textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum*
From the twenty-ninth chapter of the Book of Jeremiah:
12. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
14. And I will be found of you, saith the LORD. (KJV)
Regular readers will wish to place this entry on the shelf next to this one.
About a week ago, I arrived home and was greeted by the loving embrace of the EMBLOS. She informed me that I had received a package in the mail.
"Marvelous," I said with gleeful anticipation. "Your French maid costume has finally arrived!"
"No," she replied, oddly unappreciative of my husbandly benevolence. There was a pause. Somewhere a hinge creaked. I noticed a distinct drop in room temperature.
"It's from . . . ," she said, naming a certain well-meaning relative mentioned in the entry linked above.
I resigned myself to spending some time reading whatever had been sent to me, because: a) I think it's the polite thing to do, and b) I can't respond to it if I haven't read it, now can I?
I approach the kitchen counter and see, to my distress, the package is bigger than normal. Alas, it is not a collection of Xeroxed newsletters, but rather an entire book. One with about 400 pages. Written by a "Dr." From a Bible college. In Alabama.
The book was dedicated to proving that the King James Translation of the Bible is the only legitimate English translation which should be used, and we believers are in danger of being led down false paths, if we have the temerity to read/study/quote a different version.
There was also a letter, which expressed a desire that I enlist in the "good fight" to preserve the KJV, especially with respect to the Official Daughter, inasmuch as the Theology classes she has to take at her Lutheran High School use The New International Version (NIV).
Well, I've finished reading the book.
*You now have, dear readers, what all have now received, towit:
My Response.
By way of background, in my neck of the religious woods, there are some very strong feelings regarding the primacy of the King James English Translation of the Bible. That translation, at least with respect to the New Testament, comes from something called the "received text" or "textus receptus".
Erasmus, the Dutch humanist, compiled a version of the Greek New Testament, using these texts, which originated in Byzantium. Other English translations of the New Testament, used texts originating in Alexandria. There are differences between the two and as one would imagine, these differences have caused a bit of a controversy. (Wikipedia is a great thing, isn't it?)
First, I have no opinions regarding which side of the controversy is "correct," assuming for purposes of argument there exists a "correct" side. I happen to like the KJV better than other translations, but that is a matter of personal preference. There are some very "modern" translations which I absolutely cannot abide both on artistic and theological grounds. As for other translations, frankly, I don't know enough to formulate an intelligent opinion.
However, I do know a bit about translating from one language to another. It's not as easy as some might think.
For example, please consider and translate the following simple German sentence into English:
"Er geht zu Fuss."
Here, I'll help.
"Er" = "he;" "geht" = present tense "to go;" "zu = the preposition "to;" and "Fuss" = "foot."
Therefore the proper translation must be, "He goes to foot."
Of course, that's not correct. It sounds stupid and frankly, not even "English." One cannot just simply substitute words from one language to another and guarantee one will have an accurate translation. If you don't believe me, here's the translation of this paragraph from English to German and back to English via the online Babel Fish translator:
Of course that is not correct. It sounds not even English and sincerely stupidly. To other straight simply and warranty one cannot replace words from a language has an exact translation. If you do not believe me, here the translation of this point of English to German and back to English over the on-LINE-Babel fish translator is:
In fact, the German sentence, "Er geht zu Fuss" expresses the present tense of the English word "to walk." But which present tense of "to walk?"
The German sentence could be translated into English this way:
"He walks."
or
"He does walk."
or
"He is walking."
They're all "correct." Absent a context, however, there is no way anyone could absolutely know what the best translation would be. Toss in grammatical gender, inflections, cases, voices, and moods and getting the "right" translation can become a nightmare.
The bottom line is that unless someone puts the originals of St. Paul's Epistles or St. Luke's histories, or St. John's Gospel and prophesies in my hands, and I learn Greek myself, I have to rely on other people to translate for me. I think there will inevitably be mistakes of one form or another.
Which brings me to my second point. Does the Holy Spirit have a role in all of this? It seems to me that the people with the emotional stake in the "translation debate" have elevated a specific set of words to the position of "gatekeeper" to God's message.
Stated differently, if the Holy Spirit is touching my heart and drawing me to God and His message of Sin, Grace, Repentance and Redemption, and I am trying to find Him, is He really going to call it quits, if I pick up the wrong Bible? Will He refuse to speak to me or hear me, because my translation of the New Testament is based upon manuscripts from Alexandria instead of Istanbul?
I don't think so. See, e.g. the words of Jeremiah that form the introduction to this entry.
As a commentator over at Andy's said the other day, "It's all in the heart." That would include our desire to find the truth God wants to show us and His Holy Spirit guiding us there.
Cheers.
R. Sherman
12. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
14. And I will be found of you, saith the LORD. (KJV)
Regular readers will wish to place this entry on the shelf next to this one.
About a week ago, I arrived home and was greeted by the loving embrace of the EMBLOS. She informed me that I had received a package in the mail.
"Marvelous," I said with gleeful anticipation. "Your French maid costume has finally arrived!"
"No," she replied, oddly unappreciative of my husbandly benevolence. There was a pause. Somewhere a hinge creaked. I noticed a distinct drop in room temperature.
"It's from . . . ," she said, naming a certain well-meaning relative mentioned in the entry linked above.
I resigned myself to spending some time reading whatever had been sent to me, because: a) I think it's the polite thing to do, and b) I can't respond to it if I haven't read it, now can I?
I approach the kitchen counter and see, to my distress, the package is bigger than normal. Alas, it is not a collection of Xeroxed newsletters, but rather an entire book. One with about 400 pages. Written by a "Dr." From a Bible college. In Alabama.
The book was dedicated to proving that the King James Translation of the Bible is the only legitimate English translation which should be used, and we believers are in danger of being led down false paths, if we have the temerity to read/study/quote a different version.
There was also a letter, which expressed a desire that I enlist in the "good fight" to preserve the KJV, especially with respect to the Official Daughter, inasmuch as the Theology classes she has to take at her Lutheran High School use The New International Version (NIV).
Well, I've finished reading the book.
*You now have, dear readers, what all have now received, towit:
My Response.
By way of background, in my neck of the religious woods, there are some very strong feelings regarding the primacy of the King James English Translation of the Bible. That translation, at least with respect to the New Testament, comes from something called the "received text" or "textus receptus".
Erasmus, the Dutch humanist, compiled a version of the Greek New Testament, using these texts, which originated in Byzantium. Other English translations of the New Testament, used texts originating in Alexandria. There are differences between the two and as one would imagine, these differences have caused a bit of a controversy. (Wikipedia is a great thing, isn't it?)
First, I have no opinions regarding which side of the controversy is "correct," assuming for purposes of argument there exists a "correct" side. I happen to like the KJV better than other translations, but that is a matter of personal preference. There are some very "modern" translations which I absolutely cannot abide both on artistic and theological grounds. As for other translations, frankly, I don't know enough to formulate an intelligent opinion.
However, I do know a bit about translating from one language to another. It's not as easy as some might think.
For example, please consider and translate the following simple German sentence into English:
"Er geht zu Fuss."
Here, I'll help.
"Er" = "he;" "geht" = present tense "to go;" "zu = the preposition "to;" and "Fuss" = "foot."
Therefore the proper translation must be, "He goes to foot."
Of course, that's not correct. It sounds stupid and frankly, not even "English." One cannot just simply substitute words from one language to another and guarantee one will have an accurate translation. If you don't believe me, here's the translation of this paragraph from English to German and back to English via the online Babel Fish translator:
Of course that is not correct. It sounds not even English and sincerely stupidly. To other straight simply and warranty one cannot replace words from a language has an exact translation. If you do not believe me, here the translation of this point of English to German and back to English over the on-LINE-Babel fish translator is:
In fact, the German sentence, "Er geht zu Fuss" expresses the present tense of the English word "to walk." But which present tense of "to walk?"
The German sentence could be translated into English this way:
"He walks."
or
"He does walk."
or
"He is walking."
They're all "correct." Absent a context, however, there is no way anyone could absolutely know what the best translation would be. Toss in grammatical gender, inflections, cases, voices, and moods and getting the "right" translation can become a nightmare.
The bottom line is that unless someone puts the originals of St. Paul's Epistles or St. Luke's histories, or St. John's Gospel and prophesies in my hands, and I learn Greek myself, I have to rely on other people to translate for me. I think there will inevitably be mistakes of one form or another.
Which brings me to my second point. Does the Holy Spirit have a role in all of this? It seems to me that the people with the emotional stake in the "translation debate" have elevated a specific set of words to the position of "gatekeeper" to God's message.
Stated differently, if the Holy Spirit is touching my heart and drawing me to God and His message of Sin, Grace, Repentance and Redemption, and I am trying to find Him, is He really going to call it quits, if I pick up the wrong Bible? Will He refuse to speak to me or hear me, because my translation of the New Testament is based upon manuscripts from Alexandria instead of Istanbul?
I don't think so. See, e.g. the words of Jeremiah that form the introduction to this entry.
As a commentator over at Andy's said the other day, "It's all in the heart." That would include our desire to find the truth God wants to show us and His Holy Spirit guiding us there.
