Notes on Bible Translations

Why I like it over the English Standard Version <ESV>

These were my reasons for wanting to switch from the ESV to the NASB: 1) NASB includes verses and portions of verses that are more commonly found in the byzantine line of manuscripts, but they bracket them in the text so you know that some manuscripts, usually the Alexandrian, don't often contain that verse or words etc. The ESV simply leaves it out, they do often footnote it, but when you're reading (or at least while I'm reading) I almost always miss the fact that there was a missing verse there or section. I just like to be aware of the variance rather than miss it.

2) NASB capitalizes pronouns in reference to God. This isn't a major issue, but it's something I much prefer, I find it aids in my studies. I know the philosophy of the ESV is that it doesn't want to assume for the reader, that it will allow more critical thinking or something, but I've never come across it where I or anyone with any evidence believed it was mistakenly capitalizing something. Even if it did, make a note . . .

3) Old Testament references are capitalized for easy detection. I have many times read through in the ESV without taking note it was a reference to the OT, because sometimes it's mixed right in the text and you obviously don't look at the footnotes for every single verse as you read, or I don't think of it anyway.

4) NASB italicizes added words, this is very helpful to me, especially as a Bible student.

5) NASB is slightly more literal. Now, I'm no language expert so I like the fact that the NASB leans more towards literalness than the ESV (though both are quite literal as far as translating to English goes).

Notes on KJV:

ACCUSATION: Many KJV only people claim that the NIV & NASB leaves out certain words, sentences & verses which are very important to scripture. The FACT is that the KJV ADDED words, sentences & verses to HOLY scripture. The NASB restores scripture, translating only the words that actually existed in scripture. Wherever words are absent from the NASB, it's only because those words were absent from original scripture as shown by the oldest surviving manuscripts. KJV only people try to prove the NASB wrong by comparing NASB with KJV as if the KJV was the ORIGINAL scripture, yet the KJV is only just ONE MORE TRANSLATION of scripture, NOT THE ORIGINAL! We must compare any translation & all translations with the oldest manuscripts we have available to us.

Most pastors & people who are KJV only activists claim that the KJV is 100% accurate with nothing added or taken out. Yet every bible scholar on the planet (of all religions & denominations) all agree that the true name of GOD was removed from the scriptures & replaced with the words "the LORD" throughout the Old Testament. There isn't even a question about it, we KNOW that occurred! It's established fact! The only debate is what was His True Name that was removed. (Click here for proof what it was). So when people tell you that the KJV is 100% the word of GOD with nothing added or taken away, they show their ignorance of proven bible history.

ACCUSATION: Many KJV only people claim that the NIV & NASB leaves out certain words, sentences & verses which are very important to scripture. The FACT is that the KJV ADDED words, sentences & verses to HOLY scripture. The NASB restores scripture, translating only the words that actually existed in scripture. Wherever words are absent from the NASB, it's only because those words were absent from original scripture as shown by the oldest surviving manuscripts. KJV only people try to prove the NASB wrong by comparing NASB with KJV as if the KJV was the ORIGINAL scripture, yet the KJV is only just ONE MORE TRANSLATION of scripture, NOT THE ORIGINAL! We must compare any translation & all translations with the oldest manuscripts we have available to us.

Question: Why is the name "Lucifer" only in KJV in ?

Answer: The word "Lucifer" was never used by GOD to refer to the devil. It was never used in any bible until the Catholic Church translation called the Vulgate by St. Jerome. https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=BT0002678

The Latin word lucifer just means "light bearer or morning star". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

The Assyrian bible (that the KJV is translated from) said "hêlêl or heylel" in , not "Lucifer". The Greek Septuagint that Jesus and the first century church used said "heōsphoros". So the use of the name Lucifer was a Catholic invention.

So NASB translates more correctly. The Latin name "Lucifer" although never used by GOD/Jesus, has now come to refer to only Satan. Therefore it refers to Satan. NOT Jesus. Some people try to say that refers to Jesus. That's because the people that say that, are evil people. The Latin word could refer to any star of the sky or even to Jesus but that does not mean that Jesus is Satan as some evil people try to claim. It just simply means star or light.

Were KJV Translators Inspired?

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

King James Version (KJV) Compared to New American Standard Bible (NASB)

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/kjv.html

The Not-So-Exact King James Bible

https://bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/the-less-than-literal-kjv

By; Timothy Berg

It is sometimes assumed that the King James Version is the most literal translation of the Bible into English. Many have assumed it to be a more exact translation than every contender. In fact, in some circles, every single word of the KJV is revered, and it is assumed that the KJV translators labored to choose exactly the most accurate word to express in English the Greek or Hebrew original text. In some extreme circles, some even go so far as to claim that these translation choices were inerrant.

But such a passion for exactness on the part of the KJV translators is an overblown myth, distinct not only from reality as seen in their translation work, but also from their own stated intentions. In their introductory preface, the translators to the reader, they explained much about their work. And in their latter section they make it plain that such a carefulness with words was not only not their MO - it was a model that they eschewed in favor of a more carefree approach.

