From: Douglas K Kutilek <dkutilek@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:03:03 EDT
Excerpted (with permission) from:
"AS I SEE IT"
Volume 2, Number 6, June, 1999
(See additional info re. "AISI" at the end of the article.)
----------
RESTATING THE OBVIOUS ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
by Doug Kutilek
George Orwell (pseudonym for Eric Blair) of ANIMAL FARM
and 1984 fame is commonly quoted as saying that
circumstances have "sunk to a depth at which the
restatement of the obvious is the first duty of the intelligent
man." I have been unable so far to track this quote down to
its exact reference, but inasmuch as I have seen it ascribed
in three different sources to Orwell, I feel safe in assuming
that it really is his remark.
The churning, muddied waters of the present English Bible
translation dispute have sadly obscured the obvious and
most basic truth of the whole matter. That basic and
obvious truth which cries out to be repeated is this--The
whole PURPOSE for having a Bible translation--the very
reason for its existence--is to convey in words which people
DO understand the meaning of words (in the Greek and
Hebrew originals) which people DO NOT understand.
Let me say it again--the sole justification for producing and
publishing any Bible translation is so that those who do not
understand the words in the original languages can
nevertheless gain access to them through words they do
understand in their own language.
Most English speakers cannot read Greek or Hebrew (or
Aramaic--the language used in parts of Daniel, Ezra, and
one verse of Jeremiah). Therefore, if they are to have
access to the words inspired by God in those Biblical
languages, they need a translation of those words into
English. But we must be cautious here: the degree to which
an English Bible translation fails to accurately, clearly, and
fully convey the meaning and content of the originals, to that
degree it FAILS to attain to its very reason for existence.
Any obscurity, ambiguity or inaccuracy that exists in a
translation--and is knowingly allowed to remain in that
translation--is an affront to the very purpose for that
translation's existence.
Let us come to specifics. By now, almost everyone involved
in the King James Bible controversy knows or should know
that there are archaic and obsolete words in KJV which
either puzzle (at best) or mislead (at worst) the common
Christian reader. "Prevent" in I Thessalonians 4:15 does
not mean what we today always mean by that word, namely,
"to stop, hinder." That word as used in 1611 meant "to
precede" and the reader back then would not have stumbled
over its meaning. The reader today, however, will stumble
over it. "Well, why not just put a note in the margin telling
the reader that 'prevent' means 'precede'?" Rather, why not
simply put 'precede' into the text so there is no need here to
search the margin?
"Spoil" in Colossians 2:8 invokes images of decay and
putrefaction, whereas the underlying Greek--and "spoil" to a
17th century English reader--means "to despoil," or, to use a
more common synonym, "to plunder, take as plunder" Even
though "spoil" in the text here will surely "spoil" the
understanding for the modern reader, some still insist that it
must remain in the English translation at all costs,
regardless of the effect on the reader's understanding.
"Plunder" should be the reading in the text. "To the margin!
To the margin!" they cry. "In the text! In the text!" the basic
principle of translation replies.
And what shall we say of "corn"? To a 20th (and 21st)
Century American, that word describes only one particular
species of plant, identified in the Linnaean system of
classification as Zea mays, and sometimes called in older
books "Indian corn" to distinguish it from the grains brought
to the New World by the white Europeans. To read that
Jesus "walked through a corn field on the Sabbath day"
conjures up images of Iowa in the summer, when the true
scene was more like Kansas wheat fields. Corn/Zea mays
is a native American plant (like watermelon, sweet and white
potatoes, sunflowers and most kinds of beans) and was
wholly unknown in the Old World, including Palestine, until
after A.D. 1492. To allow the older English "corn" to remain
in English Bibles is guaranteed to mislead most
contemporary American readers, while "grain" (a word
ultimately descended from the same Indo-European root as
"corn") creates the correct visual image. I recall a day in a
hermeneutics class which I was teaching in which a student
became vehement, even belligerent, in his insistence that
"corn" in the KJV certainly meant CORN (Zea mays) and not
"grain" as the instructor was teaching. Had this zealous and
misguided student been reading an English translation
which read "grain" instead of "corn," he would have been
spared this experience (and no doubt others) of grossly
misunderstanding an English version.
There is also the problem of proper names. What reader of
the New Testament has not been greatly puzzled on finding
"Jesus" in Acts 7:45, and Hebrews 4:8? And who is Elias
(Matthew 27:47)? and Eliseus (Luke 4:27)? and that
strangest of all, Osee (Romans 9:25)? which I always
thought sounded more like a brand of hotdogs than an OT
prophet. Of course, these are merely Greek (or Latin)
attempts to represent those whom we meet in the English
OT as Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, and Hosea. Why confuse the
reader by retaining the obscure and divergent forms? Why
leave these stumbling-blocks in the reader's path? (And
yes, I know that Moses is a Greek form of the Hebrew
Moshe, but since we are accustomed to this Greek form as
the name of the OT prophet, as we know the Savior's name
in Greek form--Jesus, and not the Hebrew Yeshua--it does
not cause confusion, especially because it is used
consistently in our translations).
Then there are the infelicities that now plague the KJV. Try
reading Song of Solomon 5:4 ("my bowels were moved for
him") to a junior or senior high school group. And what shall
we say of "ass" and "asses"? How much better to use in
translation the contemporary equivalent, "donkey" which will
not distract the immature reader. And who ever read I Kings
21:21 "him that pisseth against the wall" in public? If it is
embarrassing to read--and it is--why not substitute a
euphemistic term, such as "male" as the NIV does? Proper
decorum--and the avoidance of an unnecessary distraction--
demands that we substitute "illegitimate" for "bastards" in
Hebrews 12:8, and "mute donkey" for "dumb ass" in 2 Peter
2:16.
And we come to unintelligibilities. Where is the person,
unaided by the Greek text, a foreign version, or a modern
English translation who can make heads or tails out of 2
Corinthians. 6:11-13?--"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open
unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us
but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a
recompense (I speak as unto my children), be ye also
enlarged." And where is the average twelve year old who
cannot plainly understand the NIV here?--"We have spoken
freely to you, O Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts.
We are not withholding our affections from you, but you are
withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange--I speak as to
my children--open wide your hearts also."
And space fails us to speak of "against they came" "fetched
a compass" "durst not behold" "listeth" and literally a
thousand and one other obscurities that unnecessarily cling
to commonly-used English Bible translations, for no other
reason than tradition. Certainly they are not retained
because of enhanced intelligibility.
And there are positive inaccuracies in the KJV, as in all
Bible translations in all languages. The Greek text of Titus
2:13 (there is no variation in the various printed Greek texts
here) clearly and unambiguously teaches that the two terms
"great God" and "savior" apply to one and only one person
in this verse, namely, "Jesus Christ." This is one of the
strongest "proof-texts" of the Deity of Christ in the entire
Greek NT. The KJV's rendering "the great God, and our
Savior Jesus Christ" [and that comma WAS present in the
original 1611 KJV] is at best ambiguous (it always puzzled
me), and at worst separates the terms and applies them to
two persons, namely God the Father, and Jesus Christ.
Because the KJV fails to unambiguously and clearly teach in
this verse that Jesus Christ is both "our great God" and
"savior," it is an erroneous and deficient translation (see
similarly 2 Peter 1:1).
And I could write at length of the KJV's fourfold reference to
the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, as "it" (John 1:32;
Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11), which in my opinion comes
little short, if indeed it comes short at all, of blasphemy.
Baptist theologian Emery Bancroft ascribed this horrid
translation to Socinian influence among the KJV translators
(see Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8). The
Socinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit was roughly the same as
that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose translation--alone of
modern Bible versions--also refers to the Holy Spirit as "it."
[I hope to address this subject at greater length in a future
issue of AISI].
And then there is "faith" instead of "hope" at Hebrews 10:23,
and the very frequent failure of the KJV translators to give
the correct force of the Greek definite article in translation
(often omitting the article in translation--under influence of
the Latin Vulgate--when the sense and meaning of the
passage demands that it be inserted), and many other
inaccuracies of greater or lesser import, which will perhaps
occupy our attention in the future.
Now, some will insist, "But these are small matters"--little
foxes that "spoil" the vines, if you will. In reply, let me say
first, I do not think obscuring the Deity of Christ (as the KJV
does at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1) and virtual blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit by repeatedly referring to Him as "it"
are small matters. But beyond this, I affirm that anything--
ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between
the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of
the Word of God is wrong and evil. To enslave English
readers to a single translation which is often archaic and
obscure, occasionally wholly unintelligible and sometimes
plainly inaccurate when other versions that remedy these
defects are easily accessible is a monument to mere human
tradition and is, as it were, to spit in the face of the very
purpose of Bible translation, and to deny to the mere
English reader the fuller knowledge of God and His
revelation he could have if, IF such obstacles were removed
by use of a revised translation which conforms to current
English usage, and the infallible standard of the original text.
----------
"AS I SEE IT"
Volume 2, Number 6, June, 1999
"As I See It" is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by
Doug Kutilek. Its purpose is to address important issues of the day and
to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and other literature in order to
aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors, missionaries and Bible
college and seminary students to more effectively study and teach the
Word of God. The editor's perspective is that of an independent Baptist
of fundamentalist theological persuasion.
AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at:
DKUTILEK@juno.com. You can be removed from the mailing list at the
same address. Back issues sent on request.
All articles are by the editor (unless otherwise noted) and may be
reproduced for distribution, provided the following conditions are met:
1. articles must be reproduced in unedited, unabridged form; 2. the writer
must be properly credited; and, 3. such reproduction must be for free
distribution only. Permission to distribute in any other form must be
secured in writing beforehand. Permission for reproduction in Christian
print periodicals will generally be given.]
----------
hits since 1/2/03; page first
posted 4/30/01 (counter note)