Orfeo.
Paul S Person
2018-11-12 17:50:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:24:28 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
Sadly, the OT was written in Hebrew, with some parts (more parts for
Roman Catholics) in Aramaic. Well, except 4 Esdras, which (IIRC) was
not in the Septuagint and the best text of which is in Latin.

But perhaps you meant Latin for 4 Esdras and Greek for the Septuagint
for the rest of the OT and for the NT. That is, I suppose, possible,
but it seems a bit ... extreme ... when approved translations already
existed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-11-26 00:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:24:28 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
Sadly, the OT was written in Hebrew, with some parts (more parts for
Roman Catholics) in Aramaic. Well, except 4 Esdras, which (IIRC) was
not in the Septuagint and the best text of which is in Latin.
But perhaps you meant Latin for 4 Esdras and Greek for the Septuagint
for the rest of the OT and for the NT. That is, I suppose, possible,
but it seems a bit ... extreme ... when approved translations already
existed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
What is "sadly" about it? It is fact, but I don't know why one needs to feel sad about it. 4 Esdras has been shown to have originally Hebrew, translated into Greek, then into Latin. So while it is true that the best and most complete exemplar is in Latin, there do exist fragments and quotations from Greek. Sadly none from Hebrew survive so far as I know.

As for the extreme of consulting and even reading the Bible in Latin and Greek, I fail to see why that is extreme. Certainly as a medievalist myself I almost daily consult Biblical texts in one of those two languages, less often in Hebrew, sometimes in Old English and other medieval vernaculars. And it is the Vulgate, not the translations, that was the official Bible of Roman Catholic church. Not only so, but before 1962, the mass was conducted in Latin, and generally the Biblical readings for the day likewise read in Latin (and varying from place to place then repeated in the vernacular). Further, Tolkien knew Latin and Greek as well as Old English and Old Norse etc. Remember that not only would he have studied these languages as a schoolboy, but it was his undergraduate "major."
Paul S Person
2018-11-26 17:54:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:20:12 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:24:28 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages. As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official" RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he may have been familiar with that as well.
Sadly, the OT was written in Hebrew, with some parts (more parts for
Roman Catholics) in Aramaic. Well, except 4 Esdras, which (IIRC) was
not in the Septuagint and the best text of which is in Latin.
But perhaps you meant Latin for 4 Esdras and Greek for the Septuagint
for the rest of the OT and for the NT. That is, I suppose, possible,
but it seems a bit ... extreme ... when approved translations already
existed.
What is "sadly" about it? It is fact, but I don't know why one needs to feel sad about it. 4 Esdras has been shown to have originally Hebrew, translated into Greek, then into Latin. So while it is true that the best and most complete exemplar is in Latin, there do exist fragments and quotations from Greek. Sadly none from Hebrew survive so far as I know.
Precisely.
Post by theswain
As for the extreme of consulting and even reading the Bible in Latin and Greek, I fail to see why that is extreme. Certainly as a medievalist myself I almost daily consult Biblical texts in one of those two languages, less often in Hebrew, sometimes in Old English and other medieval vernaculars. And it is the Vulgate, not the translations, that was the official Bible of Roman Catholic church. Not only so, but before 1962, the mass was conducted in Latin, and generally the Biblical readings for the day likewise read in Latin (and varying from place to place then repeated in the vernacular). Further, Tolkien knew Latin and Greek as well as Old English and Old Norse etc. Remember that not only would he have studied these languages as a schoolboy, but it was his undergraduate "major."
I wasn't thinking of /scholarly/ use. I was thinking of personal,
devotional use. But I defer to your experience as a fellow-[to JRRT,
not to me, I am not one]medievalist.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Michael F. Stemper
2018-11-13 18:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?

As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation

Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.

As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the
KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he
may have been familiar with that as well.

I'm looking for formative stuff, so pre-WWII rather than post V-II.

Thanks for your help.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Psalm 82:1-4
John W Kennedy
2018-11-13 20:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?
Officially, in RCism, the Vulgate (the Latin version by St. Jerome) is
the standard text. They do not doubt that an act of translation was
involved, historically, but it is the Vulgate that is referred to to
establish doctrine, though other translations in other languages may be
referenced for clarification.

And, in fact, the Vulgate OT isn’t one pure translation, anyhow. Jerome
worked from the Hebrew (and Aramaic) where possible, but used the
Septuagint for passages, chapters, and ever whole books where the
Hebrew/Aramaic was not there. Furthermore, although he prepared a Latin
translation of the Hebrew Psalms, worshipers wouldn’t accept the new
version, and continued to use the Old Latin versions, which had been
based on the Septuagint. (Anglicanism did something similar, continuing
to use the Psalms from Miles Coverdale’s version—based on the Vulgate—in
the Book of Common Prayer, long after the Authorized Version had
replaced the older English versions for all other purposes; even the
modern translation used in the American BCP of 1979 is a much-altered
adaptation of Coverdale.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation
Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.
No, Douai, like Rheims, is in France (though formerly in Flanders).

