Thus I find it hard to resist the anxiety that one of the things being celebrated in this 400th year is a construction of Britishness of the sort beloved by American tourists and those who find modern Britain just too difficult or too diverse. Which is why the KJB can share the feel of other fantasy constructions like Midsomer – a place recently described by its executive producer as “the last bastion of Englishness” because of its all-white cast.
The irony of all this is that the Bible is, in fact, one of the most powerful forces for multiculturalism that the world has ever known. Those who worship the one God need nothing else in common in order to recognise each other as brothers and sisters. In Christ there is neither rich nor poor, Greek nor Jew, black nor white. Which is why the idea that we might use the Bible as a way of harking back to some lost world of simple monocultural Englishness is such a complete nonsense. It really ought to go without saying: God is not an Englishman.
This, apparently, is what passes for ‘thoughtful’ commentary at Experiment House.
🙄
I use a computer for Bible study, often putting the Greek or Hebrew text in a panel, side-by-side with some English translations, such as ESV, NRSV, and KJV. It’s remarkable how closely the KJV follows the original languages, when one considers that the KJV translators didn’t have the most accurate source material. And, the English prose is wonderful. Doing Rite 1 with NRSV readings is just a bit odd.
Of course for psalms, one uses Coverdale.
I don’t understand the basis of Fraser’s argument for “God is not an Englishman.” That goes without saying.
The Vicar of Putney seems to be making a valid point (for once) but using it to take a backhanded swipe at anyone having a high view of the reliability of the Scripture or it being the inerrant revealed written Word of God.
[blockquote]The language that so many adore – its “thee”s and “thou”s – was rapidly becoming old fashioned even as the text itself was being compiled in the early seventeenth century.[/blockquote]
But that’s exactly the point. The tone set for the translation was deliberately chosen to be out of the ordinary– to be set apart. To be– dare I say it?– holy. The translators chose the tones and senses they associated with their forefathers (this Fraser calls “nostalgia”) because they [i]honored[/i] their forefathers, and their artistic intention was that the God-mandated honor of that tone would provide a suitable (even meet and right?) tone for the translation they were working on.
The difficulty, of course, is that, since Nietzche, it is unthinkable to honor one’s forefathers. The new commandment is to deconstruct them. To dismantle and destroy them. They are nothing but an embarrassment. Like Sarah Palin and the KJV.
But why is the burden on those who appreciate the KJV to offer a defense for it? The thing is done, and by Fraser’s own admission it is beautiful. The burden is rather his: every translator knows that he must choose not only words and phrases, but tone and sense. Which will Fraser choose for his King Giles Version? and how will he justify ithem to posterity? And will anyone really care?
Shakespeare, anyone?
Thee’s and thou’s perform a grammatical and linguistic function NOT covered by the generic you. Unless, of course, one wants to abolish the singular and plural specifications in all the languages known as the romance languages and koine greek constructions, too.
Perhaps such knowledge is too high for the sixth grade reading level and newspaper/magazine.tweets? But, really, it shouldn’t be for a this chap. But, then again, this is the England for which the baptismal service is thought to be too difficult … .
Well, Formerly Marion R. more or less stole my thunder. But that’s good, as he has put it more eloquently than I could have.
The Rev. Dr Giles Fraser simply Just Doesn’t Get It. He does not get why tradition is tradition, or why tradition, in this case the tradition of [i]sacral[/i] speech, is good and necessary. Long live the AV.
Fraser seems also to ignore the desire on the part of the KJV translators to render the original languages as literally as possible into terms “understanded of the people”. For example, in 1 Samuel 25:22 David’s threat to kill all the males in Nabal’s household is rendered by the KJV, “So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.” This translates an idiom clearly understood in all ages (even little boys!) The NRSV, for all its adherence to literal rendering of the original, eliminates the idiom in favor of “males”. This is neither highflown nostalgia nor exclusively “British,” but appeals to a universal cultural meaning. Admittedly, on a small point.
The AV is based upon an inferior text type that is farther removed from the autographs. The modern translations (ESV, NASB) are superior.
carl
[blockquote]The language that so many adore – its “thee”s and “thou”s – was rapidly becoming old fashioned even as the text itself was being compiled in the early seventeenth century.[/blockquote]Mr. Frazier, thou dost protest too much.
So much meaning can be lost when the only standard for communication is that the language not be “old fashioned“. The popularity of the KJV is an example of the need for holding to a higher standard for communication than our every day language allows.
The “thee”s and “thou”s which Frazier finds so embarrassing still convey a specific meaning which seems to be understood by the many people from diverse countries and backgrounds who read, comprehend and still purchase the King James Version of the Bible.
This seems to me to be typical liberal (reappraising) ranting against any form of standards, which traditional things contain. The second a harkening back to anything that they can perceive could draw criticism of their relativistic lifestyle, they rise with their beating wings, breathing heavy, fluttering and flouncing in protest. Sometimes one just wants to say, “can’t you give it a rest, even just to celebrate something that was instrumental in getting us where we are- just to celebrate its beauty – without feeling that your whole made-up world is being threatened?” Please Mr. Fraser, take a step back and a deep breath.
The argument, that the KJV’s 400th Anniversary celebration, is a cause for anxiety, is, of course, very silly. No wonder it’s too easy to view it as a Monty Python style parody: I’m picturing a mob of housewives rushing through Cotswold villages waving dusters and shouting quotations from the KJV. I would guess that the imagined picture that creates anxiety in Fr. Fraser is a bit like that too.
A little peace have been gleaned from thinking of the place that the KJV held in black majority churches in the UK.
I don’t think Fr Fraser is reflecting a liberal mindset in his comments as much as a simple disdain for traditional worship language. Alister McGrath in his book on the history of the KJV, In the Beginning, is very disdainful of trad. language too, although he is far from being a liberal theologian.
And #9, I’m not sure if I take your meaning. The AV (aka KJV) is based on the best manuscripts available at the time. The newer translations in what McGrath calls the KJV tradition, i.e. RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV and ESV, started with the AV and its revisions, and “diligently compared” them to the best manuscripts available at the time each revision was produced. Thus the RV and ASV revised the KJV only insofar as the more recently discovered reliable manuscripts required; the same with the RSV. The NRSV, however, had an inclusive-language agenda which has called its credibility into question, hence the production of the ESV as a more conservative updating of the RSV.
#13, I think you are ignoring the “anxiety” he admits that celebration of 400 years of KJV is a celebration of British “monoculture.” He even compares it to the fantasy place of Midsomer – “‘the last bastion of Britishness’ … because of its all white cast.” Then he goes on to say, “The irony of all this is that the Bible is, in fact, one of the most powerful forces for multiculturalism that the world has ever known…Which is why the idea that we might use the Bible as a way of harking back to some lost world of simple monocultural Englishness is such a complete nonsense.”
Sorry, you are letting him off too easily. He clearly is fearful (anxious) that the 400th year celebration of KJB will be used to push traditional ways of the past and in some way be a threat to liberal’s beloved multiculturalism. I would call it stereotypical liberal paranoia.
carl at 9. The argument that the Critical Text is “superior” to the Byzantine text type suffers from a basic fallacy: earlier = more accurate. That has never been established, and it may go hand in hand with why those early MSS were stuffed away there at St. Catherine’s monastery, and not in use.
The Byzantine text type is more or less the church’s “official” text. I’d go with it on that basis even if it could be proven that it has “additions”.
Apologies. I didn’t get it. I did read, however, that some entity has got a quote from Dawkins or one of the other New Atheists as to the tremendous literary/cultural value of the KJV. What’s that about? He hails its value but also trashes what it says!
15. Caedmon
Did the Apostle John write the Comma Johannum?
carl
I can’t buy his idea that the KJV is a uniquely British version of the Bible. Although the KJV is a very meaningful translation it is after all a translation of recorded events and truths which inspire universal Christian beliefs all over the world, not just in England. Perhaps Rev. Frazier should look beyond the “thee”s and thou”s and read the Bible for content as well as style.
I really can’t believe this. Is the Luther bible no less authoritative?
All these translations are just that! Translations from an earlier document. Translations change meaning. Fortunately in most cases it is not important.
If this is all that important then we should insist that the official texts be in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. And we should explain the problem of translation.
17. Don’t know. What would you do if you found an intact 2nd-Century MSS with John 3:16 or 8:58 missing? Or, say, half of the Book of Romans?
I meant to ask, “What would you do if you found an intact 2nd-Century MSS of the entire New Testament with John 3:16 or 8:58 missing?”
Anxiety about Commemorating the 400th Anniversary seems a bit silly. It’s simply a peg on which to hang the point about the significance of multicultural England. Preachers do it all the time, of course – take a simple and hopefully interesting springing off point (that isn’t intended to bear too much analysis) – to launch you towards your desired destination. But the irony is here, that more than any other English translation, the 400th Anniversary of the KJV offers the opportunity to celebrate the cross cultural, international, ecumenical, multi ethnic history of the use of the KJV.
21. Caedmon[blockquote] What would you do if you found an intact 2nd-Century MSS of the entire New Testament with John 3:16 or 8:58 missing?[/blockquote] It wouldn’t bother me at all, because I know the strength the extant manuscripts. Can you find any manuscript tradition for the Comma Johannum? And since you can’t, doesn’t that establish my point about the TR?
carl
Carl at 23.
As I indicated previously, Carl, even if it could be proven that the Textus Receptus has additions, I would still accept it as the church’s “official” or “received” text. I know it’s unfashionable these days to refer to the argument of Dean Burgon, but I believe that he raised enough issues in his work to render the Critical Text suspect. The issues of authorship and MSS authority are tricky ones indeed, but my personal rule of thumb is that I’d rather be over-inclusive than under-inclusive when it comes to Holy Scripture.
I don’t know that you’ve answered my question, exactly. It’s a hypothetical, I know, but bear with me: what if the discovery of that 2nd century New Testament showed that all the other extant MSS reflected additions to the autographa? Would you whittle down your official New Testament even further?
24. Caedmon [blockquote] I don’t know that you’ve answered my question, exactly.[/blockquote] Your question amounts to “What if I find a manuscript with errors?” The answer is “One manuscript does not overwhelm what has already been discovered.” Besides, all manuscripts have errors. That’s a feature, and not a bug. It allows us to observe the persistence of the text over time. The question you must answer is “What provenance connects the TR to the autographs?” You call it the Received Text of the church, but you haven’t given any reason why a composite of the best manuscripts available to Erasmus should suddenly become definitive. The TR is not even a Majority Text.
carl
Carl at 25. No, that is not what my question amounts to. Please carefully re-read the second paragraph of my comment at 24.
As for the question of what provenance connects the TR (or the Majority Text for that matter) to the autographs, that is a non-issue for me. No one has ever seen the autographs, and likely never will. In fact, it is this quest for the autographs that I think constitutes the main problem with the Wescott-Hort project and its progeny. It’s a very “Protestant” quest for the “real Bible,” but it’s essentially based on the fallacy of earlier = more accurate.
I’m not so much a stickler for the TR as I am the [i]Byzantine text-type[/i] (as opposed to the earlier MSS which became the basis of the Critical Text). I am a [i]lover of the KJV[/i] for cultural, devotional and liturgical reasons, which are touched on in the article linked above.
It makes no difference to me who authored the [i]Comma Johannum[/i], etc. (Heck, it may be the case that John didn’t author everything that’s found in the Critical Text.) I take a maximalist view of the text, not a minimalist one, especially where an important doctrine like the Trinity is involved. Is the [i]Comma Johannum[/i] a gloss or addition made by some later author? Well, if so, we can see why, and it’s consistent with the teaching of the church. I therefore find no reason to excise from the ecclesiastical Bible.
Am I a KJV only type? Not at all. The New Testaments based on the Critical Text bear essentially the same message as do those Bibles based on the TR. If you want to read the NIV devotionally or from the pulpit in church, fine, although I think for Anglicans the practice of the Orthodox should be an important guide. But I don’t hold with the KJV-onliers that the other Bibles are the word of Satan or anything like that. They’re just not the Bibles that the church has historically received and authorized.
26. Caedmon [blockquote] Please carefully re-read the second paragraph of my comment at 24.[/blockquote] I understood the thrust of your question. The idea that “earlier” always equals “more accurate” is a characature. I certainly would not advance such a blanket assertion. [blockquote] No one has ever seen the autographs, and likely never will. [/blockquote] This echoes the position of Bart Ehrman. He has made his skeptical reputation attacking the Christian faith by denying the knowability of the autographs. You can’t answer his criticisms but simply asserting the authority of the church (however it may be defined) to declare a particular manuscript as ‘received.’ If Christians cannot reliably claim sufficient knowledge of the autographs, then we have a huge problem. We really have no authority to say that Christ said all those things we said he said. We don’t know who God is or what He requires. Bart Ehrman is vindicated and we are of all men most miserable. [blockquote] It’s a very “Protestant” quest for the “real Bible”[/blockquote] As opposed to what? A very ‘Catholic’ quest for the ‘real’ church? It matters whether John wrote the Comma Johannum. Doctrine follows Scripture. The authority of the Church proceeds from Scripture. We know the doctrine of the Trinity only because it is taught in Scripture. Without the Scripture we would not know the doctrine of the Trinity. These statements are only meaningful if we can say the Scripture we possess actually corresponds to what God said through its authors. If John didn’t write the Comman Johannum, then some skeptic will ask “What else is in your Bible that shouldn’t be there?” We have to be able to give an answer besides “Well, my church says it’s right.”
carl
I will repeat what I said before, because I believe it is fundamentally true. One reads the NIV for information. One memorizes the KJV because it is powerful poetry. There is no text that i know of, that has produced such a powerful set of diverse poems. And one memorizes these texts because poetry speaks truths which cannot be attained by any other verbal means. How many of us have memorized “There is a time for…?” Why did we do it?
the complaints leveled against the KJV are ill considered and ill directed. “Thee” and “thou”are no valid criticism of its essential value.
“I understood the thrust of your question. The idea that ‘earlier’ always equals ‘more accurate’ is a characature (sic). I certainly would not advance such a blanket assertion.”
No, Carl, you missed it again. I’m asking what you would do if new textual evidence in the form of an even earlier complete NT manuscript came in showing that, say, the second half of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians wasn’t there, and that in all likelihood the later texts reflected a late 2nd-century or early 3rd century addition. Would you be prepared to thus whittle down your official Bible since, according to your theory, this newly-discovered manuscript more faithfully approximates the [i]autograpa[/i]? It’s an extreme and improbable hypothetical, I know, but I’m asking you – [i]what would you do[/i]? If I don’t get an answer this time I’m going to start thinking that you’re evading the question.
“This (‘no one has ever seen the autographs, and likely never will’ argument) echoes the position of Bart Ehrman. He has made his skeptical reputation attacking the Christian faith by denying the knowability of the autographs. You can’t answer his criticisms but simply asserting the authority of the church (however it may be defined) to declare a particular manuscript as ‘received.’ If Christians cannot reliably claim sufficient knowledge of the autographs, then we have a huge problem. We really have no authority to say that Christ said all those things we said he said. We don’t know who God is or what He requires. Bart Ehrman is vindicated and we are of all men most miserable.”
It’s not just Ehrman who’s made this observation. It’s an issue that all conservative seminarians who study lower criticism must confront honestly, and there are all sorts of biblical scholars, conservative and liberal alike, who will admit flat out that no one has ever seen the autographs, and likely never will. The earliest complete New Testament MSS are THREE HUNDRED YEARS OLDER than the autographs. Yes, I will agree that the science of textual criticism gives us a pretty good idea of what the originals said, but this “foundationalist” quest for the “knowability” of the autographa is a fool’s errand if there ever was one. Extant copies, most of them penned hundreds of years after the apostolic writers penned the originals, are all we have to make up our Bibles. The question at issue between you and me is whether or not those early MSS on which the Critical Text is based are more reliable simply because they are earlier. And just because [i]you[/i] suffer from some kind of foundationalist [i]angst[/i] over what you imagine to be the implications of my argument doesn’t mean the rest of us have to. I join with a whole host of theologians and biblical scholars who believe that it’s just not all that important. The Holy Spirit, working through the church, gave us a Bible. That Bible is based on copies of copies of copies of copies of the originals. The Holy Spirit, working through the church, uses that Bible based on copies to save souls. That’s all we really need. If we needed to “know” the autographs, God would have preserved them.
“A very ‘Protestant’ quest for the ‘real Bible’. As opposed to what? A very ‘Catholic’ quest for the ‘real’ church?
No, a very Catholic quest for the only Bible that is, one based on MSS written hundreds of years after the originals.
“It matters whether John wrote the Comma Johannum.”
Well, sez you. I say what matters is what we have in hand, and that it is always safer to be over-inclusive than under-inclusive.
“Doctrine follows Scripture. The authority of the Church proceeds from Scripture. We know the doctrine of the Trinity only because it is taught in Scripture. Without the Scripture we would not know the doctrine of the Trinity. These statements are only meaningful if we can say the Scripture we possess actually corresponds to what God said through its authors. If John didn’t write the Comman Johannum, then some skeptic will ask ‘What else is in your Bible that shouldn’t be there?’ We have to be able to give an answer besides ‘Well, my church says it’s right.’”
Well, I’m not merely saying “my church says it’s right”. I think you might want to re-read my posts for the nuances. But I will say, as an Anglican Catholic, that the paragraph above smacks of scholastic Protestantism. Are you an Anglican? If so, Evangelical I presume? Catholics simply don’t agree with the assertions that “the authority of the Church proceeds from Scripture” and “we know the doctrine of the Trinity only because it is taught in Scripture.” The doctine of sola Scriptura is nowhere taught in Holy Scripture, but Paul does say that the church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”, something that’s never said of Scripture.
I could care less what a skeptic might ask about the Bible, whether it’s your take on it or mine. Skeptics are s
I could care less what a skeptic might ask about the Bible, whether it’s your take on it or mine. Skeptics are skeptics for a reason, namely, sin, and they’re not going to be converted to Christ over the arcane question of whether or not we can “know the autographs” through the science of textual criticism. Their view of the Bible should mean nothing to the Christian.
Correction: The earliest complete New Testament MSS are THREE HUNDRED YEARS LATER than the autographs.
I take it you mean of the ENTIRE NT, as there are earlier complete individual books, correct? and there are fragments of the texts that date even earlier, in fact back to the 1st Century AD.
32.
Yes.