WLBA 8: KJV conclusion

If you want to read something effusive about the language of the King James Bible then I recommend this short commentary on the Psalms by Kathleen Norris who writes about,

"the music of the language in the ear, the pleasurable mouth-feel of words spoken aloud."

I am more interested in the King James Bible as a shared document, a consensual text. This Bible was conceived in the reign of Elizabeth I, created during the reign of James I and came into general use during the Restoration period in England, the 166o's . It was not the Bible of Shakespeare or of the founding colonies of the United States.

The value of the King James Bibles as literature is established. But its acceptance may originally have more to do with what it was not - the Bishop's Bible on the one hand, or the Puritan's Geneva Bible on the other.

James commented,

Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.

And resolved,

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.

The new Bible was drafted by a committee of 47 men, from both Cambridge and Oxford, half of whom were of Puritan and half of Episcopal persuasion. It was technically a revision of the Bishops' Bible; the translators were handed out copies of the Bishops' Bible to write on and revise. Ecclesiastical words were to be followed and no marginal notes were to be included, except to explain the Hebrew or Greek words.

I find the fourth instruction to be of particular interest,

When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

The King James Bible is not a shared text by chance. A consensus was carefully created. The translators came from the two opposing camps, the highest scholars were consulted, the interpretive commentary was eliminated, and tradition was to be followed. There was no role for innovation or private interpretation.

The full set of instructions can be read here. Consensus was created through the choice of the translators, the process of translation, the ground rules which were laid down, and especially through the omission of the marginal notes. It was not by chance but by intent that this Bible became the standard translation of the scriptures for 4 centuries.

However, the King James Bible did not enjoy immediate success. It was intended to contribute to internal peace and nationbuilding in its own era. It was planned as an irenicon, a thing of peace. But the second decade of the 17th century led to the third and England was immersed in bloody combat culminating in the execution of Charles I. Cromwell's Bible was naturally the Geneva Bible, the text of the reformers.

It was only during the enforced uniformity of the Restoration under Charles II that the King James Bible became the accepted text. And the rest is history.

I would argue that although the King James Bible did not provide instant peace, it has nonetheless become a shared text because of the qualities invested in it by the strict instructions of the king.

We would do well to consider these qualities. A Bible should bring together scholars of different communities. It should exclude all notes except commentary on the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. It should avoid innovation without consensus. If the translators know that there is no consensus on a particular translation then it should not be included. If there is an innovative translation that has the consensus of the scholarly community then this should be included with explanation and support.

Tradition does not prevent new meanings coming into the translation but provides the wording for an obscure original when there is no new consensus. By a carefully agreed upon process, a text could be created which would not surprise and cause undue consternation.

In a new translation today, I would look for agreement with the current lexicons and grammars, support by the most well recognized scholars, consensus across community boundaries and honouring tradition where new theories are not yet generally accepted. Above all interpretive translation would be largely excluded or well footnoted. Sadly, many new translations fall short of this.

WLBA 3: KJV

Wilba; the Woman's Literal Bible Assessment. I don't know why I accidently scored the King James Version as a 3 out of 4. It is definitely a 4 and is the only other Bible besides the TNIV to score 4 out of 4 on the Wilba. I knew that in my subconscious and once declared that if I had a Bible version of my own, it would be called the "Queen Jamie". But that is open to misinterpretation. Scratch that.

Rom. 16:1 servant KJV
Rom. 16:2 succourer
Rom. 16:7 of note among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 have power on the head
1 Tim. 2:12 usurp authority

To succour is "to assist or aid a person in danger or distress." "Succourer" translates the Greek word prostatis. I don't know what lexicon this is but, by following the Strong's numbers, something I don't do very often, at the NET Bible site I found prostatis defined as:

1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

This word is derived from proistemi which the NET Bible translates in the following way -"manage 2, leadership 1, managers 1, engage 1". It can also mean "to stand before in rank."

Just as it is difficult to interpret "have authority over" as "be under authority" so I find it difficult to intepret, "leading and caring for others" as "being in a subordinate role."

I think there is something rather lovely about the word "succourer" instead of "benefactor" or "patron". Did Paul need financial assistance and someone to believe in him, or did he need to be rescued from danger, and fed, and cared for and protected?

