bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
You do realize that the term "received text" was merely a publisher's blurb, in effect, and was not meant to be taken literally.
That's a great name, by the way - Silversides. I wish I had a cool name like that!
AV and the Case for a Single English Translation
- Thread starter MW
- Start date
- Status
You do realize that the term "received text" was merely a publisher's blurb, in effect, and was not meant to be taken literally.
That's a great name, by the way - Silversides. I wish I had a cool name like that!
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
You do realize that the term "received text" was merely a publisher's blurb, in effect, and was not meant to be taken literally.
That's a great name, by the way - Silversides. I wish I had a cool name like that!
Received Text is the english name for the Textus Receptus which is a family of the Byzantine text-type as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type. I'm not sure why you think it is a can of worms to state the family type that the Church has drawn from for 2000 years?
Byzantine type = good.
Alexandrian text-type= bad.
Blessings!
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I only used it because textual criticism is such a convoluted and (at times) controversial subject.
I wonder if it would be possible to start all over again from scratch, now that we have terrifically high-speed computers and all: take every one of the 25,000 or so manuscripts and parts of manuscripts, feed every one of those readings into the computer, and see if the computer would come up with the same manuscript piles (families) that men have come up with by hand over the last 400 years. I wonder if the computer would arrange the manuscript piles differently. Bottom line would be, of course: put all the manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts together that have the same (or at least the most consistently the same) text.
Last edited by a moderator:
A side issue, but no less important, is that the church has largely abandoned her supervision of the production of these translations to "committees."
I'm in the minority here, I suppose, in that since the English cannot by definition capture the multiple meanings of the Greek, that multiple English translations should be consulted by the educated layman and pastor. We have this luxury and should use it wisely.
I'm in the minority here, I suppose, in that since the English cannot by definition capture the multiple meanings of the Greek, that multiple English translations should be consulted by the educated layman and pastor. We have this luxury and should use it wisely.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
As to your first paragraph: well, that's because, in the protestant world, no one ecclesiastical body is "in charge", as it were. Which is probably a good thing...
As to your second paragraph: I agree. I think the proliferation of legitimate translations (not paraphrases or other things) is a great blessing. No one translation can dominate, and thoughtful Christians can compare and contrast.
Dear friends,
When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice -- we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgment upon it? When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.
The Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord" -- to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, reformed piety taught that "the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157). It is contrary to reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, and to esteem them both as the Word of God.
Concerning the question as to the priority of translation or confession -- if we follow the path of the enlightenment, which lives in the dreamy world of uncorrupted human reason, follows the myth of neutrality, and insists upon the right of private judgment, then translation naturally comes first. On the other hand, if we follow the path of Christian discipleship, which acknowledges the noetic effects of the fall, the absolute necessity of spiritual illumination, and the constant requirement to engage in self-denial, then confession must be placed in the forefront. We must begin with the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the rock upon which the Lord Jesus Christ builds His church and preserves it from the gates of hell. Those who confess Christ Jesus the Lord are the true successors of St. Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit. Conversely, those who do not begin with this confession, undertake the work of translation with a veil over the eyes of their understandings. They might understand well enough the literal sense of the letters and syllables, but they will constantly corrupt the spiritual message, because they will not see the heavenly reality to which the earthly language points. The Gospel of John provides numerous examples of this earthly-minded folly.
In relation to the Geneva Bible, we should bear in mind that it was the Puritan party at the Hampton Court Conference which called for a new translation to take in the best aspects of the Geneva and Bishops Bibles; and the result was a significant improvement. The idea that the Puritans rejected the King James Version in favour of the Geneva Bible is not attested by the facts. Certainly the Geneva Bible contained those valuable book and chapter digests and textual annotations which made it appealing; but the fact remains that Puritan works predominantly quote from the Authorised Version at least from the 1640s, when the Puritan revolution was in the ascendancy. Besides, those who criticise the AV for its antiquated words will not find the situation alleviated by the GB.
My first post for 2007. Blessings to all for the year ahead!
When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice -- we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgment upon it? When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.
The Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord" -- to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, reformed piety taught that "the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157). It is contrary to reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, and to esteem them both as the Word of God.
