Tyndale, Jerome and the Irony of History....
I love William Tyndale. There was a man and a great one too! If you have not seen the movie God's Outlaw (a film about William Tyndale) I highly recommend it (just click on the link after reading this post).
William Tyndale famously stated to a learned Theological professor: " I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life...I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the scripture than thou doust"
Tyndale translated the entire New Testament into English and much of the Old. He has enriched the English language in so many ways.
But that's the not the thing I admire most about Tyndale. Tyndale exhibited great courage, audacity, wit and love all at once even to his dying day on the stake. (That's what I love about the movie God's Outlaw- the actor conveys each of these with equal ability.) Tyndale gave his life so that the Bible might be in the common tongue.
Anyone familiar with the history of the Church and especially the Reformation knows the Roman Church did not want the Bible in the common tongue. They genuinely believed the Clergy had a sacred duty to keep the Scriptures away from the lay people so that they might not misinterpret them. In a way, they had a point. Since the Reformation countless new denominations (and not a few outright heretical offshoots like the Jehovah's Witness, Mormons etc.) have arisen. The decentralization and fragmentation they feared has infested the Church. I find myself wishing that Luther had been successful at reforming the Church and that a break had been avoided. But, God will was done and I shall not complain.
But to get back to my train of thought, Papist reasoning was decidedly ironic. The Vulgate they championed (and still do) was itself a translation and a "vulgar" translation at that. St. Jerome used the Greek and Hebrew texts to put together this translation in the "vulgar" (common, thus "Vulgate") tongue, Latin.
What happened to Jerome has happened to Tyndale, or rather the translators of the King James Version of the Bible. Ah....now you see where my post is going!
But I must inform you to expect some surprises here!
Yes, I am taking some time to discuss the KJV only movement and why I do and do not agree with them. You read that correctly.
If you read a KJV only adherent's attack on newer translations, you have probably noticed the flaw I am about to point out. I'll use a casebook example, John 3:16.
A KJV only person will correctly point out the lack of the word "begotten" in the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. but they completely destroy the argument with the following type of statement: "While the King James says 'Only begotten', newer translations leave out this word!" Did you catch it? Every KJVO I've met or read argues against the NIV or ESV using the KJV as if it were the source text. I hate to disillusion you if you believe this, but the KJV is NOT the original Biblical manuscripts. Those were written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic remember? You cannot treat the KJV as the original text. You can compare KJV to NIV all day but until you compare the NIV to Greek I'm not listening.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue, namely the Greek Manuscripts- which ones do we use?
Basically, we have two Greek texts, the Byzantine (Majority, Textus Recptus or "Received Text") and the Alexandrian (Minority). We have more of the former than the later BUT the Alexandrian are on average older than the Byzantine. So you have compare age with number.
Historically, the text the Church has used is the Byzantine Text. The Geneva, the KJV and the NKJV are all based on the Byzantine. The NIV, ESV, NASB etc. are based on the Alexandrian text. This is why the NIV for example brackets Mark 16 because one of the Alexandrian texts doesn't have it. But a close study will show the reason. The scribe was apparently awaiting the arrival of more manuscripts to finish of his copying of Mark. For some reason long since lost to the dark corridors of history the manuscripts didn't arrive and an empty space remained.
Personally I favor the Byzantine text, although I think the Alexandrian text should be consulted. I have no problem with the NKJV since it is Byzantine. What gets me is that unless a translations is word for word KJV, KJVO's will denounce it as evil on the spot. They won't even except the 21st Century King James, which in no way changes the sentence structures and even leaves in the Thees and Thous. The only change is to the "-eth" and "est" endings (e.g. "Runneth" to "Runs"). Doesn't matter. According these people, it is still evil.
Oh the ironies of history! I can just imagine some three hundred years from now the ESV only movement denouncing all the new translations......
William Tyndale famously stated to a learned Theological professor: " I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life...I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the scripture than thou doust"
Tyndale translated the entire New Testament into English and much of the Old. He has enriched the English language in so many ways.
But that's the not the thing I admire most about Tyndale. Tyndale exhibited great courage, audacity, wit and love all at once even to his dying day on the stake. (That's what I love about the movie God's Outlaw- the actor conveys each of these with equal ability.) Tyndale gave his life so that the Bible might be in the common tongue.
Anyone familiar with the history of the Church and especially the Reformation knows the Roman Church did not want the Bible in the common tongue. They genuinely believed the Clergy had a sacred duty to keep the Scriptures away from the lay people so that they might not misinterpret them. In a way, they had a point. Since the Reformation countless new denominations (and not a few outright heretical offshoots like the Jehovah's Witness, Mormons etc.) have arisen. The decentralization and fragmentation they feared has infested the Church. I find myself wishing that Luther had been successful at reforming the Church and that a break had been avoided. But, God will was done and I shall not complain.
But to get back to my train of thought, Papist reasoning was decidedly ironic. The Vulgate they championed (and still do) was itself a translation and a "vulgar" translation at that. St. Jerome used the Greek and Hebrew texts to put together this translation in the "vulgar" (common, thus "Vulgate") tongue, Latin.
What happened to Jerome has happened to Tyndale, or rather the translators of the King James Version of the Bible. Ah....now you see where my post is going!But I must inform you to expect some surprises here!
Yes, I am taking some time to discuss the KJV only movement and why I do and do not agree with them. You read that correctly.
If you read a KJV only adherent's attack on newer translations, you have probably noticed the flaw I am about to point out. I'll use a casebook example, John 3:16.
A KJV only person will correctly point out the lack of the word "begotten" in the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. but they completely destroy the argument with the following type of statement: "While the King James says 'Only begotten', newer translations leave out this word!" Did you catch it? Every KJVO I've met or read argues against the NIV or ESV using the KJV as if it were the source text. I hate to disillusion you if you believe this, but the KJV is NOT the original Biblical manuscripts. Those were written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic remember? You cannot treat the KJV as the original text. You can compare KJV to NIV all day but until you compare the NIV to Greek I'm not listening.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue, namely the Greek Manuscripts- which ones do we use?
Basically, we have two Greek texts, the Byzantine (Majority, Textus Recptus or "Received Text") and the Alexandrian (Minority). We have more of the former than the later BUT the Alexandrian are on average older than the Byzantine. So you have compare age with number.
Historically, the text the Church has used is the Byzantine Text. The Geneva, the KJV and the NKJV are all based on the Byzantine. The NIV, ESV, NASB etc. are based on the Alexandrian text. This is why the NIV for example brackets Mark 16 because one of the Alexandrian texts doesn't have it. But a close study will show the reason. The scribe was apparently awaiting the arrival of more manuscripts to finish of his copying of Mark. For some reason long since lost to the dark corridors of history the manuscripts didn't arrive and an empty space remained.
Personally I favor the Byzantine text, although I think the Alexandrian text should be consulted. I have no problem with the NKJV since it is Byzantine. What gets me is that unless a translations is word for word KJV, KJVO's will denounce it as evil on the spot. They won't even except the 21st Century King James, which in no way changes the sentence structures and even leaves in the Thees and Thous. The only change is to the "-eth" and "est" endings (e.g. "Runneth" to "Runs"). Doesn't matter. According these people, it is still evil.
Oh the ironies of history! I can just imagine some three hundred years from now the ESV only movement denouncing all the new translations......
Comments
Post a Comment