The NIV: Simply a Bad
Translation!
By Pastor Richard
Bacon
pastor@fpcr.org
First Presbyterian Church of
Rowlett
http://www.fpcr.org
This Article is courtesy
of Pastor Richard Bacon, and was originally posted in
March of 1995 on the Fidonet Open Bible forum as a
series of examples. It has been transcribed to HTML code
by Tony
Warren.
Reproduced here by
permission.
NIV Examples
1
These are
examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS found in a single
reading of the NIV. Here we will compare it with the
earlier NASV just to demonstrate that the NIV is bad in
comparison even with its modern siblings.
Romans 4:1, NIV:
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather,
discovered in this matter?"
NASV (text
option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our
forefather according to the flesh, has found?"
NASV (margin
option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our
forefather, has found according to the flesh?"
First of all,
notice that the NIV ELIMINATES the term "flesh," which
is one of the most important theological terms in the
entire Bible. The "flesh theology" begins in Genesis
2-3, and continues throughout the Scriptures. It is
extremely significant in the Pauline understanding,
especially in the book of Romans. This is NOT "concept
by concept" or "dynamic equivalence" -- it is an
unwarranted reduction of the text by those who simply
did not want to include the idea in the English. The
NASV, with a far greater scholarship, included the term
while acknowledging they were not certain about what the
phrase "according to the flesh" modified.
Hebrews 11:11, NIV
(text option): "By faith Abraham, even though he was
past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to
become a father because he considered him faithful who
had made the promise."
NIV (margin
option): "By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was
enabled to bear children because she considered him
faithful who made the promise."
NASV (text
option): "By faith even Sarah herself received ability
to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since
she considered Him faithful who had promised;"
NASV (margin
option): "By faith even Sarah herself received power for
the laying down of seed, even beyond the proper time of
life, since she considered him faithful who had
promised;"
The second NASV
reading is a literal reading (so much despised by "the
majority" according to James White) and points us to the
mighty and important "seed theology" that runs
throughout the Scripture, from Genesis onward. In fact,
the first mention of the seed theology refers to the
WOMAN'S seed. Thus Hebrews 11:11 has a very important
place in the seed theology of Scripture. Yet, the NIV
mentions it NOT AT ALL, and the NASV mentions it only in
the margin. How convenient for a translation that
translates "concept by concept" simply to leave out one
of the MOST IMPORTANT concepts in the entire Scripture
from its translation here. But this is not paraphrastic
-- RIGHT! Neither is it an issue of textual criticism --
the UBS text does not vary from the TR at this point in
Hebrews 11:11 -- both read "kataboleen spermatos
elaben." The problem is not with the eclectic text --
the problem is with the NIV (and the NASV text option).
The NASV text option is *slightly* paraphrastic and does
away somewhat with a proper understanding of the seed
theology of Scripture in this place. But it is not as
paraphrastic as the NIV!
The NIV is so
paraphrastic that they made up things to place in God's
mouth. Now that is arrogance! Furthermore, the things
they made up aren't even true! The NIV at Hebrews 11:11
attempts to make every scholar true and God a liar. Let
me expatiate:
First of all, of
the two NIV readings, only the marginal reading even
*approximates* the Greek. And in approximating the
Greek, it guts the passage by ignoring the seed
theology. The text option, however, is just downright
awful.
With absolutely no
textual support in any textual tradition -- i.e. no
Greek mss -- the NIV throws Abraham into the verse. It
claims that Abraham was past age to have children --
which is clearly untrue, as Abraham's six sons by his
second wife Keturah could testify (Genesis 25). Further,
Abraham's behavior with the handmaid Hagar is proof
enough that it was not Abraham, but Sarah who was "past
age." But the NIV leaves us with the distinct impression
by INTRODUCING Abraham without any textual basis at all
that Abraham as well as Sarah was past age for "bearing
children" (much less laying down seed, which is the
theological import that is missing from both the text
option and the margin option).
