July 11, 2003

Freedom from the Translation Wars

While cruising through the blog-o-sphere today, I came across a King James Only discussion. It made me laugh and made me glad to be Orthodox. I used to be so well-versed in the nuances of the debates. Now it all seems a world away.

The discussion was based on a letter sent to a Michigan newspaper that closed with:

"if you are using any Bible other than the authorized King James 1611, then what you hold in your hands is the doctrine of devils. I encourage you to throw these modern perversions in the flames and run from your liberal church!”

Now being somewhat familiar with Bibles and translations, I will put money on it that the letter writer, one Rev. Tim Curtis-Dryden, doesn't even own a 1611 edition of the King James Version. I would put even more money on the fact that no one else in his conservative church does either.

Don't get me wrong - you can get ahold of one, or at least a facsimile of one. We used to special order them very occasionally at the Christian bookstore where I worked during law school. (I don't recall ever having an order for one at the Christian bookstore where I worked during grad school.) I suppose a 1611 facsimile is an interesting novelty item to have, but as everyone who ever bought one probably found out somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it is virtually unreadable.

Most King James Bibles are based on the 1769 Oxford edition. This edition varied from the 1611 in a number of ways, besides using readable type. There were minor changes in the text and the spelling was regularised. But you never hear KJV-Only preachers (or their Charlie McCarthy parishoners) say "I believe the 1769 King James Version is the only true Word of God!"

The ensuing discussion on the blog included this comment:

"These people have to ask themselves why God would write two-thirds of His Book in Hebrew, one-third in Greek, have Christ speak in Aramaic, have the Latin Vulgate be the major Bible for 1500 years, but then authorize the English KJV to be the Pure, True Version." This quote is clearly from someone who doesn't realise that the Vulgate was the major Bible only in the West. Nonetheless, he makes a good point.

It will only fall on deaf ears with the KJV-Only crowd because of their two unspoken presuppostions. First, the Vulgate doesn't count because they believe the Church ceased to exist after the Apostles and reappeared sometime in the 17th century (these people are almost invariably Baptists or at least baptists, who can't even go back as far as the Reformation). Second, it is inconceivable to think that a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant God use anything other than English as the definitive, authoritative Scriptures. These are the sort of people who declare that if it was good enough for St Paul, it is good enough for them, and actually mean it.

Working within the Protestant framework, there are real arguments to be had over which are the best texts. As a Protestant, I was a firm believer in the New King James as a good English translation, because in the NT it was derived from the textual family that had been used by the Church (which I didn't realise was the Orthodox Church) throughout the centuries. I still use the NKJ.

When everyone is their own Pope and free to interpret the Scriptures as they see fit, and fully believe that such an interpretation is the meaning of the Scriptures, it is very important to have the right text. After all, what you believe can hinge on the placement of a comma or the particular use of a preposition.

As an Orthodox, all the arguments about the best texts are moot. The Scriptures didn't just show up in a vacuum. The Church believed what the Scriptures teach before the Scriptures were put together.

Being a Protestant is a bit like getting the owner's manual without the car. You can sit around and discuss the theory of internal combustion, torque, gear ratios, and fuel injection. Then combining your reading of the manual with all your theories, you try to build a car.

As an Orthodox, you get the car with the manual. The car runs the way it was made regardless of whether you read the manual or not. It runs because that's the way the Manufacturer built it. You need the manual to learn all the functions of the car and how to maintain it, but the car doesn't care one bit about your theories, nor does it function better or worse without them. The manual wasn't provided with the option to interpret it in whatever way the spirit of the Manufacturer reveals it to you. And of course, the car was built before the manual was written.

Posted by david at July 11, 2003 06:44 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Great analogy...

I just had a discussion with a KJV only propenent...

It was one of the more frustrating discussions I've had in a while!

The irony of the whole thing is that they see one part of the truth--it is evil to tweak the translation of the Scripture as versions such as the TNIV have done. What the KJV'ers fail to see is that they drink of the same poison they despise in those "liberal" churches....

Posted by: Karl Thienes at July 11, 2003 11:33 PM

The analogy does, indeed, rock! I have a AV1611 here, complete with most of the Apocrypha and all the Anglican Liturgical info. In and of itself that the translators of that material also did the work on the rest of the Bible should, by all lights, put the kibosh on any Baptist Bibliolotry, but they have that ultra liberal 1769 one to worship: the one that's so liberal it cut out 1/3rd of the Old Testament.

Being fond of the AV's language I rather like the TMB, but I am eagerly awaiting the Orthodox Study Bible in 2005!


Posted by: Huw Raphael at July 12, 2003 06:55 AM

How did I miss the whole issue of most 1769s cutting out 1/3 of the OT? I suppose it is the first "revised standard version" for Protestants.

Posted by: David Holford at July 12, 2003 11:02 PM

How did I miss the whole issue of most 1769s cutting out 1/3 of the OT? I suppose it is the first "revised standard version" for Protestants.


...and what about us poor people in the pews who only know what our priest tells us??? Bring on the Orthodox Version, please!

Posted by: Mary at July 14, 2003 01:29 AM

I like the analogy as well...

While I've never bothered to classify what I believe I've always known I leaned toward Calvinism in certain respects, but my definition of inerrancy and infallibility, et. al., was never based on the exactitude of each stroke
of the pen... It's probably not as sound a basis as your own but I just figured, God being who He is, the texts we have are the texts we're supposed to have (I believe some texts are better than others -- though I'm not the expert) and in the end it's God Himself that reveals the Truth (and the truth) to us anyway... Perhaps I have a bit of Orthodoxy in me as well? (Though I may be getting there by a means quite unacceptable to an
Orthodox...) That was a round about way of saying, I agree.

Kind of reminds me of the biblical era's idea of quotation. It wasn't as important to repeat the exact words as it was to relay the same meaning
-- something that is perhaps far more difficult.

Posted by: Hoother at July 14, 2003 05:20 AM

Hoother noted: Though I may be getting there by a means quite unacceptable to an
Orthodox...)

Well, it took a very odd form for me - God even used the Episcopal Church! At least you seem to be getting there by Bible study.

Posted by: Huw Raphael at July 14, 2003 03:34 PM

I don't know that there is a means of getting to Orthodoxy that is unacceptable to the Orthodox. I know people that came from being Reformed, Charismatics, Baptists, New Agers, Strippers (okay, more an occupation than a theological position), Anglicans, Papists, nothing, etc.

Posted by: David Holford at July 14, 2003 04:11 PM