Kushana wrote: Wycliffe and Tyndale would be so disappointed ... and what does that make of the 1611 KJV edition (scroll down in link), whose spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary have been variously moderized since?
And poor St. Jerome. How about Jerome? His Vulgate version of the entire canon from the 4th century (after Nicea) was the first authoritative, single language version. Most versions before modern times (including the King James) were based on his translations.
Yes, the KJB was produced by Anglican/Episcopal priests, but the high church in England hadn't evolved away from Catholicism much in 1611. There isn't much in the KJB that an old world catholic would object to, and there is that lovely sense of the English language.
My "Bible as Literature" class in college used the Jerusalem Bible (with JRR Tolkein listed as an editor; I wonder what he really contributed) as its text.
Thank you Kushana for your input to this thread, which I only just read because of my involvement on the epistimology screed also on this forum. I don't normally come here, for I'm a silly person both in heart and head.