Posted on 03/10/2006 6:19:21 PM PST by sionnsar
That's a splendid site - I'm going to have to spend some time roaming around . . . the parallel feature is as useful as the lexicon - saves opening a lot of windows and clicking back and forth!
I favor the old revised standard version myself, with peaks at the New American Standard and the Holman from time to time...I would like the NRSV if they didn't play inclusive language games. I even peak at the NKJV.
I do not like the NAB bible, because of the bad translations in places. Noticed when they did the translation of the Pope's encyclical, the translators also avoided the NAB, and mostly used the old Revised Standard version.
. . . maybe BXVI is going to get rid of it? How delightful!
It's clunky, badly translated and they have an extremely restrictive copyright use (possibly so people won't get embarrassed as others point out the rotten translation job).
When passages from the Gospels that I know extremely well are read from the pulpit in the NAB translation, I can't help cringing. What's the matter with the occasion antique construction? That's what the HOMILY is for, guys!
I also think you may be confusing King James with his great-great uncle Henry. Of course, King James also probably committed adultery, but with his male "favorites" not multiple wives.
I've been a NASB man myself for 20+ years, but recently started reading from the NKJV and enjoying it. I hear good things about the ESV, but as it took me 2 decades to try something new, I doubt I'll be making another change any time soon :P
Well written post, with some very valid points. However, I'm not sure idioms render certain ancient literature as inaccessible and cloudy of meaning as you are saying.
Idioms throughout history are primarily a part of informal, and usually spoken language, even when later written down. Much of the bible is not informal (though some surely is) and much of it is not quotations (as all the examples you gave really are). Just as today when we record history, colloquial idiomatic language is not often used...so too the ancients weren't stupid--in recording word plays and obscurities that in just a few generations are unintelligable. The main important points are still there. Of course some of that must be there in scripture....but as the most (by far) studied books in history, the difficulities found (and differences in translations) are not very numerous in the big picture. I'm sure no man alive native Hebrew speaker or not, gets all the nuances of the poetic Psalms as they were written....however we do get (even in translation) a lot....and meaning is not rendered null.
One interesting famous changes of meaning from the Vulgate verses the original Greek discovered in reformation times is the text of Matt. 3:2. The Vulgate reads (in common translation at the time) "Do pennance for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." This was apparently understood (and taught to the masses) as a command to do the formal Roman Catholic rite of pennance (which of course infamously involved indulgences...Luther's bane). All modern translations (looking to the Greek, not the 1000+ year old tranlation of the Greek) render the verse: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This gives an entirely different though related take on the issue.
Of course to us today, its obvious the First Century Jewish hearers of that call knew nothing of the eventual rite of Pennance, but the medieval largely illiterate masses simply couldn't discern that--and the bible was definitely tightly controlled by the Church. Accurate translation DOES make a difference...and none are perfect, but at the same time I'm confident (due to the protection of His word by the Holy Spirit) essential meaning eventually is conveyed, even if some nuances and idioms are lost.
The variety of authors and books found in scripture...written over a long period of time also helps to avoid deep and mysterious idiomatic writing....
I will confess that I like the NAB, probably because I read the entire concordance that came with it, and all the footnotes, and even went and looked at all the cross references, every time, when I read it through the first time.
It may be that all of the ancillary scholarship was just so good and so interesting that I can't bring myself to criticize something I invested so much effort in.
By contrast, I really don't like to read either the KJV or the Douai-Rheims. The English is very strained, to the modern reader. Also, the ones that I have do something weird to the text, italicizing words or bolding certain syllables, as though they are trying to tell me how to PRONOUNCE it when reading it. If find this immensely irritating for a whole passel of reasons, a few of which are:
(1) If you really read it and stress the text as printed, the English is not only difficult to read, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, like the minister in the Princess Bride.
(2) There is nothing like that in the Greek or Hebrew from with it's taken. There's not even punctuation in that. It's already an interesting enough choice to put quotation marks around expressions following "and God said..." Because, actually, if you DON'T put the quotation marks around anything, it is all a paraphrase. Which of course is what the Bible probably IS. There's no ancient textual basis for pounding down one's fist and saying NO! Where it says "And Jesus said...", then Jesus LITERALLY spoke the following words, just like they are printed. That's a bold assertion based on texts without any convention of quotation marks. If we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired scripture, given the absence of any quotation-mark critters in either ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew, it might be true that the Bible contains the Words that God intends us to hear and know and understand, but if you go back in time with a tape recorder, the words coming from Jesus' mouth might be different words. And this wouldn't matter, would it, because Jesus was God, and the Holy Spirit is God, so if God wants to make sure we get the message, without the benefit of Jesus' body language and context, He might inspire the writer to write "and Jesus said..." and then give not a literal transcription in phonemes, but a literal transcription in divine meaning and intent, which could use completely different words. I am always amused (and vaguely annoyed) and the assertion that presumes to prohibit God from being clever.