This is reminiscent of Psalm 46:1

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble

"Help" here is ezer, the same word which is used for Eve. So woman is supposed to provide strength and refuge. From Eve to Phoebe. This does not suggest an authoritarian hierarchy. Wife or sister, woman is not a subordinate assistant but an ally.

A Woman's Bible

I am not going to pretend that I am able to give a dispassionate review of a contemporary evangelical Bible. I can only present my point of view. I may sink myself in oblivion when reading the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Pagnini Psalter and Alter's David Story. I can allow myself to be lost in those texts and reflect on how God is revealed and humankind responds. I can become Mary and Martha and Michael and the psalmist.

But sometimes I experience the epistles as a series of proof texts. There are enough sermons and studies and papers which take one verse and through a series of supposed syllogisms decide the boundaries which shall restrict woman, and the role she shall play, always responder, never leader.

Therefore, the handful of verses which enable some to come to these conclusions must be separately plucked off the vine and tasted. Each Bible version must be able to defend its decision. Why stray from tradition, why provide an interpretation and not a literal rendering, and why choose this sense and not that one from an array provided in the lexicon?

So I simply decided to do it - to evaluate the different Bibles according to how they translate 5 verses concerning women. Rom. 16: 1 and 2 are rated as one verse, then Rom. 16:7, 1 Cor. 11:10, and 1 Tim. 2:12.

But aren't I simply driving in a wedge, opening the chasm further with this kind rhetoric? I think not. The chasm was there and widening. The preaching against the TNIV continues. The distrust is embedded.

In fact, I don't and haven't advocated any particular style or version. My major concern has always been that of intense regret that there seems to be no Bible that the evangelical Christian community can share. No Bible has replaced the King James Version in that respect. I find this incredible, but I believe it is so.

Dr. Grudem will not use the TNIV, not because of its gender language, but because of its translation of 1 Tim. 2:12; and others won't use the ESV for its undefended use of the Junia hypothesis.

I long for some kind of openness. I dream that there is some way that those on the opposing sides of this debate can resolve their differences and come together and agree on at least one common Bible.

I had always believed that it would have to be a literal Bible, close to formal equivalence, but I am not sure. It should either represent the traditional understanding, or have a note to explain why it departs from tradition. It should accord with the current accepted lexicons and grammars, and critical text. It should duly represent those things about which we have scholarly consensus. It should have nothing too controversial.

I am convinced that this is something that we can come together on.

Gender language itself no longer seems to me to be the critical factor in this debate. I note that Dr. Grudem allows his name to be associated with the NET Bible, and Dr. Packer warmly recommends the NLT2. Bibles with inclusive gender language include the NRSV, TNIV, NLT2, NET, CEV.

But Dr. Grudem raised the issue of 1 Tim. 2:12 and I think that shifts the focus. Dr. Grudem writes,

The TNIV in particular has changed the translation of many of the key passages regarding women in the church, and I would find it almost impossible to teach a Biblical “complementarian” view of the role of women in the church from the TNIV. It has gone further in supporting an evangelical feminist position than any other translation . . .

To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (italics added). If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women's roles in the church will be over . .

I would like to examine this thesis and see if the TNIV has indeed changed the translation of many of the key passages regarding women in the church. Dr. Grudem writes "many" - and I can only think of 4 or 5. If I have missed any, I would appreciate a little prodding.

This series is also a response to frequent commenter, Glenn, who has asked me many times to interact more with Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 2004. I'll try but I won't go into any long detail - unless asked, of course.

So, I shall blog about how each translation handles a few key verses. I hope we can then develop criteria on which we can agree, and establish what we think would be best translation of each verse, to bring about greater fellowship between Christians of different stripes.

Update: Metacatholic has a post on a related post here. Naming the books we have in common Different topic but same concept. How can we hold something in common?

Lunchroom chat and a Woman's Bible

Last year I mentioned a few conversations I have had at work over lunch. When the chat dies down, I will sometimes just turn to a colleague and ask her what Bible(s) she has used. Since I work in a public school with a staff from a mixed background, Catholic, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist, this can be interesting. So far, I have had some in depth conversations about the Good News Bible, and the King James Version, the only two which seem to be widely recognized.

Today I asked a colleague whom I knew to be an evangelical,

"What Bible do you use in your house church?"

"Oh, we all use something different - I don't know, well, you know, NRV and The Word."

I nodded sympathetically and waited.

"By Eugene Peterson."

"Oh yeah, the Message."

"Yeah, that's it. I have a Woman's Bible, maybe NRV, hmmm, NIV? It has all these little boxes, devotions, for women and all that. Oh, I love it."

"Not the TNIV?"

"How would I recognize that?"

"Well, if it had brothers and sisters in it."

"Oh, no, I don't mind something not being gender inclusive. You know the best Bible for the sheer poetry is the King James Bible. Yes, that is the best."

And I would have to agree. The King James version offers not only poetry but in places a more literal translation. I still stubbornly hold to the idea that the literal and non-interpretive style of the KJV serves women well. Other literal Bibles are also good for women. I was also familiar with the Young's literal translation. Maybe it is my familiarity with these translations that makes me so uneasy at some of the Bibles I start out to review here. I am simply taken by surprise!

Here is the question - which modern Bibles are closest to a traditional and literal interpretation for the following verses? I have provided the KJV, Young's literal version, the Emphasized Bible, Luther Bible, and Latin Vulgate for comparison. Is it just me, or are Bibles in this century more selectively interpretive in these verses.

Rom. 16:1

διάκονον

servant KJV
ministrant YLT
minister EB
im Dienste Luther
in ministerio Latin

Rom. 16:2

προστάτις

succourer KJV
leader YLT
defender EB
Beistand Luther
astitit Latin

Rom. 16:7

ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις

of note among the apostles KJV
Junias - of note among the apostles YLT
Junias - of note among the Apostle EB
Junias - berühmte Apostel Luther
nobiles in Apostolis Latin

1 Cor. 11:10

ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

have power on her head KJV
[a token of] authority upon the head YLT
to have permission EB
eine Macht auf dem Haupt haben Luther
potestatem habere supra caput Latin

1 Tim. 2:12

αὐθεντεῖν

to usurp authority KJV
rule YLT
have authority over a man EB
daß sie des Mannes Herr sei Luther
dominari Latin

I don't think readers realize that when I noticed that the NET notes didn't mention "leader" for προστάτις, I was genuinely surprised because we used the Young's Literal Translation as a reference Bible when I was young. Some may talk about my having a "preferred" interpretation but I am displaying legitimate concern when a traditional and literal understanding is not even referenced in notes.

But I want to ask which modern Bible would be a candidate for the most traditional and literal translation with regards to these verses? Which ones are the farthest removed from tradition? I have only checked a handful so far. Believe it or not!

Update:

I'm going to score these Bibles out of 4, counting Rom. 16: 1 and 2 together. If we look at the accepted text base and lexicons which are contemporary with these Bibles, they would all score 3 out of 4 for being literal.

Young's Literal Translation - 2 1/2 out of 4,
Emphasized Bible - 2 out of 4,
King James Version - 3 out 4,
Luther - 2 out of 4,
Vulgate - 3 out of 4


ESV 2001 - 1 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - patron
Rom.16:7 - well known to
1 Cor. 11:10 - a symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - exercise authority

TNIV 2001 - 4 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deacon
Rom. 16:2 - benefactor
Rom.16:7 - outstanding among
1 Cor. 11:10 - have authority over her own head
1 Tim. 2:12 - assume authority

HCSB 1999 - 2 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - benefactor
Rom.16:7 - outstanding among
1 Cor. 11:10 - [a symbol of] authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

NET - 1996 - 2005, 0 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - great help
Rom.16:7 - well known to
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - exercise authority

NLT 1996 - 2 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deacon
Rom. 16:2 - helpful
Rom.16:7 - respected among
1 Cor. 11:10 - wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

CEV 1995 - 3 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - leader
Rom. 16:2 - respected leader
Rom.16:7 - Junias (male) highly respected by
1 Cor. 11:10 - sign of her authority
1 Tim. 2:12 - tell men what to do

NRSV - 1989, 2 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deacon
Rom. 16:2 - benefactor
Rom. 16:7 - prominent among
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority over a man

NIV - 1978 - 1984, 0 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - great help
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority over a man

NASB - 1960 - 1995, 0 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - helper
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - exercise authority over a man

RSV 1 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deaconess
Rom. 16:2 - helper
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - veil on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

ISV - 2003 - 1 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - has assisted
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - authority over her own head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

D-R

Rom. 16:1 - in the ministry
Rom. 16:2 - has assisted
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - a power over her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - use authority over the man

Matt. 22:16 - Does God care for no one?

In Matt. 22:16 the Pharisees sent emissaries to Jesus to ask about paying taxes to Caesar. They began by saying:

Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men. (KJV)

Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men. (RSV)

I have boldfaced the wordings I am concerned about in this post. The KJV and RSV use some meaning sense of the word "care" which I am unfamiliar with. I am not even able to find it in my dictionary.

Someone reading either of these wordings could get the idea that God doesn't care for people. And yet most of us know, at least cognitively, that he actually does. Some of us have memorized that great verse, 1 Peter 5:7:

Casting all your care upon him [God]; for he careth for you. (KJV)

Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you. (RSV)

1 Peter 5:7 makes it clear that God does care for us. So, I assume, that the word "care" is used with a different intended meaning in Matt. 22:16 from its use in 1 Peter 5:7 in the KJV and RSV.

The ESV only mildly revises wordings of the RSV which do not have to do with removing perceived liberal biases in the RSV. But Matt. 22:16 is one place where the ESV makes ordinary good literary revision of the RSV:

Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.

The ESV retains the word "care" but it now has a meaning which all English speakers today know. Notice also that the ESV increases the accuracy of the RSV: the ESV has "anyone" instead of RSV "man." "No man" is no longer an accurate translation of the Greek indefinite pronoun oudenos for most English speakers.

My God, my God

As I continue to read through the Psalms in the Pagnini Psalter, I cannot not help but recognize again the powerful words of the King James Version in the Pagnini version of Psalm 22. Never again in the English language is this psalm translated with such powerful imagery.

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
why art thou so far from helping me,
and from the words of my roaring?
O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not;
and in the night season, and am not silent. KJV

Here are the same verses in the Wycliffe version which is a translation from Jerome's Vulgate.

God, my God, biholde thou on me,
whi hast thou forsake me?
the wordis of my trespassis ben fer fro myn helthe.
Mi God, Y schal crye bi dai, and thou schalt not here;
and bi nyyt, and not to vnwisdom to me. Wycliffe

And the Douay Rheims,

O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?
Far from my salvation are the words of my sins.
O my God, I shall cry by day, and thou wilt not hear:
and by night, and it shall not be reputed as folly in me.

I rather think at this point that there is a bit of a problem with the Vulgate version of these verses. I believe that there are two different Psalter's attributed to Jerome so I am not entirely sure where the difficulty occurred. However, it is clear that the Wycliffe and D-R. versions are dependent on the Vulgate version which I see here in the official Clementine text.

Deus, Deus meus, respice in me : quare me dereliquisti ?
longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum.
Deus meus, clamabo per diem, et non exaudies;
et nocte, et non ad insipientiam mihi.

But here is the Pagnini version once again eerily close to the KJV,

Deues mi deus mi utquid dereliquisti me,
elongates es a salute mea
A verbis rugitus mei
Dues mi, clamo per diem, et non exaudis,
et nocte et non es silentium nihi

Distinctive in this version is the "roaring" in the third line. This is important because the lion does roar later in this psalm and the word is the same in Hebrew. There is also the abrupt shift from the roar of pain to the sharp lack of "silence" in "am not silent". And here for the first time is the translation which has "my God, my God".

While this psalm is often the object of meditation in a Messianic context, it also reflects the extreme emotions of abandonment and misery which we all may experience at some time in our lives. It speaks to me of one of the ways that Christ is our high priest, because he is like us, his brothers and sisters, in that he also experienced abandonment and pain and death.

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Hebrews 2:14-18 TNIV