I found the above video in which Dr William Varner is interviewed by Pastor Nate Yutzy, which provides some insight into the text of the new John MacArthur inspired Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Dr William Varner was actively involved in the translation process, so he speaks from experience. At around 6:33 minutes into the video he makes the following general observation about Bible translations in English:
“There has been basically three different stages in the history of English translations of the Bible, and each of those stages had a different strong emphasis. The first emphasis from 1611 King James’ was on elegance. The King James’ was elegant English, it really was; and that helped sway that elegant English for a few hundred years. But elegance doesn’t always cut it, you know. ‘Rude fellows of the baser sort,’ is one of my favorite translations in the King James’. That sounds elegant, but that is really not what the Greek says. It just says, ‘some bad guys who are hanging out at the mall;’ that is what it says, you know Acts 17 verse 3, or verse 5. ‘Bad guys who are hanging around, looking for trouble.’ ‘Lewd fellows of the baser sort.’ Well, okay.”
That is his first example of “elegance” versus “accuracy” in the KJV. But I don’t see how that particular translation is “not accurate”. The KJV is not just an “elegant” translation; it is also an accurate translation. That is its primary objective, to achieve accuracy first and foremost, while achieving maximum elegance at the same time. Its aim is not to compromise “accuracy” in favor of “elegance”. It is also written in the archaic English of 400 years ago. You don’t expect it to match the colloquial vernacular of 20th century English. It seems to me that he is just nitpicking. He is not presenting a sound argument. His next example is the following quote from Isaiah:
“‘How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning.’ Isaiah 14. That is beautiful, but the Hebrew doesn’t exactly say that. So the elegance was the effort until 1881.”
Too bad he doesn’t tell us what the original Hebrew text exactly “does say,” so we can make a comparison. So I looked it up in several alternative translations. Here is the result (I have rearranged them a little bit to put the ones closest to the KJV first):
KJV: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
AKJV: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
NKJV: How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
KJ21: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
JUB: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
BRG: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
TLB: How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
MEV: How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
DARBY: How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning!
GNV: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning?
ASV: How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!
NLV: How you have fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the morning!
NLT: How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!
CEB: How you’ve fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn!
CJB: How did you come to fall from the heavens, morning star, son of the dawn?
EHV: How you have fallen from heaven, you bright morning star, son of the dawn!
ESV: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
ESVUK: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
GW: How you have fallen from heaven, you morning star, son of the dawn!
HCSB: Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens!
ISV: How you have fallen from heaven, Day Star, son of the Dawn!
LEB: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn!
NOG: How you have fallen from heaven, you morning star, son of the dawn!
NABRE: How you have fallen from the heavens, O Morning Star, son of the dawn!
NASB: How you have fallen from heaven, You star of the morning, son of the dawn!
NASB1995: How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
NET: Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn!
NIV: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
NIVUK: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
NRSVA: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
NRSVACE: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
NRSVCE: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
NRSVUE: How you are fallen from heaven, O Morning Star, son of Dawn!
RSV: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
RSVCE: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
TLV: How you have fallen from heaven, O brightstar, son of the dawn!
How are these translations any different in meaning from the KJV? I see no difference. The only difference is that the KJV is more “elegant” than most. So his real problem is not with “accuracy,” but with elegance. He dislikes the “elegance” of the KJV; but has no valid objections to bring against its “accuracy”. The primary focus of the KJV is accuracy, not “elegance”. Having achieved accuracy, however, elegance becomes the second most important priority. But its primary emphasis is on accuracy, and secondly on elegance. The “elegance” bit is in fact part of the requirement for accuracy. The Bible, in its original form, is also elegant. It is high class literature. The book of Isaiah is not only great “prophecy,” but also great poetry. To make a truly “accurate” translation of Isaiah, the translation needs to also reflect its original elegance—otherwise it is not an “accurate” representation of the original material. Unless its “elegance” in translation matches that of the original Hebrew, it is not an “accurate” enough translation. That is why the KJV focuses on elegance after accuracy. The reason why he dislikes the KJV’s “elegance” is because he knows that he cannot match it himself, and therefore his own translation will never be as good as the KJV. He then continues as follows:
“And from 1881 to about 1977, a number of translations, the emphasis there was on accuracy. The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, and accuracy; sacrificing a little bit of elegance for accuracy, and that was I think the second stage of English translations.”
The emphasis there was not so much on “accuracy”. The KJV was already “accurate” enough. The emphasis there was on modernization—i.e. in creating something that is composed in contemporary modern English, rather than in the archaic English of 400 years ago; otherwise the KJV was not in any way lacking in accuracy. At around 19:02 minutes into the video he says the following:
“Most people are familiar, now that this translation has been out long enough, that the term ‘slave’ has been changed in the New Testament. It was ‘bond servant’. But we wanted to get a more accurate nuance, and slave; or things such as capital LORD in the Bible, was translated as Yahweh in the Legacy Standard, to get the name of God.”
