This Is Amazing and I Love It In Every Possible Way

The Babylon Bee is magical:

KJV-Only Pastor Tests Positive For NIV

HOLLY SPRINGS, MS—In a somber announcement, Pastor Philip Wallace confirmed to his congregation at Hartford Ave Fundamentalist Baptist Church, AV1611 Wednesday evening that he has tested positive for NIV.

The man has pastored the congregation of seventeen people for the past thirty years, staunchly defending the purity of the Scriptures as handed down to mankind in the Authorized Version, but confessed he may have contracted NIV while “experimenting” with other translations during his college years.....(click here to read the rest)

First Things Article on Sacral Language

Thanks to the Surly Hermit for passing this First Things article along to me.  It is in the November edition and available online.

Thus Saith the Lord
by Nathaniel Peters

One Sunday in high school, we went to the Anglo-Catholic parish where my headmaster served as an assistant priest. Catechized by evangelical Episcopalians and Presbyterians, I believed that the Bible was divinely inspired by God. But I had never seen it treated as such in a physical or ritual way. Down Mr. Jarvis came, robed in damask and the smoke of incense, into the congregation to sing and kiss the Word of God. He spoke the words of the King James Bible, a language steeped in the same reverence for Scripture that the liturgy made manifest.

My thoughts drifted to that day on seeing the news that Pope Francis has appointed a commission to review Liturgiam Authenticam, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2001 instruction governing translations of the Mass and sacramental rites into vernacular languages. More recently, he issued a decree giving local bishops’ conferences greater control over such translations. The conflict is partly over jurisdiction: Who should decide what is an acceptable Japanese translation of the liturgy, a committee in Japan or in Rome?
Continue on here.

Let me note here that the main point of this essay would be in conflict with Msgr. Ronald Knox.  When Peters quotes Nicholson, in his work God’s Secretaries, saying that the KJV translators considered it more important “to make English godly than to make the words of God unto the sort of prose that any Englishman would have written” he is in direct contrast to what Knox thought, in regards to translation.  Knox, in his book On Englishing the Bible, references the great Hilaire Belloc, saying, “The great principle he there lays down is that the business of a translator is not to ask, ‘How shall I make this foreigner talk English’ but ‘What would an Englishman have said to express this?‘“ 

 I am eager to read your thoughts on this, as always, let’s engage in this topic with great charity.

So Which Is It? (2 Maccabees 15:39/40)

Water and Wine, oil on canvas—Richard Baker, 1959

I was reading the last verse of 2 Maccabees 15 yesterday (verse 39 in the Greek-based texts, 40 in the Latin ones) and noticed that there is an interesting difference between the translations, depending on whether they use the Greek or Latin.  It may only be a slight difference, but one which changes the meaning of this last verse of the book.


Here are a few different translations that utilize the Greek:

"For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone; and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end." -Brenton LXX

"For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone; and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end." -KJV

"Just as it is unpleasant to drink wine by itself or just water, whereas wine mixed with water makes a delightful and pleasing drink, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end." -NABRE

"For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment, so also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the work. And here will be the end." -NRSV


Here are two that utilize the Latin:

"For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other: so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers. But here it shall be ended." -Douay-Rheims (Challoner)

"Nothing but wine to take, nothing but water, thy health forbids; vary thy drinking, and thou shalt find content. So it is with reading; if the book be too nicely polished at every point, it grows wearisome. So here we will have done with it." -Knox


Did you notice the difference?  As you can see, the Greek-based texts conclude by praising a story that is skillfully written, while the Latin-based ones ends exalting books that aren't "too nicely polished."  (The NRSV is a bit more ambigious compared to the KJV and NABRE.)  In this instance, it seems to me that the Latin-based texts make more sense, particularly since earlier in the verse the author remarks that it is better to drink wine and water that are mixed together, hence not purely wine or water only.

