Crowd-sourced Bible translation?

Crowd-sourcing is how Wikipedia has produced the largest and--despite areas where certain partisan participants seem to hold sway--one of the most accurate encyclopedias ever produced. (If you're really interested in the subject, see the interminably long article on the subject in Wikipedia itself.)

Well, now The Seed Company has decided to attempt crowd-sourced Bible translation.

From Mission Network News, October 12, 2011:

"We tested a crowd-sourcing Web site in Asia in a difficult-to-access language group, and over 1,000 mother-tongue translators came to the Webpage and participated in this pilot project to help translate chapters of the Book of Luke into their heart language," says The Seed Company president, Roy Peterson. . . .

The Seed Company crowd-sourcing site had 1,000 people translating verses of Scripture, but there actually may have been many more participants. The Seed Company took a trip to the small Asian village where the pilot project took place. The village was peppered with small, dirt-floor homes, and the ministry discovered that those doing the translation were typically young people in their early 20s. The translators would head to an internet café to work, but not alone. Much of the time, they had their entire families with them, adding their input as well.

Participants were also able to give feedback on other verses that people had translated and put up, able to compliment them on a job well done or encourage revision. . . .

"Think back 50 years ago when there was one missionary, all by himself or all by herself, translating, trying to do all 7,000 verses of the New Testament," notes Peterson. "Now picture today, leveraging a crowd-sourcing, Web-based platform and getting 1,000 people, 2,000, or 10,000 from a large people group in Asia, helping to do the New Testament in their heart language."

[As of October 12, the date this article was released], The Seed Company [was] still checking the project over to see if it works well enough to be replicated . . . [and was] hoping to come to a decision [that] week. [They were also] looking for another large Asian language to try this new method of translating Scripture.

Pretty cool!

Pesky pronouns!

I wondered when I would finally get around to writing blog posts again!

I "couldn't take it" anymore. Today is the day.

I woke up and my Scripture reading included Psalm 65 and Psalm 66. I'm reading in the ESV (English Standard Version). I thought Psalm 65:2 was a bit odd:

O you who hears prayer,
    to you shall all flesh come.

I thought: "'. . . [Y]ou who hears prayer'? . . . That's not right! You'd say, 'You . . . hear prayer,' not, 'You . . . hears prayer.' --It's the same way you distinguish when to say 'Bill and I' from when to say 'Bill and me': Knock out the additional noun so you can tell whether you should use the first-person subjective or first person objective pronoun:

• Bill and I went to camp. (?) -OR- Bill and me went to camp. (?)
  Bill and I went to camp. (?) -OR- Bill and me Me went to camp. (?)
  --Ah! It's very clear: I should say Bill and I went to camp; I should never say, Bill and me went to camp.
   
• Lucy targeted Bill and I. (?) -OR- Lucy targeted Bill and me. (?)
  Lucy targeted Bill and I. (?) -OR- Lucy targeted Bill and me. (?)
      --Again it's very clear: I should say Lucy targeted Bill and me; I should never say, Lucy targeted Bill and I.

And so it is here in Psalm 65:2:

• O you who hears prayer . . . (?) -OR- O you who hear prayer. (?)
  You who hears prayer . . . (?) -OR- You who hear prayer. (?)
  --No question: I should say, O you who hear prayer; I should never say, O you who hears prayer.

So where did that grammatical error come from?

I checked some other versions on BlueLetterBible.org. --All the older versions in which God is always addressed with the old-style "thou" and "thee"--and, concomitantly, the versions that maintain the "-eth" and "-est" suffixes on verbs--render Psalm 65:2 as "thou that hearest" or "thou who hearest." All the modern translations--except the ESV--render it as "you who hear."

. . . I think I'm going to write to the publisher!

-------
--And then, Psalm 66:1 and 4:

Shout for joy to God, all the earth . . .
All the earth worships you
    and sings praises to you;
    they sing praises to your name.

Ever since working my way through Genesis 1-11 back in January, I have been more attentive than normal to the use in the Bible of any English words that are closely associated with "the earth"--words like the earth, earth, soil, land, etc. --What Hebrew word is it that the translators are rendering into these English terms?

Is it eretz (Genesis 12:1, for example, where it appears twice but is translated in the ESV as country the first time and land the second; or Genesis 13:15-16, where it appears three times: once as land and the second and third times as earth)? Adamah (Genesis 1:25 includes both eretz ["And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds"] and adamah [". . . and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind"])?

Turns out, in Psalm 66, the earth, in both cases, is ha eretz.

--Not sure what that means, ultimately. But I find it interesting that ha eretz, a singular noun, is replaced by a plural pronoun in the third line of v. 4: "they sing praises to your name."

-------
And one final verbal oddity.

This one comes from our sermon yesterday morning.

Our pastor preached from Genesis 27, where Jacob puts on goatskin so he can deceive his blind father and acquire the blessing his father intended for Jacob's older brother, Esau.

In Genesis 27:5-8 we read,

Now Rebekah [the mother of both Jacob and Esau--JAH] was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field to hunt for game and bring it, Rebekah said to her son Jacob, "I heard your father speak to your brother Esau, 'Bring me game and prepare for me delicious food, that I may eat it and bless you before [YHWH] before I die.' Now therefore, my son . . ."

Did you catch the interesting possessive pronouns?

Now Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field . . ., Rebekah said to her son Jacob . . ."

Kind of reminds me of the many places throughout the Old Testament where the authors carefully distinguish the possessive pronouns attached to God: One person will refer to "YHWH our God" or "YHWH my God," the next to "YHWH your God." Or the same person will refer, at one point in his life, to "YHWH your God," but at another point he will speak of "YHWH my God."

--VERY interesting!

(By the way. It's pretty clear why the Scriptures speak of Jacob as Rebekah's son while Esau is Isaac's son. Look at Genesis 25:28: "Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob." --Anyone want to deal with a dysfunctional family?)

Cool!

"Bunnies for Bibles." Two sisters raise rabbits to earn money for Bible translation.

Entrepreneurialism at its finest.

DOOR India - First Deaf Translation in Kerala Sign Language

I shared about my experience in Kenya at the DOOR Kenya dedication of the first Deaf translation of 32 stories from the Bible in Kenya Sign Language.

Here's a wonderful--brief but beautiful--slide show of the dedication and celebration of the equivalent portions of Scripture in the Kerala (India) Sign Language.

I have to confess: the pictures almost tell the story on their own.

Almost.

If you missed my earlier post, however, this will bring it home.

For more on this particular story or to find out more about DOOR, check out the original news story.

Ministry among Deaf

I'm back from Kenya. (I got back Monday evening.) A whirlwind tour.

Maybe someday I will talk about the transportation. (It took from Tuesday afternoon Denver time till Thursday mid-morning Nairobi time [about 33 hours] for me to get there; and then from Sunday evening Nairobi time till Monday evening Denver time [about 32 hours] to get home.)

But I'd like to talk about what I saw and learned among the deaf people in Nairobi. But/and before I do that, I want you to understand some of what I was told about where the worldwide deaf community was just 13 years ago, when DOOR (Deaf Opportunity OutReach; www.doorinternational.com) first came into being. You need to understand these things in order to appreciate how dramatic the things were that I observed last Saturday and Sunday.