As I have
continued to examine the NIV over the years I have been
increasingly impressed with what a poor translation it
actually is.
NIV Examples
2
This next
part will be more of a book review of Robert Martin's
_Accuracy of Translation and the NIV_. Hopefully nobody
on the echo will be so shortsighted (and dare I say
foolish) as to accuse Martin of being "KJV-only" or
whatever the latest epithet happens to be for those who
do not roll over for the "translation of the month."
Martin provides
dozens (perhaps scores) of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS in
the NIV. He groups these inaccuracies under seven
categories:
1. Elimination of
complex grammatical structures (pp. 18-21). Long complex
sentences are broken into several shorter sentences. To
do this, the translators had to make interpretive
decisions about the *theology* of the passage in
question. Thus Ephesians 1:3-14, which the AV breaks
into three sentences, the NIV breaks into eight. 2
Thessalonians 1:3-10, which the AV keeps as one
sentence, is broken into eight by the NIV. Compare also
Acts 1:1-5 & Hebrews 1:1-4.
2. Addition of
words in translation (pp. 22-28). To be fair, older
translations have done this as well, but when the
AV(KJV) adds words to clarify meaning it puts them in
italics. The NIV does not -- it therefore gives no
warning or notice to the reader as to what it has done.
For example, 1 Cor. 7:9 states "it is better to marry
than to burn," a statement which is subject to numerous
interpretations. The NIV says, "to burn with passion,"
an addition to the text that is not indicated by any
italics (or other flags) and that simply settles the
interpretation for the reader. Acts 5:20 says, "all the
words of this life," but the NIV reads "the full message
of this new life." The word "new" is nowhere to be found
in any Greek ms. It has been added by the NIV
translators and clearly adds a "new thought" to this
verse -- a thought which is man's and not God's at this
place.
3. Omission of
words (pp. 28-29). Be careful -- some words are omitted
due to a difference in textual choice. That is not what
Martin is speaking to here. The NIV often omits
conjunctions and interjections. The word "lo" or
"behold" occurs 62 times in Matthew, but the NIV omits
it 37 times. Mark's gospel abounds in the term
"immediately" and creates a major theme in Mark's
Davidic perspective on Jesus. The NIV omits it in 5
places. In Matthew 10:6, "of the house" is simply left
out, and "unto himself" is left out of Ephesians 1:5 --
neither of these omissions have any textual basis.
4. Erosion of
technical vocabulary (pp. 29-38). There are parts of the
Bible that use highly technical words -- words that have
been used in a specifically Christian way by the author.
Thus the NIV translates the Greek term *dikaioo* as
"justify" except in Romans 2:13 and 3:20, where it reads
"declared righteous." Martin correctly points out that
justification "involves the imputation of our sins to
Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to
us," not simply a mere verbal declaration. Propitiation
becomes the vague "sacrifice of atonement" and "atoning
sacrifice" in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2.
5. Levelling
cultural distinctives (pp. 38-40). "Girding up the loins
of your mind" in 1 Peter 1:13 becomes "prepare your
minds for action" in the NIV. The NIV does give the
"sermonic gist" of the idea, but it eliminates the
biblical imagery which calls to mind much of the OT,
especially the priestly ministry. The priests were
forbidden to approach the altar by steps, lest their
nakedness be exposed. They were given special, anointed
loin coverings (breeches) so that they could do so.
Ordinary underwear would not cover "nakedness" any more
than Adam's figleaves did. Thus the notion of girding up
the loins has a priestly ring to it, which the NIV
eliminates. See Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43; Lev. 9:30.
6. Slipping in
subjective interpretations (pp. 41-62). Here is a
handful of Martin's numerous illustrations: In each
case, the first translation is word-for-word formal
equivalency; the second is the NIV. In each case, the
NIV decides to perform the office of pope for us by
interpreting the "sense" of the Greek.
John 17:11 in thy name by the power of your name
Gal. 1:11 according to man something that man made up
Phil. 2:1 in Christ from being united with Christ
1 Thes. 4:2 through the Lord Jesus by the authority of the Lord Jesus
These
illustrations are minor. Important and major
illustrations of this in the NIV are discussed by
Martin.