The 1859 Haydock commentary of the Douay noted the difference as well:

Ver. 40. Always. Greek, "only." (Haydock) --- Readers delight in variety. A middle style is adopted. (Calmet) --- But.Greek, "But as wine mixed with water is pleasant, and affords delight, so the preparation (or style) of a discourse pleases the ears of those who read what is collected. But here shall be an end." (Haydock)

Fascinating.

Guest Post: My Journey to the King James Version

I would like to thank my friend Kevin for writing this post from his perspective as a Mennonite.  I hope you all find it as fascinating as I did.

Based upon the title of this post alone, it is safe to assume that I am not a Catholic. I am a Mennonite, but I have been a reader (but not really a commenter) of the Catholic Bibles Blog for quite some time. I appreciate the Bible in all its forms, and I am always intrigued by how manuscripts, denominational differences, and language have created so much diversity in the art of translating the Bible into English.

           

I received my first Bible ten years ago this year. It was a NLT Student’s Life Application Bible in paperback. Now, I primarily use a rather elegant KJV Westminster Reference Bible in black calfskin. As you can probably tell, from my first experiences of church ten years ago until now, my Bible preferences have shifted drastically. My first Bible and my current go-to are on completely different ends of the spectrum on textual sources, translation style, and physical quality. The main point of this post is to discuss textual sources and translation style.

            

So far, I have used for at least several months, or read several books of, the following translations (in no particular order): NLT, NIV (1984 and 2011), NAB, NABRE, RSV, RSV-2CE, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NAV/TMB, and KJV. I have never limited myself by any one translations philosophy or denominational perspective. I am a Protestant, but I like the Bible in all its myriad forms. However, if you look at the aforementioned list of translations, there is a preference for versions in the Tyndale-King James tradition (e.g. KJV, RSV).

            

My time with so many versions has taught me one major truth: they are all good. None are perfect, but every single major, committee-produced translation is good. You can read the NLT, RSV, and KJV side-by-side, and get the same basic message. They will read differently, sound differently, and have different variations based upon textual sources, but the same message is there. Once this truth really started to settle in, my pickiness with different Bibles started to go away. However, if you are Catholic or Orthodox, the Protestant options are often going to be missing some important books.

           

My journey to the King James Version involves three key points:

Tradition

As a Mennonite, to talk about church tradition seems a bit strange, but I have to admit that I value it. I especially value the English Protestant tradition that has given us so many masterpieces of English literature and liturgy (e.g. the King James Bible, Book of Common Prayer, the works of Shakespeare). The King James Version of the Bible permeates English. There are many times when we speak, and we unintentionally quote from the KJV. The KJV is all over English language liturgies/worship services, and the KJV is found in other Bibles that are its descendants (ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, etc.).

However, there is a far greater aspect of tradition that just makes the KJV “click” for me. The KJV is the Bible of my family. Both of my parents grew up in KJV using churches. My father will still say that the KJV is the “most accurate” translation (which I know is debatable). All of the Bibles that mean something to me since they were passed down by loved ones are King James Bibles. When I read my KJV, it reminds me of the coverless KJV my great-grandmother used until her death, or the large Holman KJV my grandfather has studied from for 50 years. That level of sentimentality cannot be found in any other version.

Translation Style

 This is not unrelated to my previous point. The KJV endures because of how beautiful it is. The KJV was translated in such a way that it was both faithful to the original languages and faithful to English. It is both literal and literary. Because of how common illiteracy was 400 years ago, it had to be. Any Bible translation was going to be primarily heard from lectors during the liturgy, not in private homes.

Consider, for instance, one of the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9 KJV). In the Tyndale-King James tradition, this passage is rendered in such a way that it is both faithful to Greek and beautiful in English. It is somewhat gender inclusive with “sons of God” becoming “children of God”, but it retains Greek idiom quite well while bring it alive in English. Compare this to the Good News Bible, which says, “Happy are those who work for peace; God will call them his children!” It says the same basic message in today’s English, but you lose the balance between the original languages and good English literature.

