Ancestry of the King James Version #5: More Greek Thoughts & "Literal" Translation

Previous contributions on this thread are linked here: Ancestry of the KJV #1; Ancestry of the KJV #2; Ancestry of the KJV #3; Ancestry of the KJV #4

Just a few thoughts on Greek and translation. In order to show in the clearest manner of the difficulty in this I will point out a few differences between English and Greek. Translation is not simply looking up a definition in the back of Strong’s Concordance and then thinking we can “translate.”

Sentence Structure

The beginning point may well be the difference in structure of the unit of language . . . a sentence. At nearly all stages Greek tended toward long and involved sentences, called by stylists "periods." Short sentences with connectives were avoided by the use of participial constructions, and dependent clauses introduced by conjunctions with verbs in dependent moods, or infinitives. For example, the first paragraph after the salutation of the book of Ephesians runs eleven verses, twenty-eight lines, in Nestle's text. The literalistic ASV attempts to reproduce this entire paragraph in one sentence in English. It does so by the unnatural (to English) use of colons and dashes. Earlier in the 20th century E. J. Goodspeed rendered better by casting the participles, relative clauses and infinitives into six English sentences. The TEV does an even better job (in my opinion). The NIV is quite natural in English as well. There are other areas in structure but this is a basic example.

The Greek Definite Article

Few things illustrate the disparity between English and Greek better than the use of the Greek article. First, the absence of an indefinite article in Greek forces the translator to become an interpreter in nearly all cases as to whether the anarthrous Greek noun is indefinite ( "a" or "an") or qualitative. In many cases where Greek has no article the noun is still definite and must be translated with an article in English. These include such constructions as the Hebrew construct state, Colwell's rule where the definite noun usually omits the article if it precedes the copulative verb, the omission of the article in the rule of regimen, and after prepositions. On the other hand, the tendency to use the article in Greek with well-known items at first mention, with class nouns, with the second mention of a noun which is indefinite at first mention (anaphora) especially with proper names and abstract nouns illustrate the opposite tendency. Thus the tendency to translate the Greek and to omit it where it is not present in Greek is a rule of thumb with many pitfalls.

Constructions Lacking in either English or Greek

A list of constructions which exist either in English or Greek but not the other is revealing. The following examples are suggestive rather than exhaustive. Greek has no gerund. It cannot use the participle in naming or speaking of an action such as "walking is a good exercise." This lack is usually supplied by a nominal use of an infinitive in Greek, though nearly all versions use the participle in translating. The Greek participle used with the definite article as a substantive does not occur in English; the translators usually resort to a relative clause: "the one who sows." Greek has a third person imperative, which we can only paraphrase in English. An Optative mood exists in Greek and though it was disappearing in NT times it still occurs 65 times in the NT. Greek has a middle voice expressing what the subject does "for him/herself" . . . this is interpreted into English with a reflexive pronoun. Greek has five case forms for substantives; English retains case form only in pronouns and even then only three. The differences be compensated for in many ways . . . usually with prepositional phrases such as "of" for the genitive of possession or "in" with the locative of place. This list could be much extended . . . but the effect on so called "literal" translation is obvious.

Ambiguous Constructions in Greek

Greek has many constructions where only the context, and the interpretation of the translator, can decide which of two meanings was intended. Many times, for example, the translation turns on whether the participle is to be taken as middle or passive. The genitive with the noun of action may be either subjective or objective, and even the faithful ASV does not hesitate to decide which (as in 2 Tim 1.12 and Acts 4.9). A Greek adverbial participle may have any one of a number of meanings according to the context: condition, concession, time, cause, purpose. Nearly always the English translator (even in the ASV) must decide which. A standard beginning grammar of NT Greek will list numerous uses of the genitive case ("of") or the accusative (English objective), each with a difference in translation. In each case the translator must decide (i.e. interpret) by the context which use is intended.

Let me illustrate the actual impossibility of a literal "word for word" translation by showing that a student who looked up every word in a typical Greek sentence and set one word in English over the Greek . . . it would look like this:

"And it became in one of the days teaching of him the people in the temple and evangelizing they stood up the high priests and the scribes with the presbyters and they said saying against him, they tell us in such authority these things you do." (Luke 20.1-2 . . . as literal as you can get).

This is not translation!!!

Or how about one single Greek word . . . "angareuo" used in Matthew 5.41.