By the way, the term “Douay-Rheims version” is a bit of a fib, for it
had many revisions, including one huge one. Check out the article in
Wikipedia.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the
KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he
may have been familiar with that as well.
I'm looking for formative stuff, so pre-WWII rather than post V-II.
Thanks for your help.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Michael F. Stemper
2018-11-14 17:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were
skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?
Officially, in RCism, the Vulgate (the Latin version by St. Jerome) is
the standard text. They do not doubt that an act of translation was
involved, historically, but it is the Vulgate that is referred to to
establish doctrine, though other translations in other languages may be
referenced for clarification.
Ah, that's what "The whole revised and diligently compared with
the Latin Vulgate" means (on the title page of one of my Bibles).
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
  As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation
Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.
No, Douai, like Rheims, is in France (though formerly in Flanders).
Okay, I was fooled by the title page of one of my Bibles, which
says:
The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609

I'll have to admit that "Douay" sounds French (as does "Rheims").

I suppose that asking why there was an English College in France
would be about the same as King Arthur asking what the French
knights were doing in Britain in _Month Python and the Holy Grail_.
(No, I'm not asking.)
Post by John W Kennedy
By the way, the term “Douay-Rheims version” is a bit of a fib, for it
had many revisions, including one huge one. Check out the article in
Wikipedia.
I will do so. Thanks again.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Psalm 82:1-4
John W Kennedy
2018-11-14 22:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were
skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?
Officially, in RCism, the Vulgate (the Latin version by St. Jerome) is
the standard text. They do not doubt that an act of translation was
involved, historically, but it is the Vulgate that is referred to to
establish doctrine, though other translations in other languages may be
referenced for clarification.
Ah, that's what "The whole revised and diligently compared with
the Latin Vulgate" means (on the title page of one of my Bibles).
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
  As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation
Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.
No, Douai, like Rheims, is in France (though formerly in Flanders).
Okay, I was fooled by the title page of one of my Bibles, which
The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609
I'll have to admit that "Douay" sounds French (as does "Rheims").
I suppose that asking why there was an English College in France
would be about the same as King Arthur asking what the French
knights were doing in Britain in _Month Python and the Holy Grail_.
(No, I'm not asking.)
Most of the tales of Arthur known to non-scholars are not genuine
legends but professionally written fiction, mostly French. For a couple
of centuries, throughout Europe, Arthur was as hot as Harry Potter, and
there were no copyright laws. (There is even a “Melech Artus” written in
medieval Hebrew.) “Monty Python” is roughly a tenth-generation adaptation.

Anyway, it was the “English” Roman Catholic “College”. Putting it in
England would have entailed a slight problem with the death penalty.
(Elizabeth actually seems to have had some RC sympathies, and tried a
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, until a new pope decided to put out a
contract on her.)
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by John W Kennedy
By the way, the term “Douay-Rheims version” is a bit of a fib, for it
had many revisions, including one huge one. Check out the article in
Wikipedia.
I will do so. Thanks again.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Paul S Person
2018-11-15 17:21:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 17:08:31 -0500, John W Kennedy
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snippo English College at Douay>
Post by John W Kennedy
Most of the tales of Arthur known to non-scholars are not genuine
legends but professionally written fiction, mostly French. For a couple
of centuries, throughout Europe, Arthur was as hot as Harry Potter, and
there were no copyright laws. (There is even a “Melech Artus” written in
medieval Hebrew.) “Monty Python” is roughly a tenth-generation adaptation.
Well, a /satire of/ a tenth-generation adaptation, perhaps.
Sort of like /The Starving Games/ ("Half the Calories, Twice the Fun")
and /The Hunger Games/.
This is Monty Python, after all.