I have already discussed the issue of “slave” versus “servant” in Bible translation in two earlier blog posts, which can be seen here and here. I would say more or less the same thing with regard to the question of “Yahweh” versus “LORD” in Bible translation. I think that the translators of the KJV had some valid reasons for translating certain words as they did, and I think it is a good idea to stick with that. Jesus had no worries about identifying himself with Jehovah (John 8:58); but he didn’t mind being called “Lord” either. In fact he seemed to like that one better!:
John 13:
13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
At 19:50 minutes into the video he says the following:
“Ask a congregation who is familiar with the book of Judges, what is the theme text of the book of Judges? And usually they will say, Judges 21:25, ‘Everyone did what was right in his own eyes,’ and most translations get that right, did that was good in their own eyes, that was right in their own eyes, good. But a lot of translations miss Judges 14:3. In Judges 14:3, Samson has gone out dating, and he has come back, and he is dating a Philistine girl; and he tells his parents, and his parents are not really excited about this; and they say, Isn't there a Jewish girl that you could date, and you know, he says, ‘No, get this Philistine girl for me,’ and the Hebrew says, ‘For she is right in my eyes.’ Now the translations will say something like, ‘Because she looks good to me, she looks right to me.’ Well, actually that is what it means; but the Hebrew says very clearly, ‘She is right in my eyes.’ Now think about that; that is the theme of the book of Judges, ‘Everyone did that which is right in his own eyes.’ And here is exhibit number one. Samson, who couldn't care about what God says about, you know, a Jewish girl for his wife, ‘I want to do what is right in my eyes.’ So Samson becomes the epitome of the book of Judges, by doing not what God commands, but by doing what his eyes are commanding; and if we just say, well, ‘she looks good to me,’ we miss that intertextual connection with the theme verse in Judges, ‘Everyone did that which is right in his own eyes.’”
That is probably where the most serious error of translation (or interpretation) in the LSB occurs. When it says in the book of Judges that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25), what it means is that they enjoyed the freedom of action to do as they pleased. They were not ruled over by a tyrant who restricted their essential freedoms. Here are the complete verses:
Judges 17:
6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Having the freedom to “do as you please,” or to do “what is right in your own eyes,” as the Bible puts it, does not mean freedom to do wrong, and get away with it. It means freedom to do either right or wrong, and be rewarded or punished by the law accordingly. Having the freedom to “do as you please,” or “do that which is right in your own eyes,” does not mean that you will always choose to do what is wrong either. It means the freedom to do right or wrong, and be rewarded or punished, as the case may be. It is “right in my eyes” to do good, to do what is right, and obey God. For someone else, the opposite may be true; it may be “right in their eyes” to do evil, to do wrong, and disobey God. It simply means the freedom to do either—right or wrong—and be rewarded or punished by the law in either case.
The vast majority of people in free societies today, exercise that freedom to do what is right most of the time. Those who do wrong are a small minority, and they are usually caught and punished according to the laws of the land. In the case of Samson (Judges 14:3), which he uses as a case in point; if Samson exercised his freedom to make the wrong choice (assuming that he did), it does not therefore follow that he should not have had the freedom to make that choice. How can people have the freedom to do what is right, if they don’t have the freedom to do what is wrong? It is impossible to have the one without the other.
Before Cain had transgressed God said to him, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” (Gen. 4:7) How could that warning be meaningful or make sense, if Cain did not have the freedom to do either? The freedom to do right necessitates the freedom also to do wrong. Abel exercised that freedom to do what is right. Cain exercised that freedom to do what is wrong. Each exercised that freedom to do “what is right in your own eyes”. That freedom is God given, and is enshrined in the Bible. Throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments, mankind are exhorted to do good, to love, serve and obey God; and to abstain from evil and sin. That is written all over the Bible, from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation. The freedom to choose, to do good or evil, to obey or disobey God, is the foundational bedrock of that divine injunction and requirement, and therefore is enshrined in the Bible. The divine command to do good, and abstain from evil, would be impossible and meaningless if the freedom to do either did not exist—followed by the consequence of reward or punishment in either case (in this life or the next). That freedom is divinely appointed and ordained, and is necessary and a requirement for the salvation process. Wanting to remove, restrict, or limit that freedom is Satan inspired and is not ordained of God.
He has also misquoted the Samson verse. He has quoted verse 3 out of context, overlooking what it says in verse 4:
Judges 14:
1 And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.
2 And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.
3 Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.
4 But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.
John MacArthur has repeatedly made it clear in what he has said, that he is opposed to every kind of freedom, including civil, religious, and democratic freedom; and he has now attempted to inject that into his translation of the Bible. The LSB is not just a “translation”. It is an attempt to read MacArthurism into the Bible. Therefore it is an unholy attempt at Bible translation, and should not be trusted.
I did a search, and discovered that there are over a hundred different translations of the entire Bible into English, and around 30 partial translations. These translations range from extremely literal to almost a paraphrase, from elegant to inelegant, from accurate to inaccurate, to satisfy every taste—the greatest and best of which without doubt is the KJV. There is no need for another unholy Bible translation, like the one that John MacArthur has inspired.
No comments:
Post a Comment