The
English
Standard Version
A Bible for
Everyone*
Alan Jacobs
A Bible for Everyone
One summer years ago, I attended a conference that met at Princeton
Theological Seminary; we participants stayed in the seminary dormitory.
We soon discovered that the lounge on the first floor of the dorm had
been converted into a kind of outsized study. A large table dominated
the room; scattered across its surface were dozens of hefty books, many
of them held open by other books. A group of men sat around the table
from morning to evening, sometimes rising to consult one of the piled
tomes. Whenever we walked past we could see them framed in a large
picture window like figures in a painting. I half-expected to find a
neat brass plaque screwed to the windowsill and bearing a single word:
Scholarship.
One evening I returned to the dorm to find a colleague pressed against
the hallway wall, inches from the open door to the converted lounge. He
looked like a TV cop, ready at any moment to spin and fire bullets into
the room; but he was just listening to the murmured debates of the
scholars within. Later that evening I asked him what had captured his
interest. He responded, “Didn’t you know? They’re working on the new
RSV”—that is, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The chair
of the committee, Bruce Metzger, taught at Princeton Seminary and had
convened his fellow translators there.
I suppose one could characterize the scene as just another committee
meeting, but it carries a certain romance for me. After all, it was a
similar group that, four hundred years ago, met to hammer out what
would become the King James Bible. One of the six “Companies” of James’
Translators—the one led by the great preacher and churchman Lancelot
Andrewes—gathered in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey, and in
1947 the scholars at work on the New English Bible (NEB) met in the
same room, presumably in hopes that inspiration lingered there. (T. S.
Eliot doubted that their hopes had been realized, affirming that the
NEB’s New Testament “astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the
trivial, and the pedantic.”)
The scholars’ choice of workplace was a statement of purpose: C. H.
Dodd, their effective leader, wrote that “we should like to produce a
translation which may receive general recognition as an authoritative
second version” alongside the King James Version (KJV). He wisely did
not claim to be seeking to replace the KJV, but it was clear that he
hoped for their work to eclipse the other alternatives. Amid the
current proliferation of translations, that hope is hard to sustain;
but, I would argue, it is worth sustaining. And, for the first time in
my lifetime, a translation has appeared that could potentially fill the
bill: it’s called the English Standard Version (ESV), and it’s the best
thing to come out of a committee meeting in quite a while.
Before considering the excellence of the ESV, we must take some time to
understand a little more about the range of translations that enrich,
or afflict, our world today. Let’s begin with the Living Bible. The
Living Bible—a paraphrase, not a translation—was produced by a single
man, Kenneth N. Taylor, and was published by Tyndale House in 1971; it
sought to provide access to Scripture for those who found all
translations too formidable. Its enormous success led the people at
Tyndale to suspect that a genuine translation based on similar
principles might also be successful, and in 1996 the New Living
Translation (NLT) appeared. We may begin to approach the problems
facing a translation that would seek to be universal, or something
close to it, by looking at the very first page of the introduction to
the NLT. The translators, as one might expect, attempt to distinguish
their work from the other available versions, and they do so by
claiming that they have produced a “thought-for-thought” (or what is
usually called a “dynamic equivalence”) translation and then explaining
what this means:
The value of a thought-for-thought translation can be illustrated by
comparing 1 Kings 2:10 in the King James Version, the New International
Version, and the New Living Translation. “So David slept with his
fathers, and was buried in the City of David” (KJV). “Then David rested
with his fathers and was buried in the City of David” (NIV). “Then
David died and was buried in the City of David” (NLT). Only the New
Living Translation clearly translates the real meaning of the Hebrew
idiom “slept with his fathers” into contemporary English.
I remember clearly the first time I read these words; I smiled sadly
and put the book away, knowing that I would not use it.
My complaint can be easily stated: the author of this introduction does
not know the difference between an idiom and a metaphor. It is a
distinction both simple and vital. It is highly unlikely that a Jew of
David’s time, or at any time in Israel’s history, would have found a
family member’s dead body and run to tell everyone that grandpa was now
sleeping with his fathers. Hebrew has words to express quite directly
that someone has died; the chronicler of Kings chooses here to eschew
them in favor of a particularly hieratic and formal way of describing
the death of David. When (in 2 Samuel 1) a man comes from the camp of
Israel’s army to report to David, he says simply that Saul (along with
his son Jonathan) has died. The deaths of Saul and Jonathan are given
no cultural or political meaning, because by the time this history was
written the people of Israel no longer identified Saul as having
special importance for their national identity. David, by contrast, is
for the Israelites their first true King, the head of a proper dynastic
line; therefore he does not merely die, he “sleeps with his fathers” in
Jerusalem, the “city of David.” The phrase is not an idiom—a common
phrase lacking an evident literal meaning—instead, it is a carefully
chosen image of David’s place in the culture of Israel. The meaning of
the phrase may not be immediately evident to the average reader; but
the scholar who on those grounds removes it does not translate but
interprets. (It is true, of course, that every translation is in some
sense an interpretation; but translators are not thereby liberated from
the need to strive for fidelity; and only a strange sense of fidelity
would lead a translation committee to erase distinctions the original
text strove to preserve.)
