Ship of Fools: Bible for public reading

Thread: Bible for public reading Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028275

Posted by OhSimone (# 16414) on :

Having read the Study Bible thread and a number of articles staunchly praising the KJV this year, I'm curious as to (at least) one aspect of its defence: that it's the best Bible for public reading.

I'm certainly a fan of the language of the KJV in the same way as I'd praise the language of Shakespeare, but I'm not sure it's the most accessible to either churched or unchurched folk. I was brought up soaked in it yet I regularly find parts which need further translating, and often hear preachers standing firm on the bestness of the KJV but then having to qualify it substantially. I can hardly read it or listen to it these days without extensive margin notes, which is hardly ideal.

What Bibles do Shipmates read/have read in church? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each - and particularly why are they so suitable for public reading? I'd be very happy to change my allegiance from NKJV to something better, so all advice gratefully received.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I absolutely agree with the premise of this post. In fact I preached a week ago on the KJV 400 theme and said this: "The best way to honour the translators of the King James Bible is to make sure that we use vivid modern translations in our worship and our witness. Of course we do not forget the Authorised Version; indeed, we respect it for its literary associations and its beauty. But in evangelism it is imperative that God speaks in contemporary language which accurately conveys his message to people in today’s world".

It seems to me that those who so staunchly defend the KJV do so either because of some mystical belief that the text it is based on is the "most inspired" one around; or simply because they love its literary cadences and language, forgetting how alien they are to many people.

To answer your question, I'm not sure there's a "one size fits all" - in English we are blessed (and sometimes cursed!) with a wide selection of translations. Our church uses the NEB which is very patchy - at times it offers a startlingly good insight into the text, at other times it is opaque and unintelligible. In family services I use the GNB or CEV (because it's on BibleGateway) every time. I've heard the NRSV is good but haven't had much experience of it.

It strikes me that one sometimes needs to make a choice between an accurate translation that sounds like a translation, or a more dynamic version which may be less literal but which speaks to contemporay folk in their language - as did the Gospels in their day. And we mustn't also forget that the very familiarity of the KJV can dull its impact to many (e.g. in the Christmas lessons) - a newer version may make people sit up and listen.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

FWIW I like the NIV for public reading.

I think it still strikes that balance of sounding like great literature while still being accessible. Most other translations fall off the edge one way or the other.

(Plus it has the distinct advantage of making Sydney Anglicans suspect that one must be at least a little bit dodgy for not using the ESV.)

[ETA - Sorry BT but GNB and CEV where exactly what I had in mind for not sounding like profound literature - they are just patronising. Fine for children, not great for public reading with a mixed group though.]

[ 14. November 2011, 11:53: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I don't completely trust the NIV for the reasons laid out in this thread.

Moo

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

The NRSV is the standard pew/pulpit Bible in the ELCA. I have no issues with it in terms of readability.

One of my ministerial friends used to like the New Jerusalem version (and its latest incarnation) for public reading -- even though it would confuse the people in the pew trying to follow along in their NRSVs.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

NRSV - always

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

The NRSV is used for readings and in the pews at a large Methodist church I attend and it's also what I used for readings at a Nazarene church I once attended and what the former pastor used for his sermons. But the pew Bibles there were a mix of NKJV, NRSV, and NIV randomly scattered. This was intentional. Sunday nights were Bible Study nights and the pastor wanted to get different insights and get people thinking differently. So he'd read from a particular version (could be any of the 3) and then could prompt discussion by asking "does anyone else's Bible say that differently?" It worked really well to get discussion started, because you knew that what you had read was somehow different than what your pew neighbor had been reading. It really helped get rid of the typical Bible Study wall of "erm...we all just read the same thing...what do you want us to say?".

The new pastor there uses The Message.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

We read NIV in church. I personally would prefer NRSV - it is a better translation, and it is nearer to both the English we actually speak now, and to the traditional usage of English Bible transletions.

So I'd say NRSV for general use, perhaps AV for some special occasions - and that's about it really. I don't really approve of picking and choosing translations just because you think one version sounds better for one passage and another for another - that's an easy way to end up sub-consciously editing the Bible.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't really approve of picking and choosing translations just because you think one version sounds better for one passage and another for another - that's an easy way to end up sub-consciously editing the Bible.