The KJV Translators On Why They Rejected The Constancy of Extreme Literalness

Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done...For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously? ...we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings...Add hereunto that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling...also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature, we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us."

(David Norton, Ed., The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha: King James Version, Revised edition, 1:xxxiv–xxxv. Hereafter NCPB.)

Liberty With Words In Translation

I have examined the structure and overall argument of their preface at great length, but zoom in on their latter section here. Under the 15th heading of their preface, reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing, the translators take up their second and final specific note about procedure; the liberty they have taken with words so as to avoid pedantry. Two basic issues are taken up. First is liberty with words, the bulk of the section. It addresses three different aspects of this liberty; lack of consistency in how they render certain words and phrases, then (much more briefly), the partiality they showed to some words, and finally, the diversity they took with what words they did choose. Second, in a final note, they also address their choice to preserve traditional language and yet reject what they consider Catholic obscurantism.

Shunning Consistency In Rendering Words And Phrases – Verbal And Unnecessary Changings

To the first issue they note,

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way."

It is likely that they have in mind here Hugh Broughton. Broughton was generally regarded as perhaps the greatest Hebrew scholar of that age, though he didn't end up working on the KJV, (contrary to claims that the KJV translation committee contained the whole of the best scholars of the age). He felt that belief in the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture demanded the most literal translation possible. He believed that if a Hebrew word had one meaning, then it should be translated into English only one way, and consistently so throughout the translations. A phrase translated one way in one place should be translated the same way if it occurs in another, provided the intent is the same in both places. His concern was a deep accuracy to the original text. He had long been urging that the Geneva Bible needed to be seriously revised. He set out eight "principles" or rules of translation in 1597 that he suggested needed to be followed, for; “The holy text must be honored, as sound, holy, pure: heed must be taken that the translator neither flow with lies nor have one at all: prophecies spoken in doubtful terms, for sad present occasions, must be cleared by said study and staid safety of ancient warrant: terms of equivocation witty in the speaker for familiar and easy matters, must be looked unto, that a translator draw them not unto foolish & ridiculous senses: Constant memory to translate the same often repeated in the same sort is most needfull.”

It is likely that they have in mind here Hugh Broughton. Broughton was generally regarded as perhaps the greatest Hebrew scholar of that age, though he didn't end up working on the KJV, (contrary to claims that the KJV translation committee contained the whole of the best scholars of the age). He felt that belief in the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture demanded the most literal translation possible. He believed that if a Hebrew word had one meaning, then it should be translated into English only one way, and consistently so throughout the translations. A phrase translated one way in one place should be translated the same way if it occurs in another, provided the intent is the same in both places. His concern was a deep accuracy to the original text. He had long been urging that the Geneva Bible needed to be seriously revised. He set out eight "principles" or rules of translation in 1597 that he suggested needed to be followed, for;

“The holy text must be honored, as sound, holy, pure: heed must be taken that the translator neither flow with lies nor have one at all: prophecies spoken in doubtful terms, for sad present occasions, must be cleared by said study and staid safety of ancient warrant: terms of equivocation witty in the speaker for familiar and easy matters, must be looked unto, that a translator draw them not unto foolish & ridiculous senses: Constant memory to translate the same often repeated in the same sort is most needfull.”

(Hugh Broughton, An Epistle to the Learned Nobilitie of England Touching Translating the Bible from the Original, with Ancient Warrant for Euerie Worde, Vnto the Full Satisfaction of Any That Be of Hart.)

He was convinced that God had supernaturally preserved every single letter of the Hebrew text in the Masoretic Text (and he would later be very upset with the KJV translators for how often they emended the Hebrew text with the LXX and Latin Vulgate). The original text must not be trifled with by translators. God cared not only about the sense, and not only about the sentence, but about every single word, and God's text was perfect. "These being matters of Elegancy more than bare necessity, shew that no lesse watchfulness was over the words of sentences. Which thing should move us to hold the text uncorrupt.” Against those who might maintain (like the KJV translators) that the text had been corrupted and needed restored via textual criticism, Broughton was convinced that to say this was to concede to Catholic arguments, "then would the papists earnestly triumph, that we Protestants confess the text to be corrupted: That will I never do, while breath standeth in my breast." In fact, while the KJV translators would lean most heavily on the 1598 Greek text of Beza, Broughton was convinced that Beza and his numerous text-critical notes (which largely shaped the KJV) were an attack on the preservation of the NT text. And to allow the kind of textual criticism that Beza employed was to give in to the Catholics, and to give up the faith altogether;

"If the text of the New Testament be corrupt, it can not be from God. But Th. B. [Theodore Beza] spent sixty years to prove that it is most corrupt, & hath full many long speeches to prove that, and triumphet what infinite variety of copies he hath seen, and him you hold your chief: and for him Quirites bind not the Greek with our Hebrew, as holding Jerome’s translation better. Therefore by this doctrine your New Testament should not be from God: for God would keep that which he gave, as our Hebrew to every yod."

