Clay Knick, UM pastor from Pennsylvania, asked me what English versions I use and recommend, so I thought I would start posting a few thoughts on versions. In general, I use different versions for different contexts. Much to be preferred of course is to read from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but this is about English translations.
Here are the categories I'm going to use:
Formal or Dynamic: On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being mega-formal and 5 being mega-dynamic. I'll reserve 6 for paraphrases. This scale is basically about whether the version tries to stick fairly closely to the original wording and sentence structure or whether it tries to reproduce the basic concepts in contemporary thought patterns.
Historical or Catholic: On a scale from 1 to 3, does the translation follow the most original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts or does it largely follow the text that became somewhat standardized in the church, particularly after the fourth century? One follows the original; three follows the "catholic" text (I'll admit some fiendishness on my part in using this terminology).
"Drift" Factor: On a scale from 1 to 5, to what extent do contemporary worldviews or theological concerns (e.g., evangelical theology) find their way into the translation? One has little; five has a lot of imposition of contemporary concerns.
Youth Groupability: On a scale from 1 to 5, to what extent will your average teenager be able to follow the version, with 1 giving not a chance and 5 suitable for the kindergarten class.
And now, The King James Version
FD Scale: 1 (very formal)
The King James follows the original wording and sentence structure very carefully. It is perhaps only trumped by the late 1800's American Standard Bible in formalness.
HC Scale: 3 (very catholic)
The KJV traces its ancestry to the Textus Receptus whose origins were ultimately the Greek edition compiled by Erasmus in the late 1400's. Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who debated Martin Luther on the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone, compiled this New Testament from about a dozen medieval manuscripts, the earliest of which dated to the 900's. It is thus the "text catholic" that Erasmus followed. And of course, the original 1611 version of the KJV included the Apocrypha.
Drift Scale: 1 (not issues driven)
I am not completely certain, but I am not aware of any real places where the KJV translated a certain way in the light of contemporary debates. I can't think off the top of my head of any places where such issues intruded to any major effect unconsciously either.
Youth Scale: 1 (not helpful to youth)
I have to agree that your youth group is going to miss most of the message of the Bible with the KJV without an aweful lot of explaining.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I always thought of it as Anglican, since it had the Apocrypha, but will admit I don't know how it might have related to the rising Cromwell segment of the population. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some places where the times affected the translation. I glanced at Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, but these passages come off divine rightish without much help. I know the KJV has actually undergone a couple updates, so I can't be sure I'm looking at the 1611 in these spots. Thanks for the added info!
By the way, James, I wanted to make sure you understood what I meant by catholic. I didn't mean Roman Catholic, although Erasmus was. My comments on Erasmus had to do with the history of the Textus Receptus as the Greek basis for the KJV New Testament. And by deeming the KJV a "catholic" text, I meant that it follows the late ancient/medieval textual tradition sometimes called the Byzantine textual tradition or the Majority text.
Ken, I'm serving in VA, not PA. :)
Good blog, I'm going to keep reading this series.
Clay, I realized that when I went back to look at your email--sorry. What's one state among friends :)
James, thanks for the details of the history. I was talking to a colleague who was thinking James didn't like the Geneva Bible of the Puritans but that the Puritans didn't like the Bishop's Bible either, so the KJV was a kind of compromise. In any case, you've inspired me to do a little research... Thanks!
No worries!!! PA is a beautiful
state. Keep up the good blog. :)
McGrath's book on the KJV is
excellent. When the puritans
came to America they did not
bring the KJV with them. We
forget that it was not
well-received when first published.
Now it seems to need translating
when we use it. I consult
it now and then, but really
don't use it except for Psalm 23
at funerals. That's it.
I did a little spot reading in Paul Wegner's From Texts to Translations and we were all on the same basic page. The Geneva Bible was the most popular Bible at the time of King James, but it had Calvinist study notes (it was the original Scofield Bible! and the first to have verse divisions). But it did have some notes that went against divine right of kings.
The Bishop's Bible, on the other hand, was a translation with clear theological tendencies and even notes that "evaluated" various passages as inappropriate.
So the KJV was a literal translation done by a collection of about 50 scholars without notes meant to displace the Geneva Bible and yet be satisfactory to the Puritans. Ironically, it was never "authorized" in the sense of being ordered for use by the churches of English.
So it sounds like we were all in the ballpark.
Post a Comment