Have I missed a couple of postings? I don't know who this Alexander is or who the Ker is that he quotes, but the Ker quote seems naively anachronistic regarding the purpose of Bible translation in pre-modern times. The primary criterion for early translators was faithfulness to God's *word*, literally, and therefore style and often target-language sense could go hang. Remember the old story about the seventy-five (I think) translators who were each set to work independently to produce a translation into Greek of the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch)? The result was that they all, without consulting with each other, produced word for word the same translation of the original Hebrew!!--proving, of course, the legitimacy of the operation, and thus promoting ecclesiastical interests. ==Dan Pearlman At 03:27 PM 5/29/98 -0400, you wrote: >A quick note: > >An interesting bit in "Ezra Pound's 'Seafarer'" that I found quite >provocative was Alexander's cite of W. P. Ker regarding translation. In this >particular case Ker says of Anglo-Saxon translators of the Bible: "The >fault of Bible versions was that they kept too close to the original. >Instead of translating like free men they construed word for word, like the >illiterate in all ages." > >The focus of my interest is the use of the word 'illiterate' in the context >of this passage. Since I'm a novice and really unaware of Ker, what >impressions or insights can any of you provide? I mean, who exactly are the >'illiterate' (in your view)? > >Other items written by Ker? > Dan Pearlman Office: Department of English 102 Blackstone Blvd. #5 University of Rhode Island Providence, RI 02906 Kingston, RI 02881 Tel.: 401 453-3027 Tel.: 401 874-4659 email: [log in to unmask] Fax: 401 874-2580