(Hugh Broughton, A Require of Agreement to the Groundes of Divinitie Studie Wherin Great Scholers Falling, & Being Caught of Iewes Disgrace the Gospel: & Trap Them to Destruction, 1611.)

He drew a theological connection between the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, and a literal translation of it. Because of his high views of the perfection of every sentence, word, and even letter of the text, he was passionate that the translator must be exactly literal with the text. He must be consistent in how he renders each word. In his fifth rule for translators, he noted; "The next point that I am to handle, is most pleasant: and the missing in it argueth not want of learning, but of leisure. It containeth constant memory to translate the same often repeated in the same sort: and the differing repetitions likewise with their differences." Translators who weren't always literal and consistent in translating the same phrases or words the same way were, for Broughton, traitors to the pure text of Scripture.

Yet the KJV translators explicitly disagreed. They do note in their preface that when they felt it necessary they would be consistent; "Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere), we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty" (NCPB, 1:xxxiv.). But they simply didn’t feel the need for the kind of literalism with words that Broughton and others were advocating. They felt more liberty than that. They provided a few illustrative examples, but they have chosen as illustrations some of the mildest examples of a class which primarily includes far more extreme instances. Thus, while the heading refers to “phrasing” being varied, and while their practice shows entire sentences rendered rather differently, their provided examples all relate only to a single word being translated with two separate single words. Their actual liberties were much more drastic than their statement might lead us to believe. F.H.A. Scrivener counted 8,422 marginal notes in the original 1611 KJV, of which 4, 223 provide more literal translations (part of their regular acknowledgement that the text was not as literal as it could be), and 2,738 provide "alternate" translations to those provided in the text. These humble whispers (addressed in the prior section of the preface that we don't cover here) assure us that the translators entertained no notion that the renderings of the KJV were the only accurate ones, or even the most exact or literal, that could be made.

"But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by ‘purpose’, never to call it ‘intent’; if one where ‘journeying’, never ‘travelling’; if one where ‘think’, never ‘suppose’; if one where ‘pain’, never ‘ache’; if one where ‘joy’, never ‘gladness’, etc.; thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader."

They believe that to “express the same notion in the same particular word” every time that notion occurs in Scripture would be to “mince the matter.” It would be a scrupulous over-attention to details. In their opinion, this would be to “savor more of curiosity than wisdom,” and such an approach they wholly reject. (The word “curiosity” is an archaic way to refer to scrupulousness.) They are speaking about “pedantry,” or “literalism.” In fact, they feel that to seek such literalism would end up causing the KJV to be scorned by atheist, and would be no real help to the Christian reader. They are not tied to uniform phrasing, but rather express the freedom and liberty which they felt with words. They are concerned to communicate the content and ideas of Scripture, not its exact words.

They draw an analogy from Paul's words about Christian liberty. Paul had urged in that the Christian had liberty in issues of Jewish dietary laws. He could keep them or not. Christians shouldn't fight about them, because we have liberty to do as we please, following only our own consciences. Paul advocated liberty, "for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." The translators felt like liberty to render words however they saw fit. No one should be arguing about precise verbal forms. That's not what the Kingdom is made of. So they ask;

"For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?"

(NCPB, 1:xxxiv.)

They then provide two examples from church history where liberty with words in translation had caused quite a stir. Their point is to show that the objections against them for not being scrupulously literal are nothing new, and are to be expected. They are well aware that people get somewhat emotionally attached to the Scriptures in a certain verbal form and, as they mentioned earlier, “cannot abide to hear of altering.” They know they will be accused of “meddling with men’s religion.” In the two examples they provide, minor and insignificant verbal changes had caused a stir. The stir about their even greater liberty with words is thus to be expected.

First comes an example from a Bishop Triphyllius in the late 4th century, who had substituted a different word in an exposition of . The phrase “take up thy bed and walk,” using the word krabbaton for bed, had apparently been presented in an exposition using instead the word skimpous for bed. They have a slightly different nuance, but the same basic meaning. However, according to the story as recounted in Nicephorus, St. Spyridon had harshly rebuked the Bishop for not being exact with the words of Scripture. Or, in the words of the translators, “A godly Father in the Primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of newfangledness called krabbaton, skimpous, though the difference be little or none…” They regard the rebuke of St. Spyridon as unnecessary.

Second comes a more well known example from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The translators refer in the margin both to a text in Jerome’s commentary on Jonah that mentions the incident and to Augustine’s epistle to Jerome which recounts it. The Old Latin texts, translated from the Greek LXX, had apparently used the word “cucurbita” or “gourd” for the description of the plant in the text in . But when Jerome produced his revision of the Latin, going back to the Hebrew, he had determined that the Hebrew word more properly was hedera or “ivy.” Augustine had described the situation in his letter to Jerome;

“A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation,—a calamity which he narrowly escaped.”

