In recent weeks, my wife brought to my attention an issue that was raised by an acquaintance of hers*, one that has to do with the King James Version of the Bible, and one that deserves addressing. After a subsequent discussion with my wife (and having previously read a grossly misguided article in our local digest, one that likely deserved a rebuttal), I decided it fruitful to e-mail her acquaintance with what I have posted below. I pray that you find this helpful and enlightening. With that said, I will jump to the chase, providing some notes on the 2 methodologies that are used when translating Scripture.
* [the acquaintance is not of the KJV-only mindset, but is having to deal with it by way of other connections]
-//-
I. Formal Equivalence (literal or word-for-word)-
A. This philosophy of translating is basically a literal word-for-word translation (that is the primary objective); the translating committee starts with the original Hebrew, Aramaic (not to be confused w/ Arabic), & Greek (parent languages) and then proceeds to relay what they find there into the receptor language (English, in our case), using our vocabulary and way of speaking.
B. Due to the word-for-word faithfulness and accuracy, translations falling under this umbrella would serve us best as we seek to do in-depth study (say, for a sermon, lesson, or simply for personal enrichment).C. The KJV, NKJV, NASB (New American Standard Bible), RSV (Revised Standard Version), NRSV, etc., would be examples (though there are more). My personal favorite would be the NASB (1995 updated edition), as it is probably the most scholarly word-for-word translation on the market today (often deemed the “official” or preferred translation on many Bible College & Seminary campuses).
D. If I could cite a minor drawback here, I would have to say that the reading can be a bit more choppy due to the emphasis on word-for-word accuracy; but then again, if I were reading through the Bible in a year or reading for a daily devotion, I might use something under the “dynamic equivalence” umbrella, to be covered below.
-//-
II. Dynamic Equivalence (thought-for-thought) –
B. These sorts of translations would likely serve you best in the area of general reading and daily devotions.
C. The NIV, CEV (Contemporary English Version), NLT (New Living Translation), etc., would be examples (though there are more). I like the NIV here. In fact, some would even say that the NIV is a good mix between the two types of translating methods! If you picture a ruler lying horizontally in your mind, with the left end representing formal equivalence and the right end representing dynamic equivalence, none of these (I speak of translations under both umbrellas here) lie directly on top of one another; rather, they fall at different points (the KJV might be on a 11th grade reading level while the NASB might fall at the 12th grade level, with the NIV at 7th grade or something comparable).
D. If I could cite a minor drawback, it would almost be the reverse of the drawback referenced above . . . while the reading would be fluid and smooth, you could potentially miss out on an important detail here and there.
-//-
As for paraphrases such as the Living Bible (LB) or Message (MSG), they use an existing translation as the starting point rather than the original languages, after which they seek to make things even more readable. In a sense, no hardcore translating is taking place. Though these are not to be discarded merely because they are paraphrases and not translations (they can be quite helpful at times), I would not give them quite the same credit as the actual translations.
-//-
It must be remembered that the above summary is meant to explain the two primary methods of translating. It’s not so much that one is good and one is bad so much as both are useful for different pursuits. If I were pressed to tell which I would carry with me to a deserted island (if I could bring only one; I would hate that!!), I would probably choose the NASB . . . or the ESV . . . or the NIV??!!?? [most likely the NASB, 1995 edition].
-//-
This discussion relates to the whole KJV-only argument when those types of folks (as well-intentioned as they may think themselves to be) start discussing the absence of certain words, etc., in non-KJV translations, prematurely concluding that this automatically implies some sort of satanic perversion conspiracy of sorts. They might not know (or, worse, might know that the layperson doesn’t know) these translation dynamics. I would caution that before you bite on this line (". . . 'hell' is missing there - the devil's in the house . . ."), you will want to check out those other translations on those points . . . I have found that on many occasions, they must have forgotten to check out those other translations as their arguments are simply not true; that is, I find “hell” and “blood” in many translations other than the King James Version. In very limited instances, let’s say that the literal word is missing. Is the concept present? Is there a corresponding letter or number in the text that refers you to a marginal note offering further explanation? My point is that in most cases, the word is actually there when you check the context (I did this on “hell” just a minute ago with some software that I have), but even if it is not, that in and of itself might not be problematic as there are other things to consider.
Not only does this type of thing discredit them within the Christian community, it also carries the added potential of bringing reproach on the Body of Christ in the eyes of scoffers and unbelievers who are waiting for a chance to misrepresent all Believers because of the ignorance of a few. It is hard to blame them.
Consider a very relevant passage of Scripture:
Mark 7:1-9 (English Standard Version – word-for-word):
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
-//-
Mark 7:1-9 (The Message):
The Pharisees, along with some religion scholars who had come from Jerusalem, gathered around him. They noticed that some of his disciples weren't being careful with ritual washings before meals. The Pharisees--Jews in general, in fact--would never eat a meal without going through the motions of a ritual hand-washing, with an especially vigorous scrubbing if they had just come from the market (to say nothing of the scourings they'd give jugs and pots and pans). The Pharisees and religion scholars asked, "Why do your disciples flout the rules, showing up at meals without washing their hands?" Jesus answered, "Isaiah was right about frauds like you, hit the bull's-eye in fact: These people make a big show of saying the right thing, but their heart isn't in it. They act like they are worshiping me, but they don't mean it. They just use me as a cover for teaching whatever suits their fancy, ditching God's command and taking up the latest fads." He went on, "Well, good for you. You get rid of God's command so you won't be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!”
I give this one in light of the what sin is, that being any lack of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God (or, what God has commanded/what He expects from us). Beyond the precepts of God’s word, I begin questioning one who would make a matter of sin something that is foreign to God’s Word.
With that said, not all translations are necessarily equal in value; however, the message should remain the same in a copy of Scripture you purchase at your local Christian bookstore. Interestingly enough, The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) have come out with the NWT (New World Translation), claiming that this represents the best in translation scholarship and . . . rubbish! If you were to turn to John 1:1 and following in that “version,” you’d find something like this: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” In the versions you find at LifeWay, it would read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” You can see how the very deity of Christ is at stake . . . a legit problem!
1 comment:
This discussion relates to the whole KJV-only argument when those types of folks (as well-intentioned as they may think themselves to be) start discussing the absence of certain words, etc., in non-KJV translations, prematurely concluding that this automatically implies some sort of satanic perversion conspiracy of sorts.
In response to the above idea:
When one considers the KJV-only argument, it is helpful to understand the history of the English language. At that point in the development of our language, the Renaissance was in full blossom, the 16th and 17th century being the height of the Renaissance, especially in England. Early Modern English (EME) vocabulary, think Shakespeare, was being expanded by leaps and bounds as scholars borrowed liberally from Latin, Greek, French and Italian to express the new ideas that abounded.
Before these borrowings occurred, English was a language with a limited vocabulary (think Anglo-Saxon, Jute and Norse barbarian tribes) with a select "foreign" vocabulary in common usage: French borrowed from the French aristocracy (1066 AD - 14th Century) and Latin borrowed from the monks who converted the pagan Celts and Germanic peoples (7th Century AD).
What is of particular concern in regards to the language of the KJV Bible is the attitude of certain men toward the practice of borrowing words from other languages. At that time in history, there was a small group of scholars that considered these "borrowings" to be unnecessary. They labeled any word borrowed from another language as an "inkhorn" term. This was a disparaging coinage (in the perfectly allowable Germanic morphology of combining two existing words to make a new word) meant to insult one whose fingers were always stained with ink: one who did nothing but read and write all day long. They believed that the existing English vocabulary was able to express admirably any idea that man could conceive. Thus they took pains to use only words of Germanic origin.
The KJV scholars were particularly
vehement in this belief. As a result the KJV Bible is notably free of such "inkhorn" terms. And as a result, it is limited in its vocabulary. While such differences as Holy Ghost, taken from the Old English (OE) word "ghast," versus Holy Spirit, borrowed from the Latin "espiritu," would not indicate a lack in KJV vocabulary, I believe that differences such as the KJV "our bed is green" and the NIV "our bed is verdant" (Song of Solomon 1:16) is indicative of that lack. The wealth of connotation associated with the Latinate "verdant" is simply not contained within the Germanic "green."
English is now a polyglot language. It has the largest vocabulary of any language in the world. We borrow words from every language with which we have come in contact. Where borrowings were once disparaged in the 17th century, we now accept that English is expanded and enriched by such borrowings. Some borrowings tht occurred in the 17th century are in such common usage today that we don't even give them second thought. A short list of words like dedicate and educate and maturity is a perfect example. These words were considered "inkhorn" terms in EME. Today they are just every day English.
Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of the Bible, are languages rich in synonyms, words that connotate shades of meaning that the KJV scholars, with their deliberate exclusion of borrowed vocabulary, were not able to translate. Language is a living thing. Words fall in and out of use. Words change meaning. They take on subtle nuances of meaning and connotation. Why should Christians be expected to have a degree in Renaissance English to understand the Bible? If the Bible is "the living word," does it not signify that it should be translated into a living language?
Post a Comment