The many translations of the Bible

[Laurie]

I would like to expand a bit on the idea of the many translations of the Bible. There are many English translations and then, of course, there are translations into other languages such as Spanish, French, Afrikaans, etc.

At first this bothered me that there was no verbatim record of what Jesus said. Scholars believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I was worried that the Greek translators and English translators wouldn't get the words right (and there are examples of that happened). But now I really like the idea of not having a verbatim account of Jesus's sayings.

In Islam, for example, followers have to learn Arabic and say their prayers in Arabic even if Arabic is not their mother language. They have written Mohammed's words down verbatim and you must read it in the original.

Similary with Jewish scripture. If you are a follower, you must read it in the original.

But I think the idea of "speaking in tongues" is not so much a story of one human being speaking in another human language, but rather that the spirit of Jesus's message was free to be translated into all the human languages so that everybody could received the message in their own language. We are not sticking to the LETTER of what Jesus said but to the SPIRIT of what he said.

[Troy]

I must admit that for many years I enjoyed just using the King James version of the Bible as my primary Bible. I used a modern translation every now and again and of course I find the Commentaries of great use.

Recently as I took a more serious approach to the study of the Bible I was exposed to an online version I have had for many years but never used and there I saw the Greek version with its translations and explanations for various Greek words and I now find myself reading many editions of the Bible to get greater clarity.

I am happy to see the myriad of translations now present and while I will never lose site of the King James Version as it will always be my preferred edition for reading I will continue to expand my research to include other versions of the Bible. I hope one day to be able to read and understand Greek.

[Courtenay]

I love the many different translations too. Really, when you think about it, we're privileged to have such a wide range of Bibles in English (and other European languages). In many parts of the world where Christianity isn't so familiar or accepted, they may have only one translation in their own language, or even none at all.

I have several translations that I enjoy comparing when I'm studying a particular passage. They range from the very literal (like the New Revised Standard Version) to the very free (like The Message), which gives a wider range of interpretations. I've also studied Biblical Hebrew and Greek at university, which I highly recommend for anyone who has the opportunity (and the guts... they're not all that easy!!).

Still, I do keep coming back to the KJV. Not because I'm a great traditionalist or anything, but because it just seems to pack so much more majesty, poetry and feeling into the stories than any other version I know. Some very literal translations seem pretty flat and dry (though good for clarification), and some "dynamic" ones try so hard to be fresh and racy and colloquial that they end up sounding a bit silly. My favourite modern literal translation is the New International Version (it's just better written than the NRSV), while J. B. Phillips is a very good paraphrase one. I only wish he'd done the Old Testament as well! Does anyone else have a favourite Bible translation? :)

[Troy]

Hi Courtenay,

Thanks for your post. I had not heard of The Message (Bible) so I am currently doing some research on it. I am actually pursuing some post-grad studies on Theology and various translations are being leveraged during the course.

I agree with you regarding the KJV as it is rather poetic and I find very "Spiritual" in the way it conveys the message. What Commentaries have you used and/or are using? There are some very modern ones that I do not agree with 100% but they offer a body of research not available in some of the older ones such as the Interpreter's, though I am in love with the Interpreters. I just purchased the series for myself last year in December as a gift to me. It is worth every dollar.

Troy

[goodwinh]

Expression is infinite .... !

[adyer]

The significance of KJV is not just its poetic nature but that Mrs. Eddy provided a key to the spiritual interpretation of scripture using this version. There are inaccuracies in it but she acknowledges it deals with it in Science and Health.

The Message, on the other hand, is not a translation. It is one man's personal take...it is a paraphrase in the strictest sense of the word. While you may find yourself in agreement with parts of it, it is not really even a version of the Bible but a restatement of it using his own methods.

It may serve as an interesting study text but I do not recognize it as having a place alongside Science and Health as my pastor.

[Starlight Rider]

I find value in reading different translations. I read the KJV from cover to cover in the late '80s, and now I'm reading The Message from cover to cover, albeit slowly as time permits. My favorite 20th century translation is the New English Bible, which one reader has been using in our local church on Wednesday evenings from time to time. I like it because it keeps the spirit of the KJV but the grammar is very modern and readable, plus it offers alternate readings in footnotes.

About a year ago after upgrading to a Vista computer, I needed a new computerized Bible that worked with the new system. I found a very useful and surprisingly FREE Bible program called Bible Explorer. It comes with the KJV Bible included, along with a variety of study aids, like a dictionary, atlas, and commentaries. If you register you can download several more (mostly older) translations and study aids for free. Some of the more modern translations like The Message and The Amplified Bible are available for purchase.

It is a rich and versatile program. The text is completely searchable, and you can select which books and/or translations to search. You can easily compare several translations side by side. You can choose to have verses displayed individually or in paragraphs. Some translations allow the option of highlighting Jesus's words in red. There are even places to write in your own notes. My only complaint is that it frequently downloads updates of the resource catalog, which slows down the startup.

You can find Bible Explorer at http://www.bible-explorer.com/ If you click on the "Tutorials" link at the top of their home page you can see how it works.

[adyer]

The difficulty in using a paraphrase like the Message -- or even some recent English translations -- is the emphasis on orthodox theology. For instance, in The Message, Peterson does what some recent translations do and speak of God creating human beings, rather than man. In this week's lesson Paul talks about the resurrection and Peterson rewrites the passage to emphasize not that Jesus rose from the dead but that Christ most certainly WAS DEAD.

The Message abounds with personal interpretations and even rambling editorial. These kind of things may make it an interesting reference for Bible scholars but it cannot stand even a mild scrutiny by a student of Christian Science with an eye for truth.

The KJV, despite its translation errors and Shakespearean language, maintains much more purity of the message than The Message.

[Starlight Rider]

The difficulty in using a paraphrase like the Message -- or even some recent English translations -- is the emphasis on orthodox theology. For instance, in The Message, Peterson does what some recent translations do and speak of God creating human beings, rather than man.

In defense of The Message, Christian Scientists tend to use the terms "human" and "man" in very specific ways that differ from common usage. In CS "human" refers to the material concept, while "man" tends to refer to the spiritual idea. In today's common usage these terms are interchangeable, and "human" is preferred these days because it has no gender connotations. If Mrs. Eddy wrote S&H today, I think she would probably do the same.

In this week's lesson Paul talks about the resurrection and Peterson rewrites the passage to emphasize not that Jesus rose from the dead but that Christ most certainly WAS DEAD.

I assume you are referring to the Golden Text. I read both translations and don't really see any significant differences in this regard. The only verse I could find that might fit your description was 1 Corinthians 15:4. Here is that verse from each version:

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV)


that he was buried; that he was raised from death on the third day, again exactly as Scripture says; (MSG)

So The Message specifically states he rose from death, while KJV simply say he rose. However, In verse 3, both translations clearly state that Christ died:


For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (KJV)

The first thing I did was place before you what was placed so emphatically before me: that the Messiah died for our sins, exactly as Scripture tells it; (MSG)

I would say the two translations are in agreement on this subject.

[adyer]

In defense of The Message, Christian Scientists tend to use the terms "human" and "man" in very specific ways that differ from common usage. In CS "human" refers to the material concept, while "man" tends to refer to the spiritual idea. In today's common usage these terms are interchangeable, and "human" is preferred these days because it has no gender connotations. If Mrs. Eddy wrote S&H today, I think she would probably do the same.

It is not Christian Scientists who use man and human in different ways. It is Mrs. Eddy. Far from being merely a sectarian peculiarity of a group of adherents, it is a fundamental scientific basis for understanding what is real from what is not.

Common usage of those two words is not really that different today from 100 years ago. In fact, Mrs. Eddy's distinction between man and human was based entirely on the premise that we must not adopt common usage but know the difference.

I cannot fathom any circumstance by which Mary Baker Eddy would, today, see any reason to write Science and Health differently than when she wrote it.

[adyer]

I assume you are referring to the Golden Text. I read both translations and don't really see any significant differences in this regard. The only verse I could find that might fit your description was 1 Corinthians 15:4.
No, it was in the context. See verse 16, which in KJV reads: "For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised."

Peterson rewrites it thus:

If corpses can't be raised, then Christ wasn't, because he was indeed dead.

First, he changes from "the dead" to "corpses." This may seem insignificant at first, but it removes focus from consciousness and places it squarely on matter. "The dead" is ambiguous enough to be interpreted as "dead in belief" or somesuch, while "corpse" is now talking about life in matter...and bringing matter back to life.

According to human belief the body lives and dies. Neither the KJV nor The Message states in objective terminology the scientific fact that death is not real and that Jesus' body was no more dead or alive before or after the crucifixion than was the body of Lazarus. Science and Health clarifies this so that we can read the Bible and understand its spiritual interpretation.

To rewrite the passage only to emphasize the incorrect meaning beyond what even what the KJV does here is a disservice to the student of Christian Science whose life work is to discover truth through reversal of error. How can it be a study aid for a student of Christian Science to rewrite a Bible passage in this way? What further inspiration can be gained by giving such deliberate emphasis to a lie?

[Troy]

Hi,

Personally, I do not think it will be a right move on anyone's part to move away from the use of the King James Version as a student of Christian Science. I am also aware that some people in foreign lands who are students of Christian Science who unfortunately do not have the option of using a King James Version.

Research helps to broaden thought and as we continue to do our work to protect and further the growth of our movement it is helpful, though not always necessary, to understand what is helping to shape wider thought.

I now better understand the stance Mrs. Eddy took on the subject of theology which is often more concerned with the accuracy of history verses the inspiration for healing. Sometimes that search for accuracy results in more confusion as the researcher and writer overlay(s) their beliefs on their findings and publishes it.

I have seen a few Churches move away from the King James to go right back to it. It will always be my preferred study. I believe other books will help to unlock study but they should not distract from turning to the King James Version first.

I needed to be clear that I am not suggesting a move away from the King James Version.

The difficulty in using a paraphrase like the Message -- or even some recent English translations -- is the emphasis on orthodox theology. For instance, in The Message, Peterson does what some recent translations do and speak of God creating human beings, rather than man. In this week's lesson Paul talks about the resurrection and Peterson rewrites the passage to emphasize not that Jesus rose from the dead but that Christ most certainly WAS DEAD.

The Message abounds with personal interpretations and even rambling editorial. These kind of things may make it an interesting reference for Bible scholars but it cannot stand even a mild scrutiny by a student of Christian Science with an eye for truth.

The KJV, despite its translation errors and Shakespearean language, maintains much more purity of the message than The Message.

[imjim]

The difficulty in using a paraphrase like the Message -- or even some recent English translations -- is the emphasis on orthodox theology. For instance, in The Message, Peterson does what some recent translations do and speak of God creating human beings, rather than man.

I’m assuming this is in reference to the first chapter of Genesis and it’s record of the account of creation. Most biblical scholars agree that there are 2 separate accounts of creation contained in Genesis (Gen 1-2) and were quite possibly written by different people at different times. When people combine the 2 accounts and disregard biblical history to suit their own views it is often portrayed in this manner.

In this week's lesson Paul talks about the resurrection and Peterson rewrites the passage to emphasize not that Jesus rose from the dead but that Christ most certainly WAS DEAD.

Biblical scholars tend to agree that Paul was addressing a particular problem within the church when he said, “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Corinthians 15:12) This statement by Paul was directed towards a group of followers who had a blended theism with gnostic belief. Gnostics believed generally that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world. They also believed that Jesus resurrection was of that "divine soul" - or a spirit - and not that of a “flesh and bone” presentation.

I think we need to bear this in mind when considering what Paul was trying to accomplish by pointing to the fact that Christ was dead. Paul was attempting to show the gnostics that Jesus death and subsequent resurrection was not merely a return of a spirit but an honest manifestation of the human, Jesus, after the experience of death. A practical proof that mans life is not at the mercy of matter.

Emphasizing the death of Jesus was a tool used by Paul to get through to the gnostics, to prove that Jesus had indeed shown himself in “flesh and bone”. A tool used by Paul - and a tool for us in this age and clime.

Jim

[Starlight Rider]

I cannot fathom any circumstance by which Mary Baker Eddy would, today, see any reason to write Science and Health differently than when she wrote it.

I can. The fact that language does indeed change over time. That is the issue at the core of this thread. Just in the last 30-40 years the term "man" has fallen into disfavor as a generic term and is now seen as being too closely related to gender to apply to all people. One can argue at length about whether or not this was appropriate, but the fact is it happened. (Personally, I don't believe the word "man" has any gender unless it is preceded by an article, "a man" or "the man," but if I try to explain that to anyone under 30 they look at me funny.)

That's not to say that Mrs. Eddy would change her meaning, but she would probably make some different choices in words and phrasing to convey her meaning unambiguously for modern readers.

Another good example of language evolution is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. I suspect the phrasing made perfect sense to the founding fathers or it wouldn't have been ratified. But if you study its phrasing and punctuation closely it makes no sense by today's grammatical rules and has resulted in major confusion.

Likewise, some of the grammatical structures we take for granted today were not yet established in the 17th century when the King James translation was published. Take this line from Luke 23:53 from last week's lesson: "...wherein never man before was laid." If you tried to write that in an English class today your teacher would give you an F. And therein lies the problem. 17th century English is quite different from 21st century English, and will only become more incomprehensible as time moves on.

After 40+ years of reading the KJV, I don't have much trouble deciphering its meanings. But throw it at someone for the first time, and many passages will leave people scratching their heads. It seems to me that if you want to get your message out clearly, it is best to communicate in a way your listener can understand.

That is what Eugene Peterson has attempted to do with The Message. Whether he has succeeded or not is a matter for further debate, but I give him an A for effort. Even Mr. Peterson states in his preface that The Message is not intended to replace other Bibles. Rather his intent is to get people reading, and adds that they should consult other Bibles for more in-depth study.

[adyer]

That's not to say that Mrs. Eddy would change her meaning, but she would probably make some different choices in words and phrasing to convey her meaning unambiguously for modern readers.

I cannot imagine claiming to know what Mrs. Eddy would or even might do. What we know is that she would never compromise her conscience to suit the general drift of thought. Can you really see her using the word "human" instead of "man" simply to assuage concern over gender at the expense of losing the scientific consistency of her discovery? This is not a theoretical or abstract discussion over what Mrs. Eddy might have done today, but clear practical evidence that Peterson's book cannot be consistent with Mrs. Eddy's writings as they are.

And if you think Peterson's book is not being used as a Bible alongside Science and Health in CS churches, I've got news for you.

[adyer]

Biblical scholars tend to agree that Paul was addressing a particular problem within the church...a group of followers who had a blended theism with gnostic belief. Gnostics believed generally that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world. They also believed that Jesus resurrection was of that "divine soul" - or a spirit - and not that of a “flesh and bone” presentation.

I think we need to bear this in mind when considering what Paul was trying to accomplish by pointing to the fact that Christ was dead. Paul was attempting to show the gnostics that Jesus death and subsequent resurrection was not merely a return of a spirit but an honest manifestation of the human, Jesus, after the experience of death. A practical proof that mans life is not at the mercy of matter.

The attempt to rewrite the Bible in contemporary language must address contemporary belief, should it not? If the objective is to make the Bible relevant to living a Christian life -- and this is Peterson's stated motive -- then what is the importance of shifting the emphasis? He rewrites the Sermon on the Mount to refer to "fussing in front of the mirror" instead of "taking thought". He refers to "three square meals" instead of "daily bread." In almost every case he goes for the material and visceral.

We must not overlook that modern paraphrases -- even modern translations -- are the work of modern orthodox scholars, those who by and large adhere to the belief that God created matter. This belief is the basis of the work, which wherever possible seeks to institute the belief as the foundation of true Christianity.

We cannot simply excuse these as historical clarifications or well-intentioned mistakes. It is a deliberate attempt to promulgate orthodox doctrine. There is no coexistence of orthodoxy with Christian Science. We are brethren with all Christians but there is the same antagonism from today's orthodox doctrine as there was from the Pharisaical doctrine of its time toward Christian Science as Jesus demonstrated it and as Mrs. Eddy discovered it.

To study The Message as an interesting comparative resource is one thing; to allow it to speak as our Pastor from within our churches is something else entirely. I say this having seen it presented alongside the Bible as my Pastor in my own branch church.

[Courtenay]

Adyer, thanks - you've put your finger right on the problem I have with The Message too. I don't mind dipping into it at times just for a different idea - some of Peterson's interpretations are quite inspiring. But you're so right... most of the time he does go for the "material and visceral" over the spiritual, possibly to make it sound more "relevant" to people in today's world. Usually in those cases, it only ends up sounding slightly forced at best and ludicrous at worst. How about his take on the Lord's Prayer - "Keep us alive with three square meals"? This in the mouth of the man who said "Man shall not live by bread alone..."?? :rolleyes:

I totally agree with your points about Mrs Eddy's use of the word "man", too. I grew up in an almost completely secular environment, and I naturally always believed that to use "man" as a generic term was sexist. But the simple fact is that there's no other word in English that conveys unambiguously what Mrs Eddy means by that term - "human" and "person" and so on imply material and mortal concepts of our selfhood. She chose her words so carefully because she knew exactly what she needed to say. Now that I'm learning the spiritually scientific meaning of the word "man" (God's image and likeness, including both "male and female"), I have no problems with it. Sometimes we all need to get over some pretty strong human opinions! ;)

By the way, having not grown up in any church, I wasn't very familiar with the KJV when I started studying Christian Science. On the few occasions when I'd picked up a Bible earlier, it was the Good News translation. But I never found the King James language difficult at all. (It's a good deal easier than Shakespeare, at any rate.) It doesn't take long to get used to - and it actually improves when read out loud, which is what it was designed for. It does get a tad bit tricky occasionally, but I did read somewhere that in passages where the KJV language is a bit convoluted, it's often because the original Hebrew and Greek aren't too clear either! :D Often modern translators - particularly when it's an individual rather than a committee - will do their best to smooth over difficulties and ambiguities in the text (frequently with their own theological opinions in mind), which can have the result of narrowing, rather than expanding, its range of possible meaning. The KJV too has its shortcomings, and Mrs Eddy acknowledged that - but it's still the version through which she discovered Christian Science, and so it's the one that most adequately conveys the spiritual sense of the Scriptures that she urges us all to seek. Other translations can enhance and expand our study, but they can't replace the King James.

(As for people in non-English speaking countries - I think I said this elsewhere, but as far as I know, when translating S&H and the Bible Lessons, the CS Publishing Society chooses the Bible translation in that language that is closest to the spirit of the KJV. If you look at translations of S&H, in places where their Bible translation differs in meaning from the KJV, they'll translate the KJV's wording and footnote it as such. Then there's the whole issue of how adequately anything can be conveyed through a translation out of the original language!! But it's worth remembering that human language can never be a barrier to anyone's understanding of Spirit. It's not a case of literalism or personal interpretation, but of "the inspired Word of the Bible" (S&H p. 497) speaking to each individual's heart. And nothing can stop that! :))

[adyer]

By the way, having not grown up in any church, I wasn't very familiar with the KJV when I started studying Christian Science. On the few occasions when I'd picked up a Bible earlier, it was the Good News translation. But I never found the King James language difficult at all. (It's a good deal easier than Shakespeare, at any rate.) It doesn't take long to get used to - and it actually improves when read out loud, which is what it was designed for. It does get a tad bit tricky occasionally, but I did read somewhere that in passages where the KJV language is a bit convoluted, it's often because the original Hebrew and Greek aren't too clear either! Often modern translators - particularly when it's an individual rather than a committee - will do their best to smooth over difficulties and ambiguities in the text (frequently with their own theological opinions in mind), which can have the result of narrowing, rather than expanding, its range of possible meaning. The KJV too has its shortcomings, and Mrs Eddy acknowledged that - but it's still the version through which she discovered Christian Science, and so it's the one that most adequately conveys the spiritual sense of the Scriptures that she urges us all to seek. Other translations can enhance and expand our study, but they can't replace the King James.Sometimes I'll open up my laptop and rewrite passages from the Bible for myself. Not unlike what Peterson does, but I do it because it clarifies the passage where I am at that moment. But it would not be appropriate to foist it upon others.

I'm introducing a friend to CS and we talked about the KJV and she said almost exactly what you did (in bold above).

[Laurie]

But all of the arguments that you have provided are only true for native-English speakers. It does not hold true for the majority of people who have English as a second (or third) language and there is no local church service in their home language.

And that will mean most of the African population. Most Africans I meet with speak excellent English - but it is modern English, not the King's English.

For those of you in North America, there is an assumption that the rest of the world speaks English. And, in some aspects, that is true - but it is a second or third language for those people. It is not their mother-tongue or home language

[adyer]

I have nothing against modern English. I have something against using it to interpret the Bible in a materialistic or orthodox manner.

It helps to realize that the ancient scribes fell prey to this temptation many times. Just copying did not come without "correcting" and this altered things.

We cannot just assume that because we have the good intention to "modernize" the KJV it will not bear the doctrinal fingerprints of the modernizer.

[Laurie]

From S&H 139:15

"The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the ancient versions; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New, --these facts show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record, with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages."

30,000 different readings in the OT. 300,000 in the NT.

How are non-native English speakers supposed to differentiate between the mistakes and the good parts?