Right -- that should be left to the publishers to do... [Biased]

--Tom Clune

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Just to say that when I wrote this:
I don't really approve of picking and choosing translations just because you think one version sounds better for one passage and another for another - that's an easy way to end up sub-consciously editing the Bible.

It was not meant to be a reply to this:

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
But the pew Bibles there were a mix of NKJV, NRSV, and NIV randomly scattered. This was intentional. Sunday nights were Bible Study nights and the pastor wanted to get different insights and get people thinking differently. So he'd read from a particular version (could be any of the 3) and then could prompt discussion by asking "does anyone else's Bible say that differently?" .

I think that's a great idea! And its also good to use a range of translations for Bible study and sermon preparation and so on. What's not so good is choosing the version for public reading that says what you want it to say. If after studying the original (if you are blessed with a gift of languages!) or a variety of translations (if you aren't) you think that the version that is read mistranslates something, or says something in a way you find unhelpful or obscure, maybe point it out in the sermon, but don't change the reading to fit your opinions. Because if we do that sooner or later we'll find ourselves only ever reading from the Gospel according to Me.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think it still strikes that balance of sounding like great literature while still being accessible.

Even the bits that don't sound like great literature in the original?

Posted by OhSimone (# 16414) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
NRSV - always

The NRSV gets a lot of love around here I've noticed - exactly what makes it so great?

(This is also of interest to me - I'm nearing the end of a Bible-in-one-year reading plan thing through YouVersion and am going to go right back to the start and do it again. I'm currently deciding whether to do it in ESV or NRSV.)

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Our place uses GNB because that is the version placed in the pews.

The reasons why we have not changed this are all strictly practical:
* Folk donated them and there are labels in the front, this would cause offense
* There is a lectern bible, are we suggesting getting rid of that?
* Many older people remember buying these bibles and see no need to change.

The reasons why we could well bring in change:
* The GNBs have had heavy use and are falling apart.
* Some of the leadership team would deeply prefer another version.

I shall follow this thread with interest to see who is using what in their church.In addition i would be interested to know how change is effected.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I am a bit of a snob [Hot and Hormonal]

and didn't expect to like the New Living Translation. But actually I really, really do.

One of the translators' intentions was to come up with something that would read aloud well and I think they did a very good job for the most part.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am a bit of a snob and didn't expect to like the New Living Translation. But actually I really, really do.

One of the translators' intentions was to come up with something that would read aloud well and I think they did a very good job for the most part.

I had a similar reaction to the NLT. It kind of highlights the unusual aspect of reading aloud -- you want something pretty far on the dynamic equivalence end for that. The NRSV is really painful to read (or follow when read) aloud because the sentence structures are so horribly convoluted. The same is true for the ESV and the NASB IME. All of these are good choices for close reading during intense Bible studies, but they are just too hard to follow when read aloud.

Another really nice Bible to read aloud (and the one that seems to me to do the best job of striking the balance between ease of comprehension and fidelity to textual nuance) is the New Jerusalem Bible. Unfortunately, that is a Catholic Bible, which makes it anathema to some Protestant churches. But it is an elegant and very accessible translation.

To my mind, the NJB's only flaw in this regard is its idiosyncratic insistence on writing YHWH throughout the OT, with a note that you should read that as "the Lord." Why they refused to follow the time-honored tradition of putting "the Lord" in all small caps to indicate "YHWH" is a mystery to me -- it is very easy to stumble over YHWH when reading aloud as you try to recall what you are supposed to do with the term. FWIW

--Tom Clune

[ 14. November 2011, 15:47: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OhSimone:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
NRSV - always
The NRSV gets a lot of love around here I've noticed - exactly what makes it so great?

Probably because it is the best translation (apart from JB) as well as sounding good when read aloud. It combines reverence with accessibility.

Another reason is that pew bibles are reasonably priced if you buy them in bulk.

(So are NIVs and GNBs but I would not touch them with a bargepole, or should that be thurible?)

