54 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
I don’t know… I don’t really see a huge improvement in the NRSV version… |
I don’t know… I don’t really see a huge improvement in the NRSV version… I am not trying to be insulting here but this usually comes down to two things: 1) People are familiar with the KJV, it’s like that ratty old blanky that you used as a baby, it’s old and worn out but for sentimental reasons you really want to keep it and 2) the NRSV helps people to understand what the KJV was trying to say, so the KJV becomes more understandable on the second reading. Since people then understand the KJV they are convinced that the KJV is just as good, since they now understand it. |
All KJV lovers, I don’t think you have anything to worry about when it comes to the KJV. It is pretty cemented in the English speaking LDS church. After Phil Barlow released his “Mormons and the Bible” the First Presidency issued a statement saying that we will be sticking with the KJV for the forseeable future (link here). Also, I was just told by CES in no uncertain terms that the KJV is the official Bible of the LDS church and I am to use that in teaching. Looks like I may not be returning to teach next year (of my own choice, no conspiracy theories please). All in all, we can safely continue to read James just like Proverbs for a long time. |
I just bought the NRSV this morning and read the first 9 chapters of Genesis on the way home. It is amazing how much better it reads than the KJV. I also like how it makes clear that there are several “stories” on the creation, one focusing on the Seven Days, while the other focuses on the creation of Man. In the KJV, the stories are meshed together, but unfortunately flow strangely as there is no indication that they are two separate stories. |
Tsk, tsk, DKL. Have you no appreciation for poetry? THAT’s the difference between the two. |
Jack, The Epistle of James is a letter, not poetry. The fact that you think it is poetry means that you are reading it like the Proverbs, which is poetry. Ergo, DKL hit the nail on the head. |
DKL, I wasn’t able to comment on your prior post, but I had to deal with these issues when I prepared by Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day Saints. We originally briefly contemplated doing a new translation, but concluded that most Mormons simply aren’t comfortable reading a non-KJV Bible. I wrote in the introdcution that the need for the book would largely be obviated if people would just read a good modern translation; but since most Mormons won’t do that, they need to come to terms with the KJV. We put the KJV text into a modern format, with paragraphing and superscripted versification, poetic passages shown by line divisions, OT quotations reflected in bold text, etc. Just doing those sorts of things helps. But to make the text make decent sense, I and my co-contributors wrote literally thousands of footnotes. All of which is to say that on the one hand I’m a big advocate of people reading modern translations, but I’m also pragmatic enough to know that most Mormons simply aren’t going to do that, over the short-term, at least. |
Seth R and Jack, one of the concerns I had with presenting these examples in parallel was that people would skip directly to them without reading the analysis. Did your read my analysis? I point to specific issues in the KJV. Can you identify how the I’m mistaken? For example, I claim that the NRSV is structured in such a way as to make transitions clear and cogent. Can you point to a transition between phrases in the KJV that is comparable to the ones I present in the NRSV? Jack, I love poetry. I just want good poetry. David Clark and Dan, we’re on exactly the same page. David Clark, your comments are right on the money. Kevin Barney, it’s good to see you in these parts. I think that it’s a shame that Mormons hold to the KJV superstition, because it shackles them to a text that requires thousands of annotations to make the text usable — not to eliminate or clarify archaisms, but to clarify its poor writing. And BTW, it’s never too late to comment on that post. |
By the way, one particular scripture that I use as a litmus test (of course it should be based on more than just one) is Hebrews 11:1. In the KJV it reads as follows:
The Joseph Smith translation removes the word “substance” and puts in “assurance.” It makes more sense. Substance is just too vague a word. Substance of, well, what exactly? The NRSV has it as follows:
Note how more powerful both “assurance” and “conviction” are. It’s not just the evidence. It is the conviction. That’s faith! |
I wrote in the introduction that the need for the book would largely be obviated if people would just read a good modern translation; but since most Mormons won’t do that, they need to come to terms with the KJV. Wow. I don’t know which is more impressive, your persistence in such a project or most Mormons stubborn conservatism on the matter. |
Bah. I have a bible, and don’t need another one. :) |
David Clark, thanks for providing that link to Philip Barlow’s 12 Questions at Times and Seasons. At the time that thread was posted, I was blogging under the pen name “Arturo Tusconini.” So you can see my contribution to that thread is to argue with Jim F about whether we’d need to backfill the Book of Mormon with verbiage from the new translation. Unfortunately, Jim F never seems to get the point. In that thread, I also compare a randomly selected verse from the Old Testament in the KJV and the 1985 JPS translation. This became the first of many such random comparisons over the course of my many years of arguing against the King James Bible. As DKL, I took up the argument again at BCC right here, repeating the scriptural comparison in the Barlow thread. And again here at Millennial Star, offering even more random comparisons. And I took up the argument again in this thread at Times and Seasons, which includes dueling quotes between Mark Butler and me, and an argument with Jim F. over whether it’s significant to use the term Jacobean to describe the KJV. |
