My favorite Bible version in English is by far the King
James Version (KJV)—sometimes called the Authorized Version (AV) because
it was authorized by King James of England. It was originally published in
1611. It is the only English version approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. In 1992 the First Presidency, in part, said: “Since the days
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members. The
Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of
many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as
far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the
word of God.’ (A of F 1:8.) Many versions of the Bible are available today.
Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available
for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has
revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most
reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by
comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and
modern-day revelations.”[1]
In the LDS Bible Dictionary, under Joseph Smith Translation (JST)
we find in part: “Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an
invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most
fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures.” So I
suppose we can also use the expression Authorized Version, with a double
meaning.
Additionally, more than any translation in English, the KJV preserves
the references to the Messiah, many of which are lost, obscured or perverted in
modern translations. For years I have been quite concerned with a plethora of
new Bibles that take Christ as well as His Divinity out of the Scriptures.
As a student of the scriptures I find the language of
the AV sublime and poetic. It is the text used in Handel’s Messiah. It is the
text we have come to love after decades of exposure to it. Even though English
is my second language, I find the AV easy to read and to understand. Furthermore,
the translation is more literal. In the literature one often reads of literal
vs. dynamic Biblical translation approaches—although to different extents
both are included in every version. The more literal give us something closer
to a word-for-word translation while the more dynamic attempt to translate the general
sense or meaning of what is meant. Because dynamic translations require even a
greater amount of interpretation of the text—and I generally rather ponder and interpret
the text myself if there is not something already from the Brethren on that
subject—I prefer the more literal translations such as the KJV.
Of all the Bible translations I have (over fifty), the AV
gives us the most accurate rendering of the Hebrew extant Bible. Note again,
that the Hebrew we do have, the Biblia Hebraica or Masoretic Text
as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of copies. As mentioned by
the Brethren, we do not have original versions of the Bible in any language.
All the ancient manuscripts in other languages than Hebrew are also copies of
copies.
The New Testament has its own unique set of additional
challenges that must be mentioned as a warning: the source text is different.
The KJV used what is called the Textus Receptus or Received Text,
while many of the other versions do not. Some of those versions do a good job
in the Old Testament but fail miserably in the New. Many of the references to
the Divinity of Christ are removed and complete verses are eliminated. For an
excellent presentation on that topic see President J. Reuben Clark’s April 1954
General Conference address, “Our Bible.” For the remainder of this paper my
comments will be directed to the Old Testament, although similar issues appear
in the New.
Difficulty in Translation
It is very hard to translate. I know, because I have
translated my own books from Spanish to English and from English to Spanish.
Even though I know the material intimately, it is a very challenging and time-consuming
task.
Some believe that the same word should be translated
consistently throughout the Bible. Yet words in Hebrew and Greek are as rich in
multiple meanings as words in English or Spanish. Look at the richness and
variety of even the simplest words in your English Thesaurus. To find the right
translation we need to understand the nuances of both languages: that of the source
as well as that of the target language we are translating into. We must
not only understand the words, but also the context. For instance, how should
the expression HA-GOYIM (הַגּוֹיִם) be translated? We find that the Hebrew הַגּוֹיִם
is sometimes translated as the Gentiles or as the nations. Our perspectives,
beliefs and understanding will guide us in making those decisions. Certainly, gentiles
and nations are not synonymous in meaning. Other words in Hebrew and
Greek offer us an even more extensive set of possibilities.
The matter is further complicated by other issues such as ellipses
(things that are left out but implied). In earlier articles we have spoken
about cultural ellipses that imply a larger amount of missing text as well as the
simplest forms of ellipses. The words in italics in your KJV show which
words are implied in the source language but are not there—either because of
the way that Hebrew is written and often because the concepts were thought to
be understood by the readers.
In Ezekiel 37:18, for instance, we read: “And when the
children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us
what thou meanest by these?” The translators of the AV are telling us
that they had to supply the elliptical word, meanest, because it was
implied in the passage. The KJV is wonderful in that many of the elliptical
additions are clearly shown. There are a few modern versions who use the same
techniques but many do not.
There are a number of Hebrew constructions that are rendered
the way we read and speak English rather than by how the original language is
used. For instance, “I Jehovah,” אֲנִי יהוה (e.g., see Genesis
15:7; Exodus 7:5; Leviticus 11:45; Isaiah 48:17, etc.) is rendered in the KJV
as “I am the Lord,” so that the
words “am the” should also be in italics but they are not. I suppose it
would be somewhat distracting to show every single word that ought to be in
italics. The Darby and LEB versions, on the other hand, respectively render
Isaiah 48:17 as “I am Jehovah” and “I am Yahweh.” Rotherham
renders it “I—Yahweh.” And several Spanish translations such as RV1865 give us “yo
Jehová.” In the אֲנִי יהוה example, the translated
meaning is essentially preserved either way.
