Robert's Journal

In the feature article in this week's Weekend Australian's Review, Peter Craven talks about the King James Bible. Although its not fair to criticise an article for what is it not, Peter's seems to lack any raison d'etre.

It's 400 years since the publication of the Authorised (by the King) Version of the Bible. Peter Craven's article adds little to any understanding of this phenomenon. He does not discuss why it was commissioned and authorised. He does not tell us who the translators were. And although he tries to make the case that this version had influenced English literature, he fails to mention why this might be so .

Any material repeated weekly to most the population is bound to have an effect on the literature and speech of that population. Consider how quickly catch-phrases have spread from radio and television programs.

It would be interesting to know about the politics behind the decision to commission an Authorised version. Why didn't Elizabeth do it? Why not her father Henry VIII? I feel there is a whole book on the events leading up to the publication of the Authorised Version. There is a good-sized essay on the translators themselves. How

How was the Bible received at the time? Remember that James I was the target of the Gunpowder Plot and the cause of much Puritan emigration; so not everyone agreed with his ideas.

Unfortunately, Peter Craven doesn't touch on any of this.

// posted by Unknown @ 9:30 pm