I find this post to be quite humorous, pretentious, and absurd- mostly humorous. Placing the KJV and the NRSV only pointed me towards the KJV. I think it’s funny to say, “it explains what older translations were trying to say.” And who is the authority on that? And the KJV hardly reads in aphorisms if you use the handy pilcrows to identify full paragraphs. I’m sure the format would earn you a bad grade in English nowadays, but then it may not, with our education system. From verse 3- I would prefer the word “Patience” to “endurance”. What does endurance mean but a self-fulfilling ability to last. Patience connotes that same thing, as well as a compassion and empathy for others. Verse 24- The KJV uses the phrase “manner of man”. This is much more poignant than “what he was like”. # 9 Dan, is faith not substantive and evident? Faith without works is dead (or non-existent). Conviction is only faith if it is shown in some substantive form. This is the Christian worship idea of faith as being formless, without substance- separate entirely from works or any action. “I believe, therefore I am saved.” I must simply be enamored by the archaic qualities of the KJV or caught up in sentimentality, right? Aside from just these very few hand-picked examples, I find the KJV more insightful than the NSRV, which I can’t see as improving on the KJV in this instance, rather summarizing what is written in a modern language. Although I would not be against a good re-translation from the original texts without deference to our modern language, I can’t see how this fills a gap so far. |
David Clark: “The Epistle of James is a letter, not poetry.” I’m suggesting that the *translation* purposely gives the text it’s own poetic value. DKL, As much as I enjoy the NRSV reading, I’ll never fall from the pure-KJV-faith. Except for lots of money–I’ll do it for that. |
Jack, have you read my analysis? I’m not clear on what basis you’re disagreeing with it. You attach the word “poetry” to it, as though that makes it vaguely acceptable. Moreover, to the extant the the translation purposefully gives the text its awn poetic value, it does a crappy job. As good as each verse may sound in isolation, when you have to read more than 5 or 6 verses at a time, it makes little sense, poetic or otherwise. The question is one of whether you want a bible that’s readable or merely quotable. |
So, what do you think of the NET Bible, intentionally written to get around the various intellectual property law problems people have using modern translations. |
nasamomdele, I don’t know quite to make of your comment. I’m not clear why you think that I’m saying that the NRSV “explains what older translations were trying to say.” I’m saying that the KJV translators do not demonstrate any understanding whatever about the underlying structure of the text, and in the process of rendering it in English, they destroy that structure. Moreover, you state, “KJV hardly reads in aphorisms if you use the handy pilcrows to identify full paragraphs”, but there are no pilcrows in the KJV version of James. Even so, the KJV benefits from the parallel formatting I’ve provided, because it divides the verses up into units equivalent to the paragraph formatting in the NRSV, and it doesn’t solve the problem (more on this below). You propose, “I must simply be enamored by the archaic qualities of the KJV or caught up in sentimentality, right?” Though I have pointed out where I’ve found you to be idiotic in other threads, I haven’t yet found you to be so in this thread. Here, I’m simply proposing that you’re sloppy in your reading. You point to word choices that you prefer, as though the bible can be understood as a serious of quotations, with no attention to the text reads as a whole. For example, in the KJV, there’s no obvious connection between verse 4 and 5: The KJV rendering of these is: “But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” There’s no obvious connection between these two sentences, which is why it simply reads as a pair of disconnected aphorisms. The NRSV rendering pits “lacking in nothing” against “lacking in wisdom” to make it clear that this verse is building a conceptual chain that has continuity between the two verses: “…and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you.” This happens over and over again throughout the text, as I point out in my analysis. You’ve tried to pretend that paragraph grouping solves the problem, but it doesn’t. My contiguous placement of both verses in the preceding example doesn’t make the KJV any more clear. |
nasamomdele, Joseph Smith translated Hebrews 11:1 as “assurance” instead of substance. And from a study I did long ago (during my mission) of the original Greek, the word in original Greek meant assurance and not substance. Now, mayhap in 1611 the word “substance” meant assurance. In fact, according to the Oxford Dictionary, substance had a lot of religious meanings back in the day. Like the first definition is:
But the definition that the King James writers use is #4:
The first example comes from Wyclif’s 1382 version of the Bible:
This is what the KJV eventually used for Hebrews 11:1. Personally I like the words assurance and conviction. I think they are more active than substance and evidence in describing faith. |
DKL, I had no idea the bloggernaccle had been complaining about this for so long. Thanks for the links. |
“You’ve tried to pretend that paragraph grouping solves the problem, but it doesn’t. My contiguous placement of both verses in the preceding example doesn’t make the KJV any more clear.” I have made no such pretensions about paragraph grouping. Grouping is definitely helpful, but hardly necessary. For me, there is no “problem” from the start. In the end, I can really only say what Seth so aptly said in #1 and include that I get the feeling that I’m looking at Shakespeare vs. Shel Silverstein (who is awesome). Dan, for me assurance is passive, something to be received, and as I said, conviction renders a less substantive or tangible description of faith than I feel is necessary. I hardly want to argue this as I think it’s preferential. |
DKL–is there an online version for the NRSV? I go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ to read different versions. I don’ see the NRSV there. Thanks for posting. |
Stephen M (Ethesis), I love the footnotes. I’m not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I think of it as a respectable translation that is quite clear. From an aesthetic point of view, I don’t appreciate the feel of it as much as I do a few others. In that respect, it’s more like the NIV than the NRSV. Heads and shoulders above the KJV. Anyone else have an opinion? |
DKL, I’ve read your analysis — more than once — and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, the newer translation reads very well — it flows. But, it resonates with us primarily because (imo) it is in a language that more closely reflects our modern cultural experience with discourse. But (again, imo) it doesn’t have nearly the rhetorical value of the KJV. There is a beauty in the mere sounds of the language — and that is one of the defining reasons for the poetic structure of the translation. Also, the choice of words in the KJV (again and again, imo) are far more powerful with regard to conjuring up imagery than the NRSV. So while the newer translation may flow better — in terms of the transmission of conceptual elements — it doesn’t hold a candle to the KJV in terms of art. |