Thirteen years ago, if I understood what I was told (and if DOOR is to be believed),

• There was no Bible in any Deaf (i.e., sign) language.
   
• There was no Deaf fellowship anywhere in the world in which Deaf community members led their own worship, preached their own sermons, and/or taught their own Bible lessons.
   
• There were no Deaf worship songs.

Please don't misunderstand what I am (or DOOR is) saying.

• Historically, there have been quite a number of Christian churches with Deaf ministries. . . . But think how they have been organized.
   
  • They have been led by hearing people, not by any Deaf people themselves.
     
  • The (hearing) leaders generally view the people to whom they seek to minister—i.e., Deaf people—as handicapped.
     
  • The (hearing) leaders rarely (if ever?) enjoyed any kind of deep understanding of or knowledge about Deaf culture.
     
  • Deaf churchgoers themselves had little opportunity to develop forms of worship that reflected their own culture and experience.
     
  • Moreover Deaf churchgoers have been frustrated by
     
    • poor interpreting,
       
    • lack of access to the Bible in sign language,
       
    • lack of support services, and
       
    • a severe lack of Deaf people with whom to fellowship.

Now, if you're like me, you may feel that some of these “charges” are rather unfair—almost “fighting words.” I mean, they are so harsh, aren't they, against so many well-meaning and hard-working people who have tried to reach out to the (relatively very few) Deaf people around them. Wouldn't you say?

The whole notion of Deafness, for example, not being a handicap: Isn't that crazy? It’s like blindness, isn't it? It limits a person’s opportunities. It’s a limitation—and handicap upon the person’s abilities.

Look at the statistics. (Again, I'm relying on some of the things I heard while in Nairobi.) Deaf people are overwhelmingly un- or, at least, underemployed. How about numbers like 50% unemployed (minimum) to (more realistic/likely/common) numbers like 80% to 90% unemployed (generally "three times higher than the national average in the developing world" according to the book A Journey into the Deaf-World by Harlan Lane, Robert Hoffmeister and Ben Bahan)?

If that kind of unemployment doesn't indicate handicap, I don't know what does!

But, as one of the leaders of the 1988 Gallaudet Revolution told a reporter for USA Today, "Hearing people sometimes call us handicapped. But most—maybe all Deaf people—feel that we're more of an ethnic group because we speak a different language. . . We also have our own culture. . . There's more of an ethnic difference than a handicap difference between us and hearing people."

And so, as one DOOR publication explains, "The members of the Deaf-World see themselves not as people with a disability, but as members of a language minority whose native language happens to be a signed language."

Really? Can such a thing be?

Well, consider. According to A Journey into the Deaf-World:

• Unlike expectant mothers with disabilities, expectant Deaf parents, like those of any other language minority, commonly hope to have children just like themselves, with whom they can share their language, culture and unique experiences. That is why they hope to have Deaf children. (!!! –Emphasis added. –JAH)
   
• Whenever two Deaf people meet, it seems that Sign Language develops naturally . . . which is one reason most observers believe that the Deaf culture is one that can never be totally assimilated or eradicated. Sign Language will never die out.
   
• Members of the Deaf-World commonly refer to themselves as the Deaf, in conversation and in the names of their organizations. It seems right to speak of the Deaf as we speak of the French or the British. Notice that by speaking in this manner, we are not implying that all culturally Deaf people or French people are alike. Rather, we are merely noting that they have certain defining characteristic in common.

Okay. Enough propagandizing!

What I have just told you gives you some idea of "how things were" not that many years ago. --And due to some conversations with my host and as a result of some reading he had me do before I arrived in Nairobi, I was relatively aware of much of what I have just said as I walked into the Bethel Sanctuary of the Nairobi Baptist Church last Saturday afternoon for the dedication of the first 32 Bible stories translated into Kenyan Sign Language and reproduced on DVD. (NOTE: Next Saturday, January 30, DOOR is planning to celebrate the translation of the same first 32 stories in the Kerala (India) Sign Language Bible.) [2/10/10 UPDATE: I've now added a brief post about that celebration.]

First thing that "blew me away": There had to be 300 or more Deaf people in the congregation. I had never seen so many Deaf in one place before!

And the service was led by a number of Deaf people.

 

Rather than being the recipients of hearing people's "ministry," we, the hearing, became the recipients of spoken translations of what the Deaf were saying and singing.

And while we're on that subject, I should probably note: I was told that the wide variety and large number of speakers and singers who led in this service was actually far less than what the Deaf themselves would have enjoyed had they not had so many hearing guests. Only seven dancer/singers leading in worship? Why, that's nothing compared to a normal Deaf service! Normally you might see even 50 people up front!

Something else that blew me away (and, I will confess, not very positively . . . until I had someone explain some of the reason why things were/are the way they are): During the Saturday service, they repeated the same story--the story of Jesus healing the paralytic who was let down through the roof of the house by his four friends-- . . . They repeated that story five times over without a break . . . except to get a different person or group to come up front and re-tell it.

Oh, there was some slight variation in the telling. One time it was told straight by one person. The next telling involved a group more re-enacting it. I don't remember how the telling may have differed the other three times. I just remember thinking, at the time, "How boring! How can they stand this?"

But then, when I asked about it, my sources explained:

• Remember that the only way the Deaf can master their Bible stories is if they memorize them. Repetition helps solidify their memories.
   
• Remember that most hearing people have heard these stories over and over throughout their lives. For many Deaf, this is the first time they have ever heard the story.
   
• The details of a story are very important for the Deaf—more important than for hearing people.
   
• Normally, in a Deaf service, there is actually much more interaction. Members of the "audience" or "congregation" will ask questions. The leader may say, "The men came to the house." And someone in the audience will ask, "Why?" And there will be a great give-and-take between story-teller and story-listeners.
   
• The Deaf "talk" (i.e., "sign") for hours on end. Since so few have employment, it is very common to find them staying up all night telling stories and sucking the marrow out of each narrative. They find significance in tiny details that [hearing people] would never think to talk about.

. . . And so forth.

So they repeated the same story five times over.

And their worship songs, by and large, consisted of just a few words repeated endlessly--fifteen times or more per phrase, sometimes, before moving on. And while the monotone interpretation and virtually identical expression drove me to distraction, the Deaf themselves appeared in ecstacy:

Hallelujah. Jesus.
Hallelujah. Jesus.
Hallelujah. Jesus.
Hallelujah. Jesus.
Praise the Lord.
Hallelujah. Jesus.
Hallelujah. Jesus.
Hallelujah. Jesus.
Praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord. . . .

I will confess, there was one song they sang--and I attempted to join in singing/signing--on Sunday that I really enjoyed. I think it had to do not only with the meaning, but with the motions:

Higher, higher, higher, higher.
Jesus higher.
Lower lower, lower, lower.
Satan lower. . . .

And on the "highers," we raised our hands progressively higher over our heads, and on the "lowers," we brought our hands down until they almost touched the ground, and then stomped our feet as if smashing Satan into the ground.

I look forward to the day when someone in the Deaf community begins to write significantly more complex and spiritually and intellectually deeper songs.

One note, however: As I tried to debrief on this subject as well, my sources noted that until a few years ago, there were no Deaf songs of any type. And when Mike Buus, president of DOOR, urged the Deaf to write their own songs (rather than attempt to translate standard "hearing" songs into sign language), the Deaf protested: "We can't do that! God can't hear us! He doesn't know our language!"