There is an awful lot of information in this one little verb and it is "literally" impossible to render this one Greek verb with one English verb. It combines at least the following basic semantic components of meaning: 1) burdensome activity; 2) which is compelled; 3) by officers or soldiers of an occupation force; and 4) on non-citizens or persons without status. A so called "literal" rendering of this verb misses the meaning in English (and the NIV is quite "literal" at this point). A good rendering of this might be the TEVs rendering of the text "if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack . . . "

One final illustration from part of p46 which is pictured above. This portion has our 2 Cor 11.33 to the beginning of 12.2. The numbers correspond to the line numbers on p46. For this papyrus and other early NT mss with transcriptions and photographs see Philip W. Comfort & David Barrett The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts.

1 εν σαργανη εχαλασθην δια του τειχους
in a basket I was lowered through the wall
2 και εξεφυγον τας χειρας αυτου καυχασ
and escaped his hand. To boast
3 θαι δει ου συμφερον μεν ελευσομαι δε
it is necessary (although not expedient indeed), and I will come
4 εις οπτασιας και αποκαλυψεις κυ οιδα
to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know

Our Stoned-Campbell forefathers understood translation principles and practice better than some of their descendants. Moses E. Lard's comments on H. T. Anderson's translation marks a fitting conclusion to our discussion to this point ...

"The sense of the sacred text should be expressed in the fewest English words that adequately convey it to mind. These words, let me add, should be arranged with no reference to the order of the words of the original. The usages of the English and modes of English thought alone should determine the form the English sentence should take ... We should always prefer two or three or even more simple easy words to one learned or unfamiliar one in making a translation" (Moses Lard, "H. T. Anderson's Translation" Lard's Quarterly 2 [January 1865], 190, 191)

Lard understood both Greek and English.

Read More

Ancestry of the King James #4: ABCs of Bible Languages

Quotable Quote

"The Bible is the most remarkable piece of literature this world has ever seen. It has outsold every other publication, it has been translated into more languages than any other, and has become part of the fabric of society in the English-speaking world ...

Humanly speaking, it took more than 1500 years to compile the Bible. About forty authors contributed, and they wrote primarily in Greek and Hebrew, with occasional Aramaic ...

Some people were so committed to the belief that this is God's book that they were even willing to die for that proposition. And strangely, others have been willing to put them to death. The bitterness and resentment against this book is difficult to explain ... Even in the twentieth century in some countries men and women have been imprisoned and tortured for reading this forbidden book" (Ken Connolly, The Indestructible Book: The Bible, It's Translators, and Their Sacrifices, p. 7)

Here are Links to previous blogs in this thread: Ancestry of the KJV #1; Ancestry of the KJV #2; Ancestry of the KJV #3.

The Alphabet

When we speak of the Bible, we used a word which originally referred to a particular kind of writing material. When we speak of the Scriptures, we use a word which denotes the writing and not the material.

Writing has been around for a long time. But not all languages are alphabetic. Akkadian, Egyptian, Sumerian, and modern Chinese are examples of non-alphabetic writing. The invention of the alphabet was of monumental importance in human cultural development. It is usually believed that the alphabet has African or Semitic roots. Alphabetic writing is known from Ugarit and even older examples known as the Sinai inscriptions discovered in the earlier part of the 20th century. The earliest samples of Hebrew include the Gezer calendar and the Lachish Ostraca.

How does this affect translation? Well once we have an alphabet learning to read and write is a much simpler matter. In Judges 8.14 we read how Gideon laid his hands on a young man of Succoth, who according to the KJV and the ASV "described" to him the chief men of the city. The marginal reading of both versions point out that the ordinary sense of the Hebrew word is "wrote." But that person should have been able to write at this time seemed unlikely to the translators. When the ASV (1901) was produced the oldest alphabetic writing was the Moabite Stone three hundred years later than Gideon. Now, however, it seems more reasonable to scholars that a person actually could have "wrote down" (NIV) for Gideon a list of the elders of Succoth.

Hebrew

Most of the "Old Testament" is written in Hebrew. Hebrew is classified as a Semitic language. This family of languages center on Palestine and the upper Tigris-Euphrates River Valley. In the "Old Testament" the language is known as the "lip of Canaan" or "language of Canaan."

The language of Israel's surrounding neighbors was very similar to Hebrew. The Moabite Stone for example is fairly easily read by those familiar with Hebrew script. Ugaritic is also closely related to Hebrew.

Hebrew has twenty-two letters - all of which are consonants. Hebrew has no vowels. The language is written from the right to the left instead of left to right as in English.

Aramaic

Aramaic, also a Semitic language, was a major language in the Ancient Near East. We find examples of Aramaic scattered throughout the "Old Testament." It surfaces in Genesis 31.47; Jeremiah 10.11; along with longer sections in Daniel 2.4v-7.28; Ezra 4.8-6.18 and 7.12-26. Aramaic was the language of Syria, a kingdom we read of often in the Book of Kings.

In the eighth century BC, when the Assyrian Empire ruled the world, they made Aramaic the trade language of the world. Letters to Egypt or Judea were written in this language.

In 2 Kings 18.17-37 (cf. Isaiah 36.2-22) we read of the "non-use" of Aramaic by the Assyrian delegation to Jerusalem in 701 BC. Hezekiah sent officials out to meet this Assyrian Rabshakeh (a title not his name). Rabshakeh broke with the convention and spoke in Hebrew so the people on the wall could understand him. Hezekiah's men protested saying "please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it" (18.26). The noble refused. He wanted the citizens of Jerusalem to understand his fearful message.

After the Exile Hebrew began to loose its usage among even the Israelites. Aramaic became the language of the average Jew. In Nehemiah's time we read that a translation had to be made of the Law, which was written in Hebrew, into Aramaic so the people could understand:

"They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so the people could understand what was being read" (Neh 8.8)

The words "making it clear" come from the Hebrew mephorash a technical term in the diplomatic service of the Persian Empire to denote the procedure when an official would read from his Aramaic document into the native tongue of that province. It was translation.

Aramaic would eventually become the mother tongue of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus probably knew some Greek and likely Hebrew but those would not have been the language spoken around the dinner table in his home. Several words have come to us straight from the Aramaic into our English. The word abba (Mk 14.36, etc) is a word used in paternal address. The Jews never used "abba" in addressing God in prayer ... it seemingly disrespected his Majesty. Jesus thought differently.

One word that was meaningful to early Christians was the Aramaic term marana tha ... "our Lord, come!" May he do so ...

P.S. the photo at the top is of the proto-Sinaitic script which is one of the first alphabetic scrips known in history dating to about 1100 BC. Two significant finds have been made: one by the Petrie's in 1904-5 and by the Darnell's in 1999.

Read More

Ancestry of the King James Version #3: Making Books in the Ancient World

See my previous Ancestry of the KJV #1 and Ancestry of the KJV #2

The Beginnings ...

When the Lord God called Moses to lead a band of slaves out of the horrors of Egyptian slavery he, an 80 yr old man, would change human history. Up until Moses there had been no Bible of any kind. Moses would become the first great prophet of Yahweh's good news. Tradition has it that Moses was the first great author of the Pentateuch but whether or not he wrote it all need not detain us. He did write and that is the beginning of "enscripturation." Moses did not go one night to Kinko's to have Genesis or Deuteronomy copied on a xerox machine. He likely did not have the opportunity to visit Wal-Mart to buy spiral bound college ruled notebooks either. The making of a book in the Ancient Near East was a far different process than today.

The most likely surface for Moses to have written on was clay tablets or possibly stone. The Ten Words (commandments) were so written (Ex 32.19; 34.4). Paper as we know it did not exist. Papyrus was used to make a paper "like" sheet but was very fragile. Most important documents were inscribed on clay tablets. Like this example of one of the Amarna Letters uncovered from Akhenaton's capital city dating to about 1400 B.C.



Thus a "book" in Moses' day did not have pages rather it had tablets with writing on both sides. A good example of this would be the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian story with affinities to the story in Genesis, is recorded on 6 or 7 tablets.

Much later in history scrolls became common. Though not as durable as clay tablets they were used throughout the Mediterranean basin. Scrolls were, and still are, made mostly of leather. Hide would be dried and smoothed out to make Vellum. Writing would be done on the inside so the writing would be protected. Scrolls could become bulky. For example a the Gospel of Luke would be about 34 feet long. The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea Scrolls is over 30 feet long. Knowing this helps us have greater appreciation for the story in Luke 4 where the scroll was handed to Jesus and he turned "to the place where it was written" (referring to Isa 61 cited in Lk 4.17). The Temple Scroll, another treasure from Qumran, is 28 feet long. Here is the famous Isaiah scroll ...



The epistles in the New Testament were most likely written on papyrus instead of leather. Here is a picture of p75



But "how" did the biblical writers go about writing their books? What can we know about their craft? Did they just one day sit down and write, say, 1 Kings, or Psalms or the Gospel of Luke? Did they collect data (do research?) Or were they simply a supernatural word processor that God downloaded a PDF file? The Bible does not answer all these questions directly, however it does provide some remarkable insight into some of these matters.

Here is an exercise for you: Compare Isaiah 36. 1, 4, 11f with 2 Kings 18.13,19ff, 26ff. Note how 2 Kings 18.13-20 is reproduced in Isaiah 36-39.

Jeremiah as our Laboratory

The Book of Jeremiah is one biblical book that makes it clear that it was not composed all at the same time. Indeed this book was written over a period of no less than 18 years and perhaps much longer. The text of the Book tells us that our present book is actually made up of three books that have probably been brought together by Baruch. We are told about the writing down of Jeremiah's oracles in the following manner:

"In the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD: Take a scroll and write on it all the words I have spoken to you concerning Israel, Judah, and all the nations" (36.1-2)

This command came to Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign or in 605 B.C. By this time Jeremiah had been preaching for 22 years. If we take this command seriously, and I see no reason to doubt its veracity, then prior to this time Jeremiah had not published his oracles in his Jeremiah sermon book! This scroll that Jeremiah had copied out was destroyed by that Judean king and was burned a sliver at a time in the fire (Jer 36.22-23). Thus the "first edition" of Jeremiah suffered a fate that William Tyndale's early efforts would suffer ... pyromaniacs got a hold of it. Jeremiah was instructed to make a second edition (36.27-29). So the prophet called upon the services of his scribe Baruch. The Bible says that Jeremiah called "Baruch son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote upon a scroll at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD which he had spoken to him" (36.4).

This rewritten scroll was the beginning of our present canonical Jeremiah. This scroll did not contain all our present book of Jeremiah for the prophet ministered for another 18 years after this scroll was written ... The ministry of Jeremiah lasted at least till 586 BC. This scroll probably consisted of chapters 1-25 of our Book. In 25.13 we read, "I will bring upon that land all the words which I have uttered against it, everything written in THIS book, which Jeremiah prophesied against the nations." What makes this statement significant is the reference to "this book" and "this book" is given the same date of the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign (25.1). So the first stage of making our Book of Jeremiah took place around 605 B.C. when Baruch wrote down Jeremiah's early sermons.

The Second Book begins with 46.1 which also referred to a "book" in the Hebrew text. This is a collection of oracles against the nations from chapters 46-51. This second book ends with the words "The words of Jeremiah end here" (51.64b).

The Third component in our canonical Book is called the "Book of Conssolation." It is called such because in it God assures Judah of his grace and the promise of restoration following the Exile. We read in the text "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you" (30.2). Jeremiah's Book of Consolation is written near the END of the prophet's ministry because it is written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (which is presupposed in the text, 30.18-21; 31.23-28).

What can we conclude from these seams in the Book of Jeremiah? There were three books: 1) chapters 1-25; 2) chapters 30-31; 3) chapters 46-51. The remaining material in our present Book of Jeremiah consists of chapters 26-29; 32-45; and 52. What is significant about this material in chapters 26-29, 32-45 and 52 is in narrative prose and written almost exclusively in the third person. The material in the other chapters is poetry and oracle in nature. Chapter 52 is almost verbatim 2 Kings 24-25. It is not hard to imagine that Baruch, Jeremiah's loyal scribe, took these three works and put them together and adding the narrative portions about Jeremiah (not just what Jeremiah said). This is how, it appears to me, that at least one book of our Bible was made.

Biblical Writers Use of Research in Composing their Works

Earlier we asked if biblical authors used resources or did "research" in their writing. We have learned from the Book of Jeremiah that our present book clearly went through stages or editions before it came to be what we have today. Other writers went through a process as well. The books in the Hebrew Bible we call Chronicles, Ezra & Nehemiah and Joshuah-2 Kings (one longer work) make frequent use of an ancient version of MLA. I will focus on Chronicles briefly however. The Chronicler is deeply interested in the Temple and seeks an answer to the question (answered throughout his writing): "Will God take us back? Will God dwell with us again?" As he writes his history in search of an answer to that question he peppers his material with "footnotes." The following is probably an incomplete list of works he used in his research ...

1) The annals of King David (1 C 27.24)
2) The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 C 27.7; 35.27; 36.8)
3) The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 C 16.11; 25.26; 28.26; 32.32)
4) The Book of the Kings (2 C 9.1; 2 C 24.27)
5) The Decree of David the King of Israel and the Decree of Solomon his Son (2 C 35.4)
6) The Annotations of the Book of the Kings (2 C 24.27)
7) The Records of Nathan the prophet, the Records of Gad the Seer (1 C29.29; 2 C 9.29)
8) The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 C 9.29)
9) The Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 C 9.29)
10) The history of Uzziah which Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz has written down (2 C 26.22)

It seems fairly obvious that the Chronicler did quite a bit of research in his effort to communicate a message sorely needed in 400 B.C. Yes, Yahweh WILL take us back in his infinite grace! Research was not limited to the Hebrew Scriptures alone. Luke makes it quite clear that he was a diligent student claiming

"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first to write an orderly account ..." (1.1-3).