(3) There is a PARTICULAR problem with this sort of thing in the KJV, not because the fact that it's in the KJV with the strange italics and bolded syllables, but because of what some people make of the KJV. I have hard-core Southern Baptist minister cousins who really assert that the KJV is the only valid Bible. They also assert "every word", just like Jesus said. One referred me to a tract in which the difference of one "s" in something Paul said made a difference ("seed" versus "seeds"). Paul makes the point. Of course, "s" makes ENGLISH words plural, and Paul was writing in Greek. Some of this stuff is just embarrassing, but you can't fight the silliness factor too hard without attacking somebody's faith (in this case my own cousins) so after an arched eyebrow, you've just got to let it pass. However, given that I really know and am related to people who really preach that the KJV is the only complete, sacred word of God in English (I DO always ask about the Maccabbees, because I'm not willing to roll over and leave them COMPLETELY in possession of the field...), I worry about those italics and stress marks (if that's what they are). Are those traditional marks and indicators, too, a part of the sacred text of the KJV? Are they part of the "jots nor tittles" that shall not pass?
There's something vaguely idolatrous about the whole thing, from my perspective, but I don't take it out with them and spoil Thanksgiving.
Instead, very passive aggressively, I go on FR and take it out on people I don't know from Adam, anonymously in the middle of the night. LOL.
The English Standard Version does some gender neutralizing in the Old Testament, and I would be cautious in recommending it. My personal favoroite for a safe, readable Bible is the New King James.
The only reason they're in italics is because they are optional or changeable words (grant him; grant her; grant them in this world knowledge of thy truth . . . ). But too many readers assume that italics always mean an emphasis in pronunciation. In many Bibles, additional words, words not appearing in some sources, or variant translations are italicized, bolded, etc.
Know what you mean about posting in the middle of the night -- but I've got nothing else to do -- my hubby had to go to a family funeral while I stayed behind, because one of the kids is in school (the other is on spring break) and the other had her wisdom teeth out Wednesday. . . not a very enjoyable spring break all round.
Thank you so much for a well reasoned response.
Now I have to go drive to work in my spirit filled (Pneuma) tires.
Which version? The 1752 version? The 1899 version? Or the original 1610?
It's OLDER than the KJV
I'll raise you a Geneva Bible (1587).
the older i get the more i like the Large Print Version. :)
Some of the points you make may be valid, but I have also observed some charlatans who seek to rewrite Scripture to satisfy their personal lusts and who knows what else.
The issue of KJV only isn't grossly unreasonable. The Greek does indicate gender, tense, singular/plural, along with some ability to stress emphasis in statements being made. One could well argue the Greek language far surpasses the English in being able to more literally communicate the intended meaning by its semantics and syntax.
Because of those who seek to counterfeit Scripture, e.g. gay-lesbian-bifriendly 'churches', I haven't found anything wrong with somebody relying on the KJV for an authoritative source in Scripture.
For myself, I've been led in word studies to review many parallel translations, which even 20 years ago would have been limited to maybe 3 or so in a cumbersome fashion, but today with PCs and the Internet, is possible to parallel study 20 or so fairly readily on multiple words, concurrently.
The real challenge is to simple study through faith in Christ allowing the Holy Spirit to make His Word efficacious in us, training not only our thinking in our soul, but also for Him to further develop and sanctify our spirit on a daily continuous basis.
Good article.
IMHO, another important reason to question dynamic equivolency is to not lose spiritual implications of the Word or substituting soulish perspective for spiritual discernment.
When communicating spiritual aspects to a fellow brother who may be scarred in his soul by soulish things, one has to fish for different hooks so the brother's thinking slides back to being in line with God after confession and repentance.
Frequently, in our scarred thinking processes, our scarred soul, we cause ourselves to slide back out of fellowship with God because we have slid back into a thinking habit that doesn't place faith in Him, but was learned while we were independent from Him. This is why it is so important to confess known and unknown sins along with repentance in our thinking prior to studying the Word of God. When we return to Him by faith and seek to further study His Word, so our thinking is as He directs, and so He might further sanctify our spirit by His grace, we frequently seek Scripture to guide us accordingly as His Word.
If that Word has been altered, we might be led into actually a scarred thinking that we associate mentally with religion and emotionally with what we misperceived to have been His Word. This trend is typically the vice of legalists who have backslidden from God in a moral degeneracy.
IMHO, many places where I have been scarred and later been led by Him to further understand His meaning and been better developed by Him through faith in Him, have been where I had read the Scripture originally from a soulish perspective, had considered myself righteous in my own eyes (a scarred perspective) but later led to an apparant inconsistency in Scripture and my understanding of what would have seemed to have been consistent. In these situations, the explicit and literal interpretation of Scripture was very important, but not necessarily in a legalistic fashion. Rather, sometimes what is not said is as important as what is stated.
The Holy Spirit guiding us in discerning those differences is immensely important, and arguably the only method we have for spiritual eyesight.
I'll see your Geneva and raise you a Vulgate.
"Some of the points you make may be valid, but I have also observed some charlatans who seek to rewrite Scripture to satisfy their personal lusts and who knows what else."
All of my points are valid, and people do indeed try to do just what you said, so yours is valid too. That's the marvelous thing...and dangerous thing...about free will in this world: the best things can be turned into the worst things. God really does leave us astonishingly and disconcertingly free.
I don't think the Catholic Church does what you fear with Scripture. You can certainly find things to criticize Catholicism for, from the perspective of your tradition, but I don't think that "rewriting Scripture to satisfy their personal lusts" is a charge that works against Catholicism. Whatever the faults of Rome and the NAB or New Jerusalem bible, blurring the line on sin ain't among them.
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.