--It was (and is) the same story missionaries and Bible translators have told many times before: Until the Scriptures are translated into a people's heart language, they figure it is impossible for God to talk with them and impossible for them to talk with God.

But today the Deaf are beginning to enjoy their own hymnody, despite whatever limitations there may be in complexity and depth of understanding or expression.

Some more observations:

"Funny": The fundamental Deaf worship experience involves two things that any upstanding conservative Baptist or fundamentalist Christian church in the United States would likely find appalling. The one and only musical instrument (used for every song): Drums.

(This photo is from the Sunday morning worship at the new DOOR ministry center being constructed on the far outskirts of Nairobi in the Ongata Rongai District, a few hundred yards from the Africa Nazarene University. If you look above, at the second photo in the series illustrating the diversity of deaf leaders, toward the left of the photo, in the background, you'll see the drum set used on Saturday.)

The drum is the only instrument that creates such a sharp physical sensation that the Deaf can feel the vibration through their bodies. I was impressed with how the drum could keep the entire multi-hundred-person congregation in perfect time.

Besides feeling the drumbeat, the members of the congregation themselves often clapped vigorously in time with one another.

But then, secondly, song leaders and congregants, both, could hardly sit still while singing! No sounds emanated from most of their mouths. But their hands and arms and legs and bodies moved in beautiful movement to the beat. Or, to put it succinctly: they danced.

So two fundamental aspects of Deaf worship are drums and dance.

I wonder what kind of reception those behaviors would receive in the average fundamental Baptist church in America! ;-)

Well. I need to bring this post to a close!

Here are a few more, final pictures.

We were in Africa primarily to witness and participate in the dedication of the first 32 stories of the Kenya Sign Language Bible.

During the Saturday service, we were shown some short clips of how the Bible "works": a person signs the story while helpful graphics are displayed in the background (as shown below), or someone explains background information or provides additional explanatory material.

This photo was shot from one of the monitors in the sanctuary on Saturday afternoon.

After listening to explanations and watching samples, it finally came time to pray for, thank God for, and reveal the new translation.

Here Mike Buus (on far right) prays while the translation team and other key support personnel lay their hands on the materials about to be revealed.

The joyful reveal:

Mike explaining why there are not only DVDs, but printed storyboard books, too (to enable users to remind themselves how to retell each story accurately).

One of the deaf members of the translation team leading in a prayer of thanks to God for giving Deaf Kenyans the first Bible in their own heart language:

I'll stop here.

More later.

[NOTE: If you are reading this article on Facebook and can't use links or don't see photos, please realize it originally appeared and is still available on my personal blog.]

Automated translator errors

In anticipation of the Olympics, apparently, the Chinese hosts needed some computer help.

They got it. With humorous results.

In the blog post in which I first saw this photograph, the author comments,

Of all the poorly translated signs that can baffle English-speaking visitors to China, this one takes the cake for the most epic of all possible fails. And, as Dear Jane Sample notes, it’s also a good reason to invest in something more than a Web-based translator.

—Posted by David Griner

Someone responded to this post with the following:

OK, let's babelfish this blog from English to Dutch, and back:

"Of all badly translated signs that English-speaking person can bring visitors to China in the war, this one takes the cake for most epic of already is possibly lacking. And, since the bests nota' s of Jane Sample, it also is a good invest reason in something more than one Web-based translator."

And now a translation from English to Chinese, and back:

"All insufficient translation's symbol possibly baffles English visitor to arrive at China, this most adopts all possible defeat epic poem the cake. And, takes the dear Jennie sample note, it is also a sufficient reason investment is more than one based on Internet's translator in something."

And then someone took it further:

I like the English-Korean-English babelfish interpretation. Makes it a poem, almost.

In China the English use visitor poorly all will can break down, this of the indication which translates all has the cake for the epic poem of the failure which is possible most and goes. And, Jane sample which are valuable mainly, also invests the fact that in the silence is more web base interpretation is a good reason.

- Bead Griner arranges,

And someone else:

That is really great!

Reminds me of "All your base are now belong to us."

Bible translation #5

On November 30th last year I promised to continue the work I began in November seeking to get to the bottom of the controversy concerning William Tyndale and John Wycliffe. To my shame, I have not done what I promised. And, honestly, I had forgotten about my promise.

Last night, "Anonymous" pricked my memory and my conscience by "Commenting" on my November 30th post via a further quote from the article I had referenced in my November 30th post.

By way of retrospect: On November 30th, I began to interact with Newsome's "Tyndale's Heresy," a brief Catholic perspective concerning Tyndale--why, the author believes, Tyndale's work should be abhorred and not prized.

[Note that I have just implicitly reduced what I am willing to grant without examination concerning the validity of the author's viewpoint. I have said the article conveys what the author believes. I have deliberately avoided suggesting that the article conveys, necessarily, either official Church dogma or "the Truth."

I do not claim to know official Church dogma or absolute historical Truth in the matter. Though I want to come as close to both as possible: I want to come as close as possible to understanding Catholic dogma and the Truth as well as to expressing Catholic dogma and the Truth.

(Please note, lest you mistake my meaning. I have spoken as I have of "Catholic dogma and the Truth" in an attempt to avoid presuming that Catholic dogma is the Truth. Yet I wish to avoid the opposite presumption: that Catholic dogma, as it were, "by definition," must not be the Truth. I spoke this way "merely" to note that, in my opinion, Catholic dogma and the Truth may or may not be one and the same. . . .

And while we're on that subject, maybe I should note that, if my understanding is correct, historically, back in the days of John Wycliffe (late 1300s) and William Tyndale (early 1500s), no one--certainly no public figure--in Western Europe could have spoken of "merely" noting such a thing as I just said: that "in my opinion, Catholic dogma and the Truth may or may not be one and the same." To even question such an identity would be to court capital punishment! . . .

But let us get on with our subject.)]

On November 30th, I quoted, and since then I have never moved beyond, the "first" of "several reasons" Newsome suggests for why "[t]he Church denied [Tyndale the right] . . . to make his own English translation of the Bible." (See my post from November 30th for my response to that first reason.)

Anonymous' Comment last night consisted of the following quote from Newsome:

[I]f the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament). . . .

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. [The] case of a [modern,] gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

I should note--what Anonymous did not--that this was the "last" (actually, third) reason Newsome listed for why the Church denied Tyndale the right to translate the Bible into English. And Newsome included one last sentence in his article following the section Anonymous quoted and that I have quoted from Anonymous, above:

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

I think this final sentence is important for at least two reasons:

1) Because Newsome shows good grace in recognizing and pointing out for all to see those places where faithful Protestants and Catholics should recognize agreement.

2) Because it is, at root, what I understand the Catholic objection is to what both Wycliffe and Tyndale were all about. At root, if I understand correctly, the Catholic Church objected to what it viewed as these men's "mess[ing] with the Word of God"--their attempts to make a mess of God's holy Word.

It disturbs me, as I know it disturbs Catholics who are in the know (for example, the woman who first brought this issue to my attention), that too many Protestants are unaware of these charges against Tyndale and Wycliffe.

So questions remain: Were Wycliffe and Tyndale messing with God's Word? If so, in what ways? Supposing they were messing, was their messing worthy of a death sentence?

