A new translation of the Bible may be a gem; so claims Alan Jacobs in his article “A Bible for Everyone” in the December 2003 issue of First Things.
The King James Version (KJV) -- a hauntingly beautiful work of Shakespearian dimension -- was THE favorite for years. But in recent decades many new ones have appeared. The New International Version (NIV) has become the most popular version BY FAR across the country in evangelistic churches.
Scholars say the NIV is the MOST ACCURATE version. But I can’t keep it a secret any longer: I HAVE to say this: there’s something terribly wrong with the NIV! How can I put this?
AAAAAAGGGGHHHH!
No, wait a minute….How's this:
If you want one-dimensional style, flat expression, and stale word usage -- the NIV’s for you!
No….
The NIV reads like an OFFICE MEMO!
No….
The NIV READS LIKE A WAREHOUSE PACKING SLIP!
(OK, you get the point.)
WHY does the NIV take the word “garments” (in King James) -- referring to the clothing of the wealthy -- and render it “clothes”? CLUNK! The dry, ordinary word CLOGS the throat. THE RICH DON’T WEAR CLOTHES -- THEY WEAR GARMENTS, YOU (BLANK)...!
The NIV HAS NO POETRY!
(Alright, I’ll calm down. I’ve complained about this for years and I just get STEAMED when this comes up.)
The new translation sets out to change this. It’s called the ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION (ESV) and it's an attempt to merge excellent modern scholarship with beautiful prose.
Jacobs says: “It is the ESV’s balance of thorough, up-to-date scholarship and deference to the elders’ wisdom that makes it the best available English Bible. What this means, further, is that the ESV is the best candidate yet for the long-hoped-for ‘replacement’ of the KJV, the translation that bridges denominational gaps and strikes the right balance among the virtues of clarity, correctness, and grace.”
Jacobs explains why so many of the new translations are so boring: “When King James commissioned his Companies of Translators, the people most thoroughly educated in the various humanistic disciplines were also those most learned in the biblical tongues. The celebrated ‘poetic’ or ‘literary’ qualities of the KJV are a function of this long-lost union. But in the last two centuries the training of biblical scholars in what has come to be called the ‘grammatical-historical’ method has assumed a character alien to the literary and rhetorical education rooted in the schools of the Roman Empire. A model of Christian learning shared -- not altogether but to some degree -- by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin had virtually disappeared by the end of the eighteenth century….Thus C. S. Lewis’ complaint that a scholar whose ‘literary experiences of [the biblical] texts lack any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general’ is not wholly reliable as a guide. ‘If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavor.’”
Jacobs ends his article this way: “Everyone who grew up with the KJV feels the loss of a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in the common ear -- words and phrases whose meanings could be tested, considered, deployed and redeployed in an infinitely varied set of contexts. I think now of all those generations of the English-speaking peoples separating the wheat from the chaff, lying down in green pastures, sometimes being weighed in the balance and found wanting but at other times fighting the good fight -- the whole vast array of discourse (much of it richly metaphorical) tells us that it is very difficult to share thoughts when we do not share language. And since Christians are counseled to be of one mind, they should be more attentive to the particular words that shape and form our minds. To have once again a widely shared English Bible -- ‘one principal good one’ -- would be a significant step towards that one mind in Christ.”
I use the georgeous New King James Version, or the succinct and bracing American Standard Version. The NIV gives me the willies!
I tried finding the new ESV at some Bible book stores recently in Southern California but they were sold out.
Check it out.
Posted by Rick Penner at February 1, 2004 12:20 AMi personally find the New King James Version to be my favorite. AFter using the NIV for years I gave it up feeling like I needed a change and haven't looked back. From a translational point of view the NKJV is considered to be more accurate to the translational text as well as just sounding better. my opinion though.
Posted by: Jonathan at February 1, 2004 08:26 AMI too prefer the New King James, or NKJV, using it for regular Bible study and memorization. I also read the New American Standard Bible, though I think many of its renditions of the Psalms come across flat, the poetry is compromised for wordiness. Just my opinion. I also have an English Standard Version (ESV) but haven't gotten around to reading it or using it for study yet. Probably next year after another read through of my NKJV.
Some verses I like to compare when checking versions: Zechariah 12:10 - does it say "look on Me whom they pierced, or "look on him(RSV) or the one(NRSV)?
I also look at Psalm 8:4, does it say "What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?" or does it completely destroy the poetic value of the phrase by using political correct rubbish "what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?" as the NRSV does. I threw out my NRSV based on the treatment of that one verse alone (ok, there were others, but that's the spirit of the thing). The ESV was intended to be an evangelical alternative to the NRSV. Based on my experience with it so far, and what I've read about it, I think it's a far better treatment of the Word of God.
Posted by: Joel Fuhrmann at February 1, 2004 01:25 PMThe eloquent and strange words of the KJV didn't mean much to me as a child. As I matured and started reading on my own, I found I had to "listen" to the context and search for the meaning of words used long ago and not so common today.
Now as an adult, I read mostly the NASB for its "literal" translation but yearn for the prose of verses echoing from my past. I still say them in my head in KJ.
I have a poll going at my site on what your favourite translation is, feel free to visit and vote as well. So far the KJV is number one with the NIV being a close second. I was surprised to see the NIV get as many votes as it did, because I consider it to be somewhere between paper towels and used toilet paper in terms of value.
I've heard a lot about the ESV and may eventually get one to see what the fuss is all about. But in the end, I don't think I'll ever leave the KJV. :-)
BTW, did you know the language of the KJV was considered 60 to 70 years out of date at the time of its printing (1611)? They thought it was obsolete even then! I've read that this was because of the scholars belief that the further they reached into the past, the more purer the language would be. They wanted to use a more purer form of English that could better reflect the ancient languages.
Very much unlike the NIV, which has the unnatural effect of making me want to spit everytime I hear a verse reading of it.
Posted by: Mac Swift at February 1, 2004 06:10 PMI have also used the NKJV for years and found it a wonderful tool. It retains so much of the poetry of the KJV while replacing the archaic words and prases with more modern ones and making it easier to understand. I have recently purchased an ESV Bible and have started to read it. I have already decided that I love it. It also has a poetic sound to it and it is very easily understood.
Posted by: Troy Derrer at February 6, 2004 08:08 PM