KJV Revision - Calling all Received Text Onlyists!

[tdh86]

How about a website where you could answer questions about your age, background, and education level, and it spits out a Bible translated just for you. If readability is the goal, then that would be the way to go.

Or just do what Tyndale did, go for the lowest common denominator. What would the plough-boy understand? Hey, if it's good enough for Tyndale...

 

[KMK]

Or just do what Tyndale did, go for the lowest common denominator. What would the plough-boy understand? Hey, if it's good enough for Tyndale...

If readability is the most important thing, then with today's technology I am sure we can do better than Tyndale.

 

[Edward]

Then poetry would pose a real problem.

Exposure to more forms, not a restriction to less forms, will improve the readability of the reader.

You are aware, aren't you, that the current verse numbers weren't in the original texts and that putting line breaks in at each verse number doesn't necessarily reflect the original structure?

And I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with "will improve the readability of the reader" - perhaps that is something that needs a translation from Australian English to American English, because the preposition used there doesn't seem to work here.

And are you suggesting by saying "Exposure to more forms, not a restriction to less forms" that the non-poetical portions of scripture should be converted to rhyme or other novel structure to expand the mind of the reader, at the expense of communication?

 

[MW]

But if you think we should leave Master in instead of Teacher then I submit that that is very unhelpful.

You seem to be able to recognise that master means teacher within a certain context. Why do you think that this would be too difficult for others to grasp? Are you crediting the reader with intellectual capacity?

 

[MW]

You are aware, aren't you, that the current verse numbers weren't in the original texts and that putting line breaks in at each verse number doesn't necessarily reflect the original structure?

English contains punctuation to demonstrate continuity and discontinuity. Line breaks are useful for reading in specific contexts. I have heard of instances where readers of the Greek have expressed a desire for the text to be broken up for ease of reference. Although the verses are not original they are a convention for ease of access.

"Improve the reader's ability to read" might be a better way of phrasing it.

Modern education is "constructivist." It aims to teach students to be creative and revolutionary. Modern Bible translation tends in the same direction. Bible translation has traditionally been conducted on a "receptionist" basis. Onus was laid on the reader to understand the text and Bible reading was seen as a discipline to be cultivated as a part of "hearing" and "receiving" the word of the Lord. Creativity was not the aim.

 

[MW]

Well, the KJV's language was understandable "to the most vulgar" of their own time. Today's "most vulgar" do not speak or read 16th- or 17th-century English. A modern translation, even an updating of the KJV, should reflect our time, not theirs. Also, in the New Testament, the KJV is about 80% William Tyndale's translation, which was already almost 100 years old then. So, even in 1611, the KJV's English in the New Testament was already somewhat archaic and out-of-date.

From where is the superlative "most" being derived?

While you continue to use the word "vulgar" and expect people to understand what you mean within context you are demonstrating that people have enough intelligence to know when to take a word or phrase with some elasticity.

The fact that Tyndale and the AV translators used a form of language which was already out of step with the way contemporary readers spoke the English language demonstrates that "readability" and being "vulgar" did not relate to the spoken word, but were determined by the quality of the written word. Even Tyndale's ploughboy would need to plough in the scriptures and labour with his mind in order to reap a reward. There was not the type of "immediacy" of understanding which modern translations aim to produce.

 

[Edward]

Paragraph format is nice for devotional reading, but for preaching I need verse by verse format. Otherwise I struggle to find particular verses when I look back down at my Bible.

Fair enough, but the original post dealt with readability, not preachability, so I'll stand on my comment.

 

[tdh86]

You seem to be able to recognise that master means teacher within a certain context. Why do you think that this would be too difficult for others to grasp? Are you crediting the reader with intellectual capacity?

Because I listen to what other people say. And hear everyone's presumption that master means lord. And have asked them directly if they know what it means. And invariably they refer to lordship. I'm saying that leaving in a word that is often misleading to the modern reader is irresponsible.

 

[MW]

Because I listen to what other people say. And hear everyone's presumption that master means lord. And have asked them directly if they know what it means. And invariably they refer to lordship. I'm saying that leaving in a word that is often misleading to the modern reader is irresponsible.

The text is not misleading if a person is unaware of the meaning of words. Once readers are shown that "master" also means "teacher" in certain contexts they should be glad to be better informed about their mother tongue. Instruction should aim to impart more information, not less.

 

[tdh86]

Or...we could just change the word to the modern equivalent and stop playing educational games with the word of God...

 

[Logan]

Or...we could just change the word to the modern equivalent and stop playing educational games with the word of God...

I agree. Where do we read that the KJV translators aimed to increase the vocabulary of their readers? Or that the Reformers believed the hallmark of a good translation was that it stretched the reader in order to be able to understand it? Or that it needed archaisms to challenge people to increase in knowledge?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We read it from our Confession's summary of Scripture concerning the topic:

WCF 1.5
"5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13-14, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Isa. 59:21)"

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Individual words matter, of course. We don't want to remove words like "justification," "propitiation," etc.

I also love my HCSB. But I have been sadened to discover that the CSB does not use the word propitiation. I think this has unfortunate copnsequences.

As RC Sproul explains "Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God... It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of a holy God Who’s wrathful" http://www.ligonier.org/blog/two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiation/

In a society where there is little fear of God, we need to retain the word propitiation.

 

[MW]

Or...we could just change the word to the modern equivalent and stop playing educational games with the word of God...

The idea that there are "word-for-word" equivalents is somewhat simplistic. A single word might not serve the original intention where a variety of contexts is in view. In this case it can be beneficial to have other expressions to expand on the meaning and show that the word has broader connotations than "one who teaches." One who has "mastery" as a teacher should be called a "master." If there is no modern equivalent in the reader's day to day vocabulary (although "school-master" immediately comes to mind) then obviously readers are going to have to learn the meaning of new words. That is to be expected where the field of knowledge is broader than the person's day to day experience. Tyndale introduced words into the English language by means of his translation. He did not conceive a problem with his ploughboy learning the meaning of words so as to grow in knowledge of the language he was using.

 

[MW]

W. Harold Mare, 'Teacher and Rabbi in the New Testament Period' in Grace Theological Journal 11.3 (1970) 11-21, notes the following technical usage of didaskalos in the New Testament:

"That the terms rabbi and didaskalos are understood in the Gospels as equivalents is seen John 1:38 and John 20:16. The complex of rabbi-didaskalos and mathetes (disciple, learner), that is, the master-teacher and his group of followers, is presented regarding Jesus and His disciples in John 1:37-38; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8, and also of John the Baptist and his group (John 3:26)."

After examining the extra-biblical evidence he concludes as follows:

"In summary, it is to be observed that rabbi together with didaskalos began to be used for the idea of teacher-master at about the time of Christ, as is evidenced by the New Testament Gospels and some early archaeological evidence from inscriptions, and the corroborative evidence from Josephus and Philo in the use of equivalent terms. Then as the transition between the Jewish economy and Christian Church continued, the term rabbi no longer had a place in the latter as is evidenced by the lack of the use of the term rabbi in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. Even didaskalos outside the Gospels is sparingly used in the Acts and the Epistles, this latter term seeming to be reserved basically for Jesus (compare also Ignatius; Mag. IX, Jesus Christ, our only didaskalos). This is corroborated in the Apostolic Fathers where rabbi doesn't occur at all and where didaskalos is used but relatively infrequently. But on the other hand, as Judaism continued and developed in its own way, the title “Rabbi” became increasingly important in Jewish practice and tradition as is evidenced by Talmudic tradition."

 

[MW]

Tyndale's epistle To the Reader in the preface to the New Testament, 1526, is available here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndale2.html

Observe that he hoped in time to come to add a "table to expound the words which are not commonly used and show how the Scripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common people, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not another."

 

[tdh86]

I agree. Where do we read that the KJV translators aimed to increase the vocabulary of their readers? Or that the Reformers believed the hallmark of a good translation was that it stretched the reader in order to be able to understand it? Or that it needed archaisms to challenge people to increase in knowledge?

Precisely! Thanks Logan!

 

[tdh86]

We read it from our Confession's summary of Scripture concerning the topic:

WCF 1.5
"5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13-14, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Isa. 59:21)"

As Logan asked, 'Where do we read that the KJV translators aimed to increase the vocabulary of their readers? Or that the Reformers believed the hallmark of a good translation was that it stretched the reader in order to be able to understand it? Or that it needed archaisms to challenge people to increase in knowledge?' That quote doesn't address any of those questions. It speaks of majesty of style but are we honestly saying that KJV language is the only way English can sound majestic??

 

[tdh86]

I also love my HCSB. But I have been sadened to discover that the CSB does not use the word propitiation. I think this has unfortunate copnsequences.

As RC Sproul explains "Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God... It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of a holy God Who’s wrathful" http://www.ligonier.org/blog/two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiation/

In a society where there is little fear of God, we need to retain the word propitiation.

I'm going to get shot down here I know but I don't agree. The big doctrines of the Word of God are vitally important and we need to be careful that we don't dumb them down but, for me, the word propitiation is essentially meaningless to most people. I've asked mature believers to tell me what propitiation means and virtually everyone struggles. They know the word but they don't really have a clear definition in their minds. I know there are some words which just don't have another word which means exactly the same thing and so there is no option of using a synonym but I would argue that, in this case, the word 'appeasement' brings clarity and means exactly the same thing. And it's a word that we all use and understand. So why would we not use it? The KJV already substitutes 'make reconciliation' for the same Greek word in Hebrews 2 so using synonyms doesn't have to be a sin... ;-)

 

[tdh86]

The idea that there are "word-for-word" equivalents is somewhat simplistic. A single word might not serve the original intention where a variety of contexts is in view. In this case it can be beneficial to have other expressions to expand on the meaning and show that the word has broader connotations than "one who teaches." One who has "mastery" as a teacher should be called a "master." If there is no modern equivalent in the reader's day to day vocabulary (although "school-master" immediately comes to mind) then obviously readers are going to have to learn the meaning of new words. That is to be expected where the field of knowledge is broader than the person's day to day experience. Tyndale introduced words into the English language by means of his translation. He did not conceive a problem with his ploughboy learning the meaning of words so as to grow in knowledge of the language he was using.

It would be simplistic if I thought that the same word should always be used in every instance, regardless of context and any other considerations. Or that using a synonym always works. But I don't. Sometimes it doesn't work. But it often does.
For example, there are numerous passages in the NT where the KJV uses the word 'unbelieving' but some modern translations use the word 'disobedient' (or something along those lines) instead. That is because the Greek word has the element of rebelliousness in it. But that issue can, in fact, be easily resolved by substituting one word. If we use the word disbelieving instead of unbelieving then we can incorporate both ideas into one word. We then have:

noun: disbelief

1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

as opposed to...

noun: unbelief

1. lack of religious belief; an absence of faith.

 

[tdh86]

W. Harold Mare, 'Teacher and Rabbi in the New Testament Period' in Grace Theological Journal 11.3 (1970) 11-21, notes the following technical usage of didaskalos in the New Testament:

"That the terms rabbi and didaskalos are understood in the Gospels as equivalents is seen John 1:38 and John 20:16. The complex of rabbi-didaskalos and mathetes (disciple, learner), that is, the master-teacher and his group of followers, is presented regarding Jesus and His disciples in John 1:37-38; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8, and also of John the Baptist and his group (John 3:26)."

After examining the extra-biblical evidence he concludes as follows:

"In summary, it is to be observed that rabbi together with didaskalos began to be used for the idea of teacher-master at about the time of Christ, as is evidenced by the New Testament Gospels and some early archaeological evidence from inscriptions, and the corroborative evidence from Josephus and Philo in the use of equivalent terms. Then as the transition between the Jewish economy and Christian Church continued, the term rabbi no longer had a place in the latter as is evidenced by the lack of the use of the term rabbi in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. Even didaskalos outside the Gospels is sparingly used in the Acts and the Epistles, this latter term seeming to be reserved basically for Jesus (compare also Ignatius; Mag. IX, Jesus Christ, our only didaskalos). This is corroborated in the Apostolic Fathers where rabbi doesn't occur at all and where didaskalos is used but relatively infrequently. But on the other hand, as Judaism continued and developed in its own way, the title “Rabbi” became increasingly important in Jewish practice and tradition as is evidenced by Talmudic tradition."

So then, since master-teacher isn't a word and we have to pick a word, then why would we consciously use 'master' instead of 'teacher' when there is far more of the teacher aspect in the Greek word than of the master aspect? That seems deliberately perverse.

 

[Logan]

I just recently spoke with a co-worker of mine who is Roman Catholic. Note that he is quite an intelligent and diligent individual. He started reading the Bible for the first time with a study group and said that, not knowing any better, he picked up the KJV. After a couple months of struggling he finally admitted to his friend (and study leader) that he felt like he was slogging his way through each daily reading and would come away having read through it multiple times and still not able to understand what he was reading. Specifically he noted he just couldn't get past the language: there were so many "ands" stringing things together, words that he just didn't understand or were used differently, and "th" endings that would take up his attention so that the meaning of the whole was lost.

His words were "it reminded me actually, of when we have services in Latin twice a year and I come away feeling like I didn't learn anything at all from it." And he was frustrated about it, because he genuinely wanted to understand!

Now obviously the language can be surmounted, but I sometimes think people who advocate the KJV are familiar with it to the point that they don't realize that it is not an insignificant hurdle to what is probably the majority of people. I love the language and I am making sure my children are familiar with it, but the implication of that attitude is that the common man spends what practically ends up being years understanding the language before he can really even begin to understand scripture masked by it. I see this as a problem.

This is a good litmus test for me: I understand there is a history to translations and a new translation doesn't come from a vacuum, but if we were to translate the word of God into English for the first time, would the final result look like the KJV? Or even were the KJV translators to have lived in our own day instead of 400 years ago, would the resulting translation look like the KJV? Then maybe it's time for a translation in the language of the common people. Let's not erect an artificial barrier of our own design to the Word of God.

 

[Dachaser]

I just recently spoke with a co-worker of mine who is Roman Catholic. Note that he is quite an intelligent and diligent individual. He started reading the Bible for the first time with a study group and said that, not knowing any better, he picked up the KJV. After a couple months of struggling he finally admitted to his friend (and study leader) that he felt like he was slogging his way through each daily reading and would come away having read through it multiple times and still not able to understand what he was reading. Specifically he noted he just couldn't get past the language: there were so many "ands" stringing things together, words that he just didn't understand or were used differently, and "th" endings that would take up his attention so that the meaning of the whole was lost.

His words were "it reminded me actually, of when we have services in Latin twice a year and I come away feeling like I didn't learn anything at all from it." And he was frustrated about it, because he genuinely wanted to understand!

Now obviously the language can be surmounted, but I sometimes think people who advocate the KJV are familiar with it to the point that they don't realize that it is not an insignificant hurdle to what is probably the majority of people. I love the language and I am making sure my children are familiar with it, but the implication of that attitude is that the common man spends what practically ends up being years understanding the language before he can really even begin to understand scripture masked by it. I see this as a problem.

This is a good litmus test for me: I understand there is a history to translations and a new translation doesn't come from a vacuum, but if we were to translate the word of God into English for the first time, would the final result look like the KJV? Or even were the KJV translators to have lived in our own day instead of 400 years ago, would the resulting translation look like the KJV? Then maybe it's time for a translation in the language of the common people. Let's not erect an artificial barrier of our own design to the Word of God.

The truth is that the translator themselves of the 1611 KJV saw it built upon the foundation of prior versions, and they did not regard their work as either inspired nor infallible, and that future versions would later on build upon their work to create better versions of the bible..
The entire purpose was to get the truths of the scriptures into language that the common laity could use and study, so there was even from the start no attempt to have the KJVO position advocated.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Tim,

The requirements for Scripture that is to be used in the pulpit are not the same as those elsewhere. We come to worship to hear the word of God. A high view of worship and reverent hearing of God's timeless and eternal character in His special revelation saturates the previously given quote from the WCF. The majesty of the style of the translation and its heavenliness speaks to its spiritual, linguistic, educational, and cultural transcendence. When the ordained servant declares from the pulpit, "this is the word of God, he who has ears to hear, let him hear" do we in the pulpit sit in judgment of that declaration?

We need not dilute the special revelation of God presuming that the everyman is incapable of discovering its truths with the aid of the Holy Spirit. We need not concern ourselves with making things "easy" or presume that the church has somehow got it all wrong and great changes are needed. Rather, we are reminded in the Confession that it is the Church that has received the translation, and held it to high and reverent esteem. The Scripture is not a mere conversational discourse as we would have in the streets. When we hear the word of God we should be provoked to reverence that stops us in our daily tracks and quiets the conversational noises of our minds. Study of Scripture is a lifelong endeavor, its riches likely never to be fully plumbed. The attitude that reading of Scripture is a "one and done" activity bewilders me. All the stories of persons having to read and re-read in order to understand given as evidence of "issues" speaks more to lack of discipline and modern fast-food mentalities, not manifest needs for translation updating.

You assert in your OP that you have done a lot of research into the matter. Where is it? What does it conclude that has been overlooked by those that have come before us? What are the readability research results you have found? How do they compare to say, this: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/most-literal.92577/#post-1129861 ? Where on the literal scale shown therein will your translation fall? Above the ESV? What about readability? Above the NLT, which is but a poor man's commentary? What quantitative methods did you use and how do they compare to, say, this: https://csbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Quantitative-Translation-Evaluation-by-GBI.pdf ?

Given these small samplings of the wealth of research that exists, how is your endeavor to be distinguished? Finally, what academic linguistic and textual skills do you bring to the effort? Are you translating a translation with help from lexicons? Are you beginning with the best Hebrew and Greek versions (which are exactly?) and going from there?

I am going to bow out now. Your OP solicited inputs. They have been given. It may be just me, but it seems the inputs you seek must be aligned with your own views else they are to be subjected to argumentation and dismissed. I think you are a wee bit entrenched in the methods you are using and no amount of input is going to move you off that position.

 

[Logan]

All the stories of persons having to read and re-read in order to understand given as evidence of "issues" speaks more to lack of discipline and modern fast-food mentalities, not manifest needs for translation updating.

In mine I did specifically preface it with the individual being diligent and intelligent. Need I have stated that he began reading the NIV and immediately found it more fruitful and helpful to his understanding? Does this not indicate that the language was the barrier, not the content?

It is completely understandable to need to study, read, and re-read Scripture to understand it. What astonishes me is that in these discussions, some seem to equate that to needing to study, read, and re-read 16th century English. Those two are not the same nor do they need to be! This attitude is so unlike the Reformers and Puritans that it should hardly need describing. If the Scottish Puritans were prepared to send a commission to request update of the AV because there were some words and idioms difficult for their people to understand (and that only a few decades after its translation), then why is it so unthinkable that the need would be there centuries after?

You can criticize modern society or attention span all you want, I'll be right there with you. Still, that does not mean that there is no language barrier or problem here. God intends for us to wrestle with the content, I do not believe he intends for us to wrestle with language, which is why we have translations in the first place.

I have an issue with reading WCF 1.5 that way. Scripture has an intrinsic majesty regardless of translation.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Scripture has an intrinsic majesty regardless of translation.

Really? Regardless of translation?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
Src: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/

 

[Dachaser]

In mine I did specifically preface it with the individual being diligent and intelligent. Need I have stated that he began reading the NIV and immediately found it more fruitful and helpful to his understanding? Does this not indicate that the language was the barrier, not the content?

It is completely understandable to need to study, read, and re-read Scripture to understand it. What astonishes me is that in these discussions, some seem to equate that to needing to study, read, and re-read 16th century English. Those two are not the same nor do they need to be! This attitude is so unlike the Reformers and Puritans that it should hardly need describing. If the Scottish Puritans were prepared to send a commission to request update of the AV because there were some words and idioms difficult for their people to understand (and that only a few decades after its translation), then why is it so unthinkable that the need would be there centuries after?

You can criticize modern society or attention span all you want, I'll be right there with you. Still, that does not mean that there is no language barrier or problem here. God intends for us to wrestle with the content, I do not believe he intends for us to wrestle with language, which is why we have translations in the first place.

I have an issue with reading WCF 1.5 that way. Scripture has an intrinsic majesty regardless of translation.

The word of God is not tied into a particular translation, for in a real sense, the word of the Lord are the original language texts today, and so any reliable English translation should be seen as being the scriptures to us for today...

if the KJV speaks best to you, by all means use it, but to me the Nas and Esv speak more clearly...

 

[Dachaser]

Really? Regardless of translation?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
Src: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/

Worst "translation" ever produced...

 

[Logan]

Really? Regardless of translation?

Patrick, I often benefit from your posts but it seems quite uncharitable to pretend I include the NWT as a translation of Scripture. But yes, the majesty is intrinsic to Scripture and the translation will have a majesty in so far as it represents Scripture. The point being that it is not the language used in translation, but Scripture's intrinsic nature (regardless of translation) that is the majesty the WCF references.

 

[MW]

So then, since master-teacher isn't a word and we have to pick a word, then why would we consciously use 'master' instead of 'teacher' when there is far more of the teacher aspect in the Greek word than of the master aspect? That seems deliberately perverse.

In a previous post you said you were open to one word being translated different ways. When the word contains the nuance of the rabbi it is translated as master. When it relates simply to one who gives instruction it is translated teacher.