1990 Preacher Study Notes
To "prove all things" is essential and noble. But for many people this may be a difficult, if not impossible task due to their limited reading ability. For years I, like others, have preached to audiences: "prove all things;" "search the scriptures to see whether those things are so." Some recent experiences have illustrated to me, however, that it is not safe to assume that all listeners have sufficient reading ability to do so.
Some examples will illustrate. A few years ago a mother in her mid thirties brought her daughter to the Reading Lab which I direct for help with reading. After I explained how I felt we could help her daughter, the mother looked at me with tears welling in her eyes and asked, "Do you think you can help me learn to read?" On another occasion a thirty-five year old man came and said "I can't read. Can you help me? I want to be able to read to my six year old daughter." We did, and I shall never forget the joy he expressed when he read his first simple children's book to her. Another time I was getting onto a middle aged, fellow Christian pretty good for not studying his Bible more. He hesitated, then in sort of a broken voice said, "L. G., I can't read very well." I had known him for five or six years, and never knew. We just cannot assume, even among Christians, that all can read well enough to "search the scriptures" and "prove" as needed.
Moreover these are not just isolated cases. Research indicates that approximately 25 million American adults are functionally illiterate; that is, they lack sufficient reading ability to meet the demands of current society.1 This represents about one out of every six Americans. We are talking about a major problem! But, while I am concerned about their ability to read, I am more concerned about their having access to the Word of God.
This concern, I learned from Brother Richard Bunner, was shared by the restoration preachers in the early 1800s. Many of them argued that new translations were needed so the common people of their day could be able to read God's Word with understanding. It is almost ironic that there are more than twice as many functionally illiterate adults in the United States today than the entire population of the United States in 1820 when the restoration preachers were making their plea on behalf of those who had limited reading ability.
But do these "common people" who cannot read or cannot read well want to read the Bible? The data indicate yes. In fact many people who sign for adult literacy programs indicate they do so in order to read the Bible.2
Readability and normative test data indicate that about 4-5% of college graduates (1 out of 20) and 9% (or 1 of 11) high school graduates would have difficulty reading the King James Version of the Bible with understanding. This is of major concern to me that millions of persons in the world cannot gain access to the word of God, "the bread of life."
Three options appear to be available. We can get easier to read material, easier to read translations. Or, we can help increase the reading level of people to match the difficulty level of the material through adult literacy programs to teach those to read. In fact, the primary reason that schools were founded in the colonial period of the United States was to teach the citizens to read so they could read the Bible.3 A third option is just to say "The King James Bible does not seem all that hard to me; this is no problem of mine." I am concerned that we cannot let it go at that.
We are at a pivotal point. Speakers in many congregations are changing translations whether we want to or not. I see many speakers using various translations: the Amplified, the New King James, the American Standard Version, the New International Version, and the Revised Standard. Bible sales also indicate a change. The New International Version is quite popular. Statistics from an evangelical group indicate that no other version of the bible has ever out sold the KJV. This fall, for the first time in the history of this country, the NIV is outselling the KJV this 1990 Christmas season. [Thiatwas over 25 years ago! Pdc] That tells us something. We cannot ignore this important topic.
I have difficulty dealing with this topic, however. Let me illustrate. There is an intellectual side of this topic and an emotional side. The intellectual side of me tells me that we need to change to a more readable version, and to do so quickly. The emotional side says, hold back. I find it not easy to change. When the back came off of the KJV Bible I have used for over thirty years, I elected to have it rebound. It is familiar. For me this is not an easy task.
Using more than one translation/version in the worship service can cause a lot of confusion and make it difficult for people to follow along in the reading and to "prove all things." Recently I read from another version during a chapter study. As I announced the chapter and started to read, I observed many persons in the audience reach for a pew Bible (which is KJV). Not long after starting to read from the other version, many people started to look confused, then closed their bibles, and leaned back. In a business meeting one of the brethren asked "I wonder if we are going to read from one of the other translations, should not we have copies of that translation for the audience to be able to follow along?" That is a compelling argument to me. This situation is not good. The big question is which version do you get? I do not have an answer to this one, yet. First, we have to decide whether we are going to change to another version; then, we must decide which version.
