The Conversational Prose Style of the Manuscripts of Scripture in the Original Languages

[Guido]

I asked the AI ChatGPT 3 whether the manuscripts of scripture in the original languages sounded anything like the KJV, with all its linguistic beauty, and it told me that, in the original languages, the Bible is mostly conversational prose. If, then, the scriptures in their original tongues are conversational prose, why do translators risk the loss of full accuracy by assaying to make a translation in a lyrical prose style?

I do not think that we should not have received the KJV, which is very poetic and beautiful, but I do think that perhaps there ought to be a Bible that captures the conversational style of the Biblical manuscripts in the original languages, and that faithfully adheres to the exact meaning of the original words. I do not consider any of today's Bible versions to be written in conversational prose, but in an inferior form of the style of the KJV. Insofar as the modern Bibles depart from the meaning of the KJV, they are inaccurate, but insofar as the KJV seems to substitute a literal rendering with a more beautiful, but less precise rendering, it seems that the KJV is inaccurate. For instance, the original Luke, I think, says "learned" in the beginning, but the KJV says, "instructed.," These are not interchangeable concepts in my view.

Now I do not despise lyrical prose and do not wish that the KJV were not created. In fact, I like lyrical prose and desire to write that kind of prose myself. But it seems to me, unless I am mistaken, that the translators of the KJV did not always choose correct substitutions for words in their effort to replace them with more beautiful sounding alternatives.

Am I wrong, and is it so that the KJV is, in fact, a perfect translation?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

 

[37818]

Using AI ChatGPT 3 supposes it knowledge data base is accurate.

 

[Piper]

Using AI ChatGPT 3 supposes it knowledge data base is accurate.

true. I would never use it as any kind of source, knowing it's origin.

 

[John of Japan]

I asked the AI ChatGPT 3 whether the manuscripts of scripture in the original languages sounded anything like the KJV, with all its linguistic beauty, and it told me that, in the original languages, the Bible is mostly conversational prose. If, then, the scriptures in their original tongues are conversational prose, why do translators risk the loss of full accuracy by assaying to make a translation in a lyrical prose style?

ChatGPT is actually pretty simplistic here. The original language texts of the Bible were not any one human style. It may be that what the software analysis revealed was that the original of the NT was in colloquial Greek, known as koine ("common") Greek. That is not the same thing as "conversational prose."

The style of the books of the NT is often quite different depending on the author: Luke is quite sophisticated since he was a physician; John's language is often quite simple but profound in its theology, except for Revelation, which no one on earth should think of as "conversational prose"! It's classified as apocalyptic literature. Paul's works are quite difficult to read, having many hapax legomena (words used only once in the NT), except for Philemon which is a very sweet friendship letter. In some places in his books, Paul is quite poetic (Philippians 2, etc.)

I'm more of a Greek guy, but the Hebrew OT also has huge differences in its rhetoric. For example, there are five poetic books that could hardly be considered "conversational," but are highly lyrical. Other books also have poetry. Again, the prophetic books are quite different from the historical books. The exalted language of Isaiah could not be called conversational, that's for sure!

I do not think that we should not have received the KJV, which is very poetic and beautiful, but I do think that perhaps there ought to be a Bible that captures the conversational style of the Biblical manuscripts in the original languages, and that faithfully adheres to the exact meaning of the original words. I do not consider any of today's Bible versions to be written in conversational prose, but in an inferior form of the style of the KJV. Insofar as the modern Bibles depart from the meaning of the KJV, they are inaccurate, but insofar as the KJV seems to substitute a literal rendering with a more beautiful, but less precise rendering, it seems that the KJV is inaccurate. For instance, the original Luke, I think, says "learned" in the beginning, but the KJV says, "instructed.," These are not interchangeable concepts in my view.

Now I do not despise lyrical prose and do not wish that the KJV were not created. In fact, I like lyrical prose and desire to write that kind of prose myself. But it seems to me, unless I am mistaken, that the translators of the KJV did not always choose correct substitutions for words in their effort to replace them with more beautiful sounding alternatives.

There is a theory in translation studies called skopos theory. This is taken from a Greek word meaning "goal," and refers to the purpose of a translation. The KJV fulfills the goals of its translators quite well, and is an awesome translation. However, the NASB also fulfills well its goals, one of which was to provide a basis for missionary translations. The most widely used Japanese Bible is based on the NASB's translation methodology.

Am I wrong, and is it so that the KJV is, in fact, a perfect translation?

No it is not.

Thank you in advance for your answers.

You are quite welcome.

 

[Guido]

ChatGPT is actually pretty simplistic here. The original language texts of the Bible were not any one human style. It may be that what the software analysis revealed was that the original of the NT was in colloquial Greek, known as koine ("common") Greek. That is not the same thing as "conversational prose."

The style of the books of the NT is often quite different depending on the author: Luke is quite sophisticated since he was a physician; John's language is often quite simple but profound in its theology, except for Revelation, which no one on earth should think of as "conversational prose"! It's classified as apocalyptic literature. Paul's works are quite difficult to read, having many hapax legomena (words used only once in the NT), except for Philemon which is a very sweet friendship letter. In some places in his books, Paul is quite poetic (Philippians 2, etc.)