nasamomdele: I have made no such pretensions about paragraph grouping [being a problem]. Grouping is definitely helpful, but hardly necessary. For me, there is no “problem” from the start. This is a pretty crazy thing for you to say, nasamomdele. You’re on record saying, “the KJV hardly reads in aphorisms if you use the handy pilcrows to identify full paragraphs.” Rendering James as though it were mere aphorisms is the key problem I identify with the KJV in my analysis. So to answer this, you posited that paragraph grouping is a sufficient to keep the text from sounding like aphorisms. As far as our argument here goes, it doesn’t actually matter whether you think that rendering the text as disjointed aphorisms is a problem. My previous comment demonstrates that paragraph grouping has nothing to do with whether the text sounds like aphorisms, so that paragraph grouping is not a sufficient condition to keep the text from sounding like aphorisms. Therefore, your statement, “the KJV hardly reads in aphorisms if you use the handy pilcrows to identify full paragraphs” is false quite apart from the fact that there are no “handy pilcrows.” This is merely a repetition of what I said before, minus the word, “problem.” Your focus here on the usage of the word problem is a fairly sloppy. I’ve charged you with sloppy reading of the KJV. If you wish to persuade readers that your reading of the KJV is credible, it may help to do a better job reading comments. And I remain mystified by your comments. You still haven’t said anything in favor of the KJV that amounts to more than quibbling about words. In my analysis, I charge the KJV with failure to flow. You haven’t laid a finger on this. I’m beginning to sense that, much like your involvement in the Fawn Brodie discussion, you’re just going off half-cocked here. |
Jack: So while the newer translation may flow better — in terms of the transmission of conceptual elements — it doesn’t hold a candle to the KJV in terms of art. The conceptual elements that the NRSV so successfully conveys are those of James. They’re the reason we’re reading his epistle, and the goal is to understand him through his writing. We should avoid any translation that unduly obfuscates the concepts in James’ writing. I group the KJV among the translations that unduly obfuscate James’ writing, and my analysis supports this grouping. We may have to agree to disagree on the art issue. English that doesn’t flow isn’t good English, and in this instance bad English makes for bad art. The KJV sounds artistic because its archaisms evoke a sense of classicism. I’ve read Tudor, Elizabethan, and Jacobean English. I grasp the language, and I’m able to make reasonable comparisons to contemporary writing. The KJV didn’t flow well when it was written, and it doesn’t flow now. Ben Johnson is very good art. John Donne is very good art. William Shakespeare is very good art, and he wrote in a brand of English older than the KJV English. The KJV is clumsy, ham-fisted, and laborious. The KJV is to great art what a Lego-block Parthenon is to real one that sits atop the Acropolis: It is, in its own way, slightly ingenious. And it’s obvious that a lot of work went into it. But it pales badly when compared to the real thing. Jack: the newer translation reads very well — it flows. But, it resonates with us primarily because (imo) it is in a language that more closely reflects our modern cultural experience with discourse. Then let’s compare it to Shakespeare, and see whether Shakespeare seems to flow. According to your theory, Shakespeare should seem less cogent as well, especially since Elizabethan English reflects our modern cultural experience with discourse even less than KJV English. I’ve chosen a passage from Henry’s attempt to woo Kathrine, the French princess in Act V, scene 2. It’s a good one, but not a very famous one or an especially well-known one:
Significantly, this is not poetry or even free verse. It contains all the archaisms of the Elizabethan era. Its language is just as quotable as anything in the KJV James Epistle; e.g., we have passages like, “thou hast me, if thou hast me, at the worst; and thou shalt wear me, if thou wear me, better and better,” and “Come, your answer in broken music; for thy voice is music, and thy English broken.” These are first rate. Yet the entire passage (and the whole play besides) flows beautifully together and is quite cogent. The KJV simply fails in this regard. Comparing the KJV to Shakespeare proves more disparaging to the KJV than comparing it to the NRSV. Indeed, the comparison demonstrates the lack of flow in the KJV cannot be blamed on the archaic language. I conclude that the reason the NRSV flows is because it’s better written than the KJV, and not because its “language more closely reflects our modern cultural experience with discourse.” |
Here’s something I take issue with in the NRSV. Why say “brothers and sisters“? Does the Greek text say this, or does it say “brothers”? If it just says brothers, why did they translate it as “brothers and sisters”? I believe James’ words can equally be addressed to bother genders, but let me make that call. I think it’s condescending for a translator to do that, putting things in the translation that aren’t there in the original because he thinks I’ll be offended if he doesn’t make it politically correct. I want a translation that hews as closely to the language, cadence, and even idiom of the original languages as possible while still being comprehensible. It’s presumptuous of a translator to assume that he knows how to render the phrase in a way that makes sense to me, without distorting the original and possibly multi-layered meaning of the original. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe that we have a spirit. In their Bible translation (we called it “the green dragon”) everywhere ours says “spirit” theirs reads “breath”. And of course, in Hebrew it’s the same word for both, enumah. Translators like to try to decide from the context whether it refers to “breath” or “spirit” and choose the word accordingly. Why not just translate it the same way every time and let me, the reader, decide what the context requires? And some of the terms take us away from the freshness and aliveness of the Greek and Hebrew. For instance, we say John the Baptist. What’s a baptist? To us it means a special ritual, but to a Greek he’d receive this differently. In his language, it would be John the Immerser. I know why a Catholic wouldn’t like it that way, but that’s the way it would sound to a native Greek-speaker, and it’s the way we should translate it into English. “Apostle” should be Envoy or Sent One; “Prophet” should be Inspired One or Breath/Spirit-filled One. This is how those readers of the original language would have experienced these terms. We keep the jargon but lose the meaning. It should be clear by now I’m not defending the KJV. For instance, I understand that the Apostle Paul’s language in Greek is considerably more earthy than the majesterial way the KJV renders it (and which I do admit to having a sentimental fondness for. I love the way the KJV renders Hebrews 11&12, or Romans 8, all the while admitting it could be a lot clearer). My understanding of the KJV, which appears to differ from DKL’s, is that the majority of the KJV is from the Coverdale Bible, which was translated from the vulgate and not the original Greek and Hebrew. The translators only referred to the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts when the Coverdale version was objectionable to the schismatic Church of England. In other words, they went back and looked at the original languages only when the Coverdale seemed “too Catholic”. And David Clark (#3), I hope you’re not passing on teaching just because your nose is out of joint about them making you use the KJV. That can still be a wonderful experience for you and your students, even if you’re stuck with a translation you’d rather not have to have. I can tell you’d be a wonderful teacher; don’t deprive the students of that just because you’re upset CES is being doctrinaire about Bible translations. |
The NRSV follows what they call horizontal gender neutrality. By that they meant that all references to deity would be masculine (which would be vertical gender neutrality). However, whenever a masculine reference referred to people, and in the Greek it could be either men or women or both the NRSV translators stuck with gender neutral language. This is just common usage. If you don’t think so, next time you welcome an LDS congregation of both sexes just say “Welcome, brothers” not “Welcome, brothers and sisters” and see how many complaints you get. By the way, this is standard practice among liberal, moderate, and conservative bible translators. The newest update to the NIV, the TNIV, follows pretty much the same philosophy as the NRSV. The NIV is the bible of choice among Evangelical Christians. I think you are fighing a losing battle on this one. The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, Erasmus’ attempt to get a critical version of the Greek New Testament, and the Masoretic texts preserved by Jewish masoretes. So it was Greek and Hebrew. However, one of the goals of the KJV was to get a bible that all English speakers could be happy with. Because of that, whenever they could, they would consult and use the language of previous translations, hoping that if everyone got a little of what they wanted they would be happy with it. In the long run, they succeeded wildly. The KJV became the undisputed king of English Bibles. It wasn’t until the 19th century that anyone really tried to update it, and not until the 20th for these updates to come into use. Wycliffe’s translation, the first English translation, was based on the Vulgate because that was all he had. Several other translations were based on the Vulgate, because again that’s all they had. However, by they time of the KJV, they had something Greek and Hebrew to go on, so that is what they used. There was one exception to this, the Book of Revelation. Erasmus could not find a Greek version of Revelation so when he made the Textus Receptus he back translated from Latin to Greek and put that we the Greek versions. Later Greek versions were found and so Erasmus’ version was removed. However, I can’t remember if this happened before or after the KJV. DKL, any help? |
Jeff, I appreciate the addition of “and sisters” in the NSRV. If the verb can include both genders, isn’t the translator making his (or her) own interpretation if the sisters are left out? You’re welcome to ignore the sisters, but if you don’t know enough about Greek to know the verb could have included them, you’re left with only one conclusion instead of two. |
Jeff, About not teaching next year, there are several other concerns I have about teaching seminary, the Bible version was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. My concerns were these: 1) I am basically sick and tired of having students sleep through class. I looked at all of this and decided that if I could mitigate one of these problems I would continue to teach. I chose #5 because it was the cheapest and the most under my control. I can’t control students behavior and I can’t will myself a raise. I also know that I have no chance of changing the minds of those in CES and those living around me. However, I can spend $50-60 on bibles to put in my students hands, as long as CES would not give me grief if I did it. Well, it failed. Perhaps I will teach again next year, I haven’t given my final word yet. |
Amira #29: Why are you saying I’m excluding women? Doesn’t sound like you’re translating my English very well, to say nothing of the Greek. (The words are adelphus and adelphe.) We have the same thing in English, where “he” or “men” can refer to women as well. Why are you reading women out of that? I’m not excluding anyone, but your “translation” of my language is. David #30: |
Jeff, David Clark’s response to your “brothers and sisters” objection is spot on. All successful translations cater to the linguistic expectations of their audience, because it’s the audience that justifies the entire translation endeavor. Like it or not, the norm in our culture is gender-inclusive language, with annotations in the foot notes to indicate where this departs from the literal verbiage. There does remain a small group of nutty readers who insist on literalness with regard to gender, though they’re fine with every other manner of figurative meaning elsewhere. For them, I recommend the ESV and the RSV, neither of which adopt gender-inclusive language. Even my favorite, the Revised English Bible, only uses gender inclusive language with regard to words that are semantically neutral. For example, it renders the Hebrew for man or mankind as “mortal,” and leaves the “beloved brothers” passages alone. There are plenty of options. That’s why your objection is irrelevant, since this post was not aimed at extolling the singular virtues of the NRSV (though it is certainly a very fine translation). The purpose here was illustrate that the KJV is piss-poor English. Any number of other decent translations (including the RSV and ESV) would have served the same purpose. I’m willing to accept any halfway decent translation in place of the KJV — even ones that I don’t otherwise like (e.g., the NIV) — because the KJV is that bad. David Clark is also right about the KJV being a translation that consulted earlier versions, not a transcription of other versions that consulted the original languages. My understanding is that the Greek New Testament that was used for the KJV was an improved version of Erasmus’s text (which was pretty shoddy to begin with), but my memory is sketchy here, too. There are books published on the topic, and I’m sure that Wikipedia has a good entry on it. |
