Please
note: the following essay contains a
term not usually heard in a Sunday school.
Or, so I assume or, perhaps, hope.
We did not have a regular church service this morning so I am presenting
this essay instead.
On a recent trip to Austin, I
visited a used bookstore—not an unusual activity for me. While there, I overheard a conversation
between two young men—eavesdropping, alas, is also not an unusual activity for
me.
One of the young men was helping
the other find a Bible. I assume the
second young man was a new believer or someone interested in finding out more
about Christianity. The young man
guiding the search pointed out the various options the available Bibles had,
such as concordances and reference notes.
I had just about tuned out the conversation when the guide said, “Now,
this is the King James Version. Don’t
get it; it’s crap.”
Now, in American slang that term is
often used for “rubbish,” “junk,””shoddy,” or “trash.” So, the young guide to Bible choice was
saying one of the most influential books in the history of English was
worthless. I was amazed at that
assessment of the first translation I ever read, the only translation my father
ever owned, the translation used by Edwards, Wesley, Finney, Moody, and
countless lesser-known preachers proclaiming the good news; the translation
that sustained and comforted Christians for four centuries. Perhaps, he was only attempting to let his
light shine before his young friend in pointing him toward finding what would
become a lamp unto his feet. Actually, I
think it was the problem of enthusiastic ignorance.
As I thought about the conversation
I recalled an incident that occurred years ago when I was a pastor in
Texas. A young couple, Steve and Jen,
and their two children began attending our church. I visited them in their home on the remote
corner of a local ranch. It was a modest
little house built to be the home for a “hand” and his family. The family appeared to be thriving. The house was comfortably furnished and there
was even money for extras like karate lessons.
I enjoyed my first visit to their
home, especially because that had such good things to say about the church and
my preaching. My second visit was
different.
The family attended our services
for only one or two more weeks then suddenly stopped coming. I called after they had missed two Sundays and
talked with Jen. She briskly told me
they would not be coming back.
This differed so much from their
earlier attitude I felt I had to find out what had soured them toward the
church. When I asked if I could visit
them again, Jen said I could but I should not expect to change their minds.
The greeting I received on the
second visit was more cordial than I expected but both Steve and Jen seemed
distant.
I asked, “Have I said or done
something to offend you?”
Steve spoke, “It’s that Bible you
use. It’s not the real Bible. It takes out part of the Bible.”
I tried to assure him the New
International Version was a reliable translation but he was unconvinced.
“The King James Version,” he said,
“is the only real Bible. All these new
translations have parts missing. They
can’t be trusted.”
“What makes you think that,” I
asked.
“My karate teacher told me,” he said,
making it clear there would be no argument I could raise to overrule his Sensei.
This was a few years before The Karate Kid so I was unaware karate
instructors also functioned as philosophers, counselors, and, in this case,
theologians.
My Austin
experience suggested we had gone full-circle.
To Steve, the NIV was “crap” and the KJV was solid gold; to the
anonymous Bible reviewer in Austin, the KJV was “crap” and the NIV was—actually
he dismissed the NIV, calling it “old-school.”
The two Bible hunters left before finding a Bible and before I learned
which of the many translations available the “expert” favored.
Helping a new
convert or a seeker find a Bible is a good thing; sowing seeds of ignorance is
not so good.
Some of my fellow
pastors graduated seminary thoroughly proficient in Greek and, sometimes, Hebrew. I managed to pass the required courses. Perhaps as a consequence I’ve surrounded
myself with various translations. I own
dozens, some of them rare and hard to find.
I often quote them in my preaching to give nuances to familiar
verses. My fondness for varied
translations made me doubly interested in the conversation I overheard in
Austin. (Okay, deliberately listened
to.)
Now, the obvious
cure for ignorance is knowledge. So, I
would have loved the opportunity to sit down with those three young men-Steve,
the Bible “expert,” and the new convert/seeker—and Jen so I could explain that
the KJV in the seventeenth century and the NIV in the twentieth century were
produced by a collection of the finest scholars available, who were all committed
to the task of producing a faithful and accessible translation of the Bible. Faithful and accessible.
