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
A remnant is in the work Xenophobe.
it is affection for people like yourself, just as Xenophobe is fear for people different.
I am also sure, for that account, that Hebrew would be where he drew his spiritual guidance. Liturgical, but also the Torah was written in Hebrew, and then, as now copied by hand, with a variety of checks and memory aids. A substantial part of Bar Mitsvah was then, as now, demonstration of ability to read Hebrew.
The Greek translation was for others, not for the residents of Judea, where Jewish traditions were unbroken, though enlarged by Greek, Roman, Persian, and Babylonian contacts.
The root word, xenoV, means "stranger" - nothing to do with love or affection in any form. You can have xenophobes, who hate strangers, or xenophiles, who love strangers . . . but that's just philo again.
You don't actually read Greek, do you?
Then why did Jesus quote the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew scriptures?
***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.***
I have really taken a liking to the ESV.
Catholic Bible translation in "English" (well, Anglo-Saxon) began with St. Bede the Venerable back in, I believe, the 8th Century.
I didn't know that he did. I think that is it agreed that He spoke in Aramaic, but we have no Aramaic Gospels. Odd, that.
Since the writers of the Gospels, at least 10s of years and perhaps 100s of years afterwards, wrote in Greek, then it makes sense to include the quotation in Greek, and the Greek quotation to use would be the LXX.
To do otherwise would have a mishmash of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Which would have been close to the historical reality, but far from what the literature that we have. That was my main argument with Mel Gibson's movie: They introduced Pontius Pilate's Latin, to what was, almost certainly a situation where Greek would have been spoken.
My other nit was that all the conversations were very very slow. I don't speak Aramaic, but my very limited smattering of Arabic would have played much faster. So would my Latin, if I had not done it in Greek.
It is my belief that the Qu'ran was written hundreds of years after the putative Mohammed, for contemporary political reasons (to justify the conquest), using the letters developed for Syrio Aramaic, and quite a few Syrio Aramaic words, that had no counterpart in Arabic. At the same time Sufi Muslims (who wore poor quality wool garments as a mark of their piety) were protesting against the "Court Islam" of their day. They were inspired by the austerity of Syriac Christian Monks.
Minor Irony: The "traditional woman's head cover"
made mandatory by the religious nutballs in Iran was introduced in Lebanon, and patented in 1979 by a gentleman who hoped to mark Muslim women as not being suitable targets for rape by Muslim/Palistinian thugs, inspired by the headgear of Maronite Christian Nuns.
Some Biblical scholars think that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and later translated. Mark as Peter's secretary almost certainly spoke (and thought) in Aramaic, but his Gospel is believed to have been originally written in Greek.
I don't believe the general scholarship places the Gospels as late as you claim.
Of course the actors spoke fairly slowly - none of them were native speakers and they learned the languages for the movie! Next you'll be wanting the actors in spaghetti westerns to speak perfect English! The Latin was spoken by Pilate to other Romans such as his wife - he spoke Aramaic to Jesus, but Jesus replied in classical Latin (not the gutter Latin that the soldiers spoke.)
Thanks, I missed that Gibson had Jesus respond in Latin.
Learn something new every day here.
I understand that the priest who translated the script into Aramaic threw in a couple of ringers for folks who actually speak Aramaic - when Caiaphas tells the temple guards to "take care of it" (referring to Judas trying to return the 30 pieces of silver), he actually says, "take care of my laundry." . . . not that I would know, my Aramaic consists of "Gabbatha" and "talitha cumae"
Gosh, I used to read ancient greek, went to school at Evangel College, of Springfield Mo. Made it through the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and everything!
I guess it is true, if one doesn't use it....
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.