DKL, “In the King James Version of James’ epistle*, each verse reads like an isolated aphorism. Consequently, this chapter of the epistle, when read as a whole, is disjointed and lacks coherence. In other words, it is poorly written.” My solution was to use pilcrows, not present in James, but present in other books of the New Testament. If that does not solve the perception of disjointedness or lack of coherence, then your standards for English prose are simply higher than mine, which I do not doubt from the start. Good prose has never been my goal in studying scripture, so I completely surrender on that point. However, I don’t think that the effectiveness of scripture is diminished by the writing that exists in the KJV and therefore the KJV offers a sufficient source of scripture. My quibbles over words are 100% valid, although it may be more an argument of meaning than an argument of prose, as you are focused on. In that sense, it could be out of place, but still able to be entertained as a valid cause for rejecting the newer version you speak of. This leads me to another concern: I find error in your methodology. You put a modern construction in place to gauge the flow and coherence of archaic scripture. From that point of view, could you not say chaiasms are redundant and therefore poor English? “I’m beginning to sense that, much like your involvement in the Fawn Brodie discussion, you’re just going off half-cocked here.” You’re probably right, although I don’t regard “The KJV is crap” as a sensible sentiment, either. We just call ‘em like we see ‘em. I hope I’m not coming off trying to be an expert, but that shouldn’t exclude my opinion or arguments. I hope I am welcome to comment, and I would hope one so great as you would not cast me off as a fool, but see to it that I am reared up in true knowledge. |
DKL, it seems to me that there is a quiet implication that because the KJV is “piss-poor” English prose, being disjunctive and incoherent in prose, that it lacks effectiveness as scripture. Would you say that? |
DKL: “The conceptual elements that the NRSV so successfully conveys are those of James. They’re the reason we’re reading his epistle, and the goal is to understand him through his writing.” Yes the “concepts” come from James. But what I’m saying is that when we read the NRSV–a more modern translation–we feel the concept or get the idea or the principle of the matter perhaps more clearly than we do in the KJV. But when we read the KJV we are taken there; transported to the “waves of the sea” as it were instead of merely processing the idea. We are taken beyond the conceptual to something even more abstract–which is why I think the KJV is a more powerful work of art than the NRSV. It allows us to wrestle the text in a more profound way–something beyond language. A gross overly-polarized example might be the difference between a painting versus a technical manual. Both may convey the “truth” of the matter in their own way, but one deals with the abstract more powerfully than the other–and it is in getting the abstract that we are (imo) better able to internalize the message of the text. |
…but one deals with the abstract more powerfully [with one] than the other… |
I think I’ll have to agree with DKL here. I usually don’t find the language of the KJV particularly moving, and often it is just confusing. I can understand it pretty well because I’ve read it often enough, but I see no purpose in keeping the language so archaic and often disjointed. |
nasamomdele: If [using pilcrows] does not solve the perception of disjointedness or lack of coherence, then your standards for English prose are simply higher than mine, I’ve already answered this. Specifically, the parallel format that I’ve presented places the KJV in units that correspond to the NRSV paragraphs. The problem is still there. It’s not a matter of standards of English. I’ve articulated clearly the chain of concepts that James is building. This chain is nearly impossible to see in the KJV, but it’s quite manifest in the NRSV. Absent this chain, James’ epistle actually is nothing more than a bunch of aphorisms. You still haven’t addressed this argument. nasamomdele: My quibbles over words are 100% valid. Irrelevant. Valid or not, they’re trivial. nasamomdele: I find error in your methodology. You put a modern construction in place to gauge the flow and coherence of archaic scripture. From that point of view, could you not say chaiasms are redundant and therefore poor English? If you read my analysis, you’d see that I’m advocating preserving the underlying structure of the text. It’s the KJV failure to expose the conceptual chain of James’ epistle makes it a bad translation. And it’s the KJV’s piss-poor English that obscures the conceptual chain in James’ epistle. (once again, you haven’t laid a finger on this.) If accurate translating of good Hebrew results in bad English, then there is an altogether separate issue. Translators have accepted ways of dealing with such problems, and such issues are what makes translating very, very difficult. Once again, your point is irrelevant, because the KJV is a bad translation and piss-porr English quite aside from the question of how translators deal with migrating literary forms between languages. nasamomdele: I don’t regard “The KJV is crap” as a sensible sentiment, either. The difference here is that I provide a careful analysis of the structure of the text that the KJV obscures and renders incoherent along with an example of a text that renders the structure so that the text is fluid an coherent. All you’ve said is, “but I like this word better than that word.” That’s an OK thing to say, but we mustn’t pretend that by saying that you’re actually addressing the issues brought up in the analysis. nasamomdele: it seems to me that there is a quiet implication that because the KJV is “piss-poor†English prose, being disjunctive and incoherent in prose, that it lacks effectiveness as scripture. Would you say that? I’d hope that this is more than a mere implication. The KJV is ineffective scripture, because its poor English obscures the meaning and intent of those who wrote the scriptures. |