Some of the KJV’s
translators were models of piety; some were not (Richard Thomson, who helped
translate Genesis through 2 Kings, was “a party hound” who often went to bed
drunk.[1]
Thomson also appears to have been an Arminian which, in some circles today,
would have caused a greater scandal than his drinking would have). All but one of the fifty-four translators
were ordained; some regularly preached before royalty, some labored quietly in
their studies; one would serve as Archbishop of Canterbury and be charged with
manslaughter (acquitted); some were young, some were old; and, for at least
one, English was his second language.[2]
I would have
explained a few phrases, some verses, and the occasional passage found in the
KJV are missing in the NIV and other newer translations; missing, because later
scholars subsequently concluded they should have never been there in the first
place. The long ending of Mark is
probably the most noteworthy example. I
would have explained that losing these passages changed no Christian doctrine,
unless handling snakes should be considered a pillar of faith.
Even the loss of I
John 5:7-8--“For there are
three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. And there are three that bear witness
in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in
one”—does not impact the doctrine of the Trinity. The passage—not found in older manuscripts—is
referred to as the Johannine Comma and is considered to be a late addition to
John’s letter. Reportedly, Erasmus did
not plan to include the verses in his Greek New Testament because no Greek
manuscript contained them, though they are found in the Latin Vulgate. Under pressure from church authorities, he
finally agreed to include them if just one Greek manuscript containing them
could be found. Miraculously, such a
manuscript was found, a manuscript dating from the sixteenth century when
Erasmus was working. Dutifully, he kept
his word and included the questionable verses.
Because the King James translators used Erasmus’ Greek testament, the
verses found their way into the King James Version. That hardly makes the King James Version crap
and it certainly does not suggest recent translators are eviscerating the
Bible.
I would explain a
major problem with the KJV is not the quality of the translation or the Greek
text on which it is based (though subsequent discoveries would lead to changes
in what that text should include), but the fact it is written in early
seventeenth century English. And no one
speaks early seventeenth century English.
We can understand it but it doesn’t flow easily from our tongues or our pens. Shakespeare’s English dates from the same
time as that of the KJV and most of us recall reading the plays from editions
with copious footnotes explaining words and phrases. Of course, Shakespeare is known to have
invented many words (the KJV’s translators largely avoided that). We needed those notes in our literature
classes because English changes.
If you don’t think
so, read a scary story by Nathaniel Hawthorne and a scary story by Stephen
King.
By the way, the
notion that Shakespeare (whose writing career was near its end in 1611) was
actually involved in the translation (an old charge) is groundless. That Shakespeare’s use of English may have
influenced the KJV’s English is certainly plausible; Shakespeare was influencing
the English of most literate persons in England at that time. If there were deliberate borrowings,
subsequent translators have, no doubt, found them and corrected them—if those
phrases failed to accurately render the meaning of the original.
All languages
change. During the nineteenth century,
many German immigrants settled in the central Texas hill country. They attempted to keep as much of their
culture as possible, yet within a couple generations they were speaking a
dialect that came to be known as “Texas German.”
A young woman from
New York City came to the seminary as a student. Because she was Greek and could speak the
language, she assumed she would have no problem with the mandatory New
Testament Greek all theology students were required to take. Instead, she almost failed the course; two thousand
years had made that much difference in the language.
Of course, we
still study Shakespeare as he wrote, not in “translations.” This is because how the Bard said what he
said is important. At the same time, it
is the message of the Bible that is important; we can’t translate the Hebrew
and Greek literally because it would be extremely awkward to read. We would probably understand it but find
reading it wearying. Consider this: “Thus indeed loved God the world that the Son
the only begotten he gave that everyone believing in him not should perish but
might have life eternal.” If we were
first century Greeks and happened to be literate, we would have no problem with
this verse. Guess what. If you happened to be a twentieth-century
Greek, reading John 3:16 in first-century Greek, you would struggle just like
you did when your English teacher asked you to read Chaucer. First-century Greek and twentieth-century
Greek are not the same; the language, like English, has changed over the
centuries. It’s the nature of language
to change.
Of course, I doubt
Steve, who left a church he and his wife liked because his karate coach
condemned the NIV; and the two young men I overheard a quarter of a century
later would listen to me.
Some attitudes are
persistent and universal. Supposedly,
shortly after the introduction of the Revised Standard Version one saint was
supposed to have said, “If the King James Version was good enough for Paul,
it’s good enough for me.” While I suspect
that’s apocryphal, the follow account comes from someone who was there.
