- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Having just finished reading ‘Misquoting Jesus’, I am now aware that the the King James Version of the New Testament was translated from a poor quality Greek Version of the same dating from the 11th century. I am sure that the church’s official position is to stay with the King James Version, however I was wondering if any of you are aware of research comparing the King James Version and the Joseph Smith version with earlier and better versions of the contents of the New Testament? It is really interesting to me that many of the things we quote over and over again are actually quite subject to question, or were not in early 4th century versions of the New Testament. I served a mission in Germany and remember reading that Joseph Smith had said that the Luther Version of the bible was one of the best, and yet, we did not use that version on our missions. I think we used a catholic version and as I recall, it got us into some trouble as some of our core doctrines such as baptism for the dead were not nearly as clear in that version. Does anyone know why we don’t use Luther’s translation in german-speaking countries?
I also served a mission in Germany, 1988-1990 (Frankfurt and then the re-opened Duesseldorf). I was VERYinterested in this issue, being my first exposure really to the idea of different translations, and how much difference translation can make. I collected as many versions as I could get while there. I loved reading through them and comparing the wording (thinking back, I was fairly stage 4 even at that time). I am also a fan of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s books.
I don’t think many people use the original Luther translation in Germany these days. It was certainly a great and important resource for its time, but I think they moved past that to use better and better translations as time and research progressed. I am pretty sure (I might be mistaken) that Luther translated the Latin Vulgate into German. So it was as good, or less, than that version of the Bible. The original Luther translation also is to modern German language like the King James Edition is to modern English, it’s a bit archaic and confusing. That’s my observation (I am no expert by any means).
The LDS Church in Germany uses a translation produced by the Catholic Church. It is called the “Einheitsübersetzung” (Unified Translation). Even though it was produced by the Catholic Church, the bulk of it was agreed upon by a committee of both Catholic and Protestant scholars, and had a more ecumenical theme to its production. I get the feeling it was like a “middle ground” that both sides could agree on and share in common. That might be why the LDS Church picked it, it being accepted by a wide range of people in the German language.
After reading “Misquoting Jesus” you are aware of how much has changed in Biblical text scholarship from Joseph Smith’s time. So his statements need to be taken with a grain of historical salt. When he made his statement about the King James version and the Luther translation, those were in fact very good translations, as far as the VERY limited variety of what was available in the 1830’s-1840’s. Unfortunately (not just in the LDS Church), the King James version has taken on mystical, cultural qualities of accuracy that are simply not founded on the best modern scholarship.
I personally prefer the New Revised Standard Version in English. I really like the text, and it includes alternate translation information and debated context in the footnotes of the pages. I have to bring my LDS quad to participate in Church still though. It’s just plain easier that way in a classroom setting for everyone to be reading the same text, even if it isn’t my personal favorite. The King James version sounds beautiful and “churchy” to me though, in a poetic sense. I like that too.
I’m sure the church’s preference for KJV is 100% tied to the fact that Ludlow and McConkie did the footnotes and topical guide based on KJV, which they did because JS used KJV for the JST. However, other versions are not prohibited or anything. BYU teaches Bible as Literature using various versions, and a variety are sold in the BYU bookstore. But for GD classes, using non-KJV makes it hard for class members to read along. Like Valoel, I agree NRSV is far better. I also enjoy Ehrmann’s books. Exactly what Hawk said. Fwiw, the whole “as far as it is translated correctly” concept makes them all “equally valid” to me. I use the KJV simply because it’s the norm in my culture.
Some of the church theology is determined by specific passages or wording in the KJV. Not using it would dilute or eliminate certain passages that we use as reference for specific doctrines. You would think mormons as a people would be less prone to be so literal in the scriptures, but I think most members take the bible completely literally. I wonder why we’re not more open to the symbolic meanings when you figure there is so much acceptance the scriptures contain errors from mortals, and the different versions are all valid, even if we picked the KJV…JS confirmed it is not all correct and in some cases highly changed. I think the problem Heber13 mentions stems from the paradox of believing the scriptures literally AND believing they are flawed. That conundrum seems pretty uniquely Mormon. The Bible, *IF* it was translated correctly would have been the literal mind of God without any error or ambiguity. It would be like a master textbook.
*BUT* since it was corrupted by Satan through those he influenced, in order to lead us astray, the corruptions are still literal. They are the literal mind of Satan.
*BUT* we still use the Bible as scripture.
A delicious three-way paradox
A delicious paradox, indeed! Not just that we use the bible as scripture, but that place so much attention to some words and phrases, and then completely ignore others.
Here’s an example of what I think about regarding this:
I have heard a sermon given something like this:
In the good Samaritan story, a priest walked by and did not help. A levite passed by and did not help. Then it reads:Quote:But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was . . This says he “journeyed” and that indicates he wasn’t just passing by, but journeyed…isn’t that interesting how that is used differently from the other two. Perhaps the Samaritan was out looking to help someone, making his intentions even more charitable… The rest of the lesson or sermon went on to explore this idea and how we should “journey” out of our way to help others. That one word was crucial in a whole new meaning to the story.
It just makes me think how we can place such importance on one word in the scriptures and how brilliant the teachings are for so carefully choosing the perfect words…yet with all the translations and changes over time, can we really believe it was purposefully taught word for word that way?
And then we get to the Song of Solomon, and pretty much just say, “those shouldn’t be in the bible…those words aren’t meaningful”.
I don’t have a problem studying the scriptures and finding meaning in nuances or particular wording that is inspiring…but I think it is all of value if we make it valuable…not literally interpreted…if that makes sense.
Literalness is the human default. It has to be, since it’s the default of safety and security and, in many ways, peace. Ambiguity and allegory/figurativeness are the default of danger and uncertainty and conflict. Such a situation simply can’t be the communal default. It just can’t be.
Thus, the issue (imo) for those who crave nuance and ambiguity and paradox is to seek such within the communal framework of literalness – since anything else **rightly** is seen as an attack. I can let my mind wander and conjecture all I want, but if I express that wandering publically in a way that threatens the community . . . I can think and believe just about anything (within limits, of course), but I support the community in my actions – even when I am expressing disagreement at any particular moment.
I’m totally fine with that, because I recognize it as necessary and unavoidable. It is what it is.The real difficulty is for those who naturally want safety and security and peace but who are thrust unwillingly into the danger of ambiguity and conjecture and paradox –
who must face those things without the natural inclination to seek them. Many here fit that description. If there is one generalization about which I am fairly certain, it’s that those who fit this last category either persevere silently and largely miserably, find a place like this to discuss their concerns and LEARN to see things differently(less black and white), or leave the Church – and those who leave from this category almost always replace their former assurance with a new one. They hit Stage 4 and recoil back to a different manifestation of Stage 3, not having learned to see with new eyes. How does this relate to the KJV? I can study anything I want on my own, but when I am associating with the community I use the KJV – solely to make the communication easier and less potentially challenging. Since I don’t take everything literally anyway, I don’t care if others do – at least not enough to challenge it much. When I do, it’s just to say that I’ve heard conflicting interpretations and it’s the symbolism and overall message that means the most to me.
I think Ray just accused us all of being addicted to the adrenaline rush of intellectual thrill-seeking 
Just for grins I picked up a copy of The New International Version of the Bible. I must say although it reads on maybe a 6th grade level it is very enjoyable to read. So many of the disjointed sentences are eliminated and the words flow so much better. Cadence wrote:although it reads on maybe a 6th grade level it is very enjoyable to read.
I know the feeling, but the average for all adults is about a 4th to 6th grade reading level (somewhere in there). So I think that is one of the main justifications by the scholars for targeting that middle ground. It brings the material to the widest audience.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.