{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023166023166023165, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003088803088803089, 'mean_word_length': 5.171428571428572, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interpreting Milton’s Deviations from the Junius-Tremellius Old Testament in De Doctrina Christiana

Abstract In 1929 Harris F. Fletcher pointed out that, while generally relying on the Latin translation of the OT by Franciscus Junius and Immanuel Tremellius in his De Doctrina Christiana, Milton sometimes departs from it; a twice-cited passage may even appear both in their version and in his. Fletcher posited a link between such inconsistencies and the onset of Milton’s blindness, but the problem of dating the treatise’s various parts, and the manuscript’s unfinished state, make any such link unlikely. The new Oxford edition of DDC enables all Milton’s deviations to be studied in greater depth. When scribal errors have been eliminated, his actual changes often show a desire for greater literalness, clarity, or directness. Sometimes, too, he chooses a version more consonant with his own favorable view of polygamy and divorce, usually with sound scholarly reasons for his linguistic decisions, though very occasionally he opts to ignore certain features of the original Hebrew. His biggest deviation—indulgence in flights of rhetoric which belie his stated aim of sticking solely to Scripture—is at least directly prompted by the Bible, which then acts as a spur to his own thinking.