A friend who
teaches Spanish in college was living in Spain when an attempt was made to
introduce a new translation to the Protestants there. These believers who had suffered so much in
previous centuries were very committed to the Spanish Bible they had used
during those hard times and beyond. They
greeted the new translation with outrage.
My friend reported that several churches around the country had bonfires
where the new Bibles were burned.[3] Change is hard.
But let me be
clear, simple resistance to change doesn’t explain everything: calling the NIV
“old school” was provincial; calling the KJV “crap” was just stupid. It would be like calling Tony Bennett a
“talentless hack” because he doesn’t sing like Eminem. Of course, some modern singers (Harry
Connick, Jr. and Michael Bublé, for example) pay homage to Bennett by copying
his style. Perhaps this explains the
popularity of the New King James Version,
a translation that attempts to maintain the link to the seventeenth century
version. But I digress.
At the same time,
having problems with King James English is not a matter of generations. A couple months before my conversation with
Steve, my wife, Pat, had an exchange with a church member who was in her early
sixties. After service one Sunday, she
asked Pat, “What Bible does Jim use?”
Pat answered, “It’s the New International Version.” “Okay,” the woman said, “I’m going to get
it. This is the first time in my life I understand
what the Bible is saying.”
Ultimately, ignorance
and fear produce attitudes like those of Steve and his Sensei. It was easier to see a conspiracy afoot to
rip some key element from the Scripture than to examine the impact of a having
a better grasp of the original text and the changes in the English language
might make on the task of translation.
However, had either of them been asked what those key elements ripped
from the Scripture might have been, I doubt they could have said.
Those suspicious
of new translations often fail to appreciate that most translators are as
committed to the Scriptures as they. This
commitment prompts them to produce translations that bring God’s word to people
who need its message. Yet, people like
Steve and others, are overwhelmed by their fears, never considering those fears
may have no basis.
While there have
been translations designed to promote certain theological agendas (the
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World
Translation, for example), most of these have had little influence in the
larger Christian world and their agendas were quickly discerned and
condemned. By the way, the story that
the translators of the King James Version transliterated the Greek word
“baptizo” to
“baptize” to avoid endorsing the practice of immersion is probably overstated. Anabaptists apparently did not practice immersion at this time (though that is debated) and English Baptists did not adopt immersion as the mode of baptism until the 1640s. Of course, I believe immersion was the ancient mode of baptism; I just don’t think the KJV’s translators were attempting to hide anything from the public. But, again, I digress.
“baptize” to avoid endorsing the practice of immersion is probably overstated. Anabaptists apparently did not practice immersion at this time (though that is debated) and English Baptists did not adopt immersion as the mode of baptism until the 1640s. Of course, I believe immersion was the ancient mode of baptism; I just don’t think the KJV’s translators were attempting to hide anything from the public. But, again, I digress.
Why is it so easy
for Christians to distrust the scholars who have devoted their lives to ancient
languages than it is to thank God for their commitment? Why do we assume the worst about change,
insisting some sinister motive lies behind a new translation? Why do we insist our taste—in music, worship
style, and Bible translation—is spiritually superior to that of a fellow
believer? Why do Christians so often
prove the adage: “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?”
For years I’ve
been puzzled by how easily Christians distrust their fellow Christians. I doubt I will resolve the issue in this
essay.
Instead, let me end
with a few more words about translations.
Decades ago I heard a speaker say that there was a new translation of
the New Testament being produced every month.
He wasn’t speaking only of English translations but a trip to the
bookstore may lead you to believe he was.
Over the years, I have collected dozens; some are still being published,
some are mere footnotes in the history of translations.
How do you choose
a good translation? Again, I believe
most translators are sincerely attempting to make God’s Word accessible; some
do that more effectively than others.
So, here are the questions I would ask of any translation.
1. How does it describe itself? The following distinctions, while generally
valid, are sometimes difficult to apply.
Still, I think they remain useful.
A translation
claims to have followed the original text, rendering the author’s message
through a word-for-word or an idea-for-idea approach. Consequently, under the heading of
translations, there are several categories.
A dynamic equivalent translation may be described as being somewhere between
a literal translation and a paraphrase, though some linguists might object to
that description. The term, coined by
Eugene Nida, focuses on a “sense-for-sense” rendering of the original with the
aim of trying to produce the same effect on the modern reader as the text made
on its first readers or hearers. A “formal equivalent” or word-for-word translation attempts to
follow the original text with little change from one language to the other. The New
American Standard Bible is a popular translation following the “formal
equivalent” philosophy and the New
English Bible and The New Living
Translation primarily use the “dynamic equivalent” philosophy. The New
International Version is a translation using a blending of both
approaches.
Later in his
career, Nida preferred the term “functional equivalence.” If you regularly read my sermons on this
blog, you will know that I often put words into the mouths of the Biblical
speakers in an attempt to get at the impact of what they were saying.
A paraphrase is a much looser rendering of
the ideas found in the original text; in fact, it may be thought to employ an
radical dynamic equivalent approach. A
paraphrase should aim to faithfully represent the Biblical author’s ideas but
would not claim to be a literal reproduction of that author’s words. The
Living Bible, published in the 1960s, is a paraphrase; The New Living Translation is a genuine translation. The similarity of names has generated confusion. Some paraphrases, like The Message, can be fun to use but I wouldn’t make them my primary
version for study.
2. Is the version the product of a single
individual or committee? Some remarkable
scholars have been able to produce great translations while working on their
own, but generally it is better to have a team of coworkers who will attempt to
check each other’s work.
3. Related to this, are the members and
backgrounds of the translation committee public? Do they possess academic credentials that
would suggest they have the ability to translate faithfully? Is the group balanced denominationally? If not, do they make it clear they are
attempting to avoid any bias in their work?
Speaking of bias,
it seems to me if the author’s meaning is unclear or open to more than one
meaning, integrity demands translators should preserve that ambiguity.
For example, I
Timothy 3:11 literally begins “Women must likewise be….” Paul is addressing the
duties and character of deacons in this passage and scholars differ about
whether he is speaking of women who are the wives of deacons or women who are,
themselves, deacons or deaconesses. Some
modern translations come down on one side or the other; the English Standard Bible says “Their
wives,” while the Common English Bible says
“…women who are servants in the church….” Other translations maintain the
ambiguity or offer the alternatives, either in the text or in footnotes. Interestingly, the KJV renders the words as
“their wives,” while the older Wycliffe translation simply says, “women.” By the way, two translations claiming to
reflect the Jewish background of the early church differ in how they translate
the phrase, the Complete Jewish Bible saying,
“the wives,” while the Orthodox Jewish
Bible says, “Nashim (women) serving as Shammashim….”[4]
While I have my own opinion regarding the proper understanding of Paul’s words,
I prefer translations avoid making the choice for the reader.
If the version you
are considering is produced by a denomination, you should be aware some denominational
preconceptions may appear in the translation.
By the way, I have a Bible version that claims to be the first
translation to reflect the Biblical perspective of total abstinence. It suggests Jesus turned water into grape
juice. That’s still a miracle but
somehow it raises questions about the translator’s agenda.
Well, I hope the
young seeker in Austin found a Bible and wasn’t too confused by his guide. I hope he was not left believing he should
distrust or discount anything said by someone quoting a version other than the
one his guide approved. I hope he
becomes part of a Christian community where the Bible is treasured and studied,
a community where he is free to carry the translation that speaks to him. I hope that, as he sings the hymns of faith
in that community, he comes to appreciate the beautiful phrases from the King
James Version found in so many of those hymns.
Above all, I hope he discovers and embraces the good news that is at the
heart of his new Bible.
[1] David Teems, Majestie: The King Behind the King James Bible, Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2010, p. 199. This book is an
almost light-hearted account of the production of the translation.
[2] Much of this background was derived from A Visual History of the King James Bible
by Donald L. Brake with Shelly Beach, Baker Books, 2011. Archbishop George Abbott (d. 1633) accidently
killed a gamekeeper with an arrow during a hunt in 1621. Abbott, who believed he was shooting at a
stag in the bush, was subsequently acquitted of manslaughter charges. The incident troubled his conscience for the
remainder of his life.
[3] In the United States, similar bonfires were
fueled with copies of the RSV when it was first introduced.