NIV Examples
3
Robert
Martin is Professor of Biblical Theology in Trinity
Ministerial Academy in Essex Fells, NJ. He is hardly a
slouch when it comes to the New Testament. I have
related a short review of his work, published by Banner
of Truth Trust (which is more Reformed on its worst day
than Bethany House is on its best day) of Carlisle, PA
and Edinburgh, UK. The previous post gave a list of six
categories under which Martin upbraids (thanks for the
word, Doug Palmer) the NIV for inaccuracies and worse.
This post gives his seventh category.
7. Finally,
paraphrasing (pp. 62-67). The problem with paraphrasing
again is that it allows too much latitude to the
translator to do our thinking and meditating for us. But
the primary focus that Martin illustrates in this
category is the manner in which the cadence and beauty
of the original text is changed. Here are just a *few*
of Martin's numerous illustrations. Remember, there is
an entire generation being raise on this pap. . .
Matt. 12:49 and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said
NIV pointing to his disciples, he said(the hand is eliminated)
Matt. 13:33 in three measures of meal
NIV into a large amount of flour (the number three is eliminated)
Mark 1:2 before your face
NIV ahead of you (the face is eliminated)
Luke 1:15 from his mother's womb
NIV from birth (completely changes the meaning; pro-aborts can take comfort here!)
John 1:20 and he confessed and denied not; and he confessed
NIV and he did not fail to confess, but confessed freely (lessens the emphatic character of the language)
1 Thes. 4:6 the Lord is an avenger
NIV the Lord will punish (the OT Avenger of Blood theology vanishes)
The kinds of
errors outlined in this and the previous post reveal
more than just the usual mistakes that are made in any
translation. They reveal a cavalier attitude toward the
doctrine of VERBAL inspiration. The NIV is not
interested in translating the WORDS of God, but the
CONCEPTS of God. Yet such cannot be one part from the
words. I would remind anyone interested in the truth,
that Paul based an important aspect of the "seed
theology" on the fact that the word occurred in the
SINGULAR and NOT the PLURAL form. If even singulars and
plurals are important to a correct understanding of
God's word, how dare we take such an attitude toward it
that we will translate "idea by idea" rather than word
by word? By the way, for a bit of CLEAR evidence that
both NASV and NIV have a chiliastic bias, simply compare
Matthew 24:30 in either of those versions with the
ACCURATE translation to be found in the AV. It is not a
sign that appears in the sky or heaven, but rather a
sign is given that the Son of Man is in heaven. Again,
while theologians of various eschatological stripe may
dispute the *MEANING* of this text, the AV preserves the
word order and sense of the Greek text and allows for
more than one interpretation. At this point, both the
NASV and the NIV remove "ambiguity" from the text by
FORCING one interpretation onto the text.
If it is still in
print, I would suggest that anyone interested in reading
*both sides* of the dynamic equivalency philosophy get
Jacob van Bruggen's critique of it in _The Future of the
Bible_. It was published 10 or 15 years ago by Thomas
Nelson.
The Bible was not
written in 20th century "street English." It was written
in Hebrew and Hebraized Greek. Attempts to make the
Bible sound like a modern novel do it no service and in
the opinion of numerous scholars (James White's
unwarranted claim to a "majority of scholars"
notwithstanding) are beginning to realize that the NIV
went WAY OVERBOARD with a new idea -- an idea that is
philologically unsound.
NIV Examples
4
I have given
examples of how the NIV takes a cavalier attitude toward
the Word of God and passes that attitude off as though
it were following "standard" translation techniques. In
reality, what the NIV often does is superimpose the
theology of the translators onto the text of God's word.
