"Matthew Amsel" <matthew.amsel at mail.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:3D6CEF06.3C64 at mail.mcgill.ca...
> Dan Holzman wrote:
> >
> > In article <hw_a9.15521$Ic7.1464026 at news2.west.cox.net>,
> > John Knight <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The King James version of the Holy Bible is not an authority on
> > >> ancient Hebrew, nor does it assert to being so.
> > >
> > >It's the most widely spread Hebrew writing ever, and it's primary
connection
> > >to jews is through words like the following:
> >
> > The KJV of the Bible is not written in Hebrew. The New Testament
> > portion of it isn't even translated by many steps from Hebrew.
> as i recall, the kjv is the english translation of the latin translation
> of the greek translation of the hebrew. (or did it skip the latin?)
Sort of. Jerome's Latin version was still the accepted interpretation of the
Hebrew and Greek texts, and was consulted by the translators as an aid to
their understanding of the original languages, but the translation was
ultimately based on Hebrew and Greek tests available a that time.
