Bible version debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (February 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
Although there have been various debates concerning the proper medium and translation of Christian scripture since the first translations of the Old Testament (Hebrew, Aramaic) into Greek (see Septuagint) and Aramaic (see Targum), the phrase "Bible versions debate" usually refers only to the English Bible. The first debate to be discussed in this article will be that which surrounded the translation of the King James Version or "Authorized Version," published in 1611. Then, several highlights of English translation debates will be traced, giving special emphasis to the modern arguments between "King James Only" advocates and those who consider the King James Version to be inferior. Each section will contain a "history" of the debate, including socio-political aspects where necessary; an "issues" section, putting forth the arguments, as far as they are known, of the various parties involved; and a "conclusions" section where appropriate.
Contents |
[edit] The First King James Version Debate
The first time the King James Version (KJV) was used in a debate, it was by various people advocating for its existence. Following the death of William Tyndale in 1536, there existed a complete translation of the New Testament from Greek into English for the first time, and in several editions. The various events of Tyndale's flight from Roman Catholic clergy fall into the most tumultuous period of the Reformation: Henry VIII and Martin Luther were both his contemporaries, and the young John Calvin was in training.
From this point on, with the English Reformation in full swing, other publications of English translations began to appear, often with sponsorship from businessmen on the continent (e.g., Jacob van Meteren for the Coverdale Bible; "Coverdale, Miles" in Encyclopedia Britannica 11th ed. [1911]). The most notable of these are the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible.
The Great Bible, first published in 1539 and so called due to its large, folio size, was the only English bible ever to be formally "authorized" for use in churches throughout the country.[1]
The Geneva Bible (1557), named for the place of its translation, became the "bible of the Puritans" and made an enormous impression on English bible translation, second only to Tyndale. Part of this was due to its issue as a small book, an octavo size; part due to the extensive commentary; and part due to the work and endorsement of Calvin and Theodore Beza, two of the most important continental scholars of the Reformation.[1]
The politics of the time were such that there was a marked frustration between the clergy of the continent and the clergy of England; what's more, there already was a formally-accepted Great Bible used in the church, but the fact was that the Geneva Bible was enormously popular. This sparked in the mind of both Elizabeth and especially in Canterbury the concept of revising the Great Bible. As attempts went, it was relatively valiant: the NT contained notes like the Geneva Bible, and use was made of both the previous versions. Nevertheless, the version never superseded the popularity of the Geneva Bible—partly due to its enormous size, being even larger than the Great Bible.
Thus it is clear that there were marked problems for the English monarchy and for Canterbury, both which wanted a united Church of England. Each faction appeared to have its own version: the exiled Roman Catholics had the Douay-Rheims Version, the Puritans had the Geneva Bible, and the official book for Canterbury was the Bishop's Bible. Enter then James I, the first Scot to sit on the English throne.
James I began his reign in the hope that he could reconcile the huge Puritan/Anglican divide—a divide that was as much political as it was religious. This attempt was embodied by the Hampton Court Conference (1604) during which a Puritan from Oxford noted the imperfections of the current versions. This appealed strongly to James' sense of self-importance (see his Wikipedia link above) and he embarked on it with all the zeal that such a man would. The KJV was probably the first Committee-translated English version. Perhaps James' best move was to give the translation to the universities, rather than to Canterbury, in order to keep the translation as clean as possible.
Thus, it should be seen as no surprise that it took some time for the translation to be accepted by all; in fact, it was not until 1661 that the Book of Common Prayer was finally updated with KJV readings, rather than the Bishop's Bible. Further, it was never, at least on record, as promised by James I, royally proclaimed as the Bible of the Church of England. The specifics of the "controversy" which was involved in this version will be surveyed presently.
[edit] Types of Translation: Formal equivalence (literal), dynamic equivalence (free), and paraphrase
- Main article: Dynamic and formal equivalence
In translating any ancient text, a translator must determine how literal the translation should be. Translations may tend to be formal equivalents (e.g., literal), tend to be free translations (dynamic equivalence), or even be a paraphrase. In practice, translations can be placed on a spectrum along these points; the following subsections show how these differences affect translations of the Bible.
[edit] Formal equivalence
A literal translation tries to remain as close to the original text as possible, without adding the translators' ideas and thoughts into the translation. Thus, the argument goes, the more literal the translation is, the less danger there is of corrupting the original message. This is therefore much more of a word-for-word view of translation. The problem with this form of translation is that it assumes a moderate degree of familiarity with the subject matter on the part of the reader. The King James Version (KJV) and English Standard Version (ESV) are two examples of this kind of translation. For example, most printings of the KJV specially mark words (using square brackets or italics) that are implied but not actually in the original source text, since words must sometimes be added to have valid English grammar.