Concerning the question as to the priority of translation or confession -- if we follow the path of the enlightenment, which lives in the dreamy world of uncorrupted human reason, follows the myth of neutrality, and insists upon the right of private judgment, then translation naturally comes first. On the other hand, if we follow the path of Christian discipleship, which acknowledges the noetic effects of the fall, the absolute necessity of spiritual illumination, and the constant requirement to engage in self-denial, then confession must be placed in the forefront. We must begin with the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the rock upon which the Lord Jesus Christ builds His church and preserves it from the gates of hell. Those who confess Christ Jesus the Lord are the true successors of St. Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit. Conversely, those who do not begin with this confession, undertake the work of translation with a veil over the eyes of their understandings. They might understand well enough the literal sense of the letters and syllables, but they will constantly corrupt the spiritual message, because they will not see the heavenly reality to which the earthly language points. The Gospel of John provides numerous examples of this earthly-minded folly.
In relation to the Geneva Bible, we should bear in mind that it was the Puritan party at the Hampton Court Conference which called for a new translation to take in the best aspects of the Geneva and Bishops Bibles; and the result was a significant improvement. The idea that the Puritans rejected the King James Version in favour of the Geneva Bible is not attested by the facts. Certainly the Geneva Bible contained those valuable book and chapter digests and textual annotations which made it appealing; but the fact remains that Puritan works predominantly quote from the Authorised Version at least from the 1640s, when the Puritan revolution was in the ascendancy. Besides, those who criticise the AV for its antiquated words will not find the situation alleviated by the GB.
My first post for 2007. Blessings to all for the year ahead!
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't think anyone has said that the Puritans "rejected" the AV. However, it is true that the Pilgrims, in 1620 (9 years after the AV was published) took the Geneva Bible with them to North America, not the AV. And it is true that it took about half a century for the AV to catch on. I think it's hardly fair to say that those English Christians who pondered the differences in translations between the Geneva Bible and AV, and had to choose between them, were guilty of holding an Enlightenment attitude toward the Word of God. (I know you haven't said this; I'm just giving an example.)
Someone who's trying to choose the better of two or more translations of the Word of God is hardly shaking his fist at heaven. And, I dare say, someone who rejects the AV in favor of a different legitimate translation is hardly shaking his fist at heaven, either.
The differences in translation betwen the Geneva and Authorised are really only formal. My comment refers to versions which contradict each other, where there is a material difference in the meaning.
As for this supposed half a century before the AV caught on, it is refuted by the simple exercise of reading the Puritans and noting their Scripture quotations.
As for this supposed half a century before the AV caught on, it is refuted by the simple exercise of reading the Puritans and noting their Scripture quotations.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
But, if there is a material difference in meaning, isn't it the responsible thing to do to inquire as to which translation comes closest (even if only in nuance) to the actual meaning of the Hebrew or Greek text? How is that being rebellious against God? Would it be honoring to God if one chose the AV over something else even if the AV, in a particular case, was wrong?
I think you're treading awfully close to the "the AV fell direct from heaven" view of the extremists but, from your posts on this topic, I know you're smarter than that.
As for my half-century comment, most of the vast body of Puritan writings began to be produced, generally speaking, from the 1640s on, 1641 being 30 years after the AV was published. (30 years as over against 50 - close enough for government work!)
Just as a matter of clarification, is this version only to be authoritative for English speaking people, or do you believe that everyone in the world should be forced to learn English in order to be able to read the Gospel?
providenceboard
Puritan Board Freshman
Do you mean "formal" difference?" If it is only formal, and the meaning is not affected, the reader will not minunderstand the "sense" of God's word. They can read it as the very Word of God. Note the distinction I pointed to in an earlier post between the immediate inspiration of the words pertaining to the original, and the mediate inspiration of the sense when the original is accurately rendered. The issue of a more formally accurate translation is irrelevant to my contention.
Regarding "the AV fell direct from heaven," so far as the posture of the worshipper is concerned, in accord with the reformed view of faithful translations, yes, it is to be read as the very word of God, that is, as if it fell direct from heaven. Calvin makes the same point in the Institutes. It is the failure of modern folk to grasp this point, and also their negligent attitude towards approaching the holy, that leads them to be so careless and carefree in this matter, which is nothing more than a taking of God's name (word) in vain.
Referring to your half century comment, it may be that you have only read Puritan literature from the 1640s. In this you are probably disadvantaged by the preferences of modern publishers. That is why historians should not depend on reprints but examine the literature in its original printings.
Regarding "the AV fell direct from heaven," so far as the posture of the worshipper is concerned, in accord with the reformed view of faithful translations, yes, it is to be read as the very word of God, that is, as if it fell direct from heaven. Calvin makes the same point in the Institutes. It is the failure of modern folk to grasp this point, and also their negligent attitude towards approaching the holy, that leads them to be so careless and carefree in this matter, which is nothing more than a taking of God's name (word) in vain.
