I don't think such amateurs should be questioning the KJV translators on such things anyway.Am I off the wall about this? Should everything be decided by democratic vote?
Isn't a Bible translation meant to be a production of those gifted for the job and USED by the rest of us? In fact isn't this project I'm engaged in at this blog something that should never have to happen, where ordinary Christians feel a need to take on these questions at all?
I'd go further myself and say that we should never have been put in the position of having to consult a Concordance in ordinary Bible study either. We should never have had to consider getting a Bible dictionary or other Bible aid for that purpose. I know it's all supposed to merely enhance our study but I can't see it that way any more. Of course if you're inclined to do that, fine, I mean there shouldn't be this NEED to do it. We should be able to rely on pastors and teachers and our own reading of the Word alone. I once accepted the need for the study aids the way I accepted as a new Christian the whole Bible versions rationale, also accepted the recommendation of my Bible study teacher for a particular translation (which I have to say I disliked for its awful English and you might be surprised at which one that was -- not the NLT or the NIV -- perhaps it wasn't really the English but spiritual discernment, thank You, Lord if so).
All these study aids have been made necessary by the proliferation of Bible versions with their inconsistent readings and the general attitude that whatever the Greek or Hebrew says is up for grabs by the least educated of us. And there are way too many of us who do feel a need to learn something about the debate over these things, on either side. I'm not saying we shouldn't, it's unfortunately necessary. One side tells us the new Bibles are straight from the pit of Hell, the other side TOTALLY pooh poohs that idea and tells us we should relax and accept them all, it's just a matter of personal preference, it's really a great boon to the church, an overflow of riches, those other guys are just conspiracy thinkers and reactionaries. If you have any suspicion at all that the picture isn't that rosy you find yourself getting pulled into trying to learn what the real situation is. Turns out it really isn't all that rosy. It may not be quite the pit of Hell -- or it may be -- but there's definitely plenty to be concerned about.
We amateurs really don't have much choice, after all, some of us anyway, but we do have to remember that we ARE amateurs, amateur text critics, amateur translators, amateur Greek scholars or whatever, and this situation is not optimum for Christians anyway you look at it. In studying this I've come to the conclusion that the average seminary graduate is also an amateur even if he spent four or five years learning Greek. Burgon said he thinks the basic qualification for a textual critic is a LIFETIME of study of all the relevant disciplines.
Amateurs can only promote mediocrity when what we need is the BEST -- of scholarship and of spiritual fidelity and depth. I think Burgon is one who had his finger on the pulse of the best in both senses and a sharp eye for error, heresy and bad faith, and that's why he's become my hero and why I want to keep him the center of my blog.
And I'd better get back to it.
The problem is, the best minds are not found in "professional" ranks, which are swelled up with rich twits and other free-loafers.
ReplyDeleteTypically, people with no scientific skills or mathematical ability migrate to the humanities as easy credits, and those attracted to religion courses and degrees take them either for personal interest or to qualify for religious roles like pastor, or priest.
Thus, Biblical studies in the university/college environments are filled with flakes, mediocre talents and the rich and lazy, looking for easy credits or easy money. Homosexuals also have a disproportionate representation in these areas, because they have recently found it a great place to hide and avoid persecution in more competative environments like the armed forces or serious scientific fields.
Good luck finding any talent in this field in official academia.
If anything, the internet, always a great equalizer and disseminator of information, seems to provide the most talented amateurs in the area of Biblical studies.
As a few examples, Wieland Willker has no formal training, but is a chemist. He however has composed and provided online free one of the best and most exhaustive Textual Commentaries on the NT. James Snapp Jr. is one of the world's leading experts on the Ending of Mark, and there are countless others who have less than "official" training in Biblical studies but produce articles and research far superior to what currently comes out of the university circuit.
peace
Nazaroo
One side tells us the new Bibles are straight from the pit of Hell, the other side TOTALLY pooh poohs that idea and tells us we should relax and accept them all, it's just a matter of personal preference, it's really a great boon to the church, an overflow of riches, those other guys are just conspiracy thinkers and reactionaries.
ReplyDeleteThere are also those whose side is a cautious acceptance of the modern versions. I am certainly one of those. I don't like dynamic equivalents simply because of the translational philosophy. I am also very conservative in how I approach variants, as I still tend to hold tightly to the KJV.
I'm probably much closer to your viewpoint, in some senses, than I am to most who accept modern translations.
Just wanted to at least mention that there are several of us who don't accept modern versions uncritically, though we may use them a little.
I keep getting a lot of criticism for this opinion:
ReplyDeleteI don't think such amateurs should be questioning the KJV translators on such things anyway.
Am I off the wall about this? Should everything be decided by democratic vote?
One issue that needs to be considered is whether or not the translators of modern translations are amateurs. If not, then we must give them some credit.
Just thinking.
Are you going to update your Hidden Glory blog? The headcovering is a really imporant topic that is tragically neglected.
ReplyDeleteHi CF:
ReplyDeleteI'm SO happy to see someone ask about the headcovering blog. Especially someone who calls himself a "fundy" as the fundamentalist camp as I've encountered them is generally committed to the interpretation that long hair IS the "headcovering."
As for updating it, I don't know. I tend to go with what inspires me at the moment. If I discover a new blog on it, or there's a controversy brewing somewhere or someone leaves a provocative comment, that could draw me back to it.
But by letting it sit a while I also hope people might read earlier posts I did on the subject. Blog format tends to keep the focus on the latest entry, but the kinds of blogs I do are rarely time-oriented.
But thanks very much for asking and maybe I'll get inspired to write something new there soon.
Hi Nazaroo,
ReplyDeleteI've seen your comments at KJV Only Debate and pretty much always agree with them or appreciate them. Thanks for posting here.
I can't think textual criticism or anything that involves in-depth study of Greek and Hebrew could be an easy course for a lazy student, but I have to assume you know more about the situation there than I could know. I accept Burgon's judgment that real expertise in textual criticism requires a lifetime of immersion.
I'm not familiar with Wieland Willker, sounds like I should check him out, but I've very much appreciated Pastor Snapp's thorough understanding of the issues. I've even thought I'd like to see him debate James White.
Hello jntskip,
ReplyDeleteThe main thing to my mind is WHY someone prefers the KJV or is critical of the modern versions. I oppose dynamic equivalence too but the real reason I reject the modern versions is the underlying critical texts which incorporate Westcott and Hort's Alexandrians, which Burgon showed to be corrupt, and the cavalier way English terms have been chosen, often just to get a copyright, or even just to be different from the KJV as Burgon also claimed.
From what I've learned it's fair to describe the translators of the modern versions as amateurs because the level of Biblical scholarship today has been downgraded since the time of the KJV translators and even since Burgon's time.
Later: I do have to take that back to some extent. The word "amateur" is unfair in that context since I don't know much about the qualifications of individual textual scholars these days. But what I meant is that today's Greek scholars have usually been trained on Critical Texts that incorporate Westcott and Hort's work, and the way that makes for amateurism comes from the scholarship behind the text itself and W-H's interpretations of it: Burgon considered the W-H revision to be inferior in both Greek and English and W-H to be inferior scholars of Greek and to have a tin ear for English.
I'd simply say I don't trust modern scholars who accept the Alexandrian texts or the English translation of Westcott and Hort as valid.
I can understand how it could help to use one of the new versions alongside the KJV, but eventually you should start to discover some pretty big discrepancies.
I just finished reading the interview with Kirk DiVietro at KJV Only Debate and his comments on modern scholarship are far more knowledgeable and well stated than I could state them, so I'd recommend that interview.