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

We read NIV in church. I personally would prefer NRSV - it is a better translation, and it is nearer to both the English we actually speak now, and to the traditional usage of English Bible translations.

I'd be fairly happy with the NRSV but think it fails (slightly) the accessible test. I'm looking for something that includes people with English as a second language. (IME 'better translation' is a pejorative term! Usually people simply mean 'more literal' - whether that is better or not is moot.)

What do you mean by 'the traditional usage' here?

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't really approve of picking and choosing translations just because you think one version sounds better for one passage and another for another - that's an easy way to end up sub-consciously editing the Bible.

Agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think it still strikes that balance of sounding like great literature while still being accessible.
Even the bits that don't sound like great literature in the original?

No.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Ken:

quote:
So I'd say NRSV for general use, perhaps AV for some special occasions - and that's about it really. I don't really approve of picking and choosing translations just because you think one version sounds better for one passage and another for another - that's an easy way to end up sub-consciously editing the Bible.

I don't know, Ken, whether you are a biblical scholar capable of pronouncing on the relative merits of a multitude of bible translations as to their accuracy that leads you to commend NRSV, or whether your preference reflects a "sub-conscious editing". If AV is suitable on "special occasions", why not other translations depending on context. "Picking and choosing" might reflect a recognition that accuracy of translation rather than being the monopoly of a particular version might be widely dispersed. The same could be said of relative rhetorical merits. Sticking to one version doesn't solve the problem of subjectivity.

Posted by testbear (# 4602) on :

Most of the time our pastor would use the ESV – although lately he has taken the decision to “trial” the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible), which he describes as “An ESV which I can actually read aloud”. I am led to believe that the ESV, and hence the HCSB, are descendents (in translator approach if not in substance) of the RSV (and hence also NRSV).

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

We have NRSV for reading aloud, and I'll agree it reads very well, but if I want to check something out I've heard at church.I'll read it at home in another translation, which for me is either NIV (I'm aware of its shortcomings) or NLT. On the important stuff the various translations tend to agree anyway.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd be fairly happy with the NRSV but think it fails (slightly) the accessible test.

No translation that I have seen is very close to the language we actually speak. And maybe it shouldn't be because when you try that then it always seems regional or local - because you need to choose exactly which dialect of English to use - and it very soon becomes dated. (Who know uses the JB Phillips translation? Or even the "Living Bible"?)

So most translations aim at the sort of semi-formal written English you might find in a newspaper leader column or a school textbook. I think the NRSV gets nearer to that than the NIV does. Its slightly more natural.

One problem is that some of the BIble texts are, apparently, very colloquial and slangy in the original, but no-one translates them like that. (And maybe they shouldn't) But others are written in styles that are very unlike the way anyone would ever have spoken in real life at all. No-one talks apocalyptic language over the breakfast table (well, no-one sane anyway). Its a special mode of speech that was used in prophecy and worship and religious discourse. And its not naturally English at all - we get it as a sort of loan-translation from the Bible - and the Greek NT and apocrypal books get their language as a sort of loan-translation from Hebrew. So maybe we ought to translate Ezekiel or Revelation in an unnatural (to us) Semitic word order, and using the original idioms rather than more familiar English ones. Because perhaps they read that way to the original hearers as well. They ought to be weird.

quote:

IME 'better translation' is a pejorative term! Usually people simply mean 'more literal' - whether that is better or not is moot.

There are a number of places where the NIV translation is really is mistranslated, in that the English just doesn't mean what the original does. tclune will no doubt tell us about their rendering of the passages about virgins and sons in Isaiah, which to be honest don't worry me at all because the dispute over those is so well known that everyone who cares already has an opinion on it. Also because I really do think that the use of an OT passage by the inspired authors of the NT legitimises their reading of it.

I'm more annoyed by how the NIV translators go out of their way to use masculine language when the original isn't. They sometimes introduce the word "man" misleadingly where it is neither needed in English nor represents anything in the original - so those passages are neither a meaning-for-meaning translation nor a word-for-word one. It is as if they were so scared of being thought to be liberal or trendy or inclusive that they bent over backwards to avoid any appearance of gender-neutral translation and ended up mistranslating the other way. Its not so bad as to make it unusable but it is very irritating.

quote:

What do you mean by 'the traditional usage' here?

There is a sort of mainstream of English versions each revising the ones before without rewriting them. It starts with well-known translations for devotional use from the Middle Ages - even when the Bible as a whole was unavailable in English many people knew, for example, the Lord's Prayer and parts of the Sermon the Mount. Then we go through Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale, the BCP, Geneva, the AV, RV, RSV, NRSV (and various other recent spin-offs such as ESV). They tend to preserve well-known phrases that churchgoers will often remember even if they don't have them off by heart. The well-known words live on in liturgy and prayers and hymns and even popular sayings. So we know them and we half-expect them.

I mean, regardless of which is the more accurate translation which of these is going to resonate better with hearers in a church?

quote:
The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.

quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

quote:
In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

quote:
At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning.

Posted by OhSimone (# 16414) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I mean, regardless of which is the more accurate translation which of these is going to resonate better with hearers in a church?

There's the OP in a nutshell I suppose. I think there's probably deeper pastoral issues at stake as well: I take the view that it's the church leadership's responsibility not just to use the best text for the job (however that's decided!) but to cultivate the church members as discerning, thoughtful readers.

At my church, the majority would stick with KJV most of the time; but it's also a church where we all bring our own Bible of choice to read along, flick through and think about. I've seen KJV, NKJV, NIV and NLT all in use by the congregation. That's a good start, but I know a number there who'd hear the expression "think critically" and jump in their minds to "higher criticism", and run a mile, flinging accusations of heresy left, right and centre as they went.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OhSimone:
I take the view that it's the church leadership's responsibility not just to use the best text for the job (however that's decided!) but to cultivate the church members as discerning, thoughtful readers.

At my church, the majority would stick with KJV most of the time; but it's also a church where we all bring our own Bible of choice to read along, flick through and think about. I've seen KJV, NKJV, NIV and NLT all in use by the congregation.

I'm kind of a broken record on this topic, but let me pitch my absolute favorite translation, the NET Bible. It is available for free online or for about $75 in book form.

Here is what I find so special about it:

The usual discussion of translations talks about "formal equivalence" and "dynamic equivalence." Translations that try to translate the text "literally" strive for "formal equivalence" to the original text. Translations that strive to make the underlying meaning plain strive for "dynamic equivalence" to the original text.

Now, the NET Bible seems to have decided (rightly, to my way of thinking) that this dichotemy is horse pucky. Instead, they recognize three serious issues in making the original text accessible in translation: First, there are significant issues about what words mean, especially in the Hebrew or Aramaic, but to a lesser extent also in the Greek. So this Bible has a wealth of notes explaining the nuances of meaning in key words. These footnotes are designated "tn," for translation notes.

The second big issue is that there are many variants in the text we have received over the years for the scriptures. Instead of just choosing one, they footnote what the major textual variants say, and indicate why they chose one over the other. These notes are designated "tc," for textual criticism.

Finally, there are historical and theological issues in understanding a passage. The translators offer their guidance on these matters in some footnotes that they designate "sn," for study notes.

The translation itself is on the dynamic equivalence side, but the 60,000+ footnotes are an integral part of the tanslation. So the "translation" is just the first pass at understanding the passage, with the nuaces and ambiguities that may make that first pass questionable admirably expicated in the voluminous footnotes.

Now, the people who did this translation are mostly professors from the Dallas Theological Seminary. If you are familiar with that institution, you recognize it as a bastion of dispensationalism in the US. Personally, I find dispensationalism just about as foul a theology as exists in Christendom. But the translation is an absolute marvel of scholarship and rigor. I often skip the "sn" notes if they are devoted to points of theology, as I expect them to be silly. But the others are truly authoritative. These guys are good and honest scholars.

I would love to see this approach to translation become the norm in study Bibles. There is just no way to capture the richness of scripture in a straightforward translation, and an amazing amount of richness is lost in the effort. The NET Bible's approach restores a great deal of that richness and makes it readily accessible to the devoted reader who may not be able to read the original texts. It is a truly wonderful gift to the faith community.