What is really being revealed here is not clarity or forcefulness of
translation, but the modern biblical scholar’s mistrust of figurative
language. Some years ago Gerald Hammond noted that many recent
translations of the Bible “eschew anything which smacks of imagery or
metaphor—based on the curious assumption, I guess, that modern English
is an image-free language.” One could find no better illustration of
Hammond’s point than the sentence “Then David died and was buried in
the City of David.”
Some portions of the NLT are quite useful. The translators do an
especially good job of disentangling Paul’s syntax and making his
message comprehensible and even compelling. But the translators’
failure to discriminate among some of the basic kinds of figurative
language is disturbing. How did this lamentable situation come to pass?
The answer—as I have noted in these pages in another context
(“Preachers without Poetry,” August/September 1999)—lies in the great
divorce between literary people and biblical scholars. When King James
commissioned his Companies of Translators, the people most thoroughly
educated in the various humanistic disciplines were also those most
learned in the biblical tongues. The celebrated “poetic” or “literary”
qualities of the KJV are a function of this long-lost union. But in the
last two centuries the training of biblical scholars in what has come
to be called the “grammatical-historical” method has assumed a
character alien to the literary and rhetorical education rooted in the
schools of the Roman Empire. A model of Christian learning shared—not
altogether but to some degree—by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin
had virtually disappeared by the end of the eighteenth century.
This happened largely as a result of Protestant theologians’ responses
to Catholic charges that they, lacking guidance and correction from a
Magisterium, were liable to say pretty much anything about the Bible.
The charge stung: What was to prevent this or that Protestant leader
from offering a bizarre interpretation of some passage of Scripture and
claiming as warrant for it the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? From the
need to answer this charge arose the characteristic trait of Protestant
biblical scholarship: an obsession with method. Method would be the
Protestant scholar’s Magisterium—that is, his or her principle of
constraint and limitation; therefore, ultimately, training in biblical
exegesis would become training in the kinds of intellectual skills that
could be described in methodological terms: grammar, textual history,
historical philology, and so on. Sensitivity to metaphorical nuance is
perforce not a part of this training; nor is general literary
knowledge. Thus C. S. Lewis’ complaint that a scholar whose “literary
experiences of [the biblical] texts lack any standard of comparison
such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of
literature in general” is not wholly reliable as a guide. “If he tells
me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how
many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained
in detecting them by the flavor.”
Lewis’ gustatory metaphor is apt here, because he is describing
interpretive skills that are really skills (they can be acquired,
practiced, and transmitted) but cannot be articulated in methodological
terms. Good reading—and therefore good translating—requires discerning
judgment, and method can’t produce that. Many biblical scholars, of
course, are quite skilled in literary analysis—more than I am; but such
skills are not expected of many exegetes-in-training as part of their
education.
It is not clear to me how this state of affairs can be remedied. I
could lament the “increasing specialization of knowledge,” as many do,
but this would be disingenuous, because the specialization of knowledge
is a function of the increase of knowledge. We simply know far more
today about the Hebrew language and ancient Near Eastern cultures
(including their family structures, clothing, diet, agricultural
practices, and economic systems) than James’ Companies of Translators
could have dreamed of.
I do not suggest, then, that biblical scholars today should skimp such
erudition and focus attention instead on memorizing dictionaries of
literary and rhetorical terms. What I do want to suggest is that the
translators of the ESV have handled this problem about as well as it
can be handled, and that their judgment in this regard goes a long way
towards making their translation the best now available in English.
The key principle that the ESV’s translation team employed is simple
yet profound: deference to existing excellence. It is a principle that
was employed by James’ Translators themselves, who graciously
acknowledged their enormous debt to their predecessors: “Truly (good
Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should
need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one
. . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one
principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been
our endeavor, that our mark.” The same rule of deference to wise elders
guided the late-nineteenth-century scholars who produced the American
Standard Version and (English) Revised Version (RV); indeed, the
instructions given to the latter group began with this directive: “To
introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the
Authorized Version consistent with faithfulness.” And similar
commitments governed the RSV, whose preface cites the very passage from
King James’ Translators I just quoted.
But with more recent translations things have changed, for two reasons.
First, it is generally agreed that “King James language” (“thees and
thous”) is unsustainable because alien to current usage. But the
second, and more important, reason for the abandonment of strongly
conservative principles of revision is the rise of a new theory of
translation—the aforementioned “dynamic equivalence” or
“thought-for-thought” approach, as pioneered by Eugene Nida. My
colleague Leland Ryken, who was on the Translation Oversight Committee
for the ESV, has provided a fine account of the consequences—largely
unpleasant—of the widespread acceptance of dynamic equivalence models
of translation: see his recent The Word of God in English (Crossway,
2003). So I will not pursue that matter further here except to note
that if you believe that the KJV, RV, RSV, and other older versions
were produced by people laboring under a faulty “word-for-word”
translation theory, you will see little reason for retaining their
work—just as you will see little reason for retaining the metaphors of
the original writing, since those metaphors are, in the
dynamic-equivalence view, themselves merely vehicles for some
unvarnished and unfigurative “thought.”
You will therefore have David die, rather than sleep with his fathers;
and if the Lord is your shepherd, rather than say “I shall not want,”
you’ll say, “I have everything I need.” And when Jesus addresses those
of “little faith”? James’ Translators have him ask, “If God so clothes
the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the
oven, shall He not much more clothe you?” But you will suspect the
metaphor of clothing and therefore translate it away, in the process
eliminating the oven also and replacing it with a stone-dead
cliché: “And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are
here today and gone tomorrow, won’t he more surely care for you?”
By contrast, the ESV, recognizing the elegant force with which James’
scholars rendered these passages, leaves them virtually unchanged. What
is at work here is the humble recognition that our ancestors in the
faith may have had certain skills now neglected or forgotten —may have
had their palates trained to detect certain flavors that we today
cannot distinguish.
Now, from what I have written so far one might conclude that a
“revision” of the KJV that left the text unaltered would be ideal. That
is sometimes my feeling, but not my considered judgment. Robert Alter
has written that the problem with the KJV is its shaky sense of Hebrew,
while the problem with more recent versions is their shaky sense of
English; but we do not gain by exchanging the latter for the former.
(And even the beauty of the KJV is bought at the price of stylistic
uniformity.) No, the KJV had to be revised, sometimes drastically; but
that is no reason to cast aside what James’ Translators did
superlatively well.
It is the ESV’s balance of thorough, up-to-date scholarship and
deference to the elders’ wisdom that makes it the best available
English Bible. What this means, further, is that the ESV is the best
candidate yet for the long-hoped-for “replacement” of the KJV, the
translation that bridges denominational gaps and strikes the right
balance among the virtues of clarity, correctness, and grace.
Is this a pipe dream? Certainly, impediments are many. Publishers will
continue to commission new translations and promote existing
ones—there’s gold in them thar hills—but churches need not be governed
by those imperatives. The divisions of Christendom are more
intractable: that the ESV was produced largely by evangelicals would be
a red flag for many even if the translation included the Apocrypha,
which at the moment it does not. The ESV’s website says that
HarperCollins UK “may” produce such a version; but even if it does it
is hard to imagine the Catholic Church endorsing a translation produced
by non-Catholics.
Still, if official agreement on a truly “standard” English Bible
remains unlikely, I believe that readers and lovers of the Bible would
do well to seek considerably more agreement than we now have about the
Bible that we read. Everyone who grew up with the KJV feels the loss of
a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in
the common ear—words and phrases whose meanings could be tested,
considered, deployed and redeployed in an infinitely varied set of
contexts. I think now of all those generations of the English-speaking
peoples separating the wheat from the chaff, lying down in green
pastures, sometimes being weighed in the balance and found wanting but
at other times fighting the good fight—the whole vast array of
discourse (much of it richly metaphorical) tells us that it is very
difficult to share thoughts when we do not share language. And since
Christians are counseled to be of one mind, they should be more
attentive to the particular words that shape and form our minds. To
have once again a widely shared English Bible—“one principal good
one”—would be a significant step towards that one mind in Christ.
* Alan Jacobs is Professor
of English at Wheaton College. This article A
Bible
for Everyone was first published in First
Things # 138, (c) December
2003: pp. 10-14
Publishers Statement: Copyright/Reproduction Limitations:
This data file is the sole property of FIRST THINGS. It may not
be
altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety
for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of
this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright (c)
2000 by First Things") and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations
notice. This data file may not be used without the permission of FIRST
THINGS for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
FIRST THINGS
156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (212) 627-1985
Email: ft@firstthings.com