Referring to your half century comment, it may be that you have only read Puritan literature from the 1640s. In this you are probably disadvantaged by the preferences of modern publishers. That is why historians should not depend on reprints but examine the literature in its original printings.
One should read the word of God in their own native language if providence makes it possible.
So, the KJV 1611 is only authoritative for English speaking folks? How about non-English speaking folks?
Very well put.
I am replying to your 2007 post in 2006.
Don't worry Rev. Winzer, there are a few of us that were in 2007 already. I just returned from the States on Friday and was quite exhausted by 8 pm last night. I heard a bunch of fireworks and yelling in the middle of the night and had to remind myself that the New Year had come.
I'm glad you're back from your business. It's quite lonely sometimes in the middle of the day here.
The AV equivalent in their native language. Most of the romance languages have one dating from reformation times, and some other languages have been so blessed through the efforts of the Trinitarian Bible Society.
Perhaps if westerners were not so spoiled, needing to have their fancies tickled with something new every few years, more effort and expenditure could go in the direction of spiritually undeveloped countries, and they also could be blessed with the faithful translation of the Scriptures. It seems to be a case of those having much using too much on themselves so that those who have little do not have enough.
"AV equivalent" is the faithful rendering of the whole Word of God in their language.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Actually, I believe that about 100 men worked on the ESV at one stage or another. There were several committees, if I remember rightly, working together in a hierarchical structure.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Here are two translations of the same verse, picked at random:
The young lions roar after their prey and seek their meat from God. (Psalm 104:21; KJV)
The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. (Psalm 104:21; ESV)
These two verses say the same thing. Why should I choose the AV over the ESV?
Also: if you go into a bookstore and by a King James Version, you're not getting the "real" 1611 AV, you're getting the 1769 revision. So, isn't your whole argument sort of pointless to begin with?
Because the ESV does not follow the AV in multitudes of other places. Start with Gen. 4:17 and Heb. 2:16. This is to say nothing of the fact that the ESV does not follow the AV in distinguishing singular and plural second person pronouns, so that the English reader is at a complete loss as to the real meaning of the text in literally thousands of places. Then what shall we say about the ESV departing from the reformed canon of Scripture by leaving various texts?
Those who edit 17th century books for publication often correct printer's mistakes and standardise the English, and yet they still sell the book as the work of the original author.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Just keeping the critics honest.
Just for my own curiosity, let's start at square one. Why do you believe that the AV is the best English translation, ancient or modern? Please keep your answer to 750,000 words or less.
Best Hebrew and Greek sources; conservative translation philosophy; most accurate from a reformed perspective; utilises an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the "majesty of the style" of Scripture; exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration; indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicised words; and easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
I would not be opposed to one version, but I disagree with the last part of this statement. English today is not the same as English in the days of King James.
The fact is that the English of the AV is not the "spoken" English of any era, not even of King James' day. The Bible is "written" composition. So far as written composition is concerned, the Authorised Version is pure English. Any book on the history of English will teach as much.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
"best Hebrew and Greek sources" - that's been debated, a lot.
"conservative translation philosophy" - OK.
"most accurate from a reformed perspective" - was that a conscious goal for the translators?
"utilizes an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the 'majesty of the style' of Scripture" - yeah, for 400 years ago.
"exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration" - OK, but modern translations do the same thing.
"indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicized words" - OK, but ditto immediately above.
"easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given" - yeah, for 400 years ago.
If some man hits his golf ball out of bounds, he does not have the liberty to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in bounds. Either we are reformed or we are not. The fact is, the AV represents the canon of Scripture accepted by the historic reformed church.
As noted earlier, they accepted translations which were made "by men of our profession."
Language naturally simplifies over time. Holy Scripture does not.
Perhaps some do. The trend is to transliterate words which carry important theological concepts like Sheol and Hades. They also transliterate weights, measures, and geographical descriptions where the reader is left without a clue as to the type of thing being referenced. Meanwhile they translate other words, especially pertaining to music, where scholarship can only speculate the intended reference. Overall, modern translations are poor on this point.
Again, perhaps some do. But the trend overall is to include more additions, and rather than simply make up the sense of the original, to give an interpretative bias to it.
Holy Scripture does not alter its message.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