Sadly, I am completely out of time this morning to answer these questions. So I will have to make a promise--and seek more diligently to fulfill it!--to return to these issues at a later date, but sometime much sooner than two months from now.

Bible translation: "essentially literal" vs "dynamic equivalence"

I spent about an hour yesterday reading a book titled Translating Truth. It's about Bible translation.

A fascinating group of studies about what the authors call "essentially literal" as opposed to "dynamic equivalence" translation.

I am impressed with what I have learned, as a result of only about an hour's reading, concerning the implications of the choices translators--or, in the case of some, "interpreters" or, as I am beginning to think some are: "ostensible message-conveyers"-- . . . I am amazed at the implications for the reader of the choices these people make.

But the reason for my post here is not to pursue the full range of implications. Rather, I want to focus on one observation. I am struck by the observation that, by seeking to simplify the the process by which a reader may come to understand what the Bible says, dynamic-equivalence translator/interpreters impoverish--or, certainly, threaten to impoverish--the understanding, wisdom, and insight of their readers.

And that same impoverishment threatens consumers in many other areas of life.

Or [new thought as I wrote the last line] . . . does it?

Let me first illustrate the impoverishment associated with Bible translation.

C. John Collins notes some comments by A. J. Krailsheimer, a teacher of French at Oxford, who translated Pascal's Pensées.

One of the reasons Krailsheimer said he believed his translation was necessary had to do with something most previous translators had failed to do: "I know of no other author who repeats the same word with such almost obsessive frequency as Pascal, and failure to render this essential feature of his style makes a translation not only inadequate but positively misleading. Wherever possible, and especially within the same fragment or section, [therefore,] I have used one English word for the same keyword occurring in French."

Collins and other contributors to Translating Truth note that the dynamic-equivalence "translations" of the Bible fail on the very point about which Krailsheimer was so concerned. As a result, readers of these "translations" fail to see some of the very points that the original authors were obviously concerned to convey.

Example: "The verb [meno] ("abide") appears 24 times in 18 verses in 1 John. . . . Believers abide in Christ, in the light, in the Son and in the Father, and not in death; while God, or the word of God, or God's anointing, or eternal life, or the love of God abides in the believer. . . . This repetition is so prevalent that it must be part of the author's intended literary effect." (p. 97)

So, in 1 John 2:24, we read in the English Standard Version (ESV), an "essentially literal" translation,

Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.

And in an extreme "dynamic equivalence" version (here, the New Living Translation (NLT))?

So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will continue to live in fellowship with the Son and with the Father.

"The connection that the Greek repetition establishes," Collins notes, "does not come through at all."

The New International Version (NIV) is generally recognized as relatively moderate when it comes to dynamic equivalence v. essential literality. So what happens with the NIV?

See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.

"At least here the repetition comes through," Collins says.

But just a few verses later (2:27-28) we find:

(27) As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him. (28) And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

Point of all this?

You lose something in a loose translation.

Collins and other contributors to Translating Truth note that, over the course of an entire Bible translation, loose translation means you lose, among other things,

• Literary allusions--or, as Collins refers to them, "literary evocations," references to Old Testament concepts and passages not by way of direct quotes but, rather, by use of specific words. When the words "aren't there"--because the "translator" has provided no consistent referent to which one can point--the reader is truly impoverished. S/he cannot acquire the literary knowledge necessary to recognize the allusions . . . because they aren't there. They don't exist.


• Ambiguities. Where the Scriptures are truly unclear--in 1 John 2:5; 4:9; and 5:3, for example, does hé agapé tou theou ("the love of God") refer to God's love for us or our love for him?--"essentially literal" translations will leave the ambiguity intact. But dynamic equivalence versions make decisions in our behalf. --The decisions on the part of the translator/interpreters make reading easier, but do they mislead? Collins, Grudem, Ryken, and the other authors are in rather strong agreement that the elimination of ambiguity does mislead.


• Important meaning--the specific words upon which important meanings might rest. Because dynamic equivalence translators say it is the intention and meaning of the author and not the specific words themselves that are important in a translation, the dynamic equivalence translation, shockingly, actually fails to convey meaning.

As Wayne Grudem notes in his opening essay, the Scriptures speak rather forcefully of their faithfulness down to individual words and, if you will, even to individual letters. Thus Proverbs 30:5 says, "Every word of God proves true." And in Matthew 4:4 we read that Jesus said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."

Moreover, we find

Jesus and the New Testament authors make arguments from the Old Testament that depend on a single word of Scripture. . . . For example, notice Jesus' use of the Old Testament in the following dialogue between himself and some Jewish leaders:

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 'the Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'"? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" (Matt. 22:41-45).

Grudem also references Matthew 5:18, in which Jesus says, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"; and Galatians 3:16, where "Paul bases an argument on the difference between singular and plural forms of a word:

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings,"referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.

"In this argument Paul depends not on the general thought of an Old Testament passage but on the specific form of one word in the Old Testament."

He then follows Roger Nicole in listing some 20 places "where the argument of Jesus or the New Testament author depended on a single word in the Old Testament . . . : Matthew 2:15; 4:10; 13:35; 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 4:8; 20:42, 43; John 8:17; 10:34; 19:37; Acts 23:5; Romans 4:3, 9, 23; 15:9-12; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 3:8, 10, 13, 16; Hebrew 1:7; 2:12; 3:13; 4:7; 12:26."

But dynamic equivalence translations, by design, specifically and intentionally "ignore" specific words.

So what does this mean to the reader in practice?

Consider Romans 13:4, in which the Greek word machaira ("sword") appears. A literal translation: "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for [the civil authority] does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

The New Living Translation (NLT) says, "But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong." And the New Century Version: "But if you do wrong, then be afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God's servant to punish those who do wrong." And The Message: "But if you're breaking the rules right and left, watch out. The police aren't there just to be admired in their uniforms."

Grudem comments:

Perhaps supporters of dynamic equivalence translations would respond that "he has the power to punish" is stating the same idea as "he does not bear the sword in vain," but doing it in a contemporary way of speaking about government authority. But is it the same idea? This is one of the primary verses appealed to by Christian ethicists who defend the right of the civil government in the New Testament era to carry out capital punishment. The right to "bear the sword" involves the authority to do exactly what the sword was used for--to put someone to death. . . .

Those who oppose capital punishment argue that Paul mentions the "sword" here only as a symbol of governmental authority and this does not imply the power to take life. People may or may not find this a persuasive explanation of the "sword" in Romans 13:4, but readers of the NLT, NCV, CEV, and The Message cannot even follow the argument. They could never even think of such an argument from this verse, because there is no mention of bearing the sword. "Punishment" might mean only jail time. Or community service. Or a fine.

Grudem concludes, "When I teach ethics, I could never use these dynamic equivalence translations to argue for capital punishment from this verse because they have not translated all the words."

There is more in this relatively thin volume, Translating Truth. But I wanted to give some of the central points I acquired in my hour of reading.

*****

Postscript.

I want to note that, despite comments of various reviewers on the Amazon website, it seems to me the authors of Translating Truth are very careful to note potential positive values for the dynamic equivalence translations. Writes Collins, for example:

We cannot answer the simple question, which is the best approach to translation? We must instead qualify it: best for what purpose? I have argued that the essentially literal translation, carefully defined, is the kind of translation that best suits the requirements for an ecclesiastical translation, and for family reading and study. This is because . . . it . . . aims to provide a translation that perseveres the full exegetical potential of the original, especially as it conveys such things as text genre, style, and register, along with figurative language, interpretive ambiguities, and important repetitions. Of course this lays a heavier burden on the reader to learn about the shared world and its literary conventions, and we might decide not to lay this burden on the outsider to the Christian faith in our outreach (though we should make it clear that the burden exists). (p. 105)

Or Grudem:

[I]n actual practice every dynamic equivalence translation still has a lot of "word-for-word" renderings of individual words in the biblical text. And every essentially literal translation has some amount of "paraphrase" where a woodenly literal translation would be nearly incomprehensible to modern readers and would hinder communication rather than helping it.

[Grudem illustrates this latter point by reference to the difficulty of translating splagchma--"which refers to the inward parts of the body, especially the stomach and intestines . . . [and can be used] metaphorically to [refer] to the seat of inward emotions or to the emotions themselves, especially love, sympathy and mercy."

So Philemon 7, in the King James, reads, "For we have great joy and compassion in thy love, because the [splagchma] of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother."

Should a modern translator do as the King James translators and make it sound as if Paul was referring, somehow, to Philemon's wonderful colonic irrigation system: " . . . the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee"?

Grudem suggests not:

The word "bowels" is not appropriate because it has come to be used in modern English almost exclusively to refer to the intestines and the discharge of bodily waste, a sense readers in 1611 would not have given it in a verse like this. Even translating it as "the intestines of the saints have been refreshed by you," or "the internal organs of the saints have been refreshed by you," would not help modern readers, because these highly literal renderings would seem more physiological or medicinal than emotional. For that reason nearly all modern translations (including some current printings of the KJV itself) have changed to "the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by you" (ESV). This still talks about an internal origin (the heart) but does so in terms of an image that modern readers easily understand. (p. 24)]

And so, as Grudem notes (and as I prefaced this section), "every essentially literal translation has some amount of 'paraphrase'" in it.

*****

There are a number of practical implications of what I have noted in this post. I hope to address them in the future.

The case of William Tyndale: How "possible" was it for someone to make an authorized translation of the Bible in the early 1500s?

In my immediately preceding post, I noted that my correspondent said it was possible to have an authorized vernacular Bible back in William Tyndale's day. And I said I question that: Was it possible? And, supposing it had been possible, just exactly how possible?

I ask that second question because it is possible--and I want to pursue this--that the possibility of acquiring a vernacular translation was in the same league as the possibility that I will be hit by an asteroid tomorrow morning. The event really and truly is possible. But its likelihood is exceedingly small.

With that question in mind, I want to note that my correspondent referred me to two articles. One of them was Matthew A. C. Newsome's "Tyndale's Heresy"--what, I discovered, is a modernized, substantially condensed reworking of Chapter 13 in Henry Graham's Where We Got the Bible.

Newsome writes,

Tyndale was an English priest . . . who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

I would like to note, first, that, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article about "Versions of the Bible: English Versions,"

No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538. . . . William Tyndale was the first to avail himself of the new opportunities furnished by the press and the new learning.

So Newsome's claim against Tyndale, that "booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had," bears no weight. As the Catholic Encyclopedia itself acknowledges, there were no print editions of the English Bible before Tyndale. Tyndale was the first to avail himself of the press to publish the English Bible.

But then more to the point of making authorized translations.

My correspondent writes,

. . . The Church was making authorized vernacular translations. We already had English Scriptures. The RCC's German Bible came out on the printing press before Luther's.

Understood and accepted: there were authorized vernacular translations. Indeed, as Graham amply demonstrates, there were quite a number of authorized English translations of the Bible available throughout England. They weren't relatively low-cost editions. They weren't easily transported, nor ready to hand as virtually all printed versions of the Bible are today. They were the truly ponderous tomes as would be chained to a lectern in a cathedral. After all, they were all manuscript versions. And, I daresay, due to the recent and still ongoing rapid transition of the English language, most of them, I expect, were at least quaint.

But they were, most definitely, available. Indeed, again, as Graham notes, contemporary (or near contemporary) Protestant commentators on the situation in England at that time happily acknowledge the fact that there were many manuscript copies of English Bibles available in England at the time. Even the King James/Authorized Version translators acknowledged as much in their Preface to the 1611 KJV.

However.

I think the history of English translations from Tyndale's era to the early 1600s is instructive.

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, "Versions of the Bible: English Versions" (all emboldened text has been emboldened by me):

In 1524 [Tyndale], . . . [a]ssisted by William Roye, . . . translated the New Testament, and began to have it printed in Cologne in 1525. Driven from Cologne, he went to Worms where he printed 3000 copies, and sent them to England in the early summer of 1526. The fourth edition was printed at Antwerp (1534). In 1530 Tyndale's Pentateuch was printed, in 1531 his book of Jonas. Between the date of Tyndale's execution, 6 Oct., 1536, and the year 1550 numerous editions of the New Testament were reprinted, twenty-one of which Francis Fry (Biographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament, 1878) enumerates and describes (see Westcott, Hist. of the English Bible, London, 1905). . . .

After 1528 we find [Miles Coverdale] on the Continent in Tyndale's society. . . . He prepared a complete English Bible, the printing of which was finished 4 Oct., 1535. . . .

The London booksellers now became alive to the ready sale of the Bible in English; Grafton and Whitchurch were the first to avail themselves of this business opportunity, bringing out in 1537 the so-called Matthew's Bible. . . .

In 1539 the Matthew's Bible was followed by Taverner's edition of the Bible. . . .

About 1536 Cromwell had placed Coverdale at the head of the enterprise for bringing out an approved version of the English Bible. The new version was based on the Matthew's Bible. . . . The work was ready for the press in 1538. . . . In April of the following year the edition was finished, and owing to its size the version was called the Great Bible. Before 1541 six other editions issued from the press.

During the reign of Mary a number of English reformers withdrew to Geneva, the town of Calvin and Beza, and here they issued in 1557 a New Testament with an introduction by Calvin. . . . [This] work was soon superseded by an issue of the whole Bible, which appeared in 1560, the so-called Geneva Bible. . . . The handy form and other attractive features of the work rendered it so popular that between 1560 and 1644 at least 140 editions were
published.

After the accession of Elizabeth an attempt was made to improve the authorized Great Bible and thus to counteract the growing popularity of the Calvinistic Geneva Bible. . . . The resultant version was ready for publication on 5 October, 1568, and became generally known as the Bishops' Bible. Several editions were afterwards published, and the Great Bible ceased to be reprinted in 1569. . . .

Now, please notice: eight full unauthorized versions of the Bible were produced--and almost every one in numerous editions--and the Church, apparently, had yet to "[see a] real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures."

Who was right? The men who were making the unauthorized editions . . . or the Church?

Personally, as a businessman, I think the Church made a mistake! It "saw no real need" until the "proof of concept" was unmistakable. . . .

In October, 1578, Gregory Martin [and a number of co-workers] . . . began the work of preparing an English translation of the Bible for Catholic readers. . . . [T]he New Testament was published at Reims in 1582. . . . The Old Testament was published at Douai (1609-10). . . .

Doing a little math, we realize the Church was 54 years--far more than a single average lifetime--behind Tyndale in deciding it "needed" an English print translation. It was 74 years behind Coverdale in issuing the first authorized complete Bible!

******

Lots of questions yet to answer (see the end of my previous post). . . . But I needed to begin somewhere. So I started here.

. . . To be continued.

Bible translation: a real need?

I continue to study the issues raised by my correspondent who questioned the validity of Dave & Neta Jackson's Hero Tales account of William Tyndale. The more I have dug into the subject, the more disturbed I have become . . . by (what seems to me to be) the massive misdirection under which it appears so many of us--Protestants and Catholics--seem to labor.

And so, while seeking to dig down to the truth, I am afraid I must first dispense with the misdirections.

I shared the content of my original post with my correspondent. Among other things (which I must yet deal with), she replied,

[Quoting John:]

"At that time [i.e., when Tyndale was alive], it was illegal to translate the Scriptures into English without official approval," the Jacksons write. And that is correct. It had been illegal since 1408 when, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says (last sentence in section C.(2)), the Synod of Oxford "forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or . . . by the provincial council."

I know this and knew it and don't dispute it. I'm unsure why this is a problem. The emphasis is on "unauthorized" vernacular versions. These councils have charge over their flocks' souls. They were to be obeyed. To our modern ears, we think "Well why shouldn't you have the right to read any version you want?" but I think that is imposing a modern day construct of rights on the time. The Church is the guardian of the Scriptures and is the foundation and pillar of the Truth and, just as today we do not want a gender inclusive Bible, they did not want a Bible which would lead their flock astray needlessly. Since it was possible to have an authorized vernacular Bible, then why did Tyndale need to be lauded for his disobedience?

Let me break there.

I think her comment about "laud[ing Tyndale] for his disobedience" is pertinent. And that is why I wrote what I did about heroes and rebels. As I got thinking about it, it struck me--and struck me, honestly, as rather odd--that so many of the heroes our company (Sonlight) puts in front of children are rebels against the status quo. They (the heroes) are disobedient and/or law-breakers. And so I took--and take--my correspondent's implicit criticism to heart. It certainly causes me pause as I consider the books we have chosen.

And I need to return to this subject of rebellion (legitimate or illegitimate? when?).

But first I want to note the assumption with which my correspondent precedes her final question: "Since it was possible to have an authorized vernacular Bible, then why . . .?"

My question: Was it possible to have an authorized vernacular Bible? And, if so, how possible?

Further questions (related to the "misdirection" I referenced above):

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a vernacular translation of the Bible?
  
• When one disagrees with a "constituted authority," what are legitimate--and what are illegitimate--means of lodging one's protest against that authority's claims?
  
• At what point is one (minimally) justified in not merely speaking out against, but actually assaulting an authority?

Let me make clear that, at this moment I have no definitive answers to all of these--and corrollary--questions. I have some answers to some questions. . . . But I have the sense that I am on the outer edges of a very fuzzy ball of yarn, a ball I want to begin unrolling, yet whose "beginning thread" I can't identify.

So I intend to pick at it until, God willing, the thread comes loose and the ball can begin to unroll.

Heroes and rebels

M, a Catholic friend, wrote concerning my A history of Bible translation post:

The authors of Hero Tales are (perhaps unconsciouly) biased against Catholics. This bias shows in their writings. [You know] this, which is why [your Sonlight Curriculum] notes for Hero Tales indicate some of the inaccuracies. (Thank you for this.)

If the book were part of a higher Core, I could understand its inclusion, because Sonlight wants to teach people how to detect this sort of thing for themselves. However, Core K, by its very name, indicates 5 year-olds as its main audience. I don't think 5 year-olds can weigh boring notes (which the parents may or may not read, and if they do read it themselves, may or may not pass on to their kids) vs. an exciting, dramatic story.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood claims "Until the age of about 8, children do not understand advertising's persuasive intent" and cites Kunkel, D (2001). Children and television advertising. In: D. G. Singler & J. L. Singer (Eds.) The handbook of children and media (pp. 375-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage which I don't have time to track down and read myself right now.

But if kindergarten age children can't understand persuasive intent in advertising, they probably can't understand bias in writing either. Our brains continue to mature and develop until the 20s, and with the physical changes come more ability to reason abstractly. Your own testimonials show that children are remembering inaccurate [historically, not necessarily textually] and anti-Catholic summaries of the stories in the book.

Its anti-Catholic bias and its inaccuracy make Hero Tales an inappropriate book for this age group and it should be replaced.

I replied:

Whoa, M___! You just made the most powerful "argument" I have heard yet against inclusion of Hero Tales in the K curriculum: "I don't think 5 year-olds can weigh boring notes (which the parents may or may not read, and if they do read it themselves, may or may not pass on to their kids) vs. an exciting, dramatic story" and, "Your own testimonials show that children are remembering inaccurate [historically, not necessarily textually] and anti-Catholic summaries of the stories in the book."

When M referred to "[y]our own testimonials," she was referencing the comments of a young man quoted in our company's ezine, A Beam of Sonlight. The editor the the Beam chose a few weeks ago to include the following letter from a mom. Indeed, this is the letter, I believe, that inspired my original correspondent to object to Hero Tales' retelling of the Tyndale story:

[My son] Samuel said, "Somebody said that war is always bad.”

I told him that, "yes, war is always bad, but sometimes it is necessary. We can't let bad people get away with doing bad things; the good people need to stand up for what is right, even when it's hard."

Samuel said, "Ya, just like that guy in Germany who knew that the church was doing things that weren't right and he stood up for what the Bible says even though they could have killed him for it. And that other guy in England who said that everyone should have a Bible that they could read and he had to escape to Germany so he could put the Bible in English!"

Despite what I have written so far, I see where M and my original correspondent are coming from. Samuel's comments are not quite accurate historically. Or, should I say, they don't indicate any nuanced sense of the arguments and battles that surrounded what the "guy in Germany" and the "other guy in England" were trying to do.

As I wrote to M:

I see the problems. I'm not sure how far I'm going to get in overcoming them.

I can just hear Sarita now: "So what book(s) am I supposed to use instead of Hero Tales?!? . . . We want our kids to hold godly men and women before them as heroes they can emulate."

*****

What I am seeing not only here, but in other cases as well, is how rampant are the attitudes or
behaviors of (I think the best word to use is) rebellion among those who are commonly viewed as heroes. You can't become a hero unless you step out from the crowd, do something significantly against your culture or against societal norms. And whenever you do that . . . well . . . you immediately mark yourself as "enemy" (and note that I said you mark yourself as "enemy"!) and you engender animosity among the leaders among the party/ies most motivated to oppose you.

[I make this latter comment as I do because while, obviously, the "hero" has (by my definition) placed him- or herself in opposition to the culture or to societal norms, and, therefore, the press of the culture or society as a whole will be against the hero, that doesn't mean the majority of people will actively and strenuously oppose him or her. In fact, most people will gladly stay out of the line of fire from both sides. Kind of like Martin Luther King and the marches for racial justice. There were hotheads on both sides. But most people just wanted to "go along to get
along."]

I wrote to M:

You have convinced me, M___, that, if at all possible, we need to replace the book. What I am sorely missing right now is a decent book with which to replace it--or, as you put it so well: an age-appropriate, well-written book filled with "exciting, dramatic stor[ies]" of heroes against which no one will object. I'm afraid that is a very tall order!

Any suggestions?

I will be glad for any suggestions from my readers here on my blog as well. . . .

Bible translation #4: Protecting the masses (??)

I all but concluded my last post with a lengthy quote from Henry G. Graham's Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

I stopped quoting where I did not only because Graham was virtually finished with the primary topic at hand, but because the next words--a continued quotation on Graham's part of Karl Pearson's article from the August 1885 edition of Academy--brought up a related (but very separate) subject.

According to Graham, Pearson continued: "Indeed, we are inclined to think [the Catholic Church] made a mistake in allowing the masses such ready access to the Bible. It ought to have recognized the Bible once for all as a work absolutely unintelligible without a long course of historical study, and, so far as it was supposed to be inspired, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant."

"We do not know what Mr. Pearson’s religious standpoint may have been," Graham continues, "but he goes too far in blaming the Church for throwing the Bible open to the people in the 15th century, or indeed in any previous age.

No evil results whatsoever followed the reading of that precious volume in any century preceding the 16th, because the people had the Catholic Church to lead them and guide them and teach them the meaning of it. It was only when the principle of ‘Private Judgment’ was proclaimed that the Book became ‘dangerous’ and ‘unintelligible’, as it is still to the multitudes who will not receive the true interpretation of it at the hands of the Catholic Church, and who are about as competent to understand and explain it by themselves as they are to explain or prophesy the movements of the heavenly bodies.

Having created a course on the history of the church (or, as I call it, "God's Kingdom") from Christ to the present, and having attempted to permit qualified spokespeople for the various factions to speak for themselves (rather than permitting opponents or non-members to speak for them!), I believe I am somewhat sensitive to the points that Mr. Graham is here attempting to make.

For example, I am sympathetic to the criticism of the Protestant movement as a Protestant Revolution rather than Protestant Reformation. As many have argued, and I am inclined to agree, the Protestant movement created a thoroughgoing social revolution, but (sad to say, from my perspective at this time!) it failed to create a true reformation of the Western church as a whole.

[Off topic a bit, but I should include this note: If you're interested in pursuing the theme of social revolutions, I heartily recommend Harold J. Berman's Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. It outlines the several social/legal revolutions that shaped Western civilization through the mid-20th Century . . . beginning with what Berman calls the "Papal Revolution" of Pope Gregory VII, what is otherwise often known as the Gregorian Reform.]

So. I see the validity of the charge that the Protestant "Reformation" was, in fact, a thoroughgoing--and largely successful--attempt at social revolution. And it dislocated a lot of people. And dislocated them dramatically.

And as long as we look at the discomfort and upset and, sadly, the destruction and murder and despicable failure to protect the innocent that resulted from the Protestant movement, then we can speak of the movement's "evil results," as Graham refers to them.

[NOTE, however: We can refer to the movement's evil results in the same way we refer to the "evil results" that have occurred as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the destruction of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. There have been evil results, no doubt. The question is: Were the evil results of these shifts in power, these social (and, in the case of the Protestant Revolution, spiritual) dislocations . . . --Did these dislocations issue in greater evils than were present before? Or did they--or do we have reason to expect that they will yet--issue forth in reduced evil, long term?]

I am sensitive, too, to the complaint about the multitudes "who are about as competent to understand and explain it by themselves as they are to explain or prophesy the movements of the heavenly bodies." --Graham is spot-on in his criticism! We have far too many people who claim to be expert about things concerning which they know almost nothing.

(I am reminded of a story my brother, who used to work in a Christian bookstore, told me. A pastor encouraged his congregation that they, too, could do miracles like that which King David achieved when he made the Sun to stand still so he could read the Bible. --The pastor's exhortation resulting from a very bad misreading of the King James English in Psalm 119:148 where David says, "Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word.")

So, too, I am sensitive to the criticism of the Protestant movement having issued forth in multiple tens of thousands of "denominations" around the world. --Clearly, there is something seriously amiss when we must all prove the validity of our unique (mis)readings of Scripture by, each one of us, forming a separate denomination!

Yet, withall, I wonder: is the world worse off today than it would have been had we remained subject to the uncriticizeable official pronouncements and explanations of the Roman Catholic hierarchy? Should we really and truly be subject--as The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Official [Confraternity] Revised Edition, No. 2 (Copyright 1969-1962 [sic] Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y.) declares we should be--to a power that, by way of a side note, claims (op. cit., p. 12):

At the end of each lesson, readings will be suggested from the Bible. These are not given to "prove" the teachings of the catechism. We "prove" things from the teaching of the Church. . . . The Bible was given by God to the Church to help in the explanation of its teachings.

I think of what I wrote in my post on Illiteracy = Slavery. If and when a human power ("John! No! The Pope is no human power! He has been established by God to serve as His vicegerent (vice regent, or vicar) on earth! How dare you suggest the Pope is merely a 'human' power!?!" . . . Hmmmm. . . . What can I say in reply? . . . I think I will say the following. . . . )

If and when a power placed over us cannot be judged or evaluated by us; if and when we are told we have no right to use our God-given powers of discernment to evaluate the claims of the power over us: then we are slaves, indeed.

If, as The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Official [Confraternity] Revised Edition, No. 2 claims, we are to take all things from the hand of the Church, and view the Bible only or merely as a potentially helpful explanatory tool for use by the Church as the Church hierarchy sees fit: then we, the servants of the Church, have been effectively cut off from any standard by which to counter potential abuses.

• If our local priest fails to teach what his superiors (all the way up to the Pope) may have declared as truth: we have no means of discerning his failures. After all, he speaks "officially" for the Church, doesn't he? . . . And unless and until he is removed from office, how are we, his subordinates, supposed to judge him? We can't. Because "the Church" will teach us whatever it will and there is no external court of appeal.

• If our local priest's superiors (all the way up to the Pope) have failed to declare the truth: we have no means of discerning their failures.

We are left completely at their mercy, without recourse to discern or object to their perfidy or deception.

I do not need to touch on the most serious matters of knowing the truth concerning eternal rewards and punishments, the means by which we humans may have reason to expect God's blessing and grace or punishment and curse. I need merely note that--as too many cases have shown--the priesthood can (and does!) readily "circle its wagons" to "protect its own." --Consider the numerous cases having come to light in the last 10 years or so of immoral priests having been permitted to continue their depredations upon young children because no one within the Church hierarchy was willing to take on "the system."

Without recourse to a higher authority, the Church is left free to declare as "Truth" whatever it wants. . . . --Why, not even the Israelites were left without a means to judge those who came among them and claimed to be prophets of God. No. God gave them very specific instructions concerning how to discern false prophets. And it had nothing to do with their association with a certain institution (like having been granted authority as an officer of the government of Israel, or, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, having received recognized credentials from someone higher in the institutional structure). No. It had to do with their fidelity to YHWH and the discernible truth of their messages (Deuteronomy 13; 18:20-22; etc.).

Bible translation #3: John Wycliffe

For some reason, I feel myself a bit "on a roll," here.

As I was working on my last post, I went to the Wycliffe Bible Translators' website, hoping to find out how many millions of people would, today, be living without a version of Scripture in their heart language--their "vernacular"--were it not for the work of that organization. I found only a reference to the number of translations they have completed so far (611), but no indication of the numbers of millions of human beings--the size of the potential "listening audience," as it were--who might be impacted by these translations.

While there, I noticed the statement that the Wycliffe Bible Translators organization got its name from "the pre-Reformation hero, John Wycliffe, who first translated the Bible into English" [emphasis added! --JAH].

And that, of course, is a direct statement in opposition to to what the correspondent who got me onto this subject wrote.

So what is the truth? Was John Wycliffe "first"? If so, in what sense was he first? First at what? And why is he remembered whereas others, apparently, are not?

I think, first, I want to note that there is no question concerning the existence of vernacular ("common language") versions of Scripture before John Wycliffe came along. There were English translations of the Scriptures before John Wycliffe came along. You can find plenty of evidence for that viewpoint on the Wikipedia (see "English translations of the Bible"and "Bible translations"), let alone the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (online article on "Versions of the Bible" and, more particularly, the "English versions" subsection of that article).

But Henry Graham, once more, comes through with remarkable testimony:

Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII, . . . says: ‘The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read’ (Dialogues III). Again, ‘The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some folks’ hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.’

"But," Graham continues, "you will say, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also.

The translators of the Authorized Version [i.e., "King James Version"--JAH], in their ‘Preface’, referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the following important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, they proceed: ‘The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin... but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.’

As all these nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there was then no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. The Translators of 1611 [again, i.e., the translators of the "King James" Version--JAH], then, after enumerating many converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others. ‘Much about that time,’ they say (1360), ‘even in our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age. ... So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] ... but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.’

This testimony, from the Preface, (too little known) of their own Authorized Bible, ought surely to carry some weight with well disposed Protestants.

Moreover, the ‘Reformed’ Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: ‘The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now being able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.’

Again, Foxe, a man that Protestants trust [Graham is referring to John Foxe who wrote the book now popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs--a book, in its original, that highlighted, most especially, all the Protestant "worthies" of the Reformational era who died at the hands of Catholics--JAH], says: ‘If histories be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wycliffe was born as since, the whole body of Scripture by sundry men translated into our country tongue.’

‘But as of the earlier period, so of this, there are none but fragmentary remains, the "many copies" which remained when Cranmer wrote in 1540 having doubtless disappeared in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place within a few years after that date.’ --These last words are from the pen of Rev. J. H. Blunt, a Protestant author, in his History of the English Bible; and another Anglican dignitary, Dean Hook, tells us that ‘long before Wycliff’s time there had been translator’s of the Holy Writ.’

One more authority on the Protestant side, and I have done: it is Mr. Karl Pearson (Academy, August, 1885), who says: ‘The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for, but in the 15th century it certainly did not hold back the Bible from the folk: and it gave them in the vernacular (i.e. their own tongue) a long series of devotional works which for language and religious sentiment have never been surpassed.’

So why did anyone begin to suggest that John Wycliffe was "first"? Perhaps he was first in producing an unauthorized English translation?

Who owns the Bible? (More on Tyndale and Bible translation)

As I continued to study the sources my correspondent sent me in criticism of William Tyndale and/or the Jackson's retelling of the story of William Tyndale, I realized there is a fundamental difference of viewpoint concerning the Bible and how one should consider the Bible's publication between Protestants and at least some--some officially/magisterially approved--Roman Catholics.

I was first shocked into the realization by a subordinate, parenthetical clause in Chapter 12 of Henry Graham's Where We Got the Bible. Graham refers to the Bible as the Catholic Church's "own book"--as if it were, in essence, "Copyright AD___ by the Roman Catholic Church."

"The Catholic Church certainly could never allow a version of Holy Scripture, (which is her own book) like that of Wycliff to go forth unchallenged, as if it were correct and authoritative, and bore her sanction and approval," Graham writes. [Note: the odd punctuation, including comma immediately preceding the parenthetical remark, is in the original. I have added the bold italics for emphasis --JAH.]

Graham continues:

Rome claims that the Bible is her book; that she has preserved it and perpetuated it, and that she alone knows what it means; that nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, or any authority to declare what the true meaning of it is. She therefore has declared that the work of translating it from the original languages, and of explaining it, and of printing it and publishing it, belongs strictly to her alone; and that, if she cannot nowadays prevent those outside her fold from tampering with it and misusing it, at least she will take care that none of her own children abuse it or take liberties with it; and hence she forbids any private person to attempt to translate it into the common language without authority from ecclesiastical superiors, and also forbids the faithful to read any editions but such as are approved by the Bishops.

All this the Catholic Church does out of reverence for God’s Holy Word. She desires that the pure, uncorrupted Gospel should be put in her people’s hands as it came from the pen of the Apostles and Evangelists. She dreads lest the faithful should draw down upon themselves a curse by believing for Gospel the additions and changes introduced by foolish and sinful men to support some pet theories of their own; just as a mother would fear lest her children should, along with water or milk, drink down some poison that was mixed up with it.

Stated again (actually, immediately preceding the above two quoted paragraphs):

[W]hile the Church approves of the people reading the Scriptures in their own language, she also claims the right to see that they really have a true version of the Scriptures to read, and not a mutilated or false or imperfect or heretical version. She claims that she alone has the right to make translations from the original languages (Hebrew or Greek) in which the Bible was written; the right to superintend and supervise the work of translating; the right of appointing certain priests or scholars to undertake the work; the right of approving or condemning versions and translations which are submitted to her for her judgment. She declares she will not tolerate that her children should be exposed to the danger of reading copies of Scripture which have changed or falsified something of the original Apostolic writing; which have added something or left out something; which have notes and explanations and prefaces and prologues that convey false doctrine or false morals. Her people must have the correct Bible, or no Bible at all.

I guess, based on that last statement, the Church claims not only to "own" the Bible, but to own certain people as well. They are its servants, subject entirely to its laws and decrees, no matter how the magisterium may decide.

I find this entire "line of argument" . . . at least disturbing. I'm not sure what else to say about it. The entire concept is . . . rather shocking, honestly. The bald-faced brazenness of such a claim!

I guess since the Roman Catholic Church "owns the Bible," Jews, the direct descendants of those who wrote it, have no rights to the Tanakh ("Old Testament"--or, as the three primary consonants of the word Tanakh reference: the Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings))?!?

"[The Church] has preserved [the Bible] and perpetuated it, and . . . she alone knows what it means"?!? --God couldn't possibly speak to anyone else?

"[N]obody else has any right to it whatsoever"?!? --It's not a book given by God to mankind as a whole--like the annunciation: "I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you . . ." (Luke 2:10-11; NIV) or, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests" (Luke 2:14; NIV)?!?

"[N]obody else has . . . any authority to declare what the true meaning of [the Bible] is. [The Roman Catholic Church] therefore has declared that the work of translating it from the original languages, and of explaining it, and of printing it and publishing it, belongs strictly to her alone." --Wow! I appreciate the concern for people's souls, but is it truly better that we follow the model of a command-and-control, top-down economy than the more open policies of the free market? Better that the millions of people for whom the Bible has been made available due to efforts of "unauthorized" translaters . . . --Better that they should have lived and died without the Bible than that they had an imperfect Bible?

I think, maybe, I've been too influenced by my understanding and experience of the modern marketplace to "buy" this kind of mentality.