Posted on 03/10/2006 6:19:21 PM PST by sionnsar
For Anglicans, and members of mainline denominations, there used to be The Bible, that is the The King James Version, and nothing else, except the Coverdale translation of the Psalter inside The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & 1789 USA). Then from the late nineteenth century and before World War II there appeared a new translation, sponsored by the Church of England and the mainline denominations in the USA – specifically The Revised Version (1881-1895) and The American Standard Version (1901).
All of these versions followed the original languages in terms of distinguishing between the second person singular (“thou” & “thee”) and plural (“ye” & “you”). Further, they were essentially literal and traditional translations in that they sought to convey as far as possible the meaning intended in their times for their readers by the writers of the Bible.
One difference between the KJV and the RV & ASV was that the latter used (what were believed to be) better original Greek texts than were available in 1611, and this led to many minor verbal changes (but not effecting doctrine) and some minor differences in content especially in the New Testament (e.g., a shorter ending to Mark’s Gospel).
Then in 1946-1957 appeared The Revised Standard Version which followed in the tradition of the KJV, the RV & ASV, except that the old English second person singular “thou/thee” was used only for God and not for human beings.
Because Evangelicals in the USA were not happy with minor aspects of the RSV (e.g. its rendering of “young woman” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14), they insisted on a new version which would be wholly in modern English (addressing God as “You”) and which preserved in translation the basis of evangelical beliefs about Christ and salvation. So there was born The New International Version of 1973-1978, the first English version of the Bible published specifically by and for one group of Christians, the conservative Evangelicals. This version did not on principle include the Apocrypha and it used “you” for both second person singular and plural. Further, it adopted in part, but only in part, the new philosophy of translating ancient texts known as “dynamic equivalency.”
Since the 1970s there has been a tremendous proliferation of versions of the English Bible, with the Roman Catholics joining in the production (e.g., with The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, & The New American Bible, 1970, both later revised). The majority of the versions from the 1960s have made use of dynamic equivalency either in general terms (as in The Good News Bible, The New Century Version, & The New Living Translation) or specifically to remove supposed patriarchalism and sexism from the English Bible (e.g., The New Revised Standard Version, The Revised English Bible and The New International Inclusive Version). Only The New King James Version, The English Standard Version, The New American Standard Version , the New Holman Christian Standard Bible, together with the Roman Catholic form of The Revised Standard Version (The Common Bible) have generally refused to make use of dynamic equivalency.
What is dynamic equivalency? A translation that claims to use dynamic equivalency translates the thoughts and ideas of the original text, Hebrew or Greek, while attempting to have the same impact on modern readers/hearers as it is believed the original had on its own readers/hearers. So, if the original in a traditional, English literal translation, is rendered, “So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David” (1 Kings 2:10, KJV), a “thought for thought” rendering would have, “Then David died and was buried in the city of David” (NLT). In the latter, to achieve immediacy and simplicity, what is lost is the Hebrew idea of death and its relation to the death of kith and kin, which is a real part of the original meaning.
Since this method can be used for any specific receptor audience (e.g., children, teenagers, women, blue-collar workers, liberal art students, etc., and for people being evangelized or catechized), and since the perceived mindset and cultural context of the receptor audience is all important in the rendering of “thought for thought,” there can in principle be a multitude of different English versions, aimed at different target audiences (and this is where this market has been and remains in the USA).
In contrast, the traditional approach to translation, which if often referred to these days as “essentially literal”, seeks to translate every word in the original text as understood within its own context, into the nearest English equivalent, and in an acceptable English word order and style. Here there is no specific target audience as such but rather is aimed at anyone who can understand and/or read English.
Bearing all this in mind, one has these days to think clearly before deciding which version to use. For example:
If one is using the traditional Book of Common Prayer for public worship then one will normally use a traditional Bible version to accompany it -- normally the KJV but also possibly the RV, ASV and RSV;
If the service is contemporary in language, liturgical in form and committed to women’s rights then a version like the NRSV will be the choice ( as is the case in most mainline churches);
If the service is the modern R C Mass then one will use (because printed in the official Missalette) the NAB.
If the service is wholly “contemporary” and is intended to be evangelistic then one will use (according to one’s taste and philosophy) one of the modern versions from the NIV to the NLT.
However, if in the contemporary service the preacher wishes to make serious use of the text of the Bible for expository preaching then he will need an essentially literal translation like the ESV or the NASV ( so that he/she does not have to keep on saying that “the original actually says this….”).
The general exception to these “rules” are many African American congregations which read from and preach from the KJV even though they address God as “you” in their prayers.
Turning now to versions of the Bible used for individual devotions and for family prayers, one finds here tremendous variety, where individual choice (like that of buying cars ) is usually determined more by advertising and peer group pressures than solely by objective study of the possibilities. And who can blame the average, devout Christian for “doing what others in church do” when there are so many possibilities available on the shelves of the local Christian bookstore, and making a choice is difficult and confusing.