Now that does not
mean that I think that the NIV translators were any more
(nor any LESS) depraved than the rest of humanity. The
fact is, there is probably not a person in this echo who
has a higher personal regard for Edwin J. Palmer than I
do. It should be noted, however, that many of the more
Reformed men on the translation committee dropped out of
the work over time, no longer desiring to be associated
with it. Also, in the years since 1965-78, many more
Reformed linguistic scholars are coming to understand
the numerous flaws contained in the NIV.
Further, if James
White is to be believed (how could we doubt the
scholarship of Mr. White?), the preface to the NIV is
simply WRONG when it states "For the Old Testament the
standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic text as published in
the latest editions of *Biblia Hebraica*, was used
throughout." Yet Mr. White informs us that the NIV
*really* used a non-standard ms variant at Psalm 12:7
(ENG) to come up with "you will keep us."
No, I do not think
the NIV translators were any more wicked than the rest
of us. I *DO* think that they were naive men who were
bent on following a NEW (and bad) idea. Of course, that
is what often happens when the work of the church
(keeping and translating the Scriptures) is turned over
to the academy. We have a similar result when the church
turns over the training of its men to the seminary. We
ought not be surprised when the rarified air of the
ivory tower scholastic does not reflect the needs of the
church (specifically for an accurate translation of
God's words).
There are some
posters on this echo who delight in pointing out
"picayune" problems in the AV. Let us acknowledge that
there are some difficulties which a godly generation of
the church should address. Virtually every one of those
difficulties could be addressed in marginal notes. There
are some additional differences in punctuation between
the common usage in 1769 (the last time such a task was
undertaken) and the common usage today. Those items can
be addressed without resorting to a wholesale change of
the text into a style better suited to a magazine
article than the Holy Word of God.
However, whatever
problems may exist in the AV (and we are eager to
rectify that which is in NEED of rectification); those
problems recede to mere background clutter compared to
the problems of the "latest and greatest" translations.
Significantly,
Hebrew expressions are often literally brought into the
Greek of the NT. Thus if we want a "guide" as to how we
ought to translate "concept by concept" the NT is a
pretty good guide, since it was written primarily by
people who spoke Hebrew (or rather Aramaic) as their
first language and were using Hebrew ideas and concepts
as they wrote the Greek NT.
Now the AV, by
following a formal equivalence of word to word
translation, supplying words where needed but indicating
that it has done so by the use of italics, preserves the
Hebrew idiom in which the Bible was written. I know that
there are many today in Japheth who despise the tents of
Shem, but the fact is that Hebrew is a S(h)emitic
language and we ought not despise those who are our own
faith fathers if we are truly in Christ (Galatians
3:27-29; Romans 3:2; etc.).
IMO, and the
opinion of an increasing number of scholars, the NIV
departs from the biblical technique of translation. Thus
for us to understand what is meant by stars and
constellations in the New Testament we must have an idea
from the Hebrew OT what the concepts were. It is
impossible for us to understand what it means for the
sun to be darkened without realizing the import it has
from the OT. But by placing these ideas in modern
"street English," the OT nuance is lost to the modern
reader.
NIV Examples
5
I made the
statement that the NIV has a chiliastic bias. One
responder (Doug Palmer) referred to those who expose the
translational bias of the NIV as "fools, liars or
deceived." As I have done in the past, I will leave it
to those who are reading to determine for themselves if
Mr. Palmer's accusations are warranted.
I chose to review
Mr. Martin specifically because he has the same
theological background as Mr. James White (viz. Reformed
Baptist). Of course numerous NON baptistic Reformed
scholars could have been referenced, including Jacob Van
Bruggen, James B. Jordan, Dr. Edward F. Hills, Gary
North, etc. But I want to demonstrate that this is NOT
an issue limited to those in the Reformed camp (in the
historical sense) opposed to those outside it, but is
simply a case of being forthcoming. The NIV is a REALLY
BAD TRANSLATION. Anybody who would go "to the wall" for
the NIV is simply brainwashed with respect to
translation work. If translators working for the state
department of the federal government used the same
translation technique that the NIV uses, we would be at
war within a month!
Let us compare
Matthew 24:30 . . .