Even today, many of the most popular versions are intentionally based in the KJV style. They take from the KJV (or other KJV-based versions) because of the translational majesty of this particular version. Peter Hitchens wrote, “The new versions tend only to be tolerable at all when they stick closely to the Authorised Version's poetic text.” (His brother, Christopher Hitchens, also praised the KJV.) Peter is right. Just look at the towering popularity of the RSV and now ESV, or the NKJV. The only English version that comes close the KJV family in terms of popularity is the NIV, but even it falls very short. In terms of style, the KJV continues to reign as king.

Textual Sources

The source texts behind the KJV are where the real debate tends to lie. If you look at the KJV tradition, it has branched in two directions: 1. towards the critical text with the Revised Version and its revisions; 2. continued reliance upon the Textus Receptus (e.g. NKJV, KJ21). (I only mention the New Testament Greek sources, because most English versions almost only use the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Old Testament. Not all Masoretic Texts were created equal, but there is very little difference.) The textual debate is not a major concern for me, since it seems so little of the New Testament is actually affected. Sure, you have a handful of important places (e.g. Mark 16:9-20, 1 John 5:7), but most differences would not be noticed by the average reader.     

          

However, I do appreciate the King James Version’s use of the Textus Receptus. It comes closest to what the majority of Greek manuscripts reflect, and I have my reservations about current trends in textual criticism. I am personally a bit troubled by the reliance upon two primary sources (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) even when other sources that could be contemporary or older disagree. Mark 16:9-20, for example, can be found in some early witnesses such as the church fathers, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Vulgate. Scholars seem to be biased in favor of only a couple sources to the exclusion of others. The KJV’s use of the Textus Receptus, however, gives one a good alternative to current textual standards.

           

In conclusion, I have found the KJV to be a wonderful Bible. It has enriched my devotional reading and study for the reasons I only briefly covered here. I would never recommend using the KJV only, but I also would not recommend using any one translation only. We are blessed today with so many websites and programs that allow us to explore the Scriptures even without having a physical copy in front of us. We should always utilize those resources.

            

If you are Catholic, I strongly suggest exploring the King James Version (even though you do have the wonderful Douay-Rheims Version). The King James Version originally included all of the books as found in the Vulgate, and even many Orthodox Christians utilize the KJV. I personally recommend the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha or Cambridge Cameo Reference Bible with Apocrypha. They both come the closest to providing an unabridged edition of the King James Bible. There is also the little-known Third Millennium Bible (New Authorized Version) which is a slightly updated KJV with Apocrypha. 

A Great Bible Resource by Michael Potemra

From National Review:

I got an e-mail today informing me of a delightful new resource available free of charge at the website of the Catholic publisher Baronius Press.  It’s a complete side-by-side text of the Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims Catholic translation, and the mid-20th-century translation by Monsignor Ronald Knox. 

I have always had a soft spot for the Douay-Rheims translation, because it has the venerable old style of the King James Version (“thee” and “thou,” of course, plus a generally high diction), but – because the Douay-Rheims version currently most commonly printed is the 18th-century Challoner revision – it lacks some of the KJV phrasings that have come to sound clunky if not barbaric in the intervening centuries. (Among these latter, the one that grates on me most is when the KJV has St. Paul, St. Peter, and the Psalmist all use the phrase “to us-ward.” Ugh.)

Read the rest here 

NY Times Article on King James Bible

An interesting article from the New York Times on the King James Version (Authorized Version). As most of you know, this year is the 400th Anniversary of the KJV. You can read the article here.

(Thanks to ceflynn for the link.)

KJV w/ Apocrypha Pre-Order

With the recent outreach to Anglicans by Pope Benedict, I thought it would be appropriate to alert those interested that a premium leather edition of the KJV w/ Apocrypha will soon be available through Cambridge University Press, my favorite Bible publisher, and Baker Publishing Group. More details when they become known.