What is wrong with modern Bible translations?
What do people have against translations that use modern language? I understand there is beauty in the King James but the language leads to miss understandings. For instance “Suffer the little children to come unto me” as lead to people believing suffering children all go Jesus. That may be but it is not the meaning of the words. A modern translation such as the NIV say “let the little children come to me”.
Does concentrating on the old language style not keep the Bible in irrelevance? By all means admire the older language versions for what they are but if we want to understand then a more up to date version is better.
Does concentrating on the old language style not keep the Bible in irrelevance? By all means admire the older language versions for what they are but if we want to understand then a more up to date version is better.
Comments
And there is the whole debate about translating as close as possible word for word to keep the literal connection, against translating for meaning and gist. This is a red-hot debate in churches as they translate their liturgies from ancient originals to modern vernaculars.
There is a church not too far from me where a visitor asked to see a copy of the KJV. They had some which they showed him. He had been to several other churches where they could not do this. Soon afterwards the gentleman died and left a six figure bequest.
But I say that as one who’s never experienced the KJV being regularly used in church. And I’ve been a regular churchgoer all of my 63 years. When I was younger, the RSV is what one was likely to hear in church; now it’s the NRSV.
The only time I ever hear the KJV used in church is at a funeral of someone 80 or older, and even then it’ll just be the 23rd Psalm, “because that’s how he/she would have memorized it.” Otherwise, the KJV is rarely if ever encountered. I would say that’s the case in all mainline Protestant churches in the US, as well of course in Catholic churches.
Is it still regularly used in mainstream British churches? In the Southern US, at least in my experience, the KJV will only be regularly encountered in very conservative churches.
Because the syntax and word use don't reflect current usage, which makes it harder to understand. As well ask why James VI/I wanted a Bible in English when there was a perfectly good Vulgate for people to use.
They don't. They produce new translations into more modern and therefore more widely comprehensible English.
Don't forget that the KJV was a propaganda exercise as well, using archaic language cribbed from Wycliffe and Tyndall's translations to make it seen older than it was and thus legitimise its claim to be the cornerstone of the "ancient" church.
And the KJV itself has been revised multiple times, with the edition of 1769 being the one people are most likely to own and find familiar.
I can be convinced that all translations are seriously lacking in different ways - with the various (N) versions being particularly clunky and inconsistent from a linguistic perspective.
In my evangelical days I used the NIV for general reading and the NASB for studying. I still 'think' in NIV although certain phrases and passages from the KJV remain imprinted in my brain.
I used the RSV for a while but found the NIV easier for some reason.
I like the NKJV and these days use The Orthodox Study Bible - even though many Orthodox are wary of it - because it's got the books that tend not to appear in Protestant Bibles. Not that I've read that many of them.
I don't think many people these days, irrespective of church or denomination, are that antagonistic to modern translations. 🤔 Perhaps some people are where @Hugal hangs out. I've not come across it as a widespread issue.
Yes, there are cranky KJV-only types around but not in any great numbers.
What bothers me, though, isn't so much modern translations but people using paraphrases like The Message in public worship. Fine if you want to read it at home but if you are going to use it in church at least provide a parallel reading from a proper and pukka translation not a paraphrase.
The other thing that gets me, seeing as we are in Hell not Purgatory, is the annoying attempts of preachers to sound 'down wiv da kidz' by affecting street-speech. 'And Jesus was like, "Whoa, dudes ..."'
Eye of the beholder and all that.
Quite possibly, but I think my wider point of translating in collaboration with a poet is valid.
I don't know enough German but I'm told that Luther's translation is German at its best.
@Arethosemyfeet - there were English translations around before the KJV. The Vulgate wasn't the only option. I believe I'm right in thinking that most Puritans of the time used The Geneva Bible.
The Authorised Version of 1611 wasn't the first and only English translation after Tyndale but it was certainly an attempt to provide an 'authoritative' version with the all important royal imprimatur of course.
Oh, and it does promote episcopacy too, of course in the way it translated certain disputed terms for ministerial oversight.
'No Bishops, no King,' and all that.
By anyone's standards it was a pretty formidable and impressive undertaking with some of the top minds of the day working on it.
And yes, 'cultural expectations and preferences at play as well.'
As has been said upthread, the language was a tad archaic even for the early 17th century.
I remember hearing a Methodist minister and historian saying that when he first set out 'on the circuit' in late 1950s/early 60s Yorkshire he'd come across these old stalwarts who would pray eloquent extemporary prayers that were stuffed full of the KJV, Book of Common Prayer (they all had copies at home), Bunyan, Milton and Shakespeare.
'They'd put so much in,' he said, 'that there was so much for the Holy Spirit to bring out. Now,' shaking his head sadly, 'it's a case of rubbish in ... rubbish out.'
Meanwhile, for the Hebrew Scriptures, I highly recommend Robert Alter’s translations.
They produce new translations, and they perhaps aim to produce texts that are more comprehensible, but they often end up obfuscating the language even more.
I have rather strong opinions on this subject. I think there is something to be said for producing translations that are as fidelious to the original language as possible while still being readable, but I think that with most of the newer translations what has been wrought is the worst of all possible circumstances. Of course, all translations are also an interpretation and there's nothing wrong with that, but with all of the modern translations that I am familiar with (so, ESV, NRSV, NIV, NASB) what we get are certain hangovers from the KJV because tradition and naked ideological interpretations foisted onto the text.
Given this, why not just use the KJV or RSV, both of which have the weight of tradition behind them and are good enough. If someone wants to go deeper they can learn the languages or be given a hyper literal text with no artistry but high fidelity to the original language. (NB, this is idle musing but why not).
1. We have so many English translations while other languages, even major ones, may only have a few, possibly archaic or inadequate, ones.
2. It can be difficult for church people, brought up on the Bible and its cultural background, to realise how alien and incomprehensible the Bible can be to those who are unfamiliar with it.
The English translation I use most often is the New English; I have several others on hand including the KJV and the RSV and an English translation of the Tanakh.
It is easy to suggest that people should learn the original languages, but it is not a practical pursuit for those of us in advanced years. If I wanted to master Biblical Hebrew, I suspect the task would consume the rest of my life. This might be something to do AMDG, but there are many other ways to glorify the Lord, such as a humble and contrite heart.
"15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house."
There seem to be fewer people now who insist that the AV is more beautiful or literary than there used to be. I suppose most of them have died off. I don't identify at all with those who maintain that it is the only 'true' Bible, God's version, and that all others are outrages. That's a different constituency to the beautiful/literary constituency. All versions in English are translations. There are different preferences on translation philosophy. There are strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. Come what may, though, a translation shouldn't be unnecessarily difficult to understand. Changes in language and syntax mean that, even with the spelling and punctuation updated in the late eighteenth century, one made 400 years ago inevitably is.
However clear this might have been in 1611, I'd defy any speaker of modern English to realise that Gal 6:6 in the AV,
"Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things."
is an exhortation for the pupil to support their teacher financially or in some comparable way.
I like the Revised English Bible (REB). I think it's more readable, both silently and aloud, than most of the others. Some of its translation choices, particularly in the prophets are a bit idiosyncratic, but in other places, I think it gets across what the original writer was saying better than the more formally equivalent ones do.
I don't quite approve of the various iterations of the NIV. For one thing, it keeps on reappearing in new versions, each hardly different from the previous one. Why? More importantly, much though it may be favoured in E circles, it has never, I assume as a matter of dogma, translated the Apocrypha. On that, the NRSV scores most highly as the REB doesn't include 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.
I think different translations are better for different parts of the Bible. Quite a lot of the Epistles are pretty impenetrable for modern readers in the AV. Colloquial versions like the GNB and its successors can be quite helpful on the Epistles, but are stylistically too thin on books like Job or the Prophets.
I don't trust paraphrases like the Message at all. What other translation would render part of Is 61:10 as
"As a bridegroom who puts on a tuxedo
and a bride a jeweled tiara."?
What's the solution?
I'm reading a history of the Jesuits. I knew they'd tried to enculturate the Gospel to some extent in Confucian and Buddhist settings.
What I didn't know was that some of them elided concepts and passages they knew would be difficult for Confucians or Buddhists to accept. That ended up with presentations that weren't faithful to Catholic or Christian teachings in general and which also misled their audience as to what Christians actually believed.
We are getting Purgatorial rather than Hellish now, but how do we present the Gospel to societies where biblical knowledge and concepts are increasingly alien?
Then there’s the wholly mistaken idea that ‘thee’ ‘thou’ etc. is somehow specially respectful, formal, or reverent language for God, rather than the English equivalent of the informal, familiar tu in French or du in German.
That’s even before you get to the quality of the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.
I read this as saying that you're not one who thinks KJV is automatically beautiful. Much of it is, but much is clunky to modern ears. And I'd rather have people understanding the readings rather than marvel at any beauty the older language has.
The KJV is also a literal translation in that it translates the Hebrew and Koine Greek almost word for word. However, the Textus Recptus which it used does not contain modern textual analysis of recent Biblical discoveries. It is great for its time. But that was over 400 years ago. The meanings of certain words have changed and some have been lost.
Most modern translations use some paraphrasing to get the message across.
Myself, I prefer the NRSV for study, though I go into the Koine and LXX for in depth work. My Hebrew is quite poor. Never been good at it.
This.
I do find myself wondering about how the preference for a particular translation seems to become a badge of a specific theology or party.
I'm pretty cynical about the commercialism involved in hawking yet another new translation every few years.
Some versions are just odd - amplified bible and passion translation for example.
The problem is that the NKJV largely retains the phrasing and language of the KJV but modernises (inconsistently) the wording, leading to a translation that is expressed neither in old or modern English but a strange hybrid which never existed.
To a point, but there are also numerous examples of the translators introducing variety where none exists in the original text, or using idiomatic English phrases to render out the translation - if you want literalism Youngs and the NASB already exist.
Because they think they understand the Bible better, looking down the late modern end of the telescope, and want it translated in their terms.
Just get an E-KJV and make your own linked commentary to it. Until you realise it's a theological diary.
This. Resonating with what @Gramps49 said.
... the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. both for pithiness (and truth).
Modern English is now fonder of the abstract and polysyllabic, as in the parodic 'The Lord is my sheep maintenance operative'.
Fresh translations can take off the blinkers and bring us up short.
Daniel 7:13a
As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
Mark 13:26
Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory.
I'm all in favour of inclusive language, but not where it obscures the connections between texts.
The NRSV is particularly egregious here. Their insistence on translating Paul's use of the Greek word for "son" into the generic "children" obscures a central teaching Paul is trying to make, I think.
They also just leave out random bits. I can't remember the exact verse in Mark off the top of my head, but just in January I noticed that the NRSV didn't translate the Greek word for 'bread' the second time it occurred in a verse. Why? Who knows. Evidently having 'bread' twice in a verse would confuse the people.
I'm not familiar with the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek here but is it not possible that this is one area where the Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint and thus the connection is not quite as clear as it appears?
I once saw a hip Catholic translation that used "There was a population explosion" instead of "They multiplied" in the Old Testament. Apparrently not realizing that the phrase "population explosion" was coined by malthusians who had the opposite opinion on population growth from both the writers of the OT and the Catholic Church.
1. It's in simple language wot I can understand;
2. It has those amazingly vivid drawings by Annie Vallotton.
As for the argument that it's not simple enough to understand, isn't it possible that the word of God is worth a few flexes of one's brain cells to figure it out?
Combine that with what David called "Cranmer's matchless prose" (a phrase which was referenced in the homily at his funeral), and you have something that imho approaches liturgical perfection.