[edit] Dynamic equivalence
A dynamic equivalence (free) translation tries to clearly convey the thoughts and ideas of the source text. A literal translation, it is argued, may obscure the intention of the original author. A free translator attempts to convey the subtleties of context and subtext in the work, so that the reader is presented with both a translation of the language and the context. The New Living Translation (NLT) is an example of a translation that uses dynamic equivalence. The New International Version (NIV) attempts to strike a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence; some place it as a "dynamic equivalence" translation, while others place it as leaning more towards "formal equivalence".
[edit] Paraphrase
A paraphrase, or thought-for-thought, translation goes even further than dynamic equivalence, and attempts to convey some key concepts while not retaining even a dynamic equivalence with the text. Paraphrases may even omit large sections of text, or add other explanatory material not in the original as part of the main text. Paraphrases are typically not intended for in-depth study, but are instead intended to put the basic truths of the Bible in language which could readily be understood by the typical reader without a theological or linguistic background. The Message Bible is an example of this kind of translation. The Living Bible is a paraphrase in the sense of rewording an English translation, rather than a translation using the paraphrase method.
[edit] An example
An example of these differences can be found in John 17:6. The ESV (a more literal translation) translates the original as "I have manifested your name", while the NIV (a translation that uses dynamic equivalence) uses the phrase "I have revealed you". The NIV is simpler, and is thus easier for an English reader to understand. However, the NIV translation omits the fact that in the original text, the speaker (Jesus) was specifically revealing God's name. Since in the following verses he specifically prays about God's name, and many other verses specifically discuss God's name, the connection between this statement and other verses (including the ones that immediately follow) is eliminated by this less literal translation. [2]
A more speculative example can be found in Ruth 3:14. In Biblical Hebrew the word "feet" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "genitalia" (usually of the male sort).[3] So in Ruth 3:14 we have the quote "So she lay at his feet until morning." Formal equivalence makes it the reader's responsibility to determine what "feet" means in the context, risking the possibility that the reader completely misses a possible meaning of the passage. In theory, dynamic equivalence might render the passage "She made love with him until the morning." A translation that chose the second translation would provide the context by itself. Note, however, that there are currently no known English translations that use the second approach - at most this possible alternative meaning is noted as a footnote. So while this example more clearly shows the choices translators must make, in this case it is a speculative example. In particular, it is by no means agreed that the term "feet" is actually a euphemism for genitalia in this specific passage; some scholars specifically reject this interpretation as being incompatible with the surrounding text.[4].
[edit] Contrast of formal and dynamic equivalence
Those who prefer literal or formal equivalence believe that literal translation is closer to the original, therefore it is better. Those who prefer free or dynamic equivalence suggest that such translations enable people to better understand the original, therefore it is better[5].
The problem with Formal equivalence is that it might demand too much of some readers. The problem with Dynamic Equivalence is that the reader encounters the text with most of the decisions already made and must assume that the work of the translators is not prejudicial.
Paraphrases are typically identified as such, and they are typically not intended for in-depth study.
[edit] Non-traditional translations
Some translators deliberately translated in way that is a break with tradition, seeking to recover what they saw as an original meaning that had become obscured by previous translations. Such translations sought to give more ordinary meanings to words, rather than follow meanings that they see as imposed on the text by church history. One of the clearest examples of this is The Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus (Gaus 1991). Instead of "disciple" he used the word "student", instead of "sin" he used "do wrong", instead "blessed" he sometimes used "lucky".
[edit] Gender-neutral controversies
There have been a number of books and articles written about how and whether to indicate gender in translating the Bible. The topic is broad and not always discussed irenically, (but see Bullard 1977 for a thoughtful example). It is interesting to note that the King James Version had already translated at least one passage using a technique that many now reject in other translations, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). The Greek word translated "children" is usually translated "sons", but in this passage, the translators chose to use a term that included both genders. A number of recent Bible translations have taken a variety of steps to deal with current moves to prescribe changes related to gender marking in English, some taking small steps, some taking large ones. Today's New International Version has received more publicity in this regard than many others.
In Jewish circles, the Jewish Publication Society's translation (NJPS) is the basis for The Contemporary Torah: A Gender-Sensitive Adaptation of the JPS Translation (2006, JPS, ISBN 0-8276-0796-2), also known as CJPS.