Luke indicates he conducted interviews and collected and evaluated written sources much like the Chronicler had done long before him.

In this post we have looked at the process, as best we can, of how some of the books of the Bible were made. Inspiration included this phenomena. Over a period of time all these books that were made were gathered together to form our present Book of Books ... the Bible.

P.S.

The "editions" of Jeremiah continued after what became our canonical book in the Hebrew text. The Septuagint (LXX) edition of Jeremiah (the Greek translation) is nearly 3000 words shorter than the Hebrew version. And in the LXX the "Epistle of Jeremiah" was often appended to the Book itself. For a nontechnical, and fascinating, introduction to these matters I recommend Steve Delamarter's "But Who Gets the Last Word: Thus Far the Words of Jeremiah" in Bible Review (October 1999): 34-45

Read More

Ancestry of the King James Version #2: Mythology, Archaeology & Translation

Greetings from the land of Saguaros and Scorpions. The following post, my second, continues my series on translations in honor of the 400th birthday of the King James Version (See HERE for #1). The KJV was a remarkable work of scholarship for its day but it was not and is not above criticism or improvement. This post reflects some of the conversations I have had on the weaknesses of the KJV as recently as yesterday. What I say is not to be construed as a put down on the king's men in 1611 for they were the first to recognize that others would one day improve on their work. Rather I want to show, briefly, how archeology has continued to help us understand the language of the Bible better.

The advance of knowledge in the Hebrew and Greek languages has more than sustained the proposition that contemporary translations like the NIV, NRSV and ESV are in a much better position for accurate translation than the KJV. A long list of discoveries has made this possible. In this post I will list numerous examples where discoveries in archeology in the 19th and 20th century have taught us the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words more accurately -- thus having a better translation of God's word. But first a . . .

Quotable Quote from Alexander Campbell

"The labors bestowed upon the original text, . . . the great advances made in the whole science of hermeneutics . . . since the commencement of the present century [19th], fully justify the conclusion that we are, or may be, much better furnished for the work of interpretation than any one, however gifted by nature and by education could have been, not merely fifty but almost two hundred and fifty years ago. The living critics and translators of the present day, in Europe and America, are like Saul amongst the people -- head and shoulders above those of the early part of the seventeenth century." (Alexander Campbell, Address to the American Bible Union Convention, 1852, pp. 583-584).

Archaeology Debunks the KJVs Addiction to Mythology

The proof of Campbell's statement (made 28 years after his production of the Living Oracles) is seen in the following examples. In the area of linguistics, especially in the Hebrew Bible, the modern scholar -- towers over the king's translators (not a claim to more intelligence just more and better info!). Objects formerly simply guessed at have now been identified (see Ex. 25.29; 37.16; Num. 4.7; Lev. 26.30; Isa. 17.8; 27.9; Ezek. 6.4 in the KJV and the RSV/NRSV or NIV). Many kinds of animals were simply unknown to the King's men so they supplied mythological names to these creatures of God. We see this mythological strand running throughout the Hebrew Bible of the KJV: Satyrs (Isa 13.21), Dragons (Job 30.29), Unicorns (Deut. 33.17), cockatrices (Isa 14.29), all of these animals are now known and translated properly and accurately (see the NIV in each case). What these men thought, in 1611, was "sapphire," is now known to refer to "lapis lazuli."

The same has happened in the NT as well. Regardless of the text type used, we now know Greek much better than in 1611. The papyri -- which revealed the world of koine Greek to modern scholars -- has taught us this. Just one example. The verb kapeleuo in 2 Corinthians 1.17. This is rendered in the KJV as, "For wee [sic] are not as many which corrupt the word of God . . ." The ASV also translates kapeleuo in this manner.

Here is an example where advancement in knowledge, not a change of text, has resulted in a more accurate translation. In 1611 they never dreamed of the papyri buried in the sands of Egypt and 1881 they were still a decade away from the fabulous discoveries. The verb kapeleuo occurs quite frequently in the papyri. Moulton and Milligan (The Vocabulary of the New Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources) tell us that the verb means to "trade" or "sell." The noun form being used in the sense of "dealer" or a "peddler" of wares (like a used car dealer). This knowledge simply was unavailable in 1611 nor 1881. Thus when we pick up the NRSV or the NIV it should surprise none that we find this fine (and accurate!) translation of kapeleuo :

"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit . . ." (NIV).

Interestingly the ASV anticipated this rendering by suggesting it in the footnote. Today we know that the footnote was correct. Other examples of this kind of movement to an accurate translation (that is rooted in the benefits of archeology) are in Matt. 28.1; Acts 19.16; Phil 4.18; 1 Thess. 5.14, etc.