What the proliferation of versions appears to have done is to make Americans less knowledgeable of the content and doctrine of the books of the Bible. Further, it seems to have made the memorization of key texts and passages a rare discipline and practice. And, worse, it has probably made the Bible into a kind of commodity so that, as we look for the new version of the computer, software, mobile phone and car, so we look for the latest version of the Bible to see what are its new features and whether they suit OUR needs.
In the case of Bible versions it is a case where “too many” has caused “too little” – too little real vital Christianity!
Further, the relation of the Bible to the Church has been diluted and distorted as the Bible has become the possession of Publishing Companies and the team of scholars employed and paid by them. Contemporary capitalism and modern individualism have joined hands to provide a Bible for the individual to use as he will.
In general, I would tell any person, whatever be his age or social class or education level, to stick with a traditional type of translation – KJV or RSV or ASV or NKJV or ESV. Better to be given the possibility of knowing what the original authors actually wrote, than what a group of translators think is the dynamic equivalent of God’s word of yesterday for today (and which may not apply tomorrow) and for this or that receptor audience
The Revd Dr Peter Toon drpetertoon@yahoo.com March 9, 2006
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Isn't this going to put a crimp in the Creationists' "the Bible is the Word of God and Must Be Taken Literally" argument? ;)
And how about the Douay-Rheims? It's OLDER than the KJV (just by a couple of years, but still . . . )
ya bunch of lazy bums. Learn new testament greek and hebrew, or don't pretend that you care about the niceties of G-d's Word.
You can't understand the Koran if you don't know Syrio-Aramaic as well as Arabic.
New Testament:
Logos, in John means Word, but also Reason, and Meaning.
Love refers to any one of 7 different kind of love. Hardly ever is romantic love considered.
In Isaiah, there is no virgin birth prophecied, if you read the Hebrew.
And indeed the Channellor Rheims Version, Confraternity Version, Jerusalem Bible and Community Bible are all Catholic versions, as well.
I don't think erwV is mentioned at all in the NT.
And what are the other three, besides the obvious ones I mean?
It's like taking another look at something in a mirror . . . the same but different. Amazing.
I use the Vulgate, which is really easy to read, and follows the Greek and Hebrew texts fairly well for dog-latin.
The Douay-Rheims, btw, is a pretty good translation of the Vulgate in the 17th c. manner . . .
The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation was written AFTER the Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, and Geneva bibles (on which the KJV depended) (not to mention Wycliffe's 15th Century version, published before the Roman Catholic Archbishop dug up and burned his body)...all done by Protestants--often at risk of being burned alive by the servants of Rome.
Clearly a Catholic English bible was a Johny-come-lately, probably done to try to prove certain Roman doctrines--attempting to keep the Bible in their full control.
I am (slowly) learning Homeric Greek. Nice to know there is somebody else out there outside of Oxbridge.
This is a very fair and careful analysis of the various translations.... I was almost expecting a "KJV only" argument, but was pleasantly surprised.
Personally I use the English Standard Version (ESV) for study (a very recent and accurate translation). The New King James Version (NKJV) is also about the most beautiful of the modern tranlations, preserving (relieving one of my pet peeves) the tradition of capitalizing the pronouns for God, as He's definitely worth it!
Lord willing I'll start learning Koine Greek this summer....
By the end of the semester I had almost 100 lines memorized. I can still reel off the first ten or so . . . that was fun when I visited my daughter's fourth-grade history class disguised as an Athenian lady of the upper class. For the boys, a Bronze Age sword and a Greek helmet - the girls tried on a hemation and tried (unsuccessfully) to turn a spindle (glad they didn't ask me to - I can manage for a few seconds and then everything falls apart). We talked about translations and how they work, the compromises they make -- with lots of examples. I wasn't familiar with Fagles's splendid 1990 translation at the time (although it was the early 90s when my daughter was in the 4th grade), but we had fun with Fitzgerald and Pope and (my favorite) Lattimore. I think they enjoyed the baklava best, though . . . always feed them and they will be happy!
The Rheims NT appeared 30 years before the KJV and had an important influence on the KJV text.
Indeed, the Vulgate prototext provided the only guidance for KJV translators where no reliable Greek texts existed. The KJV use of other Vulgate texts is well known.
Relax - it's not that bad. It's a good translation of the Vulgate, which is older than any of the versions you mention. Blame St. Jerome, if you like.
It's very slow, slogging really, but I am doing my own translation while comparing to the translation provided in Loeb. I have a couple Homeric Greek dictionaries. Good idea memorizing--Emerson said that was the best way to learn to read a language, read the same ten pages over and over until it is totally memorized. Santayana said that Homer was the best kind of poet, totally mature and not given to overstatement. I don't mind following the advice of such as Emerson and Santayana now and then.
Yeah, I guess the writers of the Gospels just got it wrong when they quoted that passage in Isaiah. Why didn't the Holy Spirit catch that when He inspired them to write? Guess He just didn't know His Hebrew like you do. So glad you set us straight on this.
I'm glad too Isaiah predicted that unusual event of a "young woman" conceiving and bearing a child. What an earth-shaking thing!
And how many years of biblical Hebrew have you had?
I don't have the advantage of formal education in this. I am self-taught, meaning that my teacher is more or less completely in the dark too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.