NIV: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky."
AV: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven."
What
interpretations are possible for the NIV statement? Only
one: some kind of sign will appear in the sky. The ONLY
way one can understand the NIV is as a prediction of
some kind of visible apparition in the atmospheric or
stellar heavens.
Now, contrast the
more accurate AV translation. There are three *possible*
interpretations that are immediately obvious. The first
is the same one the NIV forces upon us, namely some kind
of sign will appear in the visible heavens (sky). The
second is that some kind of sign will appear in the
highest heavens. The third (and the one with the most
historic Reformed expositors -- and I believe the
*correct* one) is that a sign will appear the meaning of
which is that the Son of Man has ascended to take his
throne in heaven.
The point of this
(and we could multiply examples) is that dynamic
equivalence *tremendously increases the role of the
translator in mediating the meaning of the text!* A
"formal" translation gives us in English the text of the
Greek, but does not force us to one interpretation or
another. Dynamic equivalence *has somebody's
interpretation built in*! It is an unavoidable
consequence of the theory.
Obviously there is
a sliding scale between an interlinear Bible at one end
and an amplified paraphrase Bible at the other. My
critique is not intended to do away with proper
distinctions. However, the NIV clearly errs by being way
too far to the interpretive paraphrase end of the scale.
While some of the interpretive paraphrases are
Calvinistic (and so I agree with *them* ), others
clearly are *not.* The point is this: neither a
Calvinistic nor an anti- Calvinistic bias is
appropriate; neither a chiliastic nor an anti-chiliastic
bias is appropriate; and above all, a cavalier attitude
toward the WORDS GOD INSPIRED is altogether
UNappropriate.
In my next post
(NIV Examples 6) I will discuss some aspects of textual
criticism we find in the NIV. I am not speaking now of
the fact that there are differences of opinion among
translators as to which ms family is preferable, for
virtually *all* the modern translations except the New
King James and the Modern King James (neither of which
are trying to cash in on the popularity of the KJV --
naw, couldn't be that!) utilize a different textual
tradition than the AV. No, the problem with the NIV is
not *just* the fact that they use what many regard to be
an inferior text type (though, naturally, the NIV
translators did not so consider it), but the *arrogance*
with which they reference their fave Alexandrian mss.
NIV Examples
6
As James B.
Jordan says in "Rite Reasons" for July 1990, "Surely,
when we come to pledge our allegiance to Him and hear
His orders, we should honor him by using a precise and
accurate translation." The NIV falls SERIOUSLY short of
being such a translation. We have examined some reasons
*why* it falls short.
We come now to
consider what we might characterize as the "textual
arrogance" of the NIV. There are two main textual
traditions for the Greek NT. Each one has its proponents
in the ecclesiastical and academic communities. There
are some, who with the same arrogance we will find
typical of the NIV, trumpet themselves to be the
scholars. But the fact of the matter is that there are
scholars on both sides of the issue.
For the sake of
simplicity we can call these two traditions the
Byzantine and the Alexandrian. If we were to get into
the minutia of the subject we would find some overlap
and even some mss which do not fall neatly into *either*
category, but we are trying to keep this simple and
straightforward.
The Byzantine
tradition is the one that God saw fit to preserve
publicly in the life of the church for sixteen
centuries. It is the text of the Protestant Reformation
and the text of the Eastern Orthodox churches. The
Alexandrian tradition consists of some *very old* mss
which a number of modern scholars, following primarily
the lead of some nineteenth century scholars, believe is
the true text of the Greek NT.
Virtually all the
new English translations (excepting the NKJV and the
MKJV and the *laughable* earlier KJV II) are made using
the Alexandrian tradition as a base. I have gone on
record in the past as believing this is an error. I
believe it is a side effect of the failure of the church
qua church to guard the Scriptures and Christian
scholarship and the transfer of that function from the
church to the academy. It also reflects, IMNSHO, the
triumphalism of the concept of neutrality and what
Dooyeweerd called the "science ideal" in the area of NT
textual studies. I say all this to let you know that I
am NOT without bias. Nobody is. However, there is a
community of scholars who would have you *believe* that
there is such a thing as neutrality toward God and his
word and that you need look no further than them to find
it.
