The Key to the KJV-Only Conundrum

[Smyth]

Israelis won't need an OT--Biblical Hebrew is their language. There is a Hebrew NT translation that might need to be updated in a few decades.

If Isrealis don't an need updated Hebrew OT, then they wouldn't need an updated Hebrew NT translation.

 

[robycop3]

Sorry I missed this, brother, then after that our Internet access was down.

Japanese and Chinese have both changed radically from before WW2 to after. In the case of the Japanese language, the written language was in Classical Japanese (like Middle English) until after the war. The first complete Bible in colloquial Japanese was not until 1954 (NT) to 1955 (OT). Another thing that happened after the war was the government listing of 1850 acceptable Chinese characters for the Japanese language.

Meanwhile, in China the Communists made many changes, especially in the area of semantics. Many new words were introduced in line with the Communist doctrines. Then the government simplified many of the characters, driving a wedge between the mainland and other Chinese areas: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
I'm not sure this is a valid comparison. Note that there is a gap of 227 years between 1384 and 1611. Wycliffe was actually in Middle English and the KJV in Early Modern English, so they were two different varieties of the language. The gap between the KJV and our modern variety of English is not so great, being mostly in the semantics and not so much in the syntax.
I agree. Besides your Scriptural point I would mention that the Great Commission is all about cross-cultural evangelism: "every nation," "all the world," etc. This presupposes clear teaching in target languages.

Caveat: in my experience it is only a small percentage of KJVO people who think everyone should learn English. I know many who believe in Bible translation from the traditional texts. These are usually folk who care deeply about the Great Commission, but don't make a big deal out of their KJVO views.

Thank you for the intel about the Chinese & Japanese languages.

The point I was trying to make about Wycliffe's Bible is that it was in the style of English in use at the time it was made. I doubt very many the British of that time could read the few Scriptural mss. written in the languages in use at the time of William the Conqueror. (Many more could read the Latin Vulgate, however, IF they could see a copy. The RCC tried to prevent the common people from having access to a written Bible.)

Having no REAL EVIDENCE to support their myth, the KJVOs are constantly inventing new excuses in their attempts to justify it. However, they all fall flat on their snoots.

And yet another hypocrisy of the KJVOs - while they go about proclaiming "1611", the version they almost all support is the 1769 Blayney's Edition. We don't see them supporting the AV 1611 itself too often! So, we can disregard their excuse about "Bible revisions" given the many differences between the AV 1611 & the Blayney's Edition.

 

[Rippon]

Wycliffe was actually in Middle English and the KJV in Early Modern English, so they were two different varieties of the language.

A few points.There were two so-called Wycliffe translations. The earlier one was slavishly literal in trying to match up with the Latin Vulgate. It came out around the time of John Wycliffe's death. Nicholas of Herford is usually credited with the work.

The second one was more idiomatic. It was "published" abroad between 1388 and 1394 (10 years after Wycliffe's death). John Purvey or John Trevisa are variously credited with the work.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the period of 1250 to 1400 is called Central Middle English. Others called this stage Standard Middle English.

The KJV and Shakespeare's works were produced in the latter stage of Early Modern English.

 

[Rippon]

The point I was trying to make about Wycliffe's Bible is that it was in the style of English in use at the time it was made.

As I pointed out in my previous post --the second version of the Wycliffe translation was less difficult than the first. In general, most people when referencing "The Wycliffe Bible" are speaking of the more common second one.

I doubt very many the British of that time could read the few Scriptural mss. written in the languages in use at the time of William the Conqueror. (Many more could read the Latin Vulgate, however, IF they could see a copy.

No, you are mistaken. Latin died out in Britain around the 5th century. The common person of that time could neither write or read Latin. It was the language of the Academy.

 

[John of Japan]

If Isrealis don't an need updated Hebrew OT, then they wouldn't need an updated Hebrew NT translation.

You do make an excellent point here. But, as you no doubt know, the OT is originally Hebrew, which Israelis speak. The NT is Greek, which they don't speak. So their OT is not a translation but their NT is. (I know, this is obvious.)

The implication here is that a translation must be occasionally updated (but not nearly as often as the average guy here on the BB thinks, IMO), but not an original language document. In the nature of language, syntax and semantics gradually change, which matters more in the matter of a translation than in a document peculiar to that language.

 

[Smyth]

In the nature of language, syntax and semantics gradually change, which matters more in the matter of a translation than in a document peculiar to that language.

That makes no sense. The only reason new translations need to be periodically made is because languages change. A changed language also impedes reading things originally written in that native language.

Most Judean Jews in Jesus' day would have been unable to read the books of Moses, as Moses wrote them, let alone modern Israeli Jews and the modern synthetic Hebrew they use.

 

[robycop3]

As I pointed out in my previous post --the second version of the Wycliffe translation was less difficult than the first. In general, most people when referencing "The Wycliffe Bible" are speaking of the more common second one.

Again, it wasn't difficult for the English of that time, if they could read their own language. The difficulty lay in the scarcity of Wycliffe's bible, as every copy was hand-written. There were many people who could hand-write copies of the Latin Vulgate.

No, you are mistaken. Latin died out in Britain around the 5th century. The common person of that time could neither write or read Latin. It was the language of the Academy.

And quite a few Europeans, including a fair number of British, could read it. Latin was somewhat of a "lingua franca" as it was by then a 'dead' language, unchanging. Look at the prevalence of Latin names of that general time. More than oine commoner learned to read Latin in imitation of the "academics". And the fact it was READ IN CHURCH proves many British understood at least some spoken Latin.

 

[Rippon]

Again, it wasn't difficult for the English of that time, if they could read their own language.

The literacy rate from 1475 to 1550 was under 20%. It steadily improved to around 35% in 1600. The average person in England would not have been able to read English, much less Latin.

I'll quote from McGraths' book In The Beginning.

"An eyewitness account of the consecration of the bishop of Durham in 1318 discloses the remarkable fact that the new bishop could not even read the Latin words he was required to repeat during the service. (p.29)

"The academic world was thus the last bastion of Latin in England, in that the Church of England ceased to use this language to any significant extent by the 1540s." (p.35)

Echoing the thoughts of Martin Luther, McGrath says : "And why did the Bible have to be locked away from the people, imprisoned in the fetters of a dead language that only a charmed circle could read?"(p.51)

"Erasmus produced a new Latin translation of the New Testament in 1516, based on the original Greek texts. That was useful, in Luther's view. But most laity could not read this learned language. What they needed was the New Testament to be translated accurately into the language they used in their everyday lives." (p. 51)

 

[TCassidy]

Latin was the universal ecclesiastical language of Christendom until after the Protestant Reformation in the early to mid 17th century.

It remained the near universal ecclesiastical language of the Church of Rome into the 1960s, and remains the ecclesiastical language of the Roman Rite Catholic Church.

 

[Rippon]

Latin was the universal ecclesiastical language of Christendom until after the Protestant Reformation in the early to mid 17th century.

Latin was not the language used in Protestant churches in the 1520s and beyond.

Calvin and other churchmen wrote in Latin, but it was not used in church services.

 

[John of Japan]

That makes no sense. The only reason new translations need to be periodically made is because languages change. A changed language also impedes reading things originally written in that native language.

Most Judean Jews in Jesus' day would have been unable to read the books of Moses, as Moses wrote them, let alone modern Israeli Jews and the modern synthetic Hebrew they use.

You make a good case. But the fact remains that never in church history have the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT been updated to a more modern version within such a short time after their writing. There is a modern Greek Bible, but that was done 1900 years after the original to my knowledge. There may be a modernization of the Hebrew OT somewhere in Israel, but it has been less than a century since the dead language was revived, and we can still easily read the KJV after 400 years.

 

[Smyth]

You make a good case. But the fact remains that never in church history have the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT been updated to a more modern version within such a short time after their writing. There is a modern Greek Bible, but that was done 1900 years after the original to my knowledge. There may be a modernization of the Hebrew OT somewhere in Israel, but it has been less than a century since the dead language was revived, and we can still easily read the KJV after 400 years.

The Church hasn't updated Hebrew OT and Greek NT because these are dead languages to the Church (without regard for modern Greek language Bibles for modern Greeks).

The Masoretic text was produced using Hebrew of ca. 1000 AD. In English, we're updating translations made just a few decades ago, e.g. NIV 1984 -> 2011. The NIV translators will tell you part of the need for a new translation is language changes in just a few decades.

Translators behind new translations also cite better understanding of biblical Hebrew. Jews don't change the modern Hebrew language to better match new understanding of biblical Hebrew, so therefor they should change the Hebrew words in their Hebrew Bibles.

Modern translators also want to change what the Bible says to better fit modern non-biblical values. In places, the NIV2011 changes "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" and changes "jews" to "jewish leaders". Why wouldn't Jews likewise want changed bibles to match their non-biblical beliefs?

Maybe Jews hold on to the Masoretic like a KJVO fetish? No. KJVO people hold the Bible in very hard regard. Most Jews, being Liberals and Atheists, consider the Masoretic to be just a step above toilet paper (as far as content goes) -- why would they have any qualms about the NIV2011 treatment to the Masoretic? Maybe Jews outside of the Orthodox sect care so little about the Old Testament (Tanakh) that they don't care about having a version easily read by modern Jews? Even for the Orthodox, the OT is second fiddle to the Talmud. Maybe it's all about the Masoretic being an icon, and what is says doesn't really matter to Jews.

Here's an article about a modern Hebrew version. Drora Halevy, national supervisor of Bible studies at the Ministry of Education, claims: “This translation cuts out the heart of the Bible. It reduces the Bible to just another book. In the Bible, form and content are bound together. The translation kills it.” Sounds like a KJVO fetish, with the ironic twist of the fetishist not really caring what the OT says.

 

[John of Japan]

The Church hasn't updated Hebrew OT and Greek NT because these are dead languages to the Church (without regard for modern Greek language Bibles for modern Greeks).

You're not saying anything new. I teach Greek and my son teaches Greek and Hebrew.

The Masoretic text was produced using Hebrew of ca. 1000 AD.

Wrong. The Masoretic text is not a different variety of Hebrew from any other OT Hebrew text.

In English, we're updating translations made just a few decades ago, e.g. NIV 1984 -> 2011. The NIV translators will tell you part of the need for a new translation is language changes in just a few decades.

I too am a linguist and Bible translator, and I disagree with the NIV translators.

snip

Here's an article about a modern Hebrew version. Drora Halevy, national supervisor of Bible studies at the Ministry of Education, claims: “This translation cuts out the heart of the Bible. It reduces the Bible to just another book. In the Bible, form and content are bound together. The translation kills it.” Sounds like a KJVO fetish, with the ironic twist of the fetishist not really caring what the OT says.

Thank you for this information.

 

[Smyth]

Wrong. The Masoretic text is not a different variety of Hebrew from any other OT Hebrew text.

The Hebrew language did change over time (including the adoption of a foreign alphabet), while new books were being added to the Bible. But, the Masoretic is written in consistent Hebrew. We know Hebrew has changed over time. Just most of the evidence has disappeared with time (the oldest generations of Hebrew manuscripts don't exist. Very little predating the Masoretic). Some differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic reflect changes in Hebrew over time. The article I linked to demonstrates change in Hebrew over time.

I'd be a KJVO guy, if the KJVO was the original language. English hasn't changed so much as to justify a modern translation of the KJV (if we were translating the KJV, and not Hebrew/Greek texts). But, the vast majority of English speakers (including many KJVO people) need a modern Bible translation, at least as a supplement, as they have so much trouble understanding the KJV (and, sometimes they think they understand it, when they don't).

 

[John of Japan]

The Hebrew language did change over time (including the adoption of a foreign alphabet), while new books were being added to the Bible. But, the Masoretic is written in consistent Hebrew. We know Hebrew has changed over time. Just most of the evidence has disappeared with time (the oldest generations of Hebrew manuscripts don't exist. Very little predating the Masoretic). Some differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic reflect changes in Hebrew over time. The article I linked to demonstrates change in Hebrew over time.

Well, yes, the Hebrew did change over the time that the Bible was being written. But we're talking about the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. When the scribes copied a mss. they didn't change it and update the Hebrew, they simply copied it. The Hebrew scribes are especially noted for being extremely careful, counting all of the letters, etc. When the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah was discovered, there was very little difference between it and the Masoretic.

Concerning the Septuagint, it does not help you much with the character of the Hebrew of the day. It's a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. What it helps with is the textual criticism of the OT.

I'd be a KJVO guy, if the KJVO was the original language. English hasn't changed so much as to justify a modern translation of the KJV (if we were translating the KJV, and not Hebrew/Greek texts). But, the vast majority of English speakers (including many KJVO people) need a modern Bible translation, at least as a supplement, as they have so much trouble understanding the KJV (and, sometimes they think they understand it, when they don't).

I have no trouble with the KJV, but then I grew up with it, and was an English minor in college with a couple of classes in Shakespeare under my belt.

 

[Rippon]

The NIV translators will tell you part of the need for a new translation is[sic] language changes in just a few decades.

It's just an observable fact. The NIV team consulted the Collins Bank of English Words --(4.4 billion) and used that to determine what was most commonly used. It's just common sense.

Modern translators also want to change what the Bible says to better fit modern non-biblical values.

You just threw an awfully huge net there Smyth. Just what "non-biblical values" are you speaking of specifically?

In places, the NIV2011 changes "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" and changes "jews" to "jewish leaders".

Many translations use "brothers and sisters" instead of "brothers" because it more accurately reflects the original to the modern audience. The ESV does use that phraseology in their text, but they have over 100 footnotes basically saying that brothers and sisters is fully acceptable.

Regarding the NIV's use of "Jewish leaders"" instead of "the Jews" --it is not just the NIV which uses that construction. Look at John 1:19;5:10;15,16;7:1,13 and 9:22. The CEB,ISV,NET and NLT all use "Jewish leaders" or "Jewish authorities."

 

[robycop3]

The literacy rate from 1475 to 1550 was under 20%. It steadily improved to around 35% in 1600. The average person in England would not have been able to read English, much less Latin.

I'll quote from McGraths' book In The Beginning.

"An eyewitness account of the consecration of the bishop of Durham in 1318 discloses the remarkable fact that the new bishop could not even read the Latin words he was required to repeat during the service. (p.29)

"The academic world was thus the last bastion of Latin in England, in that the Church of England ceased to use this language to any significant extent by the 1540s." (p.35)

Echoing the thoughts of Martin Luther, McGrath says : "And why did the Bible have to be locked away from the people, imprisoned in the fetters of a dead language that only a charmed circle could read?"(p.51)

"Erasmus produced a new Latin translation of the New Testament in 1516, based on the original Greek texts. That was useful, in Luther's view. But most laity could not read this learned language. What they needed was the New Testament to be translated accurately into the language they used in their everyday lives." (p. 51)

If many British didn't know at least SOME spoken Latin, how would they know what the priest was reading them outta the Bible? I don't believe the readers were translating as they read, as the last thing the RCC wanted was a Bible in the local current language. And it's likely more than one British learned to read Latin on his/her own without broadcasting the news for fear of the RCC.

 

[Smyth]

It's just an observable fact. The NIV team consulted the Collins Bank of English Words --(4.4 billion) and used that to determine what was most commonly used. It's just common sense.

That's why there should be Hebrew language updates for Hebrew speakers, modern languages change quickly. (But, still, the NIV update is too soon for the reason of changing language. In reality, the new generation of owners of the NIV just wanted to inject some modern unchristian teachings into the popular NIV, hence the major update).

Many translations use "brothers and sisters" instead of "brothers" because it more accurately reflects the original to the modern audience.

Don't attempt to rationalize changing the text, any change, even if I agreed that the text means that. But, God is not a feminist. Replacing "brothers" with "brother and sisters" is rebellion against God and the order he has designed, of a man being the head of the woman.

Any Bible translator who thinks a verse means something other than what it literally says should keep his opinion to the footnotes.

Regarding the NIV's use of "Jewish leaders"" instead of "the Jews" --it is not just the NIV which uses that construction. Look at John 1:19;5:10;15,16;7:1,13 and 9:22. The CEB,ISV,NET and NLT all use "Jewish leaders" or "Jewish authorities."

The CEB, ISV, NET, and NLT are unfaithful translations. Christians should stick to translations like th NKJV, ESV, NASB, and ASV.

 

[John of Japan]

And now the thread has wandered away from the OP. And yes, I'm complicit.

 

[Rippon]

If many British didn't know at least SOME spoken Latin, how would they know what the priest was reading them outta the Bible?

You have to be clear. Are you speaking of Roman Catholicism? Are you speaking of 1400-1600?
What time period and what communion?

A lot of R.C. Priests could not understand Latin --they fumbled around. The common people knew even less. It was a mess. (Pardon me Dr. S.)