I'm more of a Greek guy, but the Hebrew OT also has huge differences in its rhetoric. For example, there are five poetic books that could hardly be considered "conversational," but are highly lyrical. Other books also have poetry. Again, the prophetic books are quite different from the historical books. The exalted language of Isaiah could not be called conversational, that's for sure!


There is a theory in translation studies called skopos theory. This is taken from a Greek word meaning "goal," and refers to the purpose of a translation. The KJV fulfills the goals of its translators quite well, and is an awesome translation. However, the NASB also fulfills well its goals, one of which was to provide a basis for missionary translations. The most widely used Japanese Bible is based on the NASB's translation methodology.

No it is not.

You are quite welcome.

Oh okay. I was mistaken. Now I understand that the original manuscripts were far more stylistic than conversational prose.

I should probably stop depending on AIs for information.

 

[John of Japan]

Oh okay. I was mistaken. Now I understand that the original manuscripts were far more stylistic than conversational prose.

I should probably stop depending on AIs for information.

AI is not yet anywhere near being able to discern the linguistics of the original languages of the Bible. My guess is that it never will be. After all, it is divinely inspired for God's purpose among us human beings!

 

[Deacon]

From the preface of the Bay Psalter (1640)


As for the scruple that some take at the translation of the book of psalmes into meeter, because Davids psalmes were sung in his owne words without meter: wee answer- First. There are many verses together in several psalmes of David which run in rithmes (as those that know the hebrew and as Buxtorf shews Thesav. pa. 02.) which shews at least the lawfullnes of singing psalmes in english rithmes.

Secondly. The psalmes are penned in such verses as are sutable to the poetry of the hebrew language and not in the common style of such other bookes of the old Testament as are not poeticall; now no protestant doubteth but that all the bookes of the scripture should by Gods ordinance be extant in the mother tongue of each nation, that they may be understood of all, hence the psalmes are to be translated into our english tongue; and it in our english tongue wee are to sing them, then as all our english songs (according to the course of our english poetry) do run in metre, soe ought Davids psalmes to be translated into meeter that soe wee may sing the Lords songs, as in our english tongue soe in such verses as are familar to an english eare which are commonly metricall: and as it can be no just offence to any good conscience. to sing Davids hebrew songs in english words, soe neither to sing his poeticall verses in english poeticall metre: men might well stumble at singing the hebrew psalmes in our english tunes (and not in the hebrew tunes) as at singing them in English meter, (which are our verses) and not in such verses as are generally used by David. according to the poetry of the hebrew language: but the truth is, as the Lord hath hid from us the hebrew tunes, left wee should think our selves bound to imatate them; soe also the course and frame (for the most part) of their hebrew poetry, that wee might not think our selves bound to imitate that, but that every nation without scruple might follow as the grave sort of tunes of their owne country songs, soe the graver sort of verses of their owne country poetry.

Neither let any think, that for the meetre sake wee have taken liberty or poetical licence to depart from the true and proper sence of Davids words in the hebrew verses, noe; but it hath beene one part of our religious care and faithfull indeavour, to keepe close to the originall text.

[[snip]]

As for our translations, wee have with our english Bibles (to which next to the Originall wee have had respect) used the Idioms of our owne tongue in stead of Hebraismes, lest they might seeme english barbarismes.

Synonimaes wee use indifferently: as folk for people, and Lord for Iehovah, and sometime (though seldome) God for Iehovah, for which (as for some other interpretatations of places cited in the new Testament) we have the scriptures authority Psalm 14. with Psalm 53. Heb. 1.6. with Psalm 97:7. Where a phrase is doubtfull wee have followed that which (in our owne apprehension) is most genuine & edifying:

Somtime wee have contracted, somtime dilated the same hebrew word, both for the sence and the verse sake: which dilatation wee conceive to be no paraphrasticall addition no more then the contraction of a true and full translation to be any unfaithfull detraction or diminution: as when wee dilate who healeth and say he it is who healeth; soe when wee contract, those that stand in awe of God and say Gods fearers.

Lastly. Because some hebrew words have a more full emphatically signification then any one english word can or doth somtime expresse, hence wee have done that somtime which faithfull translators may doe, viz, not only translate the word but the emphasis of it; as LX mighty God for God. jRb humbly blesse for blesse; rise to stand, Psalm 1. For stand truth and faithfulness for truth. Howbeit,, for the verse sake wee doe not alway thus , yet wee render the word truly though not fully; as when wee somtimes say reioyce for shout for ioye.

As for all other changes of numbers, tenses, and characters of speech, they are such as either the hebrew will unforcedly beare, or our english forceably calls for, or they no way change the sence: and such are printed usually in an other character.

If therefore the verses are not alwayes so smooth and elegant as some may desire or expect; let them confider that Gods Altar needs not our pollishings: Ex. 20. for wee have respected a plaine translation then to smooth our verses with the sweetnes of any paraphrase, and soe have attended Conscience rather then Elegance, fidelity rather then poetry, in translating the hebrew words into english language, and Davids poetry into english meetre:

that soe wee may sing in Sion the Lords
songs of prayse according to his owne
will; until hee take us from hence,
and wipe away all our teares, &
bid us enter into our masters
ioye to sing eternall
Halleluiahs.​