My thesis today is that we need to make a change from the KJV for a number of reasons to be noted later. I am perplexed, however, as to what to change to, even after an intensive study of this topic for the past several months.
This is a very sensitive topic. After the topic of this presentation was announced I have received phone calls arguing for staying with the KJV, with strong feelings being expressed. In fact, what I have to say may press a "red button" for some of you. By that I mean cause negative reactions. I just appeal to you to be open minded and examine the evidence. Then, "prove all things."
The primary reason we have the Bible in written form (like other written material) is because people have a tough time remembering things that are heard. We tend to get things confused; so we write them down. But once written there is a lot more permanence to the ideas.
In view of this fact a lot of prayer and thought have gone into preparing these materials. Like Tyndall put in the preface of his translation, “if you find anything that is not right, let me know.” This is also my plea. If I know my heart, and I think I do, there is nothing more that I want to do than to please God. In dealing with this topic I feel like I am treading on ground where angels fear to trod. I tell you; I have prayed much about this. I solicit your prayers as we examine a very, very important topic. What we are dealing with is how we define or identify our "north star"; where we get our bearings. What is really, valid, true? For when we "prove all things" we must have something that we can rely on, have confidence in it that it is true-on which we can anchor our souls.
Let us now examine the reasons some people insist on using only the King James Version, why we should consider some other version, and review the evidence in relationship to this crucially important topic. We are dealing with issues that affect peoples' souls. On the one hand it needs to be readable, but it also needs to be doctrinally sound. The thing that scares me right now is that I see other translations that are being used because they are more readable, but are not safe. I am afraid that some people are getting materials primarily because they are easier to read without adequate thought to their doctrinal soundness And in the final analysis many people are going to change to others no matter what we do. It concerns me, however, that we may select a bad version by default. And that is scary. Included in this study are some guidelines for selecting a translation/version.
on the KJV Only
Many people hold to it because of tradition. Not all traditions are bad. Tradition means something that has been handed down. Traditions can be either good or bad. Many people have used it all their life. Anything else sounds unfamiliar. The problem with this reason is that persons have not really examined the issue carefully to determine the soundness of the reasons Doing something just because that is what we have always done does not make it either right or wrong.
Some people hold to the KJV because they have responded to what we have preached, but have mistakenly applied it. We have taught: "Do not add to nor take from" the Word of God. A warning that is worth. hearing: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we . said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other. gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9)4
So if any thing does not sound "right", does not ring true or does not sound like what I know in my Bible, or if it does not look like my Bible, that is, the version I am accustomed to using. I remind us that "wolves in sheep's clothing look mostly like sheep. It is only when we see what might look like a tail, a paw instead of a hoof, one is alerted that something may be amiss. So any time there is any variance in the wording it may be viewed as error, although it may be saying the same thing; just worded a little differently.
Others consider it to be the only "Authorized" version. Indeed the KJV is referred to as the "Authorized Version." This is printed in many Bibles. However, there appears to be no evidence that it was ever officially "authorized" by anybody.5 It appears that the printers put this on it because “it sells”. King James indeed commissioned the translation, but there is no evidence that this version is any more authorized than any other translation.
Other arguments for the KJV include that it has stood the test of time --- 379 years, and is still popular. We owe much of our spiritual heritage to the KJV. It has worked well in converting thousands, and indeed it has. This could also have been said of earlier translations/versions prior to the KJV (e.g. Latin Vulgate, Septuagint). Some people believe it to be from a better Greek text (The Received Text) than many of the more recent versions. This is an area that I believe we really need to study. Some of our brethren are doing some work in that area. My topic does not deal with textual criticism, and I am not prepared to pursue that issue today. But this is an important issue. For it appears sufficient now to note that all translations are not from the same Greek text. The American Bible Society Chart6 shows various translations from the Greek and Hebrew. It may appear from the chart that these may be from the same text but they are not.7 Indeed, many of the New Testament translations were from the Greek language, but they were from at least three or four Greek texts8. We have no original Greek manuscripts of the Bible, only copies.9
Some people feel that the KJV uses more reverent language (e.g., thee, thou in reference to God). There is no evidence that "thee" and "thou" were any more reverent in 1611 or in Bible times than other pronouns such as "he" or "you."
