In The Beginning & The Keys of Egypt 365
| In The Beginning & The Keys of Egypt | |
| author | Alister E. McGrath & Lesley Adkins & Roy Adkins |
| pages | 352 & 368 |
| publisher | Anchor & Perennial |
| rating | 7 |
| reviewer | Tony Williams |
| ISBN | 0385722168, 0060953497 |
| summary | A good book on the history of the King James Bible & A decent read on the translation of hieroglyphics |
Hieroglyphs
The Keys Of Egypt was written by husband-and-wife archaeological team Lesley and Roy Adkins. It is subtitled "The Race to Crack the Hieroglyph Code," and starts with a short chapter that introduces the eventual winner of that race, the Frenchman Jean-Francois Champollion, and mentions his most serious rival, the Englishman Thomas Young.The book goes on to examine Napoleon's expedition to Egypt which both brought the Rosetta Stone to light and started a period of French and European fascination with ancient Egypt. These were the two catalysts for the riddle's eventual solution.
This is a well-written book that looks at the struggle and race for translation and the political and academic machinations (often both combined) that surrounded Champollion. It is essentially a biography of Champollion, who grew up and worked amid the turmoil of the Napoleonic era. The story is a compelling one and the authors have done well to make it at times fascinating.
As a genre I find that 'scientific biographies' tend to be a little overblown and flowery, the writing not quite precise -- and Keys suffers from these shortcomings. I also felt that while the book is subtitled "The Race to Crack the Hieroglyph Code" it really only focuses on Champollion, while he is the eventual winner a little more effort in examining the others involved in the effort would have improved the book.
The Bible
It can be argued that the King James Bible has had as large an effect on our language today as the work of Shakespeare. 'In The Beginning' has at its core the story of biblical translation, a topic you may think anything but fascinating. McGrath has done a good job in making this a compelling book.He starts, as one may expect, with the story of Gutenberg and his first printed bibles. Before arriving at the King James he covers Martin Luther, the rise of Protestantism in Europe, Henry the Eighth, more than one hanging, and several other bible translations and translators. Along the way he manages to dispel a few myths I had held about biblical translation and the King James in particular. I always thought that it was the King James version that introduced the idea of the main body in roman type and words inserted to clarify meaning in italics, but it was actually an earlier English translation known as the Geneva Bible that first implemented this idea. After explaining the technology, theology, politics and linguistics nuances that led King James to permit (but not fund) a new translation, McGrath tells us how the translation was accomplished organizationally before examining some of the nuances of the translation itself. Some of the language in the King James was archaic even when it was published; translators had been instructed to lift from previous translations all the way back to the partial translation of William Tynsdale published 90 years earlier, and this at a time when the English language was going through the huge changes of the Elizabethan era. McGrath examines this aspect, pointing out such things as changes in verb endings and personal pronouns.
I found the book patchy. McGrath does a much better job covering the story up until the translation. It is harder to get a feel for how the translation was accomplished and how the various teams worked, and when he comes to examine some of the nuances of the translation, the text makes much harder going. If this had not been a part of the topic that interested me a great deal, I may have lost interest.
Conclusion
Both books may have their flaws but both are well worth the read. It is important to realise the history of science and language that have brought us to our current place and both these volumes do a good job of illuminating the past efforts of men who worked under entirely different pressures than we find today.
You can purchase both In The Beginning and The Keys of Egypt from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Understatement? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no expert on this but that seems like a huge understatement -- Shakespeare invented a few words and turned an enormous number of common phrases, but the King James translation surely had an even larger impact on English, no?
If only for being responsible for the inversion of "thee/thou/thy" from familiar to formal speech.
Re:Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, of course it was! It surprises me that so few people seem to realize this. The best way to get people to follow some set of societal laws is to scare them into not violating such laws. The threat of 'eternal damnation' and promise of 'eternal life' clearly comes from this.
Re:No mention of Tyndale? (Score:1, Insightful)
His knowledge of languages was very great.
It's tragic that he died, but atleast his final prayer on the burning stake was answered with the KJV:
"Lord, open the King of England's eyes."
The estimates are not that 80% of the KJV is based on his work, but that 80% is similar.
What this means is that England's 47 best Hebrew and Greek scholar's of the day only disagreed with him on 20% of the bible.
What an accomplishment for Tyndale.
And his mission was eventually also fullfilled with Gutenberg and the KJV, so that the boy in the field may know more about the God's Word then the bishop of the Church Of England.
You know we have christianity and the bible to thank for popularizing literacy.
The chinese had the printing press a long time ago, but they didn't have the bible and thus no motive for teaching everyone to read, while western europe valued literacy very greatly because of the bible, their Holy book.
Jews also had this advantage, in ancient times when most people didn't care to read/write every Jewish boy was being thaught to read their scriptures.
Re: Bad logic being used (Score:3, Insightful)
But you can't use the fact that it might make sense to use it this way as an argument for the FACT that that was it's intended purpose. That's like saying that super glue, because it is effective at bonding things together, was created to repair china. While it may be true that it is good for that, it is wrong (originally created to help close wounds in triage on the battle field). So just because your explanation fits, doesn't make it the correct explanation. (god I hope none of you guys are detectives).
Re:Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
Organized religion may been been instituted by chiefs to validate their rule (along with other things, like what you suggest), but to believe that what we say, think, or do has any bearing on whether there actually is some creator-being outside our system is misguided.
You may find the way the methods of organized religion distasteful, their beliefs flawed, their system corrupt, but it does not mean that religion itself is an "invention" without merit.
Occam's Razor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but when faced with the two choices of:
(a) There is a god, and he caused the creation of religion
and
(b) There is no god, and religion is an institution that has its roots in superstition and social control
One has to make the most likely choice given the evidence at hand. Most logical, lucid people who discount that which cannot be proven find themselves coming to logical conclusions.
It amazes me how some people (not necessarily you) will suspend the very logic which they use in every other aspect of their life just for the chance to believe in something or someone that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist.
Re:Hebraic Roots Version Complete Bible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
It occured to me for about 18 years. Then, suddenly, it occured to me that it might all be made up. And everything made much more sense that way.
No it doesn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
If that possibility is true, it just means that trying to analyze why one particular religion was "made up" would be pointless, but all the others are still fair game.
Re: Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
What if the real god just wants people to get on with their lives, and only punishes those who waste it on useless religious superstitions and ceremonies? Are you going to bet on that, too?> *prepares to be modded down by liberals*
> The problem with trying to analyze why religions were "made up" and what social purposes (deterrence, discrimination, thought control, etc.) they are used for is that it ignores the possibility that there actually is a God, and that which we call "religion" came to exist as a result of God's revelation of himself, not as a result of random guesses or evil conspiracies.
a) What have "liberals" got to do with any of this?
b) You seem blithely unaware that there are thousands of religions out there, many making mutually exclusive claims. You've got to recognize that most of them are bogus. If you want yours to be treated differently you need to give people a reason for it.
> Everyone wants to treat religion as merely an object of study, like politics or literature...but has it occurred to anyone that there may actually be truth to it? And if there is a God and an afterlife, and your life on earth determines where you will spend eternity, isn't this something you just might want to take seriously? I mean, eternity is an awfully long time, and a lake of fire doesn't sound like too much fun.
Ah, Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org] rears its ugly head. Haven't you ever considered Homer's Counteroffer, which I'll take the liberty of misquoting from memory -
Re:Occam's Razor... (Score:3, Insightful)
And when human beings can stop using science to create new means of destroying himself, his fellow humans, and the planet, then I'll start believing we no longer need [a god]
And when most of the wars that are destroying our fellow humans are caused by reasons other than "gods", then I'll start believing that they (gods) might not have a negative influence on human affairs.
Re:Occam's Razor... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which God? Which Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem with the argument that it might just be the real thing from a real God, is that I must ask the question, which God? Which Religion? Who is right? Who is wrong? Is Sunday the day off or Saturday? Does a being which created the universe really care? Are all the prophets right? How can they be?
From the outside looking in at all the different religions with their different teachings (no matter how you try to reconcile the differences, some remain), it is obvious to an atheist that at least some of the beliefs are wrong. Each incompatible diety cannot have created the universe. If one of them did, then the rest of them do not exist but try telling that to all the different believers.
Is there room for a God in the universe? Sure, but I won't believe in one and certainly won't worship one based upon ancient texts alone. Asking begged questions doesn't help either.
Re:Hilarity Ensues (Score:2, Insightful)
And what might that be? Get god to look me in the eye and say "UnrefinedLayman, I do exist. Watch me smite someone!"
Then we'll talk.