Whatever the case
may be with respect to the Byzantine tradition or the
Alexandrian tradition, one of the more irritating (and,
yes, oftentimes dishonest) aspects of the NIV is the
arrogance with which it asserts the superiority of the
Alexandrian tradition.
Since it sets off
the "growl button" of some of the self-proclaimed
prophets in this echo to compare anything to the AV, as
though that is the LEAST POSSIBLE translation we should
consider, I will compare the textual statements found in
the margins of the NASV New Testament with those found
in the NIV.
John 7:53 - 8:11
is not present in the Alexandrian witnesses; nor is Mark
16:9-20. The NASV includes these two passages in
brackets, with a marginal note. The NIV more
dramatically sets them off, and has a note in the text:
John 7:53 - 8:11
NASV note: "John 7:53 - 8:11 is not found in most of the old mss."
NIV statement: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."
Mark 16:9-20
NASV note: "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through 20."
NIV statement: "The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20."
It is quite clear
that the NIV editors are much more dogmatic in their
assertions regarding the subject of text criticism that
are the NASV editors. The NASV notes are accurate and
correct; the NIV notes are pejorative and misleading.
After all, who determines what constitutes "most
reliable?" The NIV editors are obviously of the opinion
that such is to be determined by *THEM* (spec. the
"academy") and not the church as she has read and
practiced the Scriptures for two millennia.
NIV Examples
7
This section
will deal with the the desireability of "street English"
over "literary English." Or perhaps it wouild be more
accurate for me to say that it deals with the
"undesirability" of street english.
As a literary
work, the NIV *at best* leaves much to be desired. One
major defect is in its comma usage. Thus in passages
such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23 we read, "May your whole
spirit, soul and body be kept blameless." For a list of
three things, there needs to be a comma after "soul."
This is the uniform requirement of every modern
grammatical guide of which I am aware. The fact that pop
magazines ignore the serial comma is no justification
for someone who wants to be taken seriously to do so.
However, the comma
use objection is minor compared to the manner in which
the NIV sacrifices the literary artistry of the Bible to
vulgar usage. Simply compare "Abraham lifted up his
eyes" with "Abraham looked up." Nobody can seriously
suggest that the second is either more literary or any
more easily understood. Why remove eyes?
I, along with many
others not only in the ecclesiastical community, but in
the academic community as well, object to this
cheapening and idiotification (yes, that is a correct
usage of idiot -- look it up in your _Funk &
Wagnall's_) of the Word of God to street rhetoric. It is
an insult to the man (and child) in the pew. It does
*NOT* encourage growth in grace or knowledge either one.
In an earlier post
I demonstrated this with Romans 4:1. We don't want to
"burden" our readers with such technicalities as the
theology of the flesh, so we simply paraphrase it away.
So too, a word like "propitiation" is clearly just too
long for some stupid or moronic Christian to understand.
We'd better paraphrase that one as well. Of course, it
is so unlikely that the pastor would actually *teach*
the meaning of such a word, that we need to rid
ourselves of it. Thus the NIV in Romans 3:25 and 1 John
2:2. Interestingly, 40 years ago when the RSV did the
SAME thing by changing propitiate to expiate, there was
a hue and cry from evangelicals.
I have never in
all my years found a layman as stupid as the professors
in seminary tell you they are! The practice of "dumbing
down" the Bible makes no more sense than painting over
the old masters with representations of the Marlboro
Man.
The NIV is
unsuitable for a study Bible -- it is simply too wrong
at too many places. But the artistic (literary)
downgrade also makes it unsuitable for public reading.
One is therefore left to wonder for what purpose the NIV
*is* suitable.
