“But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry” (Authorized King James Version, 1 Cor. 7:36).
While the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, very few Americans have a mastery of these ancient languages sufficient for reading the original text. The average American requires a translation of the Bible in English in order to read, study, and interpret. This means that “the person reading the Bible only in English is at the mercy of the translator(s),” (Fee and Stuart 33). Therefore, the translator has to make interpretive and stylistic decisions based on his or her own knowledge of language and intent.
The King James Version of the Bible (KJV) was born out of a desire to standardize the English Bible. Several English versions existed by the 1600’s, but some were only in pieces and the Catholic and Puritan populations used different versions. King James himself took a special interest in Biblical translation, stating that “none of the existing English versions was translated well” (Metzger 71). Interestingly, he particularly disliked the Geneva Bible (completed 1560), which was full of Calvinist theological notes along with Biblical text. Calvinism promotes and emphasizes the sovereignty of God, which could undermine the king’s authority as the head of the Anglican Church. Consequently, KJV translator Richard Bancroft made the rule “No marginal notes at all” except in cases where the Hebrew or Greek could not be fully expressed in the English text (Tomlin 133). In fact, there is little theological leaning at all in the text of the KJV, and the translators show no interest in “a driving prior understanding of the gospel,” which was the driving force behind both the Geneva Bible and Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible (Tomlin 133).
Luther’s German translation of the Bible, completed in 1534, was another heavily influential text to come out of the Renaissance. His translation is unique for its colloquial use of German, and he criticized previous German versions for being inaccessible to the common people. “I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses” Luther writes in his Word and Sacrament I (Tomlin 127). In contrast, the KJV is not written in colloquial English of its time period, since its translators were valued more for their mastery of the ancient languages than English. Also, the translators were required to work from the Bishops’ Bible, an earlier English version used in the Anglican church, and so the archaic language from that version was preserved (Tomlin 135).
What the KJV lacked in theological leaning and colloquialism, it made up for in errors. On a smaller scale, simple printer error sometimes spelled theological disaster for print editions of this Bible. Notably, one edition was printed (now referred to as the “Wicked Bible”) which omitted the word “not” from the seventh of the ten commandments, so that it read “Thou shalt commit adultery” (Lewis 38). On a large scale, King James’ translators were ordered to work from contemporary sources such as the Bishops’ Bible, the Great Bible, Tyndale’s Bible, and others, instead of from older and more original Hebrew and Greek texts (Metzger 71). Greek and Hebrew texts were scarce in England in the early 1600’s, and what was available was far from original. The translators of the KJV simply did not have the resources available to contemporary theologians. They were working from a copy of a copy of a copy which means the final product is bound to be less than perfect, as anyone who has received a fax can attest.
Because of this, there are many words and phrases found (or not found) in the King James Bible that can change meanings of verses and biblical truths. For example, the KJV adds “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever” to the end of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 (Lewis 43). While there is nothing inherently wrong with the passage, it is not found in the most reliable older Greek versions of Matthew that are used for translation today (Wilkins 1832), and so it is not present in more contemporary versions of the Bible, such as the English Standard Version (completed in 2001). There are other, smaller additions and subtractions as well. For instance, the KJV adds the word “him” to 1 John 4:19, which makes it read “We love him because he first loved us” (emphasis added). Omitting the “him,” which is not found in contemporary translations (Lewis 43), changes the meaning of the verse drastically. Suddenly the “we” is loving in general, presumably the other inhabitants of the world, instead of directing love to just “him,” Jesus. These alterations to scripture add up to make the KJV one of the most flawed versions of the Bible. It is for this reason that Bible scholars Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart recommend not using the KJV (or its direct descendent, the New King James Version) for regular reading and study (Fee and Stuart 40).
In addition to its transcription and translation errors, the language of the KJV was quickly left behind by the evolving English language. Words used in the KJV fell out of use or became ambiguous, such as “gat,” “brigandine,” “trow,” and others. It was 1870, however, before there was a strong enough motion for a complete revision of the KJV. The Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury began the project in February of 1870 with a committee that was representative of several denominations in the United Kingdom: Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and others. In July of the same year, the committee invited American scholars to participate, but there was a definite lack of communication between the two countries. Out of this movement grew the Revised Version (RV) completed in 1885 and the American Standard Version (ASV) completed in 1901 (Lewis 72). The two committees strove to preserve the language of the KJV, which meant that, when possible, the committees did not change language that would still have been understood by their contemporary readers. Still, it added up to almost 37,000 changes to the text.
Such changes are made evident in the verse cited above, 1 Corinthians 7:36. In the RV, it reads “But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not: let them marry.” This verse comes from a section where the apostle Paul is discussing the pros and cons of being unmarried and married for Christians. The Corinthians to whom the book was written had apparently assumed that unmarried women should remain single, so that they could fully serve God. Paul agrees, but allows for marriage in this verse, since it is also part of God’s plan (Fee and Stuart 329). In the KJV and in the RV, the responsibility falls squarely on the man instead of the virgin when it comes to whether or not their behavior is sinful. The language would have sounded archaic to the audiences of 1885, with the -eth ending even added to the word “require,” but some clarifying changes to the text have been made. The relationship of the man and the virgin in this verse may have become ambiguous. What does the “his virgin” of the 1611 KJV mean? What is the nature of the relationship? In the RV, the word “daughter” has been added, clarifying that the translators thought this verse concerns the relationship between a man and his daughter if she wishes to marry. Also, the word “uncomely” from the KJV has been changed to “unseemly,” which indicates a change in meaning for the word “uncomely.” In the late 1800’s, it was more likely that “comely” referred to whether or not something was attractive, while “unseemly” referred to inappropriate behavior. Thus, changing the word to “unseemly” is more accurate to the meaning of the text. A woman should marry if she is lead to do so. In the ASV, produced at the same time, the text of this verse is mostly the same as that of the RV, except an “and” has been inserted so that the verse reads “...if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth…” which makes the verse sound more like a list. If all of the conditions are met: a man feels he is doing his daughter wrong, she is an adult, and if she needs, then she might marry.
The Bible in English has come a long way since the KJV of 1611. While that standardized version ordered by King James is still of extreme literary value for its beautiful language and heavy influence on the English language, it is less theologically valuable than the more accurate versions of today. In fact, scholars Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart recommend not studying the New King James Version (NKJV, completed 1975) at all, since it contains all the error of the KJV without the “marvelous expression of the English Language” (Fee and Stuart 40). This does not mean that it is wrong to study the KJV if the reader prefers the archaic language and is used to it, but it does mean that the reader must use caution when using the KJV to interpret a theological problem and keep in mind that the translators simply did not have the translation resources that are available to scholars today.
While it took around 250 years for a significant update to the English Bible after the King James Version (a testament to its value), it took until 1965 for another call for a significant update to the Bible. That was when translation started for the New International Version (NIV). Over the next few years, a committee of over 100 members met to translate a new version of the Bible. There were representatives from many different denominations of Christians, all of whom agreed on the authority of the Bible as God’s word, and when one book was finished it was sent from one group to another for revision. Now, the scholars, theologians, and translators had access to much older Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, not least of which were the Dead Sea Scrolls, unearthed 1946-1955 (Wise 5). These new sources were hundreds or even thousands of years older than any source of biblical translation in the past, and so provided vast new insight into the Bible. This new information was invaluable to the translators of the NIV, as they could provide a much more accurate translation of the Scriptures than the KJV. However, like Martin Luther, the translators of the NIV wanted to provide a more colloquial version of the Bible that was easy to read and study while still remaining theologically correct (Barker xii). The NIV continues to be one of the most used versions of the Bible today.
“If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning” (The New International Version, 1 Cor 7:36). The meaning of this verse has completely changed in the NIV. Now, the ambiguity of the individuals’ relationship is gone - instead of a “daughter” the word “virgin” is interpreted as the man’s fiancée. Why the change? In light of the older texts and re-examining the context of the verse (the surrounding verses all have to do with singleness and marriage, not parental relationships), this verse has been changed to better reflect the message that the apostle Paul wanted to convey. If the Corinthians were concerned about marrying or remaining single and whether one was better than the other for serving God, it makes more sense that the focus of this verse, which allows marriage, would be towards individuals of marrying age and not their parents. Still, the focus of this verse is on the man - whether or not he is the one sinning. This could have to do with the patriarchal society to which Paul was writing, where men held the power of marriage and divorce. Also, the language has been updated to something much more understandable to a contemporary reader, with no archaic language other than perhaps the word “ought.”
The English Standard Version (ESV, completed 2001), is another popular contemporary version of the Bible. Like the NIV, a team of over a hundred translators worked towards the ESV, working carefully from original texts as well as the Tyndale Bible, the KJV, and the RSV. The ESV, unlike the NIV, strives to be as literal as possible while retaining English sentence structure, following a “word-for-word” policy rather than “thought-by-thought” (ESV Study Bible 19). Because of this, the text reads very academically, which can be tricky to some readers. In the ESV, the verse reads “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry - it is no sin” (The English Standard Version, 1 Cor 7:36). Word for word, there are some significant changes from the NIV. Now the word “virgin” has been replaced with “betrothed,” a more accurate translation of the original Greek. The phrase about the woman being “past her prime” is gone too, becoming “if his passions are strong” instead. Frank S. Thielman, the Bible scholar who annotated 1 Corinthians for the ESV Study Bible, points to the Greek word hyperkamos as the source of the confusion. In referencing a woman, this word can mean “past her prime,” but Thielman argues that this is not consistent with the other verses in the section of Scripture, and that this word also translates as “strong passion.” This passion does not have to belong only to the man - a note on the ESV points out that the “his” in this case could also mean “her” passion. Verses 2, 3, and 9 of the same chapter discuss the temptation of sexual passion, and it would be strange if Paul only approved of marriage if a woman was past her prime. Therefore, Thielman concludes, this reference to the man’s passion is a more literal translation of the passage (Thielman 2201). With “let him do as he wishes,” it remains clear that the power of marriage rests with the man, but the marriage itself becomes “them,” pointing to more of a partnership. The “it is no sin” refers now to the couple, and not just the man. A much more full version of Paul’s message has come through, while still being understandable to contemporary readers.