There are two translations that are particularly notable for their efforts to take radical steps in this regard, both explaining their reasons and their techniques in their front matter. The titles of the two translations are similar, but the two translations are distinct. The first is The Inclusive New Testament (1994), the second is The New Testament and Psalms: an Inclusive Version (1995). The first one deliberately tried to make the message agree with their creed, pointing out that when they saw problems with the message of the text "it becomes our license to introduce midrash into the text" (p. xxi). It is an original translation. The second one, however, is based on the NRSV, making changes as the editorial team saw fit, but being less radical to change the message of the original.
[edit] Unknown word meanings
Some words (particularly in the Hebrew Bible) occur only once, and nowhere else in any ancient literature (that is, hapaxes legomena). As a result, their meanings can sometimes be obscure and can only be partly determined through context. For example, Genesis 41:43 reports that when Joseph was made second only to the Pharaoh in Egypt, "Abrek" was shouted out in front of Joseph as he rode in a chariot. While the word itself is not in doubt, and it is clear that this was a way of giving praise or respect to Joseph, the exact meaning of "Abrek" is uncertain [6]. Various translations translate this word using phrases such as "bow the knee" (ESV and KJV) or "make way" (NIV).
Translations typically include footnotes to indicate translation difficulties in such cases. In this particular example, the ESV authors state that they believe that Abrek was probably an Egyptian word, similar in sound to the Hebrew word meaning "to kneel". The NIV scholars note the uncertainty in interpretation by noting another possible reading is "Bow down".
[edit] Selecting source text
- Key article: Textual Criticism
Another key issue in translating the Bible is selecting the source text. The Bible far predates printing presses, so every book had to be copied by hand for many centuries. Every copy introduced the risk of error. Thus, a key step in performing a translation is to establish what the original text was, typically by comparing extant copies. This process is called textual criticism.
Textual criticism of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) centers on the comparison of the manuscript versions of the Masoretic text to early witnesses such as the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Samaritan Pentateuch, various Syriac texts, and the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, creating a challenge in handling so many different texts when performing these comparisons. The King James Version (or Authorized Version) was based on the Textus Receptus, an eclectic Greek text prepared by Erasmus based primarily on Byzantine text Greek manuscripts. There are far more copies of the Byzantine text-types, so much so that it is termed the "Majority Text". Although the majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition, there remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. These critics include the editors of the Hodges and Farstad text and the Robinson and Pierpoint text. For example, the modern World English Bible translation is based on the Greek Majority (Byzantine) text.
Proponents of the Alexandrian text type claim that no significant doctrinal issue hinges on these differences in text, indeed, most differences do not yield a difference in the translated result, but proponents of the Byzantine text type tend to believe the opposite.
The Byzantine text type is the text historically in use by the church, and is a universal text, with manuscripts to be found all over the world. The Alexandrian type on the other hand was the local text type of Alexandria Egypt for only a portion of the 4th century, and which was buried there from the 4th to the 19th century unused, while the whole world went on using the Byzantine text.
[edit] The King James Version defenders
Many English speaking Christian fundamentalists have suggested that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible English speakers should use. Some who follow this belief have formed a King-James-Only Movement. Similarly some non-English speakers prefer translations based upon Textus Receptus.
However the vast majority of biblical scholars believe that knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek has improved over the centuries, as well as advances in the fields of textual criticism, biblical archaeology, and linguistics. Therefore a more accurate translation is possible, whichever texts are chosen to base the translation upon.
[edit] Citations
- Bullard, Roger. 1977. Sex-Oriented Language in the Bible. The Bible Translator 28.2:243-245.
- Gaus, Andy. 1991. The Unvarnished New Testament. Grand Rapids: Phanes Press.
- The Inclusive New Testament. 1994. W. Hyattsville, MD: Priests for Equality.
- The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. 1995. Oxford University Press.
- ^ a b Kenyon,"English Versions", in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Hastings, (Scribner's Sons: 1909).
- ^ Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne, "The ESV & NIV compared, Briefing #278 (November 2001), http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/webextra/march04_compare.htm
- ^ Mary Joan Winn Leith, "Ruth," In The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 395.
- ^ Bulkeley, Tim, "Act Three - The Pivot", Study Notes on Ruth, http://bible.gen.nz/ruth/3/introduction.htm , downloaded 2006-10-18
- ^ Nida, Eugene. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. p. 5-8
- ^ T. Lambdin, in: JAOS, 73 (1953), 146; J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte (1959), 135ff., 151., http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/abrech.doc , downloaded 2006-11-26
|
|||||||||||||||||