(Augustine, Epistle 71.3.5.)

Or, in the translators' words, “…and another reporteth, that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into Hedera.” They conclude that their own “verbal and unnecessary changings” will of course meet similar opposition, “Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings.” This is what they claimed to have done. They have changed the words of the text in places where change was not needed. Norton again explains,

📷"In this the translators were following the example of their predecessors and also reflecting a certain looseness in the spirit of the age. Variety of translation is at one with the tendency to inconsistent phrasing of quotations from the Bible evident in the preface itself and in a number of seventeenth-century writers (see [elsewhere in his work], pp. 103 ff.). However, a large number of scholars came to think, with Broughton, that inconsistency was a mistake. The preface to the RV NT calls it ‘one of the blemishes’ in the KJB, and the RV followed the opposite policy. Such an even-handed attitude to English vocabulary is responsible for some of the quality of the language of the KJB. An example will help to demonstrate this. One of the KJB’s most famous lines, ‘consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin’ 8), is also rendered, ‘consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not’ 7). The second version is little known and inferior as English. As translations, they render different Greek verbs with the same English word, ‘consider’. The first variation (‘lilies of the field’, ‘lilies’) exactly reflects a difference in the Greek: the resonant phrase exists because of literal translation. The last part of the sentence is identical in the Greek of both gospels... but the KJB in one instance produces the memorable cadence of ‘they toil not, neither do they spin’ and in the other more accurately reflects the structure of the Greek in the staccato pair of parallel phrases, ‘they toil not, they spin not’. Thus three aspects of the KJB translators’ work can be seen in this one example: failure to distinguish between different words in the original, literal translation happily producing a phrase of memorable quality, and varying translations in one case producing another such phrase. There is no way of knowing if the last variations were produced for literary reasons, or even, if they were, which version the translators actually considered the better: they could have argued for the parallelism of Luke’s version.

"In this the translators were following the example of their predecessors and also reflecting a certain looseness in the spirit of the age. Variety of translation is at one with the tendency to inconsistent phrasing of quotations from the Bible evident in the preface itself and in a number of seventeenth-century writers (see [elsewhere in his work], pp. 103 ff.). However, a large number of scholars came to think, with Broughton, that inconsistency was a mistake. The preface to the RV NT calls it ‘one of the blemishes’ in the KJB, and the RV followed the opposite policy. Such an even-handed attitude to English vocabulary is responsible for some of the quality of the language of the KJB. An example will help to demonstrate this. One of the KJB’s most famous lines, ‘consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin’ (), is also rendered, ‘consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not’ (). The second version is little known and inferior as English. As translations, they render different Greek verbs with the same English word, ‘consider’. The first variation (‘lilies of the field’, ‘lilies’) exactly reflects a difference in the Greek: the resonant phrase exists because of literal translation. The last part of the sentence is identical in the Greek of both gospels... but the KJB in one instance produces the memorable cadence of ‘they toil not, neither do they spin’ and in the other more accurately reflects the structure of the Greek in the staccato pair of parallel phrases, ‘they toil not, they spin not’. Thus three aspects of the KJB translators’ work can be seen in this one example: failure to distinguish between different words in the original, literal translation happily producing a phrase of memorable quality, and varying translations in one case producing another such phrase. There is no way of knowing if the last variations were produced for literary reasons, or even, if they were, which version the translators actually considered the better: they could have argued for the parallelism of Luke’s version.

The fact that the translators deliberately adopted this policy of inconsistency (even if only because of precedent) is the only evidence that shows a sense of responsibility towards the English language. However, the passage from the preface does not show genuinely literary motives, even if it lays open the way for choice of vocabulary on literary grounds. The concern is still with precision. ‘Fit’, as has been shown, does not carry aesthetic connotations, and ‘commodiously’ is used in the sense of usefully or beneficially for conveying sense. A similar point is made by Ward Allen about the final phrase quoted: ‘by niceness Dr Smith means the domination of thought by words rather than the domination of words by thought, or exactness’ (Translating for King James, p. 12). (Norton, David, A History Of The English Bible As Literature, pp. 68-69.)

Some Examples Of Liberty With Words

It may be instructive to examine a few examples from their work of what they mean by the “verbal and unnecessary changes” which they have made (I am indebted to Bishop Ellicott for many of these examples).

In , the same Greek lemma for "accounting" occurs 11 times, meaning the same thing in each case. Paul intends the repetition to show that the same “counting” that was given to Abraham is given to all who come to Christ by faith. But the translators chose three different words variously to translate it with here. Sometimes as “counted,” other times, “reckoned,” or “imputed.” Paul’s point is to build the connections between his use of the word – consistency is important to his meaning. Yet the English reader who failed to realize the liberty that the translators have taken with words might think there to be three different Greek words here, and thus miss the connections Paul is making.

In a similar vein, is quoted (probably from the LXX) three different times in the NT (; ; ), always with essentially identical wording (only the word order differs). But each time it is quoted, the translators have slightly varied the way they translated it;

"Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." ()"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." ()"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." ()

The English reader unaware of the liberty they have taken with words might think the text to have been quoted in different forms.

Or, for example, in , the verb, for "covet" and its noun form, though it has the same meaning in each instance, and is repeated by Paul to make a point, is translated variously as “lust,” “covet,” and “concupiscence” by the translators. They have created variety where Paul intended to create repetition, and the reader who didn’t understand their liberty with words, or who took the words of their translation too seriously, might easily think Paul to have intended different words here.

In , Paul uses a play on words when he write, “If any man destroy the temple of God, him shall God destroy," using the same word twice. He even places the words next to each other in the sentence to highlight his wordplay. But the translators translated the first as “defile” and the second as “destroy.” They have created variety where Paul directly intended to use the same word to make a point.

Or note that throughout , the pair of words for "comfort" and "affliction" are intentionally repeated and paired against each other numerous times by Paul. Yet the translators variously render these same two words as, “comfort,” “affliction,” “tribulation,” and “consolation” in the passage, creating variety where there was none in the original, and losing Paul's rhetorical impact.

For another example, , probably from the LXX, (the form is different still from the Hebrew MT, and the KJV translation of it) is quoted twice in the NT (; ), both times in the same words in the Greek text, but rendered differently both times in KJV;

"For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." (, KJV)"For it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (, KJV)

Or, for example, is quoted (from the LXX) by the author of Hebrews twice, and the text is verbally identical both times (3:11 and 4:3). But the translators made a significant translational choice to render the same quotation in two different ways.

"So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest." (, KJV)"As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest..." (, KJV)

The English reader who does not understand the liberty they have taken with words might think the quotation to have occurred in two different forms. Yet this is not the case. When KJVO folks challenge me to prove "even one error of translation in the KJV" I usually point them to these two passages. We have here exactly the same Greek text. The KJV translators translated the exact same text in two totally different ways in two different passages. Nor could one claim that different authors are interpreting the text in two different ways, for the author and context is identical. Yet since the KJV renders both passages differently, if literal and accurate translation is the goal, they are undeniably mistaken in at least one of these translations. No one can deny that one of these passages misconstrues the author's intent.

Gerald Hammond, in his careful study, demonstrates at length that the KJV was far more consistent in such linguistic issues than the English translations that came before it (if less consistent than those that came after). In fact he ultimately concludes that this consistency of style is "why it kept so powerful a hold over English minds for the next three hundred and fifty years" (Gerald Hammond, The Making Of The English Bible, pg. 233). But even in a work positing such a thesis, he qualifies that, "We should not assume that the translators aimed for complete consistency" (pg. 199), noting that, "The Authorized Version makes no special attempt to maintain a complete consistency of rendering where one English word is, wherever contextually possible, used to translate one particular Hebrew word." (pg. 201-202).

One might also note parallel passages that occur in the gospels, where the wording between the Evangelists is identical in Greek, but where the KJV has translated the texts differently. These give the mistaken impression to the English reader of greater variance between the gospels than actually exists in the Greek text being translated. A few examples of such difference of rendering make the point;

/ – concerning/over

/ – follow/ come ye after

/ – the dust/the very dust

/ – he that endureth to the end shall be saved/he that shall endure the same shall be saved

/ – apart/privately

Etc., (this phenomenon is incredibly common, and hundreds of examples could be produced)

For another example, Mark used the adverb "immediately" some 42 times throughout his gospel, connecting the various narratives with a consistently vivid pace. But what Mark intends as a regular literary device to connect the narrative, the KJV’s liberty with words has obliterated. It varies the translation of Mark’s adverb by variously translating with;

“immediately” (commonly) “straightway” (, , ; ; ; , ; , , ; ; ; , , ; ; ; ) “forthwith” (, ; ) “anon” () “as soon as" (; ; ; )

The English reader who was not aware of the liberty with words that the translators took could easily miss Mark’s intentional repetition of the same word for literary effect. The translators have created a variety that the original text simply did not have.

Take for another example the one Hebrew word sometimes translated, “face.” Strong’s lexicon lists only two basic definitions for the word with a variety of applications of those definitions, “(1) The face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); (2) also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.).” Modern lexicons, like HALOT, with slightly more scholarly nuance, list some 15 basic meanings, with slight distinction among each. Yet this one word was rendered some 83 different ways by the KJV translators. [1] Surely, in so many instances of this word in the Hebrew Bible, it does have several different meanings, and good translation must respect this. But there are clearly not eighty-three distinctly different meanings of the word. The English reader who wasn’t aware of the translator’s liberty with words might easily think some eighty different words to occur in the original text. But he would be mistaken. This is rather another instance of their taking liberty with words. We could raise a similar point with the example of the Hebrew word for "hand."