Some say, "Why Change? I do not have any trouble understanding it," This is to ignore some information we noted earlier about the difficulty the KJV presents to persons with low reading ability. Others are not changing because of expedience. Some feel we should change, but do not want to offend others. Others feel we should change, but have not found an acceptable alternative. I am at that point right now. I feel we should change, but I have not found a version that is acceptable, yet.
In the early church there were people endowed with a gift to be able to "interpret." We have talked a lot about tongues over the years, the ability to speak to people in their own language. We know very well on the day of Pentacost when the apostles stood up to speak, the people later asked, " And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"11 This has been a theme throughout time. I am not unaware of the fact that Peter said of Paul: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some12 things hard to be understood.”13 It is instructive to note however that it says "some" and not "all." The thesis is that generally words are easy to be understood. And in every case, if it be hard to be understood, there were put into the church individuals whose responsibility it was to interpret.14 It may be for dealing with hard words or foreign language. They were to translate the message so that everyone would be edified.15 Therefore, we have biblical reasons for making communications so that the people can understand—"easy to understand."
“But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survey of the Bible. Truely (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good. . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principail good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. 16
They also stated "But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand?"17 Further, “Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel!; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar18 tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deep) without a bucket, or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esay, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion. Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed.”19
This was printed in every copy of the original King James Bible. It has long since been removed from most copies of King James Version bible.
Through the years many people have seen the need for translating the Bible into the language of the common people of their day. Let us examine this from a historical perspective. See Appendix A for the Time Line: Language Change, Bible Translations, and the Common Man. Let us start from today and move backwards on the chart. It is important to keep in mind while examining this evidence that "the word of God endureth forever."20 Some people have problems thinking that if a translation is made that it is actually changing the word of God. In fact, some people have the mistaken notion that the apostles must have used the King James Version, not realizing that the KJV did not come into existence until nearly 1600 years after the apostles lived. On the chart note the center reference point of B.C./A.D.
Let us begin in 1990 and follow the bottom line for the KJV to note how little a distance back in history it goes. Note at the bottom of the table that the KJV only goes back to 1611. There are centuries prior to that during which no person, including the apostles could have had access to the KJV. There were English translations prior to 1611 as are noted on the chart going back to as early as A.D. 1380.21 1 In fact, prior to about A.D. 449—four hundred years after Christ lived—there was not even the English language much less a translation of the Bible into English. We are so culture bound!
It is important for us to view the use of English language in a proper perspective. Because English is so prominent today we may be seduced into thinking, mistakenly that it has always been so prominent. For example, English is spoken all over the world today. There are more copies of the Oxford English Dictionary sold in Japan than in the United States; and there are more people in China studying English than, the total population of the United States today. With the prominence that the English language occupies today it would be easy for us to think that this may have always been the case, but it is not. As one follows the chart, it may be noted that prior to A.D. 449 there was no English language, instead the language of the common people was primarily Latin. And prior to Latin, Greek was the language of the common people, dating back to the 1400s B.C. And prior to it Hebrew was the language of the common people.
Note on the time line going from left to right that God has spoken to His people from the very beginning using the language of the common people. He spoke to Abraham and others nearly 2000 years B.C. using their language, Hebrew. For shundreds of years Hebrew was their primary language until after the Babylonian captivity. When the Israelites, God's people, were dispersed throughout the world, the language of the common people was primarily Greek. The Greeks had gained primary control throughout the world; God was setting the stage for the coming of Christ. As may be noted, the Greek language had developed by around 1400 B.C. By around the third century BC the Jewish people were speaking Greek primarily.
This is the way language works; we learn the language of the people around whom we work. There developed a need for people to have a Bible in the language of the common people. The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was made from Hebrew into Greek language. The primary reason for this translation was so that God's Word could be read by the common person. The Greek language was the universal language at the time of Christ, and that is what they preached in, and I understand that New Testament quotations of the Old Testament were in the Greek, although the original was in Hebrew. This provides evidence that the Word of God is not in any particular language or particular word.
The Word of God is ideas, His will. It does not matter the language. But it was brought over into Greek from Hebrew. As is illustrated on the time line, the Greek language lost its prominence with the rise of the Roman Empire. Latin became the primary language of use. By around A.D. 150 there was a need again to translate God's Word into other languages. They translated it into Coptic, which is an Egyptian language; they translated it into Old Latin. And by around A.D. 300 there was a great need for another translation because most people could not read the Greek Bibles. Jerome was commissioned to refine the Old Latin Bible, and the Latin Vulgate was developed. I had heard of the Latin Vulgate all of my life, but one day I thought “Vulgate" sounds an awful lot like "vulgar.” I wonder if they are related? Sure enough, they are both from the Latin word vuaris which means "of the mob, vulgar, & volgus mob, common people"2 Vulgar, used to mean common or of the masses, rather than "filthy" as it does today. Thus, Vulgate was a bible for the common people, or masses, hence the name "vulgate"
It is no longer the language of the common people of today, but it was at that time. It appears to be instructive to note that about 300 years after the Latin Vulgate was translated, peoples' language changed, and it got so that only the preachers and the clerics (who were generally well educated people) could read it, but not the common people The priests said "trust me, trust me." You know what happened in the A.D. 600s: the rise of the papacy, the first pope and the Roman Catholic Church. This appears to be educational. When the common people cannot get access to (i.e. read with under-standing) the Bible, they can be controlled by others. The church went into the dark ages. Alter a number of years, some preachers were beginning to argue that they needed to have the Word of God so the common people can understand it. Some preachers, the priests-mostly Catholic-were writing in the margins of the Latin Bibles the Anglo-Saxon translation.23 In effect they were making an interlinear.
To illustrate the degree of language change, see Appendix B for a reprint of how the Bible looked in A.D. 950. The bottom line is Latin and the top is the English translation.24 By 1384, the Wycliffite Bible (C) is somewhat easier to read, but still illustrates how much the English language has changed since then. By comparing it to the Lindisfarne Gospels, C. 950 one can see how much change can occur in approximately four hundred years. As may be seen in Tyndale's translation, it is getting easier still. Not onl did the visual printing change, but its sound (pronunciation) changed, too.25
I do not know whether English language will change as much in the future as it has changed in the past. The point is this: language is changing; we cannot modify this. Instead we must address it.
As may be seen on Appendix C (Time Line: Bible Translations, English Language and Church History), many translations came out at about the time of major historical movements. Note on the time line all of the events that occurred during the reformation period starting in the 1400s. Note in the right hand column of the time line the first printed book: Gutenberg Bible, England Breaks with Rome (1534), Tyndale's translation (1535), in 1534 Henry VIII, then the Great Bible (1539), incidentally the Geneva Bible was the one used by the Puritans in contrast to the Bishop's Bible. I understand the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible to Plymouth Colony, America in 1620.
on the KJV
Words:
The following are examples of words used in the KJV which are no longer in current use. Many people would likely have difficulty reading these with understanding. For example: “chapt, habergeon, stacte, wimples, ouches, ambassage, neesed.”26 See Appendix D for other examples.
Sentences:
Consider examples of sentences which may be extremely difficult, if not impossible for many readers to understand. "The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour" (Job 36:33). "Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1). For other examples see Appendix D.
Familiar Words, But, Different Meanings
But perhaps of more concern are words that are still in use today but had different meanings in 1611 when used in the KJV. This appears to be the most scary area of all. When it says "fetched a compass," I do not know what that means. But when it says nephews I may say that I know what nephews are, but not realize that the word "nephews" in 1611 was used to refer to "grandchildren, nephews or other descendants.”27, 28
As may be seen in the "Comparison of various translations of selected KJV terms" in Appendix E, some of the other translations make it much clearer, easier to understand. Wisdom requires that we consider some alternatives to the KJV.
All of these examples suggest that the KJV may present many comprehension problems for twentieth century readers. As has been noted historically, when language has changed, making it difficult for the common man to be able to read it with relative ease new translations have been made. It is suggested therefore that a new translation is needed. But the big issue is what translation. As may be noted in Appendix F, there are numerous English translations available. From among all of these translations, how does one select one or more that may be safely used for Bible study?29 To assist in such a selection process, I have developed some guidelines for selecting a Bible translation [see Appendix H] It appears extremely important to keep in mind that doctrinal soundness is more important than readability, but this is not to take away from the importance of readability. May God help us in this crucially important endeavor.
*** IN THE PROCESS OF LOADING THESE APPENDIXES AT PRESENT --- SHOULD BE DONE THIS WEEK ****
Appendis A: Timeline --- Language Change, Bible Translations, and the Common Man
Appendix B:The Lord's Prayer in Historic English Versions
Appendix D: Potential Sources of Reading Problems Due to 379 Years of Language Change
Appendix E: Comparison of Various Translations of Selected KJV Terms
Appendix F: Chronological List of Bible Translations/Versions
Appendix G: Guidelines for Selcting Bible Versions
2. Jonathan Kozal in a speech delivered at Texas Tech University, 1989.
3. Smith, Nila Banton. American Reading Instruction. Newark, DL: International Reading Association. 1965, 1986. One chapter discusses the role of religion and the Bible in reading instruction in the United States.
4. See also Revelation 22:18-19; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 John 9; 1 Peter 1:21. 5. Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1982.
6. American Bible Society. A Ready-Reference History of the English Bible (1971 Revision). New York: American Bible Society, 1971.
7. Bruce, F. F. History of the Bible in English (Third edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Also, Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible (Revised edition). Abilene, TX: A.C.U. Press, 1986. An excellent introductory work on this topic.
8. op cit.
9. op cit.
10. 1 Corinthians 14:9
11. Acts 2:8
12. italics mine, LOB.
13. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).
14. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28
15. 1 Corinthians 14:5, 26
16. Preface to the KJV: "Translators to the Reader" in Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1982, p. 157.
17. op cit., p. 147.
18. In 1611 vulgar meant common or of the masses.
19. Opfel, op cit, p. 148.
20. “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Peter 1:25).
21. Wycliffe Translation.
22. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company, 1976, p. 1314.
23. Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible (Revised edition). Abilene, TX: A.C.U. Press, 1986. An excellent introductory work on this topic.
24. American Bible Society. A Ready-Reference History of the English Bible. (1971 Revision). New York: American Bible Society, 1971, p. 38.
25. The reader is referred to an audiotape, "A Word in Your Ear" for what scholars believe to be the way the Lord's Prayer sounded between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300.
26. From Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible From KJV To NIV: A History and Evaluation, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981, 1982, p. 55. [Young's or Strong's concordances may be used to locate verses in which these words are used.]
27. Burchfield, Robert W. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 1971. The Oxford English Dictionary, First edition, together with the Supplements and the Secon edition (20 volumes) published in 1989, are outstanding sources of information regarding the meanings of English words during the various periods. This is an excellent reference for checking meanings of words as they were commonly used in 1611. It is expensive. Many, if not most public or university libraries have it. Vines Dictionary of New Testament Words.
28. Oxford English Dictionary provides the meanings of words in different periods of history.
29. In view of the current state of affairs, it appears wise to consult multiple versions. By making comparisons, and then using appropriate references, we will more likely arrive at God's intended message. Parallel Bibles, such as Comparative Study Bible (Zondervan), which uses the KJV as the base, are highly recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment