What Modern Translators Should Learn
Since my recent post on the pro’s of the King James Version, I’ve been thinking a lot about the difference between the KJV and its successors. One of the greatest strengths of the King James Version was not in its translation from Greek but the work of molding the English language to conform to the Greek as the translators understood it.
When you read most modern translations – like the New International Version or the New Living Translation – you are reading good attempts at translation. What you are not reading is good attempts at writing. The word usage and flow of these translations could be so much better. The same is true for literal translations like NASB, which frankly I find unreadable.
What the King James translators did know was their own language, which was was possibly just as important as their knowledge of the original language. They knew the nuances and philology of words.
What do I mean by this? Consider the use of the word subtil (sic) in Genesis 3:1 describing the nature of the serpent who tempted Eve. Why choose that word when other words existed in their vocabulary? And why spell it the way they did, since in Middle English it was most commonly spelled sotil?
The Latin word that underlies subtil is subtilis – a textile term. It literally means “woven into the fabric.” In other words, the translators wanted to convey something much bigger than just craftiness, which is the translation in most modern translations. To their readers, subtil meant a type of temptation that was woven in among the fabric of truth. While the Hebrew word ‘ayrum could mean shrewdness or cleverness, in the context the translators felt a more sinister word was needed. And English had that sinister word in subtil.
These later translators were following Tyndale’s lead in his use of sotyller but they adapted his spelling significantly. They connected it much more with the Latin spelling, breaking the tie with the French spelling that was in use. Who knows what was going through their minds, but perhaps they had in mind the crafty political deceits of the age they were only just emerging from.
This kind of thing is all over the King James Version. For better or for worse, they were particular not just in capturing the meaning of the original words but also the mood. They did this through their knowledge of their own language.
I think this kind of knowledge and use of English is absent in many modern translations. It is certainly absent in the New King James Version where the editors attempted to patch the King James Version but did so without consideration of the flow of the English text. (Are there any English versions which flow more poorly than the NKJV and NASB? Well, maybe Young’s.)
Now, since I don’t espouse the KJVO arguments, I don’t believe the KJV is the only inspired Word of God for the English-speaking people. In fact, I have no problem referring to most English translations as the Word of God. Currently, we use the NIV in our congregation (which is one of my least favorite English Bibles, but it was there when we got there) and I use the ESV in personal study (which I love).
But I find myself longing for a modern translation with the same respect for the English language that I see in the King James.
When you read the works of the people who translate the Bible in our era, do they impress you as being masters of the English language? I find the works of most of these people to be tolerably well written but not masterful. Even the greats of modern translation like Bruce Metzger (RSV, NRSV) and J.I. Packer (ESV) are good writers but not great ones. They wrote great content but their English is nothing special. There’s not a literary master in the bunch (and I don’t mean just someone who sells a lot of Christian books).
No, instead of literary mastery we get Eugene Petersen’s The Message and The Contemporary English Version which attempt to capture the original in a sort of street English.
It is probably just my perception, but I feel as if modern translators do not revere the English language. I feel as if it is just a technical medium to them rather than a complex array of beauty, pregnant with expressive potential. English is one of the most expressive and beautifully, chaotically elegant languages of the modern world. I would love to see the kinetic potential of English truly unleashed.
What do you think?
Just so everyone is clear, by KJV I mean the entire product – from Tyndale’s first work in the mid 16th century down to the Standard Edition of 1769. I am not referring to one particular edition of the KJV or even just to the KJV itself but rather the larger effort which culminated in the Standard Edition.
Nice work, Eric. I appreciate both article both as a KJV lover and as a person with a subtle English name.
frst ‘both’ should be ‘your’
[...] What Modern Translators Should Learn [...]
Thanks Eric, that was really interesting. I was reading a book for my Ethics class and they were commenting how the KJV translation of “reasonable service” in Romans 12:1 is the Greek word “logikos” where we get the word logical from. Most other versions mistranslate by using the word “spiritual” which would be the Greek word “pneumetos”. So, the logical or reasonable service of worship is the sense of the passage that the KJV translators got right….again. Certainly the English in the KJV is superb!
That translation as “spiritual” has confused me for a long time. I think we need to be careful about reading our English word logical back into λογικός but it definitely does not mean “spiritual”. Even BDB says, “rather, ‘rational’.”
The change to “spiritual” goes all the way back to the 1901 RSV and ASV which have “spiritual worship” and “spiritual service” respectively. But it has nothing to do with the Greek reading since λογικός appears to be a consistent reading across all manuscripts.
It might have something to do with the other appearance of λογικός in 1 Peter 2:1 where the KJV translates it as “sincere.” That is a translation which, when you think about it, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The KJV translators made a break from Tyndale who has “reasonable” here.
I don’t really know the rationale behind the choice of “spiritual” although I would assume it has something to do with trying to create cohesion with this second appearance.
I will say that “worship” is probably a better translation of λατρεία since it ties directly with the action of worship. I understand why it is sometimes rendered “service” because we English-speakers use “service” to mean “worship”, particularly when speaking of the thing we do on Sunday mornings.
Great Article!
I am suprised that you find the NASB a hard flow to read. I’ve always considered that a strength of the NASB. I found the NIV and NKJV very “un-flowy” but the first time I read a NASB it just clicked, so I have since always said that the NASB has the elegant flow that the KJV has. (You are the first person I know who said that it wasn’t, but that’s probably because most people I know think the NASB is just a heresy and don’t care about it’s flow).
Do you think this may be a result of my personal comfort level with the English language? I am not a sloppy speaker or writer, but I am not extremely formal either – a result of having a deaf parent. I wonder if your preception of the English level in the NASB may come from the fact that you are well-educated in writing and in studying languages like Greek, Latin, and Hebrew; wheras my perception of its English level is a result of my ASL background combinded with the fact that English was never my best subject in school. What do you think?
Speaking of being bad at English, you missed the word “was” from the first sentence in your third paragraph
Fixed it. Good catch!
I think you’re onto something about the NASB-ASL equivalence. In discussing ASL with Nichole, it has a very different syntax from spoken English.
Translation is a dynamic process, something that you as an ASL speaker appreciate. Sometimes there just is not a one-for-one formal relationship between ideas in two languages, even two as closely related as ASL and English.
Unfortunately, the NASB translators attempted to produce one-to-one translation unless absolutely impossible. My frustration with the NASB is that there are many, many nuances to Greek and especially Hebrew. Forcing a one-to-one translation of these nuances deprives the original languages of their fascinating variety.
Just as an example, I’ll use the Hebrew word QOHELETH, which is translated as preacher or teacher in most English translations of Ecclesiastes (which is itself a Hellenic Latin translation of QOHELETH). In reality, QOHELETH means ‘gatherer’ but it has multiple layers of meaning. It is both the gathering of information and the gathering of those who will hear it.
Now, with this particular word, you’re best served to choose one word because it is used as a title; but there are many Hebrew words that change depending very much on context and subtle variations. I feel that the NASB did not capture these variations very well, although I will say the 1995 update got closer.
I’ll have to check which edition I have.
I know what you mean about the KJV. I happen to find that the NRSV is very good at this, it has excellent flow and word usage, and it reads like a charm. The NRSV is dignified in its English usage, as opposed to the NIV whose language is utterly forgettable. I came to the NRSV from the ESV, which IMO is not as readable.
[...] love the King James Version of the Bible, and I love it for a lot of reasons and I believe we can still learn a lot from it. It is, and should continue to be considered, the [...]