Cheers.
R. Sherman
posted by R. Sherman at 5:10 AM
14 Comments:
Hello, we've not met before, I clicked randomly on Marianne's blogroll and you popped up. This is very interesting, even for a non-believer. This may be a tad simplistic but would it not be true also that certain translations are sought to back up certain sectarian viewpoints? Almost a case of getting the evidence to fit the crime,if you'll excuse the paraphrase. Eight words should do for everyone really: be good, you never know what might happen.
Hi, Richard. Thanks for popping in. Come back any time.
I think you are correct. Certainly, demoninations use translations to reinforce a certain doctrine. Infant Baptism v. immersion, is an example that pops into mind.
Anyway, thanks for dropping by.
Cheers.
As you say somewhere 'I don't know enough to comment' so will anyway.
I hate it when newer translations lose the poetry of the original.
In my case, the Douay-Rheims is the translation of choseness. Anything else, according to others, and the flames are licking at your heels.
Richard makes an excellent point - and the KJV itself actually fudges the translation in places. My main judging criteria for a translation is John 6. If they get that right, I'll use it.
Hi, Sal. Thanks for stopping in. I agree that that chapter is critical.
Pat, I think there's something about the poetry of language which brings us closer to God. In a sense, poetry is a reflection of the Divine, an attempt to describe the infinite.
Cheers.
Methinks you're pretty good at this sophistry thing if you have time to write posts like this as well.
True stories: I once saw a bumper sticker in Alabama that said, "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible"; and my father was once told, "If King James was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
(I'm still a New Revised Standard Version man, myself)
This could easily turn into a very lengthy comment, so I'll just wrap up by saying that "Read the Bible" is the most complicated sentence I know in terms of what that might actually require of us. Acknowledging that would be a good first step toward getting people to actually, you know, read (as opposed to "quote from") the Bible.
Thanks, John. Re: Your "Jesus spoke 'King James' English" thought.
As you know, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, creating inter alia a standard German language. He used the textus receptus.
Anyway, when I was in grad school taking a class on the reformation, we had a student who could not understand that Luther's translation was separate from the King James. She kept asking whether the German bible we were studying was "the King James."
Yikes.
Cheers.
Randall, I think you summed it well in referring to that passage from Jeremiah. And I think the most important thing, regardless of translation, is to read the Bible, understand the nature and character of God and Jesus, and watch how the human story unfolds in its relationship with God, how some were closer to God than others (like David, Daniel, Moses, and Abraham to name a few, as opposed to the various Kings who God viewed as "bad kings", for instance). It's about reading to understand the prophesies pointing to Christ in the OT, and understanding how Christ fulfills them in the NT, and how the NT reference so many OT Scriptures. Focusing on which translation is "right" takes you down the path of legalism, and places you in the trap that Luther escaped from when he finally read the Bible for himself.
Good stuff, Randall. Just a few days ago I stumbled upon the website of a church here in Pacifica who sole basis of teaching and existence is upon the KJV as the authoritative word of God. Oy.
I agree, Andy with this caveat. One must read with a true desire to know the truth. To read for historical perspective won't cut it. The Holy Spirt must be there, too.
Cheers.
What version do middle-eastern Christians use?
Good question, Richard. It's one, I cannot answer. Perhaps AJ, whose on the sidebar as "Bittersweet Life" will jump in. He's in seminary.
Cheers.
Randall - agreed - your point with the Holy Spirit working with you while reading is dead on. The Word is living and active, and one passage of Scripture can speak to you one way while you're 20 and another way when you're 30.
Thanks for a great reminder that is very convicting.
If I learned anything about historical linguistics in the class of same name, its that translating ancient texts... fuhgeddabout it! There are people who make a living do this sort of thing, but they are, at best, guessing. The closer you come to the source, the closer you will get to an exact translation, but consider that not only do the translations change meaning, but the meanings change meaning. You could take that German phrase and translate it as He walks. But in a thousand years, everyone may have anti-grav boots and nobody might walk. Then what will it translate into? Look through an annotated Bible and see how many translations say something like, "Unknown - This is what we think it means." We can't go back there through correct translations or any other means. God didn't write the Bible though to speak only to the generation that did the writing. He wrote it to speak to all men in all times.
While I think the poetry of King James is incredible, I also agree that it being the only correct translation for English readers is rather narrow minded.
For those people I say a good one semester course in historical linguistics should cure them of any notion of language primacy.
Its the only course I ever aced and still don't have a clue what the hell it was that the teacher was talking about. ;)
Indeed, Will. The EMBLOS' PhD emphasized linguistics. These arguments drive her insane.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home