Jack, it seems that, in light of my Shakespeare example, you’ve abandoned your original charge that the NRSV seems less disjointed because it’s constructed in contemporary English. At this point, I do not believe that you are differentiating between artistic or beautiful English and mere archaism. There’s nothing artistic about archaic constructions as constructions, and there’s nothing artistic about words chosen in the KJV. If one could create an artistic bible by simply duplicating the KJV while eliminating archaic conjugations and declensions, then such bibles would be bestsellers and widely recognized as brilliant modern replacements for the KJV’s out-dated artistry. The truth is, mainstream Bible readers are not bemoaning the passing of the KJV into obscurity, and attempts to free the KJV of archaisms (e.g., the New King James Version or the 21st Century King James Version) aren’t very popular. The reason is simple: when you strip the text of its archaic usages, all that’s left is the crap that is KJV English. If you want beautiful, artistic English, the KJV just ain’t your ticket. Stick with Strunk & White. |
“All you’ve said is, “but I like this word better than that word.†That’s an OK thing to say, but we mustn’t pretend that by saying that you’re actually addressing the issues brought up in the analysis.” I think I find word usage to be a strong issue in light of this statement: “The KJV is ineffective scripture, because its poor English obscures the meaning and intent of those who wrote the scriptures.” Meaning and intent stem firstly from word usage. You use Shakespeare as an example to argue another point, and I think you would agree that had he used P-Diddy vocabulary, we wouldn’t know who he was. Construction follows and is just as important. I have no reason to think the KJV is perfect, or the best translation out there, by any measure, but I believe, in most cases, the English lends to acceptable coherence. To go on with word usage and to borrow from Jeff, I also don’t see the need for inserting more modernly acceptable terms such as “brethren and sisters” for the reason Jack offers in #35. Inserting our contemporary phraseology takes one away from the original context. I think that kind of liberty taken actually “obscures the meaning and intent of those who wrote the scriptures.” I prioritize context above prose. Therefore, I think you are trying to say the newer “translations” seek to clarify the meaning and intent of those who wrote the scriptures, by pointing out that the KJV can not do so because of poor English. That is your answer to #17- “I’m not clear why you think that I’m saying that the NRSV “explains what older translations were trying to say.— My argument- The KJV is no less effective as scripture and in conveying the meaning and intent of those who wrote the scripturesthan the side-by-side compared NRSV. Your attacks on its prose and style are very effective, but hardly discredit the KJV altogether. To me, there are more legs to take out before the thing comes toppling down. Word usage conveys meaning, even in absence of proper chaining of concepts. What the KJV lacks in some areas, it may not lack in others, where I would argue the NRSV version does lack in context, as Jack has referred to in terms of word usage. I can’t say that any version would actually be better than another, except for the original texts. There are far too many ways that liberty has been taken in just about every form of Biblical text, including the KJV, which obscure meaning and intent in some way. For me, to accept any version is to accept a similar level of average quality. You mentioned that you do have a favorite version other than the NRSV. How does it compare? |
Word usage does not reduce to word choice. The supposition that word usage does reduce to word choice runs afoul the fallacy of composition. |
DKL, Actually, I wanted to say more, but I had to shoot that last comment off as I was running out the door for work. I’m not sure that Shakespeare’s works establish the best criteria by which to measure the “flow” of the KJV–let alone it’s artistic value. Shakespeare not only must artfully wield the language per se, but he must also know how his characters will say what they say in that language–and then, well … say it. And I think that counts for some of the difference between the two–in terms of flow. One is in the business of conveying the thoughts and feelings of characters reacting to narrative irony while the other is (primarily) in the business of teaching something about God–directly. And so, while there is no doubt that no one says it better than Shakespeare, the KJV is in somewhat of a different playing field (not a completely different arena–they overlap) and therefore requires different tools to measure it with. But back to what I was getting at earlier: I think, aside from the fact that you may see a difference in quality (in terms of flow and what-not) between the KJV and other concurrent works, one of the defining qualities between it (the KJV) and the newer translations is the rhetorical tradition out of which sprang Shakespeare, the KJV, and the like. IMO, there is simply no comparison between the two when it comes to rhetorical value. The KJV completely out-does the newer translations with respect to imagery, passion, and nuance in the abstract. KJV: “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” NRSV” “But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind…” In the first example the rhetorical beauty is supreme. The varied and well-placed usages of the word “wave” along with the tightly strung “with the wind” give the entire passage a bouncy or cadence that aches for vocalization. The second, while lucid and is really nothing more than informative–the beauty being measured primarily by what is said rather than “how” the “what” is said as in the first example. Also, the first example is more effective in conjuring up imagery as the passage specifically links the lack of faith to “wavery-ness” and then “wavery-ness” to “waves.” One is better able to get inside of the abstract qualities of the passage because of it’s powerful use of metaphor in the prose. In the second, the metaphor is very loose–yes it’s there–conceptually–as an analogue expressed by the original author for the purposes of teaching a principle. But it isn’t as artistically well supported by the prose as in the KJV. And so we have on the one hand, a version that paints a picture, and on the other, a version that outlines a concept. And the difference between the two being primarily the varied literary traditions from they are respectively grown. |
That’s “buoyancy” not “bouncy.” Gosh. |
Jack, the Shakespeare example simply shows that archaisms have nothing to do with whether the text seems to flow. The other example has to do with whether it’s quotable. There’s no question that the KJV has its moments. The purpose of my analysis of the flow, which is in this case central to the message of the text, was too try and look past the quotable portions. But let’s be perfectly clear: Quotable ≠ Readable If you think that “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed” is “rhetorical beauty supreme,” then you’ve set the bar pretty low. Once you eliminate the archaisms, you get, “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavers is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” If I handed in this sentence for a college class, chances are that they’d point to the word “waver” as poor choice due to repetition with the word “wave.” And it sounds insipid. Again, there’s a reason why bibles that try to retain the verbiage of the KJV while eliminating the archaisms aren’t popular. There’s no painting. There’s no beauty. There’s just archaism masking shallow and poorly constructed English. |
Wait, wait, wait. The word “waver” is a poor choice? Word choice? |
Not sure I agree, DKL. How something sounds is all important in the rhetorical tradition. It’s like saying that all held-notes (on the keyboard) in baroque music were cop-outs because they were saved by trilling–which device fell out of use as music moved into the classical era. Well who cares? It sounds good. But even so, there is no doubt that if trilling had not been as prevalent during the Baroque period that held-notes would not have been written the same in every instance–in some yes, but not all. So as the vocabulary of music changed so did certain expressive elements which have direct bearing on composition. It’s the same with language. How would you translate something like this without the archaisms: This above all: to thine own self be true, I guarantee you, any tampering with it–even the mere removal of archaisms–will cheapen it. |
Oh, and–all in good fun–I think nasamomdele gets a sizzling point for comment #45. |
nasamomdele, Jack brought up word choice by suggesting that repeating words with the same cognate wave is a good idea. I point out that it’s actually a very bad idea. It sounds good to say what you’ve said, but you can’t fault me for responding. Jack, the sound is the problem with the verse that you’ve chosen. It just sounds bad. Adding archaisms simply fools some people into thinking that it sounds classical. But sounding classical is not equivalent to sounding good. Adding marble columns to a mud building doesn’t make it a Greek temple. Your comparison to baroque music is, once more, irrelevant. The mechanical limitations of the keyboard instruments dictated a certain approach that is no longer needed due to (perceived) advancements in construction of instruments. There is no corresponding limitation to language; i.e., English hasn’t become any more “advanced” in any sense relating to the translation of Greek and Hebrew. And your Shakespeare example illustrates exactly my point. It comes off pretty darned well if you remove the obvious archaisms. This above all: to your own self be true, Mind you, I emphatically do not advocate changing Shakespeare. I’ve read well over half of his 37 plays. Even his poor ones contain (on the whole) good, cogent, vigorous, and comprehendible English — even though it’s older English than the KJV. If the KJV were good English, I wouldn’t advocate changing it. But it’s awful English. Once you admit that the NRSV flows better and communicates James’ concepts better, you’ve lost the argument. The reason for reading the scriptures aren’t aesthetic. The reasons for reading and studying the scriptures is to understand the inspired words of God’s servants. I’m engaging you on the “art” issue, because the notion that there’s something magnificent about the KJV Bible is a superstition born of ignorance, and we must loose no opportunity to say so. Even your notion of art is faulty, as though the shivers that the KJV sends down your spine as you struggle through the laborious slime that litters its pages somehow justify saying that the KJV is good art. This is what Nelson Goodman lampoons as the Tingle-Immersion theory of aesthetics. You immerse yourself in the art and feel the tingle:
What Goodman says about a painting having aesthetic properties including “not only those found by looking at it but also those that determine how it is to be looked at” is also true of English. That’s why I offer my analysis, and that’s why the conveying of the authors meaning is a key criteria. You can’t just take refuge in your assertion that the language makes you tingle as evidence that it’s good English. |
DKL #44, you mention that repetition of “waver/wave” in the verse would be frowned upon in English composition, and this is certainly true. But this is a modern esthetic standard (one I agree with when talking about composing modern English) that we are imposing on an ancient text. The Hebrews (I don’t know about the Greeks) put a premium on repetition (i.e., “I dreamed a dream”) and it was considered good, or even poetic usage. So the challenge for the translator is should we provide a less literal, but equally poetic, way for us to render the phrase that is appealing to modern ears, or shall we translate it in a more literal way but one that is going to clang to modern ears? Translators I think will not easily resist the temptation to showboat and go for the poetic at the expense of the literal meanings. It is very hard to approach an ancient text across such a broad gulf of time, no matter how hard you try. Some translations try too hard, in my opinion. I think the freshest and most lively translation of the Bible I’ve read is “The Message” (read it here) When you go there, pick a chapter that you’re very familiar with from the KJV and read it. I did that with Romans 8 and Hebrews 11-12. I loved the way the new language smacked me in the head, making me see the verses in a really different but lively and relevant-to-my-own-life way. But I found it obliterated a lot of important theological concepts in the process. What I guess I’m saying is I’d rather have the text try to bring me back to that time than try to push the text forward in time to my frame of reference. Rather than tampering with the text and transporting it forward in time in an attempt to make it relevant to me, I want to have the translation transport me backwards the time of its composition. I recognize it is not possible to do either in a fully satisfactory way, but it seems to me the latter approach is less perilous. If that makes me “nutty” (and my insistence on literalness is not solely, or even most importantly, with regard to gender) then so be it. Perhaps I am alone in this desire to approach the writers of sacred scripture where they were, rather than demand that they come to me where I am. Does this makes me a crank somehow? In any case, there is certainly room for lots of translations, and I wholeheartedly approve of consulting many of them. This discussion has not convinced me that the KJV is the worst of all other English translations. I use biblegateway.com very often nowadays to consult the wide variety of translations (including some foreign languages I’m familar with). When I’m just looking at a verse or two, I keep finding that I prefer the KJV. Perhaps this is my own ignorance and blinkered affection for what DKL calls Jacobean English. On longer passages I find consulting the other translations more useful than the verse-by-verse comparisons and many of them are quite illuminating. Some of the problems I mention here are spelled out more in this June 1987 Ensign Article about the KJV. It treats primarily the Jerusalem Bible and the Living Bible. What this has convinced me of is the need for me to start putting more effort into learning the original Hebrew and Greek, which is what J. Reuben Clark and Joseph Smith said we should do. |
Jeff, the semitic pattern of verb/object repetition lives on in modern English. “I dreamed a dream” is great English, and it’s the name of a song sung by Fantine in the musical Les Miserables. But if we use this formula of repetition in the passage being discussed, then we get, “I wavered a wave.” Aside from the fact that this is bad grammar and literally non-sense (waver is an intransitive verb), it hasn’t the slightest thing to do with the repeating construction, “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavers is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” And I honestly don’t know what to say about the Ensign article except this: It is pretty stupid. Seriously, it says things like this:
Aside from the fact that it’s non-doctrinal, unhistorical, and unsupportable to claim that the JST is actually referring to content in a text that predates the text being translated, the CES guy who wrote the article has it completely wrong. The footnote to the NET bible clarifies:
Moreover, your Ensign article relies heavily on the Living Bible, which is altogether a paraphrase of the 1901 American Standard Version, and not a translation. I could go on and on. Almost everything the article says is a distortion. If this is the source of Mormon information on the KJV, then it’s no wonder they’re suspicious of other translations. The Ensign article you site is just a bunch of ignorant nonsense from a CES guy who’s working backwards (and incompetently) to his arguments from foregone conclusions. You’re grasping at straws here, trying to marshal what meager knowledge you have of bibles and bible translations into a case for the KJV. The problem is that you don’t seem to know enough to tell what’s relevant to which issues. |
“What this has convinced me of is the need for me to start putting more effort into learning the original Hebrew and Greek, which is what J. Reuben Clark and Joseph Smith said we should do.” I’ve dusted off my Greek Reader. I agree. This discussion has been very enlightening for me as to my own ignorance, but more importantly to the availability of good bible resources besides the KJV, which version I very much enjoy reading in a similar way that I enjoy Shakespeare as Jack has said. In the end, I would more hastily put down a piece of good English that has no aesthetic value, perhaps considered transactional, than something that has a transformative quality to it- it takes me somewhere and compels me to imagine. See, I grow bored rather easily. For me, the tingle has value. So although I would never call the KJV or NRSV “crap” or assert that there is some ignorance in holding to one or the other, I see that there are holes to be filled. And having never had a desire to read any other Bible (mostly out of a judgmental spirit- I always had a joke in my mind that newer versions would read like Creed lyrics), I think I may. |
DKL: “Once you admit that the NRSV flows better and communicates James’ concepts better, you’ve lost the argument.” No, that’s not my point. I said it flows better in terms of the “transmission of concepts”–which means that it does a good job at handling James’ concepts by extention–but the KJV is able to go beyond concepts to a deeper level of abstract. One can conceptualize what it means not to doubt without internalizing it’s abstract meaning–and I think the KJV, because of it’s greater use of metaphor in the prose, helps us to better engage the abstract than the newer translations. DKL: “Your comparison to baroque music is, once more, irrelevant. The mechanical limitations of the keyboard instruments dictated a certain approach that is no longer needed due to (perceived) advancements in construction of instruments. There is no corresponding limitation to language; i.e., English hasn’t become any more “advanced†in any sense relating to the translation of Greek and Hebrew.” It isn’t a matter of whether or not the translation process has become more or less advanced. The fact is that English has changed and so we translate into it differently than we used to. And the comparison to changes in music is, IMO, quite relevant as the ornate qualities in the baroque style had an influence on compositional preferences. Not only has English changed because we write differently, but we write differently because English has changed. I think your reference to “Tingle Immersion theory” is a bit of a straw man because you set me up as one who feels shivers down his spine at the reading of the KJV (which I never said) and then proceed to tell me: “You can’t just take refuge in your assertion that the language makes you tingle as evidence that it’s good English.” What I have said in so many words is that the KJV transports the reader–which is not to say in a sort of wild nebulous drugged-up way, but in a more specific way–a way that has to do with the subject at hand. And if the subject has to do with the “metaphorical” waves of the sea, for instance, then than that’s where the KJV takes us–not to a gigantic chalk board in our heads where we delineate in numerical fashion the conceptual elements of James’ discourse. Re: Shakespeare–Yes your version of Polonius’ phrase still flows–I’ll give you that–but it has lost much of it’s rhetorical value. |
[...] mastery. Most of my trouble reading the scriptures growing up, besides the highly problematic King James Version, came from trying to read the interpretations my church leaders, seminary teachers, and BYU [...] |
[...] from the King James Version of the Bible (despite DKL’s plea that KJV language is not quite fulfilling). For many, this is because KJV language appears more ancient (and “ancient” often [...] |