There are verses, however, where various translations give
us drastically different meanings and even the very opposite sense from each
other. We have explored some of those examples in past posts. The KJV is very
consistent in giving us some of the best, most accurate translation of the
Hebrew text as it is available today. But not always. So it is that I say that
the KJV is my favorite almost all of the time, but from time to time, however,
I need a “second opinion.” This helps me to see something I may have missed so
that I can better understand.
I do not have a second favorite that I can always count on.
Rather, I draw more heavily from a list of about fifteen or so other versions. Some
of the precursors of the KJV are also particularly useful. Even my less
frequently visited translations will sometimes offer important help. I find the
ancient manuscripts such as the Targum, Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, Syriac, and Peshitta
veritable treasures in the study of Scripture. Today, I will limit my examples
to two that are of particular interest to Latter-day Saints.
Prophetic perfect. Isaiah 53:2 speaks of Messiah and
reads: “For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of
a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there
is no beauty that we should desire him” (KJV). One scriptural concept used in
the Hebrew Bible is often called the prophetic perfect. In it, an action
is spoken as if completed, even if it is in the future, because the Prophet or
Seer has seen the event as if it had already taken place. This should immediately
arouse us as Latter-day Saints, yes, we have heard that before. For example, Leeser
translates the same Isaianic passage from the Hebrew more literally as: “Yea,
he grew up [וַיַּעַל] like a small shoot before him, and as a
root out of a dry land: he had no form nor comeliness, so that we should look
at him; and no countenance, so that we should desire him.” Other versions that
include the prophetic perfect here include the AMP, ASV, BBE, Bishops, CEV,
CJV, ERV, ESV, GW, HCSB, ISV, JPS, LBP, LBLA, LEB, LHI, NASB, NBLH, Rotherham,
RV, TLV, WEB and WEBA. The reason this concept is familiar to us is because the
Book of Mormon was also translated from an ancient manuscript and gives us
several like examples: “And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking
of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no
redemption” (Mosiah 16:6).
Inspired Version. In the Inspired Version (JST), the
Prophet Joseph Smith replaced the Hebrew יזה sprinkle in Isaiah 52:15, as in “sprinkle many
nations” with gather; “gather many nations.” The Hebrew scholar Schiller-Szinessy[2]
has, which coincide exactly with the Inspired Version: “The fact is, יזה here comes from the root וזה to accumulate,
to gather, to attract.”
I worked hard to find additional information on the Hebrew יזה.
A colleague directed me to one of my favorite dictionary references, the
Gesenius Lexicon: “יָזָה an
unused root. Arab. وزى to gather selves together,” as well as the Emphasized Bible,
which under Isaiah 52:15 has: “gather to himself” and more importantly, gives Fuerst’s
Hebrew Lexicon (Williams & Norgate, 1871) as a reference. In the 1867
version of the Fürst Lexicon (see pp. 917-918) we find additional information
of great interest: “נָזָה
II. (Kal not used), intr. same as יָזָה (which see) to go together. Deriv. the proper
name יִזִּיָּה.[3]
Hif. (future יַזֶּה) to collect, Isaiah 52:14-15, like
as many were amazed at him—and therefore fled from him—will he
now gather to himself many nations. The versions have thought sometimes of expiating,
purifying, sometimes of causing to exult; but the explanation now
given is the most suitable.”[4]
Words are so rich in meaning, whether they are in English,
Spanish or Hebrew or any other language, that in reality one word may not do
them justice. One translation that takes this into consideration is the Amplified
or AMP, which uses additional words when necessary. In the KJV, we have
something similar in the way of marginal notes. Different LDS editions
have emphasized the marginal notes more or less than others.
In summary, I have a love-hate relationship with these other
versions as sometimes they help but often they obscure the passages about the Messiah
and His Divine Nature as the very Son of God. Gladly, we have the inspired
writings and talks of latter-day Prophets, Apostles and General Authorities as
well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great
Price. I am grateful that the Brethren have chosen the KJV as the Bible for
English speaking Latter-day Saints.
[1] August
1992. URL https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-statement-on-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible?lang=eng
accessed 5 May 2016.
[2] The
author of this dissertation says of himself: “I am now 61 years of age, and I
so loved the Hebrew Bible in my youth that I knew the whole of it by heart
before I was ten years old. But, although the whole Bible has ever been dear to
me, my favourite prophet has always been Isaiah. Him I studied under Jews,
Rabbanites and Quaraites; him I studied under Christian, Roman Catholics and
Protestants. He has ever been my thought by day, my dream in the night; my
comfort in trouble, my exultation in happiness” (pp.6-7). An Exposition of
Isaiah 52:13-15; and 53; Delivered before the Council of the Senate in the
Law School on Friday, April 28, 1882, Cambridge.
[3]
Pronounced something like Yizzayah, and in modern English it is sometimes
written Izayah, both of which sound like the Hebrew pronunciation of
Isaiah.
[4] Fuerst
[Fürst], Dr. Julius, A Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament,
Professor at the University of Leipzig. Translated from the German by Samuel
Davidson, D.D. of the University of Halle. London, Williams & Norgate. 1867
(3rd edition). First German Edition was published in 1857.
No comments:
Post a Comment