I for one thank almighty God that he -- in his good grace and mercy -- has allowed us the good fortune to see his word with more clarity. The NIV is clearly more accurate in all of these places. The words of Campbell ring more true today than he could ever have imagined.

A good book like Adolf Deismann's classic Light from the Ancient East contains literally hundreds of examples of what we are talking of. Aren’t we glad that mythology has been sent back to the books on Greek gods rather than in the word of God.

Read More

Ancestry of the King James Version #1: KJV: A Literal Translation?

The year 2011 will witness the 400th anniversary of the publication of what is commonly called the King James Version. It was a major milestone in 1611 and its shadow continues to fall across English speaking Christendom. Throughout the coming months I hope to blog on various themes related to the history of the English bible from various angles. The history of the bible combines numerous areas that have long fascinated me: church history, Hebrew and Greek languages, biblical interpretation and the like. Tonight I begin with some thoughts on the King James as a "literal" translation. Many are under the illusion that it is and that a so called "literal" translation is by definition more accurate. We will touch on all these themes in the future ...

KJV: A Literal Translation??

Greetings this Wednesday nite. I was reading Romans in my 1611 so called Authorized Version this morning and was struck by something: Its lack of consistency in rendering the same Greek term the same way in English. I will be the first to admit that often times a word should be translated differently in different contexts because the meaning is different. But if the KJV was an exacting literal translation it would in fact render the terms the same -- consistently. Further there are places where the same Greek term is used -- in the same passage -- by the inspired author for emphasis; in these places the English should be rendered the same. The English reader will not know the apostle uses the same word for effect. The King's translators themselves warn us about this feature of their work. Hear them:

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee, of gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an 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. 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 every where), we were especially careful, and made a conscience according to our duty." (Translators to the Readers, pages are not numbered).

Having recently gone through Romans in my Greek Testament, I was struck by the KJV in Romans 5. Here we have a picture perfect example of the love of variety in translation testified to in the quoted section above. In Romans, in the KJV, we read:

"we . . . REJOICE in hope in the glory of God" (5.2); In the very next verse we read, GLORY in tribulations" (5.3) and a few verses down in 5.11 we read "we also JOY in God . . ."

The bold face words are all the one and the same Greek verb. Further they have the same connotation in each place. The NIV reads "rejoice" in all three places (more consistently and more accurately than the KJV).

If the aim of translation should be the production of an equivalent effect in the reader of the translation as the reader of the original text, then there is much to be said for translating in a passage like Romans 5, and the examples provided above, the same words with the same English word. For a good part of the effect intended by Paul was produced by his deliberate repetition of the same word. This is but one single example that could be multiplied into dozens but there is no need. F.F. Bruce, a widely respected historian and NT scholar comments on this "character trait" of the KJV:

"It is probably right to say that the Authorized Version has gone too far in its love of variation, whereas the Revised Version runs to the opposite extreme" [1].

A true "literal" translation is simply not possible. For example if you can suggest to me how one might "literally" translate the middle voice from Greek into English I would be grateful. English does not HAVE a middle voice. This is a major problem since the middle voice is not a rare bird in the Greek NT.

Other examples of the KJV's love of "variation" would include:

1) Matthew 25.46, renders "aionios" as "everlasting punishment" opposite of "life eternal" - why not the same? The text invites the reader to suppose that there is a difference when the same term is used.

2) In Romans 4 the same verb is rendered "counted" (vv 3, 5); "reckon" (vv. 4, 9-10) and "impute" (vv.6, 8, 11, 22-24). This is significant variation! Especially when Paul seems to be consciously using the same meaning.

3) In Romans 7 epithumian is rendered three different ways in the space of two verses: "lust" (v.7), "covet" (v.7) and finally "concupiscence" (v.8).

The NIV is much more consistent and accurate in all of these places (cf. NIV in the texts cited).

4) The Greek word katargein occurs twenty-seven times in the NT. But the King James Version translates it with seventeen different English words (which is a tad excessive!).

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year,
Bobby Valentine



Endnotes:

[1] F.F. Bruce, The King James Version: The First 350 Years (Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 27.

Read More

Francis Chan: Repentance, Baptism & Spirit

Francis Chan - Baptism & The Holy Spirit from Wes Woodell on Vimeo.

I commend this to all my readers.