--Tom Clune

Posted by OhSimone (# 16414) on :

Tclune - have you had experience of the NET bible in public reading? I can't help thinking it's probably not ideally suited for that.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Well, I have used it for that on occasion. The translation part, being on the dynamic equivalence side, fills in the words that make plain who did what to whom (exactly what bothers formal equivalence sorts). For example, Luke 1:26 reads like this in the ESV:

quote:
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,

while the NET Bible renders it as

quote:
In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,

It is probably true that "the sixth month" referred to Elizabeth's pregnancy. But what if it was intended to say whatever is the Hebrew equivalent of "June?" Certainly, the NET Bible reads more clearly. But that clarity could be ill-gotten.

I was really recommending the NET Bible for the reasons that you indicate in the post to which I was responding -- to increase the Biblical literacy of the congregation. Personally, I just don't think that relying on folks "picking up" Biblical literacy by listening to scripture being read to them is going to get you where you need to go. That requires study, and the NET Bible is one of the great study Bibles available. The fact that it follows a different paradigm than other Bibles only adds to its value as far as I am concerned.

BTW, the new environment is a better online option than the interface that I linked to before. Try this interface.

--Tom Clune

[ 16. November 2011, 13:45: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by OhSimone (# 16414) on :

Cheers for the clarification. That is a pretty impressive resource: I'm currently printing off tonight's reading for our Bible study so that I can practice my "yeah, but..." in time.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Thanks Ken - that all makes sense to me.

I'm well aware of the NIV's limitations. Maybe I'm just more familiar with the NIV over the NRSV so it just sounds more like traditional usage to me.

Posted by Fradgan (# 16455) on :

Over the past two years I've become an enthusiastic fan of the ESV. It's now my go-to for public reading.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

The Revised English Bible (REB). Beautiful for public or private reading. I wish its publishers would put some more investment into new editions and promote it more.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

NIV2011. More recent scholarship than the NIV1984, lots of the translation problems fixed (including use of tradition / teaching), inclusive language when the original is inclusive, more readable than the ESV or NRSV. Default version on Bible Gateway. What's not to like?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
The Revised English Bible (REB). Beautiful for public or private reading. I wish its publishers would put some more investment into new editions and promote it more.

We use this where I am. I am not a fan. There are too many places where there are traps for the tongue when reading aloud. Just this morning I had two goes at Isaiah 32.20 - and still feel the sentence is unsatisfactory.

Then last night at a carol service 'astrologers' for the magi is probably correct denotationally, but connotationally all wrong.

Frequently I find its choice of particular words comes from a register that is not much used, and seems to flaunt an almost self-consciously academic vocabulary.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
NIV2011. More recent scholarship than the NIV1984, lots of the translation problems fixed (including use of tradition / teaching), inclusive language when the original is inclusive, more readable than the ESV or NRSV. Default version on Bible Gateway. What's not to like?

I can't stand the NIV2011 - I think it is for the reasons Ken gives. I want a bible that I can grow old with. Like an old tree whose roots are intertwined with my life - strong and familiar, as well as bold and daunting.

No translation is perfect. I'm all for bringing out new translations but how about leaving it for at least 50 years in between? In my life I've had to change from the AV to the NIV, now the NIV2011 just sounds wrong to my ears. There are just so many little differences as to be distracting.

New translations are helpful for private study but for a 'pew bible' you want a version that is both accessible and familiar - something for the congregation to share as a common language.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
NIV2011. More recent scholarship than the NIV1984, lots of the translation problems fixed (including use of tradition / teaching), inclusive language when the original is inclusive, more readable than the ESV or NRSV. Default version on Bible Gateway. What's not to like?

Does it take care of the problems cited on this thread?

Moo

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

Some of them, certainly.

For example:

Eph 5 - the section heading has been moved so v21 and 22 are together.
Gen 2:19 - no change, but the pluperfect is a translation option there anyway so it's not a clear mistake.
Gen 2:16-17 no change
Rom 16:1 - Phoebe is now a "deacon"
tradition / teaching - changed.
1 Tim 2 - side heading is still "instructions for worship" but v12 is now "or assume authority...", which is an easier reading for those who want women to be allowed to teach.

I'd be fine sticking with the NIV84 personally, except for the inclusive language issue. It's a bit shift in how English works in the last 30 or so years, and needed addressing. IMHO anyway.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

<tangent>
Really good to see you back, Custard!
</tangent>

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by testbear:
Most of the time our pastor would use the ESV – although lately he has taken the decision to “trial” the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible), which he describes as “An ESV which I can actually read aloud”. I am led to believe that the ESV, and hence the HCSB, are descendents (in translator approach if not in substance) of the RSV (and hence also NRSV).

AFAICT, the HCSB was created because Lifeway (big SBC affiliated publishing house), wanted a modern language bible text that they didn't have to pay licensing fees for.

Posted by Right-Believing Queen (# 16832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I absolutely agree with the premise of this post. In fact I preached a week ago on the KJV 400 theme and said this: "The best way to honour the translators of the King James Bible is to make sure that we use vivid modern translations in our worship and our witness. Of course we do not forget the Authorised Version; indeed, we respect it for its literary associations and its beauty. But in evangelism it is imperative that God speaks in contemporary language which accurately conveys his message to people in today’s world".

It seems to me that those who so staunchly defend the KJV do so either because of some mystical belief that the text it is based on is the "most inspired" one around; or simply because they love its literary cadences and language, forgetting how alien they are to many people.

This quite possibly the single snobbiest thing I've ever read. It is not of course the first time I've come across the line that 'the Authorized Version is alright for those of us who are supremely intelligent and well-educated, but it's no good for the people in the pews, who obviously have the intelligence of dung beetles and cannot be expected to understand English prose more exotic than that found in the tabloids'. This seems very curious to anyone who has seen the extent to which the idioms of the Authorized Version are kept alive by many communities far less bourgeois than those ministered by the disciples of the NIV.

W.H. Auden, who knew rather more about the state of the English language in the post-war period than most of the crusaders for a 'contemporary idiom, wrote scathingly of this view:

quote:
I think our church has gone stark raving mad. We had the Providential good-fortune, a blessing denied to the Roman Catholics, that our Prayer Book was compiled at the ideal historical moment, that is to say when the English language was already in all essentials the language we use now - nobody has any difficulty understanding Shakespeare’s or Cranmer’s English, as they have difficulty with Beowulf or Chaucer - at the same time, men in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries still possessed what our own has almost totally lost, a sense for the ceremonial and ritual both in life and in language. Why, except in very minor details, any Episcopalian should want to tinker with either the Book of Common Prayer or the King James Bible, and go a-whoring after cacophonous and sometimes heretical new versions passes my comprehension.

I seem to recall T.S. Eliot had a similar view of twentieth-century translations. So, we are stuck with a series of translations that defy memory, are at time very difficult to read from, and which were opposed by those who knew most about the literature of the era in which they were produced. I just can't see the logic in that.

Posted by Right-Believing Queen (# 16832) on :

To be clear, I think the choice of which version to use is up to the individual church or denomination (in my past two parishes, we happen to have used the RSV), although I do find it a bit odd that the Anglican church clings on to modernist tomes which the prophets of modernism rejected. I suppose an Anglican poet hath no honour in his own church.

What annoys me is the fact that so many British Christians (I suspect things may be different in North America) have used the recent anniversary of the Authorized Version to reiterate their already well-known prejudices against this version, many of which seem rooted in a snobbish disdain for those people and parishes who use it.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Horses for courses I suspect. However, I do prefer Coverdale's translation of the psalms as found in the (CofE) Book of Common Prayer to the AV/KJV or more modern translations. If may not be an accurate translation, but it is better poetry and therefore in a sense more accurate than versions that are less poetical.

On occasions I think it rather improves on the original Hebrew. I'm happy with that.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Horses for courses I suspect. However, I do prefer Coverdale's translation of the psalms as found in the (CofE) Book of Common Prayer to the AV/KJV or more modern translations. If may not be an accurate translation, but it is better poetry and therefore in a sense more accurate than versions that are less poetical.

I agree. The modern translators seem to have no awareness of cadence. They have tin ears.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

bump

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0