It would be remiss not to include in this analysis a mention of two very important colloquial translations of the Bible in English, both from the 20th Century. The New Living Translation (NLT, completed 1996, revised 2007) and the Message (completed 1997). These two translations are “thought-for-thought” translations, unlike the ESV. The NLT had a team of 90 translators working on the text, with intent to translate the Bible accurately while also rendering it easy to understand to the average reader and is currently the second most popular version of the English Bible (“About the New Living Translation”). It is recommended for readers of all ages and for readers whose second language is English, but there is a caution against using this translation solely for study since it is not as accurate as a word-for-word translation (Rhodes 152). In the NLT, the Corinthians verse reads “But if a man thinks that he’s treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin” (The New Living Translation, 1 Cor 7:36). This version translates “virgin” straight to “fiancée” without stopping at “betrothed” along the way, but like the ESV it translates hyperkamos as the man’s passion instead of the woman’s age. This translation uses the contraction “he’s,” unlike the other translations examined thus far. This verse is suddenly more accessible to the contemporary reader and less academically rendered than it is in the ESV, and so it parallels the values of Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible.
Similarly, the Message translation was created to make the Bible accessible to the average reader, but it is different than the NLT in that it was translated by only one person, Eugene Peterson (with the help a small committee of scholarly consultants). This adds a certain personality to the text, but it means that the reader is locked into one man’s interpretation of the Bible. Also, there are no verse numbers this translation, to allow for less distracted reading (Peterson 10). In the Message version, the Corinthian verse reads “If a man has a woman friend to whom he is loyal but never intended to marry, having decided to serve God as a ‘single,’ and then changes his mind, deciding he should marry her, he should go ahead and marry. It’s no sin; it’s not even a ‘step down’ from celibacy, as some say” (The Message, 1 Cor 7:36). Peterson places the focus of this verse squarely on the man, but does not indicate that the man and woman in this verse have a romantic relationship to start with. He also expands on the verse, bringing context from other parts of the chapter by reminding readers that some of the Corinthians have said that celibacy is better, spiritually, than marriage. This version is an expansion of “thought-for-thought” translation, almost paraphrasing the verse instead, which can be helpful for study but is recommended for use alongside a more literal translation as it is “clearly in the idiom of the 1990’s” (Wegner 389).
As the English language continues to change, it must follow that translations of the Bible will change with it. In the myriad English translations available, it is important to find one that is easy for the reader to understand while also as accurate as possible based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts now available. It might also be prudent to read two contrasting versions of the Bible, in order to gain a fuller understanding of the text. Regardless, English Bible translation will hopefully continue to improve as the spread of information persists.
Works Cited
"About the New Living Translation." Tyndale.com. Web. Accessed 03 May 2017. <https://www.tyndale.com/nlt>.
Barker, Kenneth L., and Donald W. Burdick. "Preface to the New International Version." Preface. The NIV Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible, 1986. Xii. Print.
The Bible. Authorized King James Version. Simon and Schuster: New York, 1951. Print.
The ESV Study Bible. Ed. Dennis, Lane T. et al. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles. 2008. Print.
Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. Print.
Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible Book by Book: A Guided Tour. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2013. Print.
The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments: Translated out of the Original Tongues, Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised A.D. 1881-1885. Fort Worth, TX: Star Bible Publications, 1929. Print.
Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible from KJV to NIV. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991. Print.
The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible, 1986. Print.
Peterson, Eugene H. The Message. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004. Print.
Rhodes, Ron. The Complete Guide to Bible Translations. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009. Print.
Thielman, Frank S. “1 Corinthians.” The ESV Study Bible. Ed. Dennis, Lane T. et al. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles. 2008. Print.
Tomlin, Graham. “Luther’s Approach to Bible Translation and the KJV.” The King James Version at 400: Assessing its Genius as Bible Translation and its Literary Influence. Ed. Burke, David G., et al. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Print.
Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Print.
Wilkins, Michael J. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” The ESV Study Bible. Ed. Dennis, Lane T. et al. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles. 2008. Print.
Wise, Michael Owen, Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. 1st ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment