Done properly, Bible translation is really just the search
for truth. It attempts to represent the original text in another language to
the very best of expert ability to reconstruct it from the available manuscript
evidence.
Some English versions are painstakingly literal, attempting
as closely as possible to represent each original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word
with an English equivalent (an impossible task, if you know anything about syntax and semantics). Others are more dynamic and literary,
attempting to convey the overall feel and sense of the original as the
translators understand it, rather than trying to force the receptor language to
awkwardly mimic the sentence structure of the original language. Some Bible
versions are based on a single, familiar text tradition. Others synthesize
multiple traditions in an attempt to get at the most precise possible reading.
Either way, truth is usually the governing standard. It is
rare that anyone deliberately sets out to produce a #fakebible.
#FakeBibles
There are bad translations, and not a few of them. There are
misguided translations, where some political agenda has motivated translators
to emphasize and highlight issues of particular concern to a myopic segment of
the reading public. These serve to distort the Bible’s overall emphasis,
drawing attention to minutiae useful only to obsessives and riders of
hobby-horses. There are colloquial translations, in which attempts to make an
ancient text accessible to modern readers mangle the original so
comprehensively that it becomes almost unrecognizable, trite, and sometimes
childishly embarrassing.
But even the most inferior attempts to translate scripture
are usually made in good conscience by people trying to do what they believe is
a necessary and valuable thing. The translators may be mistaken, but they are
not generally wicked people. They are aspiring to offer readers valid options,
not aspiring to wreck their faith. Apart from those versions used by
quasi-Christian cults, few translations are riddled with deliberate attempts to
deceive others about what the prophets and apostles intended to communicate,
and most of those attempts fail miserably.
The Various King James Versions
The 1611 King James Version of the Bible is not the KJV of
today. Its text has not only gone through several formal revisions, but it has
also undergone thousands of informal corrections and alterations with nearly
every printing. Each time they did this, the KJV retranslators were doing
exactly what the translators of modern versions of the Bible are doing: trying
to communicate more effectively while adhering as closely as possible to the
content of the originals as they understood them to be at the time of
translation. The only difference is that they were able to do it under the KJV
brand, retaining the credibility and respect associated with that venerable
translation.
There is actually a small group of Christians who insist the 1611 version of the KJV is the only truly accurate English translation. If they wished to, these
purists could easily construct side-by-side verse comparisons that would make the
2020 version of the KJV appear almost as much a #fakebible as some of the modern
translations they deplore.
Accusations, Accusations
That’s important to remember when we come across something
like this in social media:
“I, Jesus, am the bright and morning star.”
“I, Jesus, am the bright morning star.”
— Revelation 22:16 KJV #bible, NIV #fakebible
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”
“How you have fallen from heaven, MORNING STAR, son of the dawn!”
— Isaiah 14:12 KJV #bible, NIV #fakebible
The person who posted this meme was trying to tell the
online world that the NIV cannot be trusted. More than that, he is convinced it
is a counterfeit produced by Satan, a “perversion” that removes whole verses,
and changes meanings and terms. The way the NIV renders Isaiah 14:12 particularly
offends him because it translates one of the traditional KJV names of Satan (“Lucifer”) as “morning star”, a title we find given to Christ in Revelation. His conclusion: someone
is trying to steal glory from the Son of God, and that person is acting under
satanic influence. Who else would want to pass Satan off as Christ?
An Old Story
These are not new accusations. I first began hearing this
sort of thing back in the early seventies, when modern versions of the English Bible
were gradually becoming more popular. The evangelical world was treated to a
sudden explosion of sensational exposés penned by sincere die-hard KJV-ers who
believed the new translations were the worst thing ever: misleading,
inaccurate, confusing and even diabolic. Speculations abounded about the motives and
intentions of the translators and the men who were attempting to more accurately reconstruct the original Greek and Hebrews texts, many
of these uninformed and not a few of which appeared quite mean-spirited.
At the same time, it was becoming more and more evident to
Bible teachers that the new versions were meeting a need the King James could not
address, not only in the third world, where lower average IQs and poor
education made the archaisms and imagery of the KJV near-impenetrable, but in
the West, where young men and women were less and less familiar with Shakespeare
and other older classics of English literature. Whatever deficiencies of translation may have existed in them
(and these were far less common than was being alleged by the die-hards), each
new version of the English Bible opened up the word of God to some new
generational demographic in a powerful and effective way. My parents gave all their children NIVs as teenagers, and my father switched to using the NASB from the
platform, generating more than a little concern from older members of some
congregations.
Perversions and Pocket Monsters
Over the years, the intensity and frequency of pushback
against modern translations has gradually diminished, but you still come across
things like the #fakebible meme from time to time.
So here’s where I’m coming from: on my list of favorite versions
the NIV doesn’t even make Top 5, so the following is not so much an
endorsement of the NIV as a plea to make Christian criticisms of translations —
any translation — well-researched, rational, unhysterical, and most
importantly ... your own.
You will certainly find the occasional deficiency in modern
translations, but most often these terrifying examples of “false doctrine” and “lies
of the devil” turn out to be nothing more than overheated reactions to linguistic
issues the KJV reader has been exposed to by someone else, and simply doesn’t
understand. The same three or four dozen “perversions” of familiar verses are
swapped around by devout KJV enthusiasts much the way my kids used to trade Pokémon cards,
when five minutes with a Strong’s concordance shows most of them to be
entirely toothless. The problem is, nobody stops to check before posting their
#fakebible meme to social media.
Legitimate Scholarship Under Fire
As it turns out, in the example above, the NIV’s Isaiah 14 rendering of “Lucifer” as “morning star” is perfectly legitimate translation. The word “Lucifer” is neither Hebrew nor Greek; it is actually the
Latin name for the planet Venus. Why the 1611 KJV translators thought it the best possible English rendering is a mystery: it is more likely a figure of speech than a proper name. The Hebrew is heylel, which (the KJV-based) Strong’s concordance says means “light-bearer”, “shining one” or “morning star”. Infogalactic adds
“bringer of dawn”. Even the New King James Version lists “day star” as an
alternate rendering.
Moreover, the NIV’s rendering of “Lucifer” as “morning star”
is contextually, theologically and thematically appropriate. In context, when
Isaiah uses “morning star” as a picture of the spiritual being who has become the great deceiver of nations, he is describing
Satan in his unfallen state. His point is that the one who was once as glorious
as the morning star has been “cast down to the earth”. Far from attempting to
pass off Satan as a counterfeit Christ, the Isaiah passage is lamenting Satan’s
self-destruction: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the
heavens’ ... but you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the
depths of the pit.”
The Morning Star
When we come to the Revelation passage, Jesus is said to be
the “morning star”, this time with two words in Greek, orthrinos astēr. Like the Hebrew heylel, orthrinos was also used by the Greeks of the planet Venus, and
relates to the dawn. The word astēr is simply “star”. The word “and” [Greek: kai]
in the KJV’s “bright and morning star” has gone missing in the NIV, which may or may not be optimal literal translation
but does not impact the meaning of the phrase in any material way. John is
quoting the glorified Christ directly here (he refers to himself as “I, Jesus”),
and, as the single most accomplished student of the Old Testament in human
history, it is quite impossible our Lord is doing anything else but affirming
that he is the one true “morning star” to which Isaiah first made reference.
Satan may have had the name at one point, but Jesus is the real deal.
This is the sort of statement that we find repeatedly made of Christ: he is the true and perfect realization of every flawed or partial attempt made in and through created beings. He is
the true Lamb of whom
Abraham’s sacrifice was only a shadow,
the true Son of whom
the nation of Israel was only a rough sketch,
the last Adam; the true man who did not fall. To find that Jesus is also the true Morning Star,
of whom Lucifer at his most glorious was never more than a pallid imitation, is both unsurprising and highly appropriate.
In Much-Disputed Conclusion ...
A few minute’s research demonstrates that the phrase “morning
star” in Isaiah did not originate with the NIV translation team, who were only
doing their job, but with the Holy Spirit himself, who used the exact same
phrase in both Isaiah and Revelation, and did so quite deliberately.
Make of that what you will.
No comments :
Post a Comment