Bible Translators of the Received Text required

One of the things I particularly love about the Authorised Version of 1611 is that it shows you clearly where the translators feel they need to insert a word to allow a phrase to read, by inserting a word in italics. This gives you, the reader, the freedom to read and remove that word in italics, knowing that such a word is not in the original text. This is a very accurate way of reading the Bible.

Well , I disagree . The KJV revisors ( they really didn't do much translating and were more versed in Latin than the original languages ) used italics inconsistently and rather sparcely at that . F.H. A. Scrivener has said that "inconsistencies occur in the same expressions in parallel passages , on the same page , and even at times in the same verses ."

J.R. Dole in his book "Old Bibles" said that in the 1611 KJV there were 43 words in italics in the book of Matthew . In the Cambridge edition of 1762 there were 352 words in italics .

The use of italics is overblown . If ANY version of Scripture were to use italics on every occasion where there was not a corresponding word in the original it would be a visual nightmare .

 

I find it very interesting that often when some one offers a reason to adore a particular Bible version, that reason given is not a solid one at all. I will give a couple of brief examples here. First, the AV does not always use italics for words they have injected into the text. Notice Mark 2:15 in the KJV --

And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.​

In the first occurrence of the name "Jesus" in this verse the 1611 revisors have placed His proper name where the Textus Receptus clearly has the Greek word autos (a pronoun meaning "he", "she", or "it" depending upon the context). So, the Greek word Iesous is not present in TR, but the substituted KJV word is not italicized or otherwise indicated to the reader.

Second, it is inevitable in translation that some Greek words be rendered by several English words in order to convey the full meaning; and that the English reader cannot possibly know which Greek words are represented (and occassionally some words go untranslated). Notice Titus 2:4 in the KJV --

That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children​

It seems that at least "they may teach" and the distant "sober" are all the result in English from the translating of a single form of the Greek word sophronizo (which can be defined in several ways: restore one to his senses; to moderate, control, curb, disciple; to hold one to his duty; to admonish, to exhort earnestly). I have no quarrel with the KJV rendering here; but now notice the word "sober" just two verse prior --

That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.​

The Greek word underlying this "sober" is a form of nephaleos. Two completely different Greek words in the same passage translated in English with the same English word. I am NOT suggesting that the same Greek word always be translated with the same English word, but I am suggesting that it matters little that a few scattered words are italicized because the English reader knows almost nothing at all of what is behind any of the text.

 

It should be done consistently or not at all. But as Rippon opined, if it were done consistently it would be a visual nightmare. The reader might be saying to himself, "So what did God REALLY say here?"

No such animal as a perfect translation- unless you are a perfect man. You just have to make your choices carefully and prayerfully and stick to them- as well as be prepared to defend them.

 

There is no translation without interpretation, but in some places it is more explicit than others.
First, notice the KJV interpretation of 2 Samuel 21:18-20 --

And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which [was] of the sons of the giant.
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.
And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of [great] stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.​

Without Hebrew support of this verse the AV men have placed "the brother of", evidently to avoid confusion with David's victim of the same name and to harmonize it to 1 Chronicles 20:4-6 --

And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, [that was] of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.
And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff [was] like a weaver's beam.
And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of [great] stature, whose fingers and toes [were] four and twenty, six [on each hand], and six [on each foot]: and he also was the son of the giant.​

However, upon close examination there are enough differences in the two passages to suggest that they may not be parallel accounts after all. This was not just an effort by the revisors to insert words to allow a phrase to read, but a particular interpretation of the event recorded (despite the availability of other plausible explanations then).

As recently as two years ago Prof. Aren Maeir, Chairman of Bar-Ilan University's Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology has been directing excavations at Tell es-Safi ongoing since 1996 has found about two meters under earth a small ceramic shard (possibly part of a bowl) which contains the earliest known Philistine inscription ever to be discovered and it mentions two names that are remarkably similar to the word "goliath". Tell es-Safi is one of Israel's largest tells (ancient ruin mounds) and presumed to be the ancient site of Gath of the Philistines (which is located in the southern coastal plain of Israel, approximately halfway between Ashkelon and Jerusalem). The shard is dated to about 100 years after the time of David (http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~maeira/Goliath/Goliath Inscription.html). In addition, it has been suggested that the term "goliath" may not be a proper name but could be a military designation for an elite warrior (like 'ranger' or 'navy seal').

Second, notice John 8:24 from the KJV --

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.​

Jesus is making an explicit claim of Deity by His statement of "I AM" (which is in the Greek manuscripts), which is obscured by the addition of the word "he" (which is not in the underlying text). I assure you the Pharisees did not misundertand what Jesus said (see Exodus 3:14), but unfortunately many English readers have missed the important emphasis on just those two words "I am".

 

I remember when I was a little boy and learned the meaning of italics in school to be for emphasis. So the next time we had family devotions and it was my time to read, I read the italicized words with emphasis. :laugh: And the whole family laughed at me! Ever since then I've thought the italics to be confusing.

 

John, after slogging through that DE thread I understand why you would be reluctant to rehash the same argument over and over. I did learn a lot from that thread, and I don't really feel like I have anything new to add, but on the other hand I didn't see that this specific question was addressed. I'm not a raving advocate for either side, I just was wondering about this...

Nigel, thanks for taking the time to address my question! Just a quick clarification, I don't really mean trying to interpret the thoughts of the original writers so much as I mean translating the historically understood thought patterns of the writers from two or more centuries ago.

I'll give you an example... The Hebrew word ratsach is translated as "kill" in the KJV, but it could also be translated as "murder", and in fact, many people would prefer that rendering. But the KJV translators decided on the word "kill", and so that is how many people have understood this verse, which can yield quite different doctrines on things like self defense, death penalty, war, etc. all because some translators decided to go with one word over another.

Now, contrast that with Amos 4:6, which in a formally translated text would say, "And I also have given you cleanness of teeth". An uninformed reader from today would almost inevitably think of some supernatural dental work. But a dynamic equivalent translation would say, "I gave you an empty stomach" with possibly a footnote that gave the more literal translation. In cases like this I would trust the translators, with their knowledge of the meanings of ancient languages, much more than my own. The people of that day understood this to mean "hunger"--shouldn't we understand it that way?

So with the two given examples, I ask, as long as we are already trusting the translators to use their judgment to translate individual words (or even idioms) that might have ambiguous meaning in our language, why not phrases or thoughts?

 

You actually have two questions here. You have written about two different translation problems.

Here the problem is interpretation. The translator must do an exegesis of the passage, look at the context and decide on an interpretation, after which he will do his translation. It is possible then to translate as "kill." However, this then ignores the wider context of the five books of Moses, in which various types of killing are allowed, but murder is punished by death. After looking at the wider context the translator will translate with "murder."

In this case we are dealing with an idiom. Here is one definition of an idiom: "Any expression peculiar to a language, conveying a distinct meaning, not necessarily explicable by, occasionally even contrary to, the general accepted grammatical rules" (Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 95)

In dynamic equivalence, "It has been traditional in D-E translations to render classical idioms by corresponding idioms in modern languages" (Toward a Science of Translating, by Eugene Nida, p. 238). So the first thing a DE translator looks for is an equivalent idiom. In my method though, I take several steps. (1) Is there a directly equivalent idiom in the receptor language? In other words, is the idiom the same in the two languages? (2) If not, can the idiom be translated literally and retain the meaning? (3) If not, what idiom or phrase in the receptor language gives the same optimal meaning?

In DE translation, since he is not looking for direct equivalents but for dynamic ones, the translator has to make more personal judgements as to what grammar and vocabulary and syntax of the receptor language to use. DE is thus more subjective, and the translator is more liable to give his own interpretation. However, with optimal equivalance we seek the closest equivalent in grammar, syntax and vocabulary, and prefer to let the reader interpret for his or her own self.

 

Let's look at each of these suggestions individually --

First, the emphasis of "dip" seems to be upon the brevity or shallowness of the action; also "dip" has the meaning of suddenly lowering or dropping. Idiomatically in the U.S. to be called a "dip" is an insult or mockery.

Second, the emphasis of "plunge" seems to be upon the forcefull, almost violent action; it can apply to non-liquid situations, and it does not insist upon complete submersion. In the U.S. "plunge" a the term closely associated with the unclogging of the bathroom fixture.

Third, the emphasis of "immerse" seems to be upon the completeness of the covering in liquid; it can also mean to be deeply or wholly engaged. In my opinion, "immerse" is the best choice of these three.

 

Yes; a few were mentioned by Ed Sutton ("...including the MKJV, KJII, KJIII, UKJV, Literal Translation, KJ21, etc...").
Some of the more recent TR based versions are--

The Literal Translation of the GNT (Berry, 1897) with the AV in parallel
Letchworth Version (Ford & Ford, 1948) hard to find
Clarified KJV (McGinnis, 1958)
Interlinear Bible aka King James 2 (Jay P. Green Sr., 1976/78/80/81/84)
New King James Version (Farstad et al., 1982)
King James Easy Reading Version (Turner, 1987)
MKJV - Modern KJV (Green, 1962/1990)
KJV21- 21st Century KJV (Prindle, 1994)
TMB - Third Millenium Bible (1998)
Last Days Bible (Johnson, 1999) this is actually only the NT
People’s New Testament: A Literal Translation of the Textus Receptus (Chenault, 1996/2002)
New Testament in its Original Order (Coulter, 2002) based upon Stephens 1550
UKJV - Updated King James Version (2004) digital format only
Corrected KJV (Carroll, 2004)
AV7 - The New AV in Present-Day English (2005)
KJVIII - King James 3 (Green, 2006) this is NT only​

______
Majority Text versions:

ALT - Analytical-Literal Translation (Zeolla, 2001) but based upon Young's Literal Version
EMTV - English Majority Text Version (Esposito, 2002)​

______
English translation based upon another Greek text (I happen to like this one):

Concordant Literal NT (Knoch,1926) based upon Weymouth’s Resultant Greek Testament​

 

This is relevant to a current thread.