C. Hodge had this to say in his commentary on Romans:

What is the conventional wisdom? Is there any substantial change to the meaning of the text in the modern versions?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

John Gill:

John Calvin:

I don't think the problem is with the rendering, but with our current (mid 19th century forward) lack of understanding of the rendering. Besides the Geneva Version reads, 17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Procure things honest in the sight of all men. They didn't have a problem understanding it. Another good reason for us to learn Sacred English.

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

"Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they,... did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists,... and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton

I went back and reread your quote from Hodge. I didn't get the probable 'sense commonly attached to the passage by the English reader.' I understood it according to Calvin and Gill's exposition.

Or to update the "sacred" English so anyone can understand it.

__________________
Kim G
Non-denom church (holds to the WCF)
Zion Community Church, Greenville, SC

Teach me Your way, O LORD;
I will walk in Your truth;
Unite my heart to fear Your name.
Psalm 86:11

Can you elaborate?

16th century English isn't holy. It's kind of like 12th century Albanian. Worshiping either is idolatry. There's a tree in my yard I really like, but I don't call it Sacred, nor do I expect others to acknowledge it as such.

I'm thinking about starting a poll to see how many KJ onlies are monolingual. It's a theory I have about worshiping a certain form of a particular language. Is there a Sacred Mongolian? A Sacred Key'agana? If so, if one wants to learn a new language should one learn the Sacred form?

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

I will let Chris answer for himself, but I don't think your definition of "sacred" is what he had in mind.

That could be, but this is an international English speaking forum, and we've got to use words with meanings that we hold in common.

I agree, "thee" and "thou" and "eth" suffixes, etc... are not sacred. The Bible needs to be in the vernacular.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

What they said.

When you speak to your neighbors and coworkers, do you speak in King James English? When you talk to your wife or mother, do you use King James English? When you (or your pastor) preaches on Sunday morning, is the entire service in King James English?

My point? WE DON'T SPEAK KING JAMES ENGLISH. I think it's foolish to assume that we need to learn King James English because it's "sacred."

If someone likes the King James because of its relationship with the textus receptus, great. Maybe you can use the TR as a basis for a translation my neighbors can understand. But if you like the King James because of its "sacred" magical hard-to-understand words, then we have a problem.

Now, if the meaning of "sacred" was refering to the Bible's words in general, then okay. But if the KJV's words are somehow more sacred than another version (or language!), then we have a problem.

The English of the AV was not the vernacular. It was a subset of English. At the time the AV was translated no one spoke that way. The word 'sacred' is referring to the subset of English used to accurately render the Biblical texts. Not to its quality. It is is also called Biblical English. It is called such because of its association with the Biblical texts.

In order to accurately render the difference between 2nd person singular and plural pronouns from the Greek and Hebrew into English, you will need to keep the thou/you distinction. Any version which fails to make the thou/you distinction is less accurate than one that does. The verb endings in this subset of English correspond to the Hebrew and Greek verbs forms. (Yes even the aorist.) So if you wish to give up accuracy in a translation, have it translated into the vernacular of English.

BTW, learning these various distinction is not difficult. A group of adult men mastered it in 15 minutes. This included the various verb endings which corresponded to the various verb forms in Hebrew & Greek. So difficulty cannot be used as an excuse. And neither can the claim of not knowing a word. After all we use a dictionary when we read other books in which we find a word we do not know.

Lowth's English Grammar is a good place to begin for understanding this subset of English.

I don't buy that for a minute.

1. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to argue that because men wanted the Bible in a distinct dialect - even after the Reformation where everyone from Wycliffe to Luther translated it into the vernacular - that we are somehow obligated to perpetuate that obsurd and pretentious practice. It smacks of the same air employed by Papists to argue that Latin was "sacred."

2. I've read the KJV English in too many non-biblical places for me to buy the idea that this was a "special" creation for use with the Bible.

3. Your argument that the subject/object distinction of the "thee" "thou" difference is weak. In modern English "you" as a subject or object is indicated by the placement of the word in the sentence and by its syntatical relationship with other words. Example: You hit the boy. ("You" is the subject.) The boy hit you. ("You" is the direct object.) Don't tell me that I have to say "Thou hit the boy" or "The boy hit thee" for me to convey subject/object accurately.

That's simply not true, and bad logic. Do you know any other languages than English? No language can be translated word for word. "He gave up the ghost" is one word in Greek.

Afrikaans has singular and plural pronouns, but people go back and forth from that language to English without problems.

As in all things, Christ is our example, and He spoke to people in their own languages. If an audience didn't know Hebrew or Greek, He spoke in Aramaic.

No, that is exactly backwards from the intent of goal of sacred translation, which is why modern Bibles no longer speak to men with Authority.

When the Geneva, Authorized Version and Dutch Bibles were developed Protestants worked, as faithfully as possible, to represent the original tongues into the native languages of the respective societies. This is in direct contrast to the modern principle.

That is to say the Reformers work was dedicated to bringing God's word to the people in their native tongue so that the people could relate to God, and learn of His Law and Grace and conform their lives to it. Hence, the very first task in order to fulfill that goal is to conform the language to Scripture, not Scripture to the language.

In contrast, the modern principle is to relate God's word to the people
in their peculiar idiom (not native tongue) in order to relate God to the people. This is a standard presupposition today and it is exactly backwards to the presuppositions held to when the great Protestant translations were performed.

The modern principles are represented most faithfully in mens attitude to the Authority of the Word of God in our society, people then approach the Scripture conforming God and the Church to the presupposition of secular humanism, which holds linguistic priority in their presuppositions.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

The diatribe against the Sacred/Biblical English of the KJV is

The point that was made, that the use of the period in Rom 12:17 falls within the overall objective of the KJV translators. They had a specific kind of English in mind (call it what you want) and the use of the period is perfectly in line with the Reformers view of the meaning of the passage.

The question at hand is, does Hodge have a point, or is he simply not understanding the Sacred/Biblical English used by the translators?

PS I have never before heard anyone argue that the Bible could be translated into "Modern" English (whatever that is) without losing accuracy. Perhaps a new thread could be started with some citations or examples. That would be interesting.

I would say he didn't understand the English at hand. Even with the period I have never understood it according to his 'common meaning.' With or without the period the overall context of the passage makes the 'provide things honest...' refer back to the 'recompense to no man..." I don't know how he managed to get providing for families in the verse. The Westminster Larger Catechism had no problem with it.

Did Hodge think verse 16 was referring to unbelievers or believers? This might have something to do with his understanding.

Dr. Alan Cairns in his sermon (minute 38) on this verse in Romans did not understand it as Hodge did.

(To the PS: The Trinitarian Bible Society has some articles that deal with the necessity of thou(1st pers.)/you(2nd pers.) distinction in a translation for accuracy and other such issues. I believe they also have an article dealing with 2 Peter 3:16 and how if it is hard to be understood in the Greek, but not in the English, you have interpretation and not translation.)

Is Authority a characteristic like Dead, that you either are or aren't? Or is Authority a characteristic like Blonde, where there is a gradient between someone with hair almost white and someone with hair light brown?

If Authority is something a Bible translation either has or doesn't have, could you, Thomas, name all the English translations that have Authority? And if not, could you list a few common translations in order of the amount of Authority that they have on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 means no Authority whatsoever and 100 being the true and exact Word of God?

Thank you for posting this. I hadn't thought to consult the LC.

Hodge sees a change in verse 14 from brotherly love to love for your enemies. Although, many commentators do not see the same break. (Which is strange to me because it seems so obvious)

I will listen to it tomorrow.

Can you point me to specific issues?