Or, from another direction, there are some 45 distinctly different Hebrew and Aramaic words, (and around 12 different Greek words) that are simply rendered with the singleEnglish word “destroy” in the KJV (see a full list here). This failure to be more precise obliterates the various nuances and distinctions that the original language texts employed between these words. Yet in other passages, the translators have used some 80 different English expressions to render these same Hebrew and Aramaic roots, so it is not as if they didn’t have a store of English words to present the distinctions of the original with. They were executing what they called, “verbal and unnecessary changes.” The English reader who didn’t understand the liberty the translators have taken with words might think every occurrence of “destroy” in its different forms to have meant the same thing to the original readers. But this would not be the case.

each of these cases, and many more, it becomes clear that the KJV translators did not feel tied to a particular verbal form for their translation. They did not seek to be verbally exact, or verbally consistent in their translation, and they explained this from the very start so that no one would take the words of their translation too seriously. As Alister McGrath explains;

In each of these cases, and many more, it becomes clear that the KJV translators did not feel tied to a particular verbal form for their translation. They did not seek to be verbally exact, or verbally consistent in their translation, and they explained this from the very start so that no one would take the words of their translation too seriously. As Alister McGrath explains;

"The translators also avoided what—at least, to them—seemed a wooden and dogmatic approach to translation, which dictated that precisely the same English words should regularly be used to translate Greek or Hebrew words. The preface sets out clearly the view that the translators saw themselves as free to use a variety of English terms...

This principle suggests that the translators saw variety as a means of enhancing the beauty of the text, by avoiding crude verbal repetitions. Yet it must be pointed out that this principle led to some quite puzzling consequences. The translation of reveals this concern to ensure variety. According to the King James Bible, Paul and his colleagues “rejoice in hope of the glory of God… we glory in tribulations… we also joy in God.” The same Greek verb—which would normally be translated as “rejoice”—is, in fact, being translated using different words (here italicized) in each of the three cases. There can be no doubt that this flexibility allowed the translators to achieve a judicious verbal balance that enhanced the attractiveness of the resulting work. Yet inevitably a price was paid for this in terms of the accuracy that some had hoped for." (McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, pp. 193-194.)

Election And Reprobation Of Language - Unequal Dealings With Words

Having explained their intention to make “verbal and unnecessary changings” they then take up a second issue in their liberty with words. That is, the reason they often chose one English word or phrase but rejected another. Using an interesting analogy from a philosopher’s comment, they build a vivid picture. Imagining a forest of trees, the philosopher reflects on the fact that some of these trees will be shaped into idols by pagans to worship. But ironically, some of these very same trees will be turned into firewood to be burned. In a somewhat arbitrary choice, some trees have a destiny as worthless as firewood, and other of the exact same trees have a destiny as an object of worship. The translators draw an analogy to their sometimes arbitrary choice of one word over another. Perhaps from the doctrine of election, the translators suggest that they have been quite partial in "electing" some words to become part of biblical language, and “damning others” to remain only part of the common but not biblical vocabulary. They conclude by quoting James and asserting themselves as judges of words;

"We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great philosopher, that he should say that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, ‘Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always’, and to others of like quality, ‘Get ye hence, be banished for ever’, we might be taxed peradventure with St James’s words, namely, ‘To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts’."

(NCPB, 1:xxxiv.)

Freedom In Wording - Rejecting Niceness In Words

In the third and final aspect of the liberty they have taken with words, they point out the abundant store of linguistic vocabulary that has been furnished for them by God in English, and even the pattern He has set by varying in Scripture the language He uses to describe things, with an apparent indifference (they think) to the exact wording. In rejecting a focus on words that they consider, “trifling,” they believe they are actually following God’s example.

"Add hereunto that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature, we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us."

Thus, in this section dealing with their desire to “use the same liberty in our English versions” and to not tie themselves to a “uniformity of phrasing,” they have made it clear that they feel free to make “verbal and unnecessary changings.” They are “admonishing” the reader to be careful not to focus too much on the precise words of their translation; they certainly did not. They are more concerned with the message than the exact verbal form. They are not bound by exactness of words, and they don’t want the reader to be either.

“For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?”

- KJV Translators

(Tweet This)

Preserving Traditionalism But Rejecting Obscurantism

In the final section of their note, they take up the second issue concerning words, (or, the final issue concerning liberty with words) which is the balance they sought between traditionalism and obscurantism. They rightly understood that these are two sides of the same issue, and that wise translation should seek a medium between the two. All translation seeks to lessen the distance between the modern reader and the original one. Translation should be into the vulgar tongue, or the language of the common man. The goal should be to make the Bible understood. However, there are two extremes that must be avoided.

Rejecting Puritan Novelty

On the one hand, a desire to be relevant to modern culture and language could lead one to abandon traditional language rightly held. If one makes readability the only goal of translation, then the work could become novel. This is what they thought Puritan translations had often done, departing from the traditional ecclesiastical language like “baptism” which had long had connotations of Infant immersion to prefer “washings” or “immersions;” and “Church” which had now long had connotations of in institutional gathering only legitimized by a representative of the Pope, in favor of “congregation.” Puritans had provided these translations to remove the distance between the modern and ancient reader, and prevent the mistaken connotations of tradition. But the translators felt that some traditions should be retained;

"Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and betake them to others, as when they put ‘washing’ for ‘baptism’, and ‘Congregation’ in stead of ‘Church’"

(NCPB, 1:xxxiv–xxxv.)

Rejecting Catholic Obscurantism

But on the other hand, if one doesn’t seek to reduce the distance between the ancient and modern reader at all, then the translation becomes obscure, and they are convinced that the Catholic translation has been intentionally so. They believe that the Catholics were forced into translating their text into English against their will, so they compensated by intentionally being obscure in the wording. It has created an intentionally misunderstood vocabulary that has, “darkened the sense.” Or, as they note,

"...as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their ‘azymes’, ‘tunic’, ‘rational’, ‘holocausts’, ‘praepuce’, ‘pasche’, and a number of such like whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood."

A Bible translator can fall into a ditch on either side, becoming either too novel or too obscure. The translators would rather avoid both extremes, and speak the language of the common man. They believe that it was just such a common language that the original writings of Scripture spoke, and they seek to emulate just that. “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like it self, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar [common].”

Advocates for Literal Translation, Ancient and Modern

Contrary to what is sometimes alleged by ardent defenders of the KJV, the KJV does not represent a perfectly "literal" translation of the text with careful accuracy. And this is not some accident or mistake on the part of the translators. Rather, the inconsistency of rendering was a stated intention of the KJV translators who took great liberty with words. Any who want to pedantically insists today that every single word of the KJV represents exactly the way it "should" be rendered in English, or wants to argue about the exact phrasing or wording of the KJV, is, ironically, arguing against the KJV translators themselves. They would no doubt be saddened by those who have made the kingdom of God into words and syllables, and who have taken their words so seriously.

But if someone does oppose translators taking this kind of liberty with the text, it is informative to note that some translations today do not take such license. The ESV, for example, in its passion for what its translation committee refers to as "essentially literal" translation, has rejected the precedent of liberty set by the KJV here. In their preface they explain;

"The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to reproduce the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer....Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be “as literal as possible” while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence. Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture all the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts."

Leland Ryken notes that this is one of the clearest differences between the KJV and the ESV. To be sure, the text-critical differences between the Greek text behind the KJV and the Greek text behind the ESV create the largest amount of what little difference there is between them. But if one sets the text-critical advances that stand behind the ESV to the side, it is the consistency of the ESV that appears as the starkest difference between the KJV and ESV;

“The most obvious difference between the KJV and the ESV centers on the issue known today as concordance. Concordance in this case means using the same English word for a given Hebrew or Greek word every time (or nearly every time) it occurs in the Bible. Concordance was a high priority for the ESV translators. This was inevitable because of the commitment to verbal equivalence. The King James translators did their work at a moment in history when the English language was expanding at an unprecedented rate and when excitement about the burgeoning possibilities of language ran high. It was a time of lexical and linguistic exhilaration. This is the context for the famous statement about synonyms that appears in the preface to the KJV: “We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words. . . . ; as for example, if we translated the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Travelling. . . . We cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ. . . . we . . . may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek.” The decision to multiply synonyms reflects Renaissance exuberance over words and is not governed by fidelity to the biblical text. It is my impression that the decision of the King James translators to provide variety rather than consonance for a given Hebrew or English word makes the KJV a less literal translation.

The ESV parts company with the KJV on this issue. The goal of the translators was to maintain as much concordance as possible (only occasionally departing from it). The preface states, 'We have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original.'

There is a complex additional dimension to concordance, namely, making New Testament quotations from the Old Testament as parallel as the original text allows. The ESV translators strove for concordance on this matter also. In the words of the preface, “As far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence.” (Ryken, Leland. The ESV and the English Bible Legacy, pp. 103-104.)

Whether Ryken and his translation philosophy is the correct one or not is not my point here. That is a hotly contested issue in biblical translation today. My point is that if one holds the position that the most literal translation is therefore automatically the besttranslation, then the ESV seems clearly to have an upper hand over the KJV at this point. In fact, every single one of the examples of inconsistency I've listed above, (and thousands of others I've not mentioned) is corrected in the ESV. Claims that the KJV is the "most literal translation" or "the most exact translation" are simply not accurate. In fact, this is a moniker that should go to an interlinear text rather than a translation to begin with. Beyond that, it should certainly go to extremely woodenly literal translations like the Young's Literal Translation of the TR before the KJV. Broughton would be proud.

Personally, I am of the opinion that while literal translation has a distinctly important place in English Bible translation, we lose the value of a different kind of accuracy when we prioritize a literal approach over a more functional approach. We should value both. As NT Wright has well noted,

"There are at least two sorts of accuracy. The first sort, which a good Lexicon will assist, is the technical accuracy of making sure that every possible nuance of every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph has been rendered into the new language. But there is a second sort of accuracy, perhaps deeper than this: the accuracy of flavour and feel. It is possible, in translation as in life, to gain the whole world and lose your own soul – to render everything with a wooden, clunky, lifeless ‘accuracy’ from which the one thing that really matters has somehow escaped, producing a gilded cage from which the precious bird has flown. Such translations – the remarkable Revised Version of the 1880s might be one such [he later lists an example from the KJV as another] – are of considerable use to the student who wants to get close to the original words. They are of far less use to the ordinary Bible reader who wants to be grasped by the actual message of the text."

(NT Wright, The Monarchs and the Message.)

This is one reason why I don't think anyone should only use the KJV, or only use any one translation. The wisest Bible readers read from different translations that come from opposing ends of the spectrum of translation philosophy. But for those who prioritize literal translation, hopefully these examples have helped to show that the KJV does not automatically hold the position of being most faithful to a literal translation philosophy.

Of course, modern scholars like Ryken are not the only ones who oppose the liberty with words that the KJV translators took. As we noted above, Hugh Broughton had been advocating for a decade before the KJV came about that a translator must be literal and consistent. And he wrote a letter to the translators during their work to provide them advice. Norton summarizes;

"It was perhaps his last attempt to influence the KJB, if only by opening the way for post-publication criticism... ‘We should’, he continues, ‘by common consent, for near tongues, express this variety, that the holy eloquence should not be transformed into barbarousness. By right dealing herein, great light and delight would be increased. The Hebrew would be in honour among all men when the inimitable style should be known how it expressed Adam’s wit’ (Works, III: 702). At the back of this lies an equation between literal translation and eloquence in translation: the translation would be eloquent not as English but as Hebrew and Greek in English....Much of Broughton’s work was ignored. But however little the KJB translators responded to its detail, it contributed significantly to the intellectual atmosphere of the time by encouraging a reverence for the eloquence of the original without arguing for an equivalent eloquence in English, but above all by demanding the whole truth and arguing that it could only be revealed through the closest attention to the words and syllables of the perfect originals." (Norton, David. A History, Page 60.)

But the KJV translators did not share Broughton's view of the perfection of the original text, nor did they share his conviction that such a view of the Bible should require a meticulous consistency in rendering, as they made plain in their preface above. And so they pressed on in the employment of their own principles. And how did he feel about the final product? He read the the new translation, and immediately sent the King his conclusions. He raised ten points of contention against it. It weakened the doctrine of the deity of Jesus. It failed to respect the Masoretic Hebrew text, correcting it in hundreds of places. And so on. In fact, the translators had essentially broken every one of the principles of translation he had been arguing for over the previous decades. And of course, it had failed to be fully literal to the original language text, which he felt was the true mark of faithful translation. And so he shared his opinion;

"The late Bible, Right Worshipful, was sent me to censure [examine]: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe. It is so ill done. Tell his Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, then any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor Churches....Bancroft raved. I gave the Anathema. Christ Judged his own cause. The New edition crosseth me, I require it be burnt."

(Hugh Broughton, A Censure of the Late Translation, 1611).

He never was one to mince words. Fortunately, not all the copies of the KJV were burned when it first appeared. It eventually became instead the standard Bible for almost 200 years. As I have noted elsewhere, this was due less to its actual merit as a translation and more to the political and economical maneuvering of those who most profited from it as a cash cow. But for whatever reasons, it came to mark the English world for centuries, and had an influence on the English language second only to Shakespeare. It remains to this day a helpful English translation that is still in use and still conveying the Word of God to many an English reader. In fact, it is quite likely the most elegant English translation ever produced. Probably no version will ever overcome it in terms of its elevated prose.

One can't help but wonder - how much of the "strangeness" that makes the voice of the King linger in our ear, and in our hearts, is due to those "verbal and unnecessary changes" which the translators seem to have so haphazardly made? Has their liberty become in fact their true legacy?

[1]

Strong’s Concordance lists the following diverse ways it is translated in the KJV; “accept, a-(be-) fore(-time), against, anger, as (long as), at, battle, because (of), beseech, countenance, edge, employ, endure, enquire, face, favor, fear of, for, forefront(-part), form(-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, him(-self), honorable, impudent, in, it, look(-eth) (-s), me, meet, more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), on, open, out of, over against, the partial, person, please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason of, regard, right forth, serve, shewbread, sight, state, straight, street, thee, them(-selves), through ( -out), till, time(-s) past, (un-) to(-ward), upon, upside ( down), with(-in, -stand), ye, you.”

Friday, November 23, 2018

Notes on Bible Translations

Why I use the New American Standard Bible