By Dave Armstrong (11-15-13)
[this Introduction runs 12 pages in the book]
I've often thought about (as an outgrowth of my
great love for the Bible) a “fresh” version that would retain the
grandeur and majesty of the Authorized / “King James” Version's 1611 English.
The general idea of removing archaisms has
basically been done in well-known and widely used translations (I
myself always use RSV in my study and my books) and many other
lesser-known translations (all revisions of the King James Bible, or
revisions of revisions: ASV to NASB / RV to RSV / KJV to NKJV, etc.).
The present work is a similar “hybrid”.
I don't know Greek, and am therefore not
qualified in the slightest to actually translate. But I know
English (as a professional author) and know the Bible (as a longtime
Christian apologist) very well. This work, accordingly, isn't
technically a new translation at all, but rather a “selection” or
collection of what I personally felt were the best renderings that
maintained the KJV style as much as possible without the archaisms.
This can't escape being my “subjective project”
in that sense. I am the editor and determine the overall text,
but (I can't emphasize this highly enough) I'm not translator of even
a single word. This New Testament is the product of a selection of
wording from among the chosen renderings of those who are
legitimate translators.
The main criticism or complaint will probably be
that this work is presumptuous. It will be misunderstood by
some, perhaps many, as to its vision and intent. I don't think it is
presumptuous at all, though, if someone merely selects from
among the many existing translations (all done by linguists and
scholars) and comes up with a new hybrid entity with the goal stated
up front and made very clear: good English style and maintaining the
KJV / Rheims Elizabethan “feel” while also emphasizing
literalness of translation and understandability. I'm not claiming to
be anything I am not; I'm just a lover of the Bible and good,
classic, beautiful English writing.
I'm a great fan, specifically, of 18th and 19th
century English prose (e.g., John Henry Newman, John Wesley, G. K. Chesterton: all authors I've massively read and from whom I've
collected quotes for published “quotable” books). I also enjoy
authors who continue this stylistic tradition, like C. S. Lewis,
Ronald Knox, Thomas Howard, and others. That sense of style in prose
(insofar as I have been influenced by it) is the leading motif or
influence in my modifying or “updating” the KJV language and
style (mostly whole verses and/or sentences; occasionally individual
words or phrases).
If I were merely to update the KJV, it would be
doing something scarcely different from what has been done a dozen
times or more. But in highlighting the “Victorian” style of
18th-19th century British literature and Bible translations, the
project thus acquires a uniqueness.
This is the selling point: updating the KJV
with a 19th century high Victorian style that would have some
strong sense of stylistic similarity (or analogous excellence, if you
will) to Elizabethan English. It would be, in a word, a Bible for
lovers of great English literature (both Elizabethan and Victorian):
not for everyone, but for those who already have this
interest, as I do.
The overall goal is “literal translation with
[in revised passages] 19th century English style and flowing,
readable quality.” Passages that remain magnificent today in the
KJV or the Rheims 1582 New Testament need not be changed, as long as
they are still able to be sufficiently understood. Other phrases or
words strange or altogether unknown to us now, will be modified by
choosing from other translations from the “Victorian” time period
or shortly after it: all from Englishmen or (in two cases) Scotsmen.
No American translations will be utilized.
There are plenty of translations available that
fit the bill for what I'm looking for, that are in the public domain
(no copyright issues or conflicts). I have arrived at five that I'll
be utilizing for alternate renderings (The Rheims New Testament
provides an alternate “Elizabethan” translation in addition to
the 1611 KJV):
1)
Rheims New Testament (1582): the work principally of the Catholic
priest Gregory Martin, with assistance from four other men.
2)
Young's Literal Translation (revised version of 1887)
by Scotsman Robert Young: the same person who produced an elaborate Bible concordance (1879).
4) Twentieth Century New Testament (1904).
5) James Moffatt New Testament (1922): Moffatt was also a Scotsman.
My methodology, was to start with the KJV and Rheims New Testaments (the two “Elizabethan” ones), determine if one or the other was to be used, or else use another translation for passages that are archaic or different in meaning due to the evolution of English. Alternate renderings came from among the four additional scholarly translations above. By this method, only real, existing (and acclaimed) translations are utilized. Again; I didn't “translate” a single word; I couldn't, since I don't know Greek. I also consulted the RSV and NASB versions as “models” in cases where it was difficult to choose which version to use.