My favorite version is, of all things, Tennyson's /The Idylls of the
King/ -- which the film /Excalibur/ could have, but didn't, use as a
script, or at least as a "based on". Which is to say that both would
appear to be faithful adaptations of (IIRC) Mallory.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John W Kennedy
2018-11-15 19:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 17:08:31 -0500, John W Kennedy
<snippo English College at Douay>
Post by John W Kennedy
Most of the tales of Arthur known to non-scholars are not genuine
legends but professionally written fiction, mostly French. For a couple
of centuries, throughout Europe, Arthur was as hot as Harry Potter, and
there were no copyright laws. (There is even a “Melech Artus” written in
medieval Hebrew.) “Monty Python” is roughly a tenth-generation adaptation.
Well, a /satire of/ a tenth-generation adaptation, perhaps.
Sort of like /The Starving Games/ ("Half the Calories, Twice the Fun")
and /The Hunger Games/.
This is Monty Python, after all.
My favorite version is, of all things, Tennyson's /The Idylls of the
King/ -- which the film /Excalibur/ could have, but didn't, use as a
script, or at least as a "based on". Which is to say that both would
appear to be faithful adaptations of (IIRC) Mallory.
Not as touching the Grail.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
theswain
2018-11-26 00:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were
skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?
Officially, in RCism, the Vulgate (the Latin version by St. Jerome) is
the standard text. They do not doubt that an act of translation was
involved, historically, but it is the Vulgate that is referred to to
establish doctrine, though other translations in other languages may be
referenced for clarification.
Ah, that's what "The whole revised and diligently compared with
the Latin Vulgate" means (on the title page of one of my Bibles).
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
  As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation
Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.
No, Douai, like Rheims, is in France (though formerly in Flanders).
Okay, I was fooled by the title page of one of my Bibles, which
The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609
I'll have to admit that "Douay" sounds French (as does "Rheims").
I suppose that asking why there was an English College in France
would be about the same as King Arthur asking what the French
knights were doing in Britain in _Month Python and the Holy Grail_.
(No, I'm not asking.)
Post by John W Kennedy
By the way, the term “Douay-Rheims version” is a bit of a fib, for it
had many revisions, including one huge one. Check out the article in
Wikipedia.
I will do so. Thanks again.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Psalm 82:1-4
Not sure if this was answered or you found an answer elsewhere. But just in case, this is where English Catholic clergy escaped to under Henry VIII, Elizabeth, and post Nov 5, 1605. The college was founded in the late 1560s.
Paul S Person
2018-11-26 17:55:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:42:01 -0800 (PST), theswain
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were
skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?
Officially, in RCism, the Vulgate (the Latin version by St. Jerome) is
the standard text. They do not doubt that an act of translation was
involved, historically, but it is the Vulgate that is referred to to
establish doctrine, though other translations in other languages may be
referenced for clarification.
Ah, that's what "The whole revised and diligently compared with
the Latin Vulgate" means (on the title page of one of my Bibles).
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
  As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation
Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.
No, Douai, like Rheims, is in France (though formerly in Flanders).
Okay, I was fooled by the title page of one of my Bibles, which
The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609
I'll have to admit that "Douay" sounds French (as does "Rheims").
I suppose that asking why there was an English College in France
would be about the same as King Arthur asking what the French
knights were doing in Britain in _Month Python and the Holy Grail_.
(No, I'm not asking.)
Post by John W Kennedy
By the way, the term “Douay-Rheims version” is a bit of a fib, for it
had many revisions, including one huge one. Check out the article in
Wikipedia.
I will do so. Thanks again.
<BTW, it is conventional to set your news reader to omit sigs when
quoting in replies>
Post by theswain
Not sure if this was answered or you found an answer elsewhere. But just in case, this is where English Catholic clergy escaped to under Henry VIII, Elizabeth, and post Nov 5, 1605. The college was founded in the late 1560s.
That's the sort of thing I would expect it to mean.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
theswain
2018-11-26 00:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were
skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?
Officially, in RCism, the Vulgate (the Latin version by St. Jerome) is
the standard text. They do not doubt that an act of translation was
involved, historically, but it is the Vulgate that is referred to to
establish doctrine, though other translations in other languages may be
referenced for clarification.
Ah, that's what "The whole revised and diligently compared with
the Latin Vulgate" means (on the title page of one of my Bibles).
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by Michael F. Stemper
  As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation
Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.
No, Douai, like Rheims, is in France (though formerly in Flanders).
Okay, I was fooled by the title page of one of my Bibles, which
The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609
I'll have to admit that "Douay" sounds French (as does "Rheims").
I suppose that asking why there was an English College in France
would be about the same as King Arthur asking what the French
knights were doing in Britain in _Month Python and the Holy Grail_.
(No, I'm not asking.)
Post by John W Kennedy
By the way, the term “Douay-Rheims version” is a bit of a fib, for it
had many revisions, including one huge one. Check out the article in
Wikipedia.
I will do so. Thanks again.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Psalm 82:1-4
Not sure if this was answered or you found an answer elsewhere. But just in case, this is where English Catholic clergy escaped to under Henry VIII, Elizabeth, and post Nov 5, 1605. The college was founded in the late 1560s.
theswain
2018-11-26 00:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by theswain
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Is there any evidence regarding what translation of the Old Testament
JRRT would have read?
Being English would say "King James", if it wasn't for the fact that he
was Catholic. Might it have been the Douay translation? Other ideas?
I wouldn't assume a translation. Certainly his Latin and Greek were skills enough to read the Bible in those languages.
Hmm? If he read the OT in Latin or Greek, wouldn't those have been
translations?
As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation
Okay, I knew that it was the official English translation for the US; I
didn't know about in other English-speaking countries. Of course, the
fact that Douay is in England was suggestive.
As an English Catholic the Douay Rheims translation was the "official"
RC English translation until post-Vatican II and is more likely than the
KJV though that's a possibility as well. The RSV came out in 1946, he
may have been familiar with that as well.
I'm looking for formative stuff, so pre-WWII rather than post V-II.
Thanks for your help.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Psalm 82:1-4
Sure. I obviously meant a translation in more or less modern English, which is what the OP was asking about.
Loading...