It is the
translational equivalent of the "60's" mentality. It is
a reflection of the "away with all tradition" of that
period. Just as the RSV is a reflection not so much of
the Word of God as it is of English and American
liberalism, so also the NIV is a reflection, not of the
Word of God, but of the "post-hippie-I-gotta-be-me"
evangelicalism.
The church should
maintain a higher standard for worship and study than
the NIV affords us. Perhaps I am an optimist, but I do
*NOT* believe the American public is so poorly educated
that a precise and accurate translation of the
Scriptures would be unintelligible to it.
The Authorized
Version (KJV) was translated with a view to being read
aloud in church, and though it is imperfect from this
standpoint in places, yet it clearly reflects this
concern. Modern translations are made for individuals
who are working in their studies (the triumph of the
academy over the church), and thus versions like the
NASV do not read well aloud. The general cheapening of
language in the NIV makes it altogether unsuitable for
public reading.
NIV Examples
8
OK, so this
section has nothing to do with the NIV *per se.* It is
however a response to those who maintain that one of the
reasons that there is a great "need" for a modern
translation *like* the NIV is the use of archaic terms
such as "thou/thee/thy/thine" in the KJV.
First, let us
establish that "thee and thou, etc." are *NOT* archaic
or obsolete English. This is clear from the fact that
everybody knows what they mean. Now if you want to try
some archaic, or "olde Englishe" try Chaucer as
originally written.
Second, let us
establish that "thee and thou" were *NEVER* common
street English, including that of Queen Elizabeth I and
King James I. Neither are they the equivalent of "du" in
German. That is, they are not familiar as opposed to
formal.
Rather, "thee and
thou" are *poetic* forms used in religious language and
love poetry! Every language including the Hebrew of the
Psalms has special poetic forms (see Gesenius' _Hebrew
Grammar_, sect. 2,q-r; etc.).
Why then should we
stand idly by while the richness of our language (the
language of the Bible in both Hebrew and Greek) is being
tossed away by aging relics of the 60s? If they wish to
write love poems and hymns using the modern term "you"
to relate to one another, then by all means let them.
But they may be pleased to keep their anti-literary
hands off God's inspired word.
Here is a quick
rundown for the non-grammarians reading this series of
posts. A "pronoun" is a word that "stands in for"
another noun or noun-phrase. A "personal pronoun" is one
which stands for a person. The personal pronouns are
classified as first person, second person and third
person by their relationship to the one speaking. The
speaker himself and any others he chooses to include as
part of his "group" is called first person. The
person(s) TO WHOM the speaker is speaking is called
second person. The person(s) ABOUT WHOM the speaker is
speaking is called third person. Thus we have the
following table which we can construct in English, once
we differentiate between the purpose of the various
pronouns:
NOM OBJ POSS
1st singular I Me My (or mine)
plural We Us Our (or ours)
2nd singular Thou Thee Thy (or thine)
plural Ye You Your (or yours)
3rd singular He/She/It Him/Her/It His/Hers/Its
plural They Them Their (or theirs)
NOM=nominative = case of the subject
OBJ=objective = case of the object of the verb, indirect object of the verb or object of a preposition
POSS=possessive = case of possessing or sourcing.
Those who retain
the AV on the ground of its intrinsic translational,
textual, and linguistic superiority to modern
translations have sometimes been charged with following
the example of 16th century Roman Catholics who
venerated the Latin Vulgate and insisted that sacred
worship should not be conducted in a known language. Of
course, such is *not* fair criticism, because a *VERY
HIGH* proportion of the vocabulary of the AV continues
in common use today.
The preface of the
NIV rightly points out that the ancient tongues (Hebrew
& Greek) did not use a special form of the word
"you" to address God. However, a cursory reading of the
AV will soon clarify the fact that it is the *modern*
translations which have attempted to keep "thee and
thou" when addressing God and "you and you" when
addressing mortals. That is NOT the case with the AV.
The AV usage is simply a reflection of the singular 2nd
person pronouns used in the Hebrew and Greek in which
the Scriptures were originally written by the
inspiration of God. However, in reading through the
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures numerous times in my life, I
have never found a *single instance* in which God is
addressed using a 2nd person PLURAL pronoun. Not once!
Some interesting
places to look for "thou and thee:"
In Luke 22:31, the
NIV rightly explains in a footnote that the term "you"
as used in that verse is plural. But then it FAILS to
mention that in verse 32, the word "you" is singular in
Greek! Of course, those who use the AV have no
difficulty discerning that even without footnotes!
Exodus 4:15, "THOU
shalt speak ... I will be with THY mouth" referring to
Moses himself. But then "and will teach YOU what YE
shall do" refers to the entire nation of Israel.
Again, examples
could be multiplied. I will do just that in the next
section (Thou and Thee).
Thee and
Thou
In the
previous section (NIV Examples 8), I pointed out the use
of the terms "thee and thou/thy and thine." I explained
that they were *NEVER* common street English, but were a
poetic device used by the AV translators to reflect the
use of singular 2nd person pronouns from Hebrew and
Greek.
At the conclusion
of that post, I gave two examples -- in Luke 22:31-32
and in Exodus 4:15 demonstrating that it really becomes
quite difficult to tell who is being addressed without
being able to distinguish properly between singular and
plural pronouns.
This post simply
follows up on that one with some more examples of the
same ambiguity that arises from not properly translating
singulars and plurals.
Exodus 29:42,
"This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout
YOUR generations at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation before the LORD where I will meet YOU, to
speak there unto THEE." The *you*, referring to the
children of Israel, is explained in the following verse,
but *thee* refers to Moses, who had the holy privilege
of hearing the words of God directly (Leviticus 1:1).
And yes, before Jeff Doles asks, I believe a tape
recorder would have picked them up.
2 Samuel 7:23, "An
what nation in the earth is like THY people, even like
Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself,
and to make him a name, and to do for YOU great things
and terrible, for THY land, before THY people, which
THOU redeemedst to THEE from Egypt." Here David prayed
to God in the second person singular, but referred to
the people of Israel as YOU. What confusion could result
if this important distinction were done away? It could
be incorrectly thought that David was praying in part to
the nation -- or that the land belonged to the people
and not to God. Either misconstruction invites error.
Matthew 26:64,
"Jesus saith unto him, THOU has said: nevertheless I say
unto YOU, hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven." THOU refers to the High Priest. YE and YOU are
open to some interpretation, but AT LEAST include all
those who were standing there IN ADDITION to the high
priest.
John 3:7, 11,
"Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born
again." The message was spoken to the individual
Nicodemus, but obviously has wider application. So also
at verse 11, "I say unto THEE...that YE receive not our
witness."
1 Corinthians
8:9-12, "Take heed lest...this liberty of YOURS.... If
any man see THEE which hast knowledge... through THY
knowledge...but when YE sin." The plural form likely
refers to all church members, but the singular form to
those in responsibility.
I would invite
readers to get out a "modern" translation that has
dropped the use of the 2nd person singular/plural
distinction and read these passages along with Numbers
16:8-11; Deuteronomy 4:3; 1 Kings 9:5-6; Isaiah 33:2-4;
Matthew 5:39; Matthew 6:4-7; Matthew 11:23-24; Matthew
18:9-10; Matthew 18:22-35; Matthew 20:21-22; Matthew
23:37-38; Mark 14:37-38; Luke 5:4; Luke 6:30-31; Luke
9:41; Luke 10:13-14; Luke 16:25-26; Luke 22:31-32; John
1:50-51; James 2:16; etc.
Surely you will
notice that replacing "thou/thee/thy/thine" with the
ambiguous "you" does NOT clarify, but tends to muddy the
Scriptures.
Perhaps also, as a
result of these few posts, there will be a greater
appreciation for the important distinctions that are
retained by the AV. Rather than seeing
"thou/thee/thy/thine" as a reason for adopting a MODERN
translation, we should see them as being a more accurate
depiction of the WORDS GOD INSPIRED.