I need to note a few elements of my editing,
before I present a summary of the translations utilized:
1) Quotations from the
Old Testament will be italicized (the method that Moffatt uses), will
retain the older (KJV / Rheims) style, in order to convey a sense of
citing ancient literature, and will be followed by the listing of the
Old Testament passage cited (utilizing NASB cross-references).
2) No quotation marks
will be used (KJV style). Quotations will start with a capital
letter, following a comma.
3) The only changes to
existing texts that I will make at all will be to capitalization
(e.g., Weymouth uses capitalized divine pronouns; I will not,
following the practice of most versions), or changing period to commas,
etc., in order to make the text flow across verses.
4) Following the
previous point, standardized proper names will be used, that are the
most common (e.g., “Zebedee” rather than “Zebediah” or
“Zabdi”: as some of the above versions render it). “Holy Spirit”
will be used rather than “Holy Ghost.” I will change these in the
text (but this can hardly be considered “translating” – since
names often show variation).
5) The standard usage
of “LORD” and “God” will be followed, rather than “Jehovah”
or “Yahweh” or other alternate renderings.
The Authorized / King James Version of 1611 was
translated by 47 men from the Church of England: all but one,
clergymen, and most of the best biblical scholars in England. The
text of the Bishops' Bible (1572) was the primary guide for
the translators, and (secondarily) other approved translations: the
Tyndale Bible (1536),
Coverdale Bible (1535),
Great Bible (1539),
and (especially, after the Bishop's Bible), the Geneva
Bible (1560).
In fact, the KJV Preface reveals that the
translators regarded their work as a revision primarily of the
Bishops' Bible, rather than a fresh translation:
. . . we never thought
from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor
yet to make a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better,
or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be
excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.
The New Testament portion was also stylistically
influenced to a considerable extent by the Catholic Rheims New
Testament, with the demonstrable adoption even of many of the
former's extensive and colorful “Latinate” words.
It was revised in a “Cambridge edition” in 1760: the culmination of twenty years of work by biblical scholar Francis Sawyer Parris (1707-1760), incorporating about about 24,000 changes: mostly outdated spelling and punctuation, and archaic language (as it was regarded at that time). Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), slightly modified this 1760 version at Oxford in 1769: the result being the standard text ever since (excepting a few more changes).
The KJV's profound influence on English language
and literature is so well-known that it hardly needs to be mentioned.
F. F. Bruce (1910-1990), the great biblical scholar, in his book, History of the Bible in English (Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 1978,
pp. 109-110), stated:
A study of its prose
rhythms suggests that the men responsible for it (not only King
James's revisers but their predecessors as far back as Tyndale) had
an instinctive feeling for good style. . . Prose rhythms do not
obtrude themselves on the notice of readers or hearers, but they make
a powerful impression none the less. Harsh combinations of sounds or
accents, on the other hand, produce a sense of distaste.
The Rheims New Testament (1582), like all
Catholic versions until the 20th century, was a translation of St.
Jerome's Latin Vulgate from the 5th century, though primary
translator Gregory Martin “conferred” with Greek manuscripts as
well, and his version shows particular awareness of subtle
distinctions in the Greek past tense; moreover, Bruce noted (pp.
122-123) that its treatment of the Greek definite article was “more
accurate” than that of the KJV. It also was influenced by the
Protestant Tyndale translation and the earlier Wycliffe Bible.
It was greatly revised by Bishop Richard
Challoner in 1750; drawing considerably from KJV style, as his “base
text.” The result was a revised version – geared towards greater
readability – that bore more similarity to the KJV than its own
heavily “latinate” predecessor. Bruce describes a “profound
influence . . . even more in the cadences of the language than in the
vocabulary” (p. 125).
Young's
Literal Translation, produced by Scottish
Bible scholar Robert Young (1822-1888), fully lives up to its name.
It's considered the most literal translation of the Bible available.
The work was first published in 1862, but revised in 1887, in order
to take into account the cutting-edge Westcott–Hort Greek
text.
In the Preface to the second
edition, the translator unequivocally states:
This
inspiration extends only to the original text, as
it came from the pens of the writers, not to
any translations ever made by man, however aged, venerable, or good;
and only in so far as any of these adhere to the original--neither
adding to nor omitting from it one particle--are they of any real
value, for, to the extent that they vary
from the original, the doctrine of verbal inspiration is lost, so far
as that version is concerned.
If a
translation gives a present tense
when the original gives a past,
or a past when it has
a present; a perfect
for a future, or a
future for a perfect;
an a for a the,
or a the for an a;
an imperative for a
subjunctive, or a
subjunctive for an
imperative; a verb
for a noun, or a noun
for a verb, it is
clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no
existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.
[emphasis in original] . . .
The following translation need not, and ought not, to be considered, in any sense, as coming into competition with the Common Version, but as one to be used in connection with it, and as auxiliary to it; and not a few assurances have been received from clergymen and others that they thus use it, and find it at once interesting and profitable.
F. F. Bruce describes it as
“designed to put the English reader as far as possible on a level
with the reader of the Hebrew and Greek texts” (p. 132).
The Twentieth
Century New Testament (1904) was done by
twenty British translators who weren't scholars in the field, but who
knew koine Greek.
These included wives of ministers, housewives, school teachers,
telegraph engineers, and railroad workers. It's considered the first
“modern English” Bible. F. F. Bruce marvels at it:
How they
succeeded in producing such an excellent version is difficult to
understand. In later years several scholars have been glad to avail
themselves of interpretations and renderings suggested by this
non-specialist effort. (p. 154)
The aims of the translators are made
very clear in the Preface:
This
translation of the New Testament is an endeavour to do for the
English nation what has been done already for the people of almost
all other countries to enable Englishmen to read the most important
part of their Bible in that form of their own language which they
themselves use. It had its origin in the recognition of the fact that
the English of the Authorized Version (closely followed in that of
the Revised Version), though widely valued for its antique charm, is
in many passages difficult, or even quite unintelligible to the
modern reader. The retention, too, of a form of
English no longer in common use is liable to give the impression that
the contents of the Bible have little to do with the life of today. .
. .
We
believe that the New Testament will be better understood by modern
readers if presented in a modern form; and that a translation of it,
which presents the original in an exalted literary and antiquated
dress, cannot, despite its aroma and the tender memories that have
gathered around it, really make the New Testament for the reader of
to-day the living reality that it was to its first readers. . . .
Our
constant effort, . . . has been to exclude all words and phrases not
used in current English.
By contrast, Baptist linguist and
classical scholar Richard Francis Weymouth (1822-1902) was the lone
translator of the Modern Speech New Testament (1903): usually
known today by his name. F. F. Bruce gives his opinion of the work:
. . . the
translator had no other object in view than the rendering of the New
Testament into dignified modern English, with no theological or
ecclesiastical bias . . .
His
“modern speech” is not ultra-modern; he had no objection to using
archaic words provided that they were still understood at the
beginning of the twentieth century. “Without at least a tinge of
antiquity, it is scarcely possible that there should be that dignity
of style that befits the sacred themes.” . . .
It was a
good omen that the first years of this century should see two such
admirable versions of the New Testament in good twentieth-century
English. (pp. 157, 160)
Linguist, exegete, and Church
historian James Moffatt (1870-1944), a Scotsman from Glasgow,
produced the final revision of his New Testament in 1922, for his New
Translation of the entire Bible. He wrote in a 1926 Introduction
to his work:
The aim I
have endeavoured to keep before my mind in making this translation
has been to present the books of the Old and the New Testament in
effective, intelligible English. No translation of an ancient classic
can be quite intelligible, it is true, unless the reader is
sufficiently acquainted with its environment to understand some of
its flying allusions and characteristic metaphors. But something may
be done and, I am convinced, ought to be done at the present day to
offer the unlearned a transcript of the Biblical literature as it
lies in the light thrown upon it by modern research. The Bible is not
always what it seems to those who read it in the great prose of the
English version, or, indeed, in any of the conventional versions.
What it is, may be partly suggested by a new rendering, such as the
following pages present, that is, a fresh translation of the
original, not a revision of any English version.
And four years earlier in a Preface
to his New Testament, he stated:
Any
new translation starts under a special handicap. It appears to
challenge in every line the rhythm and diction of an English classic,
and this irritates many who have no knowledge of the original. The
old, they say, is better. . . . But intelligibility is more than
associations, and to atone in part for the loss of associations I
have endeavoured to make the New Testament, especially St. Paul's
epistles, as intelligible to a modern English reader as any version
that is not a paraphrase can hope to make them.