Read More

Some Looked & Couldn't See: Galileo, Seeing and the Quest for Truth

A Momentous Fall Evening

Four Hundred and One years ago, on November 30, 1609, Galileo Galilei took his "spyglass" and some drawing equipment into the garden of his apartment in Padua. On this night Galileo did something no one had done before ... he pointed his spyglass at the Moon. Galileo's evening in the garden set off a series of events that would rock the world. When the dust settled it became clear that Galileo did not just usher in a few new facts about the universe rather what he had done was bring about a new way of "seeing" the cosmos itself.

The world Galileo lived in had undergone serious change in little over a century. Christopher Columbus had "discovered" a "new world" completely unknown to the ancients. Martin Luther had innocently brought a revolt against the Roman See. But these events had all occurred in the imperfect, unclean, lower realms of creation. The heavens were a different story. For two millennia classical Aristotelian cosmology was embraced as not only pure common sense but was married to Scripture by the medieval church and became theological dogma. The heavens, unlike the earthly realm, were perfect and unchanging. The celestial bodies were perfectly smooth crystalline spheres according to this doctrine. The large visible spots on the Moon were explained as parts of the sphere that absorbed and then emitted light differently from other parts.

How does one see, interpret, and understand phenomena? How does one explain what has never been seen by a human before? When Galileo first began to observe the Moon and then Jupiter at the end of 1609 and the beginning of 1610 he wasn't sure how to interpret the data ...

Just WHAT was he seeing?

A perfectly smooth crystalline sphere should be ... well it should be smooth! But on November 30th when Galileo trained his crude spyglass (the word telescope was not invented yet telescopio was coined by John Demisiani a Greek theologian residing in Rome on April 14, 1611 at a dinner held in Galileo's honor) on the Moon it appeared ... splotchy! The terminator was not smooth but appeared to be "jagged." There were lighted areas within the darker areas. What did this phenomena mean? Perhaps something is wrong with the instrument. Or perhaps something wrong with Galileo's eyes. Perhaps it was caused by Galileo's attempts to hold the spyglass steady. He did write that it was difficult to "escape the shaking of the hand that arises from the motion of the arteries and from respiration itself" [1]. But Galileo soon solved that issue ... so what was he seeing? The implications of his interpretation had cosmological significance! Galileo provides a summary of his conclusion ...

"By oft-repeated observations of them we have been led to the conclusion that we certainly see the surface of the Moon to be not smooth, even, and perfectly spherical, as the great crowd of philosophers have believed about this and other heavenly bodies, but, on the contrary, to be uneven, rough, and crowded with depressions and bulges. And it is like the face of the Earth itself, which is marked here and there with chains of mountains and the depths of valleys." [2].

Galileo then describes his observations in detail and gave the world its first ever published drawing of the moon as seen through his spyglass. The celestial spheres were not perfect! In fact they were just like the Earth. Or was it that the Earth was just like the celestial bodies ... the Earth became a planet.

Galileo was not finished with his shock and awe on how we see the world. He had taken his spyglass and looked at the Milky Way, the Pleiades's, and Orion the Hunter all suffered a similar fate. Suddenly before his eyes the Milky Way was seen to be nothing but "congeries of innumerable stars distributed in clusters!"[3] The Pleiades's were anything but Seven Sisters. And Orion was more stars.

Galileo's thermonuclear bomb however was saved till last: his observations of Jupiter the King. Since the dawn of time itself there had always been Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and also the Sun and Moon ... all of which revolved around the Earth. On January 7, 1610 "Jupiter presented himself" [4]. As crude as his spyglass was Jupiter was still resolved into a disk, whereas the "fixed stars" did not. The keen sighted observer noticed "that three little stars were positioned near him." But Galileo, understandably, interpreted these as among the "fixed stars." Yet his curiosity was piqued because "they appeared to be arranged exactly along a straight line and parallel to the ecliptic and brighter of that others [i.e. stars] of equal size." On successive nights Galileo returned to Jupiter and found that the King was "dancing with the stars" (my phrase ... couldn't resist).

The "stars" had shifted in respect to Jupiter. What was really being seen? And what, more importantly, did it MEAN? Was the movement that of Jupiter's? was it the "stars?" Was it a hallucination? Galileo decided "henceforth they should be observed more accurately and diligently"[5]. He declares that he had moved from "doubt to astonishment." On January 13, Galileo returned to Jupiter and spied four stars in respect to Jupiter. As the nights progressed the stars changed formation ... some on the East and others on the West, then all on either side or one on the West and three on the East. Galileo "arrived at the conclusion" that these stars wandered "around Jupiter like Venus and Mercury around the Sun" [Galileo betrays his orientation to the Copernican system]. This was indeed astonishing!! It was cataclysmic!

Failure to See

Galileo announced his discoveries Sidereus Nuncius in March 1610. It was a sensation. The world was both in awe and disbelief. Some "believed" and saw and others did not "see" and did "not believe." One, Martin Horky, published a short tract accusing Galileo of fraud. Galileo could not show the "planets" around Jupiter to the University of Bologna (in April 1610) faculty because they simply did not exist. Either the spyglass was bewitched or Galileo was a liar!

To demonstrate that his instrument worked Galileo performed daytime tests with observers. It worked in the daytime ... so why not at night was Galileo's point. However the encounter with Horky and the Bologna faculty highlights three responses by people to new worlds (in all arena's of life).

1) Some refused to look through the telescope. The "planets" wouldn't be there because they had decided a priori they couldn't be there. One Florentine astronomer claimed that "these satellites of Jupiter are invisible to the naked eye, and therefore exercise no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist." Since special equipment that brings things to the senses, that is even contrary to common sense, is dangerous, useless and misleading.

2) Some looked through Galileo's spyglass and refused to see. These critics accused Galileo of stacking the data so to speak. Though unable to explain just how he did it Galileo's instrument was the problem. So one claimed that though the Moon's surface appeared to be mountainous, in reality a transparent crystalline surface as high as the highest peaks covered Luna's surface thus preserving its spherical perfection.

3) Some looked and couldn't see.

So What

Thus the simple act of looking, seeing, and understanding was no longer as simple as it appeared to be. "Seeing" is not so simple after all! All the filters that had been in place for generations inhibited the ability to see, interpret ... and understand the Truth. The flatness of the Earth (though the ancients did not believe this), the immobility of the Earth, the perfectly circular orbits of the planets, the Earth's position at the center of the cosmos ... all that we could ever hope to see ... all the assumptions based on generations of observations were gone. Without prior experience, observers had no way of knowing for sure what they were seeing.

There are many important lessons to be drawn from the experience of Galileo and those around him. I want to briefly state a few with hopes that my readers will ponder them further.

1) No matter what the subject matter be it Scripture or science we must take the time of learning the actual data. Sometimes the "common sense" explanation is absolutely not the correct answer.

2) Galileo, like an interpreter of Scripture, had to learn to let the phenomena actually "exist." It is rather easy to decide material does not exist or is of no importance at all when we discover "stars" where there should be no stars.

3) Galileo, like an interpreter of Scripture, not only had to let the phenomena exist but he had to learn to "see" it. By seeing I mean he had to study it long enough to distinguish those stars that weren't supposed to exist and how they might relate to Jupiter in which he was told it was a scientific impossibility for an object to revolve ... much less four. Galileo's learning curve here came from patiently listening to the evidence on its own terms.

4) Galileo had to have the courage to stand up against millennia of scholars and even the everyday experience of practically the entire human race. The German astronomer Kepler wrote in defense of Galileo over the charge of being arrogant enough to think he was more gifted with insight than all the ancient worthies. It was "[b]ecause he loves the truth, he does not hesitate to oppose the most familiar opinions, and to bear the jeers of the crowd with equanimity."

5) Like Galileo we need, as Christians and interpreters of the Word, to be willing to go out in the Garden once again. We must be willing to study afresh. We need to learn to "see" and make the quest for truth the only criteria ... not all the things "surely believed" but never actually examined.

In Bible study we have some who react just as did Galileo's contemporaries. Some refuse to look. They already know all truth and there is not the slightest chance they could be wrong. To even admit such a possibility is tantamount to committing a sin. Some look and refuse to see they have as amazing, and ingenious, ways to explain away the evidence as Florentine astronomers did the mountains on the Moon. Some look and cannot see.

But on that November night Galileo did in fact usher in more than a Moon with mountains. He brought in a new way of seeing and understanding the world itself. We are still reeling from the events of that night. My prayer is that our encounter with the Word will be equally revolutionary. We are committed to seeking the truth ... we do not let what we have been taught or what we have always believeb determine what can and cannot be the truth.

He who has an ear let him hear ... he who has eyes let him see ... some Look and See ...

"Yield, Vespucci, and let Columbus yield. Each of them
Holds his way through the unknown sea, it is true.
But you, Galileo, alone gave to the human race the sequence of stars,
New constellations in heaven"

- Johannes Faber

Notes

[1] Sidereus Nuncius or The Sidereal Messenger of Galileo Galilei, Translated with Introduction and Commentary by Albert van Heldon (University of Chicago Press, 1989). p. 11. Anyone that has held a pair of binoculars today can empathize with this pioneer astronomer.

[2] ibid, p. 40

[3] ibid, p. 62

[4] ibid, p. 64

[5] ibid, p. 66

Read More