F. F. Bruce is a great admirer of
Moffatt's version as well:
Moffatt's
translation is characterized by the freedom and vigour of his idiom .
. . if a translator's business is to produce on his readers the same
effect as the original text produced on those who read and heard it,
Moffatt succeeded wonderfully; and this is part of the secret of the
popularity of his version. (pp. 167-168)
. . . to
read through . . . a New Testament epistle in his version is one of
the best ways to get a grasp of the general argument. And people who
have been brought up to know and love the A.V. [KJV] from infancy
should consider that much of it sounds foreign to those who have not
been brought up to appreciate its wording. To such people Moffatt
undoubtedly has made the Bible message intelligible . . . (p. 171)
Moffatt makes many
highly interesting observations about translation in general, and his
own. In his last Preface to his complete Bible, from December 1934,
he wrote:
.
. . any translator has a deep sense of responsibility. . . . He
desires his transcript to be faithful to the meaning of the original,
so far as he can reach that meaning, and also to do some justice to
its literary qualities. But he is well aware that his aim often
exceeds his grasp. Translation may be a fascinating task, yet no
discipline is more humbling.
In the 39-page
Introduction to the 1926 edition of the New Translation of the
Bible, Moffatt continues his thought-provoking reflections:
To
the best of my ability, I have tried to be exact and idiomatic. . . .
Gradually
but steadily the English version of 1611 won the power and prestige
of a classic. For one thing, it was literature, as none of its
predecessors were, not even Tyndale nor the Douai version. “How
real a creation,” says Newman [in The Idea
of a University] how sui
generis, is the style of Shakespeare, or of
the Protestant Bible and Prayer Book, or of Swift, or of Pope, or of
Gibbon, or of Johnson! Even were the subject-matter without meaning,
though in truth the style cannot really be abstracted from the sense,
still the style would, on that supposition, remain as perfect and
original a work as Euclid's elements or a symphony of Beethoven. And,
like music, it has seized upon the public mind.” Yes, the style of
the English version has been creative as well as a creation. It has
entered into the literature and language of the English-speaking
race. For once, a committee produced a classic. . . .
Let
the version remain an English classic. But let us be certain about
the truth of what it translates. There is a truth in beauty of style,
but there is a beauty in truth, and whatever we may lose in parting
with an English classic, we gain more by contact with the actual
meaning of the original, of which this classic seems to be not quite
a perfect representation. Besides, the Bible was originally written
for common people in their own language. . . .
The
archaisms of a masterpiece in Elizabethan prose had become either
unintelligible or misleading. . . .
Finally,
Moffatt (perhaps surprisingly for a non-Catholic scholar with a
theologically liberal bent) acknowledges the high importance of the Latin Vulgate as a source in translation (which ties into the fact
that the Rheims version – prominent in this present work – was a
translation of the Vulgate):
.
. . the Vulgate is important . . . as it was made before any of our
extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and made from
materials that in some cases go back to the second century, perhaps
even from some Greek manuscripts which no longer exist, it is
indispensable as an aid to the task of ascertaining the original
Greek text as that was read in North Africa at any rate during the
second century. A translation will often show what the text of its
original must have been, in a case of dispute. This Latin version of
Jerome, then, along with the Syriac versions which go back to the
third century at least, must be reckoned of first-rate importance.
In summary, the common
thread throughout this Bible is my selection (as editor) – for
individual verses – of either the KJV or Rheims or else alternate
renderings from the other four versions of the New Testament listed
and described above. The final product obviously reflects my taste in
prose and style, but the (rather high and ambitious) goal is for it
to be (hopefully) a New Testament characterized by a blending of the
grandeur and majesty of both Elizabethan and Victorian prose.
I seek to put beauty and style in
the forefront, while preserving literal translations. I aim to
produce (as editor) a New Testament that accurately conveys the
original language, and one that is theologically orthodox and
beautiful: in the 19th century English high Victorian style, combined
with unchanged beautiful, majestic Elizabethan style, in passages
that are still able to be understood by today's readers.
[Note: you can read the Gospel of Mark in a separate post, along with source analysis for chapters 1-4].
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment