Mark Driscoll occasionally has some good things to say, I believe. But in general, I think of him as someone whose overall effect on American Christianity is more negative than positive. Today, however, I would like to talk about him being the occasional idiot.
Before well meaning Wesleyans read his recent, almost "ESV only" rant, I want to make my position clear. You see, when some well-meaning Wesleyan takes up his ideas, I'll be very civil in my disagreement. But since I don't know Mark Driscoll and it isn't an issue in my circles--and I want to keep it from being one--I feel quite free to mock his nonsense with all the gift of satire you know me to possess.
Now don't get me wrong. The ESV is a pretty good translation for the most part, I think. It is not a Wesleyan-preferred translation, because of Driscoll's #6 (complementarian). But in most places it is a very good formal equivalence translation. I like formal equivalence translations myself, not because they are the best translations but because I personally like my translation to be as close a window into the original languages as possible. In other words, I use them to slack off reading the Greek and Hebrew itself.
In any case, here are Driscoll's 7 reasons why Mars Hill uses the ESV. P.S. I kept thinking of "KJV only" people as I read this. Of course he has the same spirit as those people. He's just a twenty-first century version. I think of these sort of people as conservative in their ignorance. They try to hold on to as much of the ignorance of the past as possible, while only becoming just as much more enlightened as reality forces them to. The next generation of them will mock Driscoll, but maintain the same attitude in relation to whatever the issue is then in the future.
1. ESV holds that the Bible is the literal words, not just thoughts of God.
I had a talk with a former KJV only person a couple weeks ago. Funny, he brought up these sorts of verses. I pointed out Galatians 5:14 where Paul says the Law is fulfilled in one word--"Love your neighbor as yourself." A word, in this context, is an entire thought, as we would expect in an oral, non-literate culture (rather than a literary one).
There is an inevitable circularity to arguments like these from people like Driscoll and Piper. This verse means what words mean in my twentieth century vocabulary so that I can tell you what they mean today. But these weren't words written in twentieth century English. Their meanings come from what words meant in the ancient Hebrew and Greek used at the time and place when they were written down, informed by their socio-cultural context (such as the fact that it was an oral culture). This is why NT Wright was able to give John Piper a thorough spanking on justification some time back. Piper insists on defining Paul using Calvin's sixteenth century definitions to words instead of those the Jews were actually using two thousand years ago.
Everything we know about the way both the biblical authors and the copyists of biblical texts operated suggest that it was the spirit of the text that they were interested in. Listen to Matthew's paraphrase of who knows what verse in Matthew 2:23. The words of the prophets, plural, somehow suggest that Jesus will be born in Nazareth? Nazareth didn't exist at the time. The sentence structure is a little like Judges 13:7, but that's talking about a Nazirite, something completely different. A word similar to Nazareth is used in Isaiah 11:1, but read that verse and see if Matthew 2:23 comes across as paying close attention to the word-for-word like Driscoll is talking about.
In short, Driscoll has NO IDEA what he is talking about. An actual examination of the way the NT interprets the OT undermines his claim here so seriously that he runs the risk of causing a faith crisis in the lives of any in his congregation who ever go on to do serious study of the Bible. As is typical, he makes his points by his modern definitions of the Bible's words, but he does not look at what the Bible actually does with those words, which is where their real meaning is revealed.
More to the point, if the wording is that important, he'd better stop using an English translation altogether. He should go like the Muslims and only read the Quran in Arabic. If the individual words are that important, then ANY English translation mucks it up.
And why isn't he arguing for the text of the King James then? If the word-for-word is that important to God, why did God allow Christians to use the "wrong" text for fifteen hundred years? The ESV is based on the older manuscripts, not the majority of manuscripts. The ESV implicitly does not assume that God preserved the exact text of the Bible in the worship of believers for over a 1000 years.
I'll tell you why. It's because that's not the social group in which Driscoll is located or its issues. In his inherited tradition, the KJV thing isn't an issue, but complementarianism is. He supports the ESV ultimately because of the politics of the ESV's creation. All the rest is smoke and mirrors, arguments invented after the fact to maintain as conservative an ignorance as possible.
More to come tomorrow...
Showing posts with label KJV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KJV. Show all posts
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Thursday, April 04, 2013
The Green Exhibit
Thanks to the generosity of the Green family of Hobby Lobby, IWU and Wesley Seminary at IWU have been privileged to host some of their manuscript collection this week. Not everyone will be interested in the history of the Bible's transmission, but of course I very much enjoy it. Here are some of the pieces they brought:
1. Some Dead Sea Scrolls that they own, dating from the century before Jesus.
2. The papyrus fragment known as p39, fragment of John 8 dating to the 200s.
3. Some of Codex Climaci Rescriptus, which in its discovered form was a Greek manuscript from the 600s or 700s, but using technology has been able to reveal an original Aramaic translation of the gospels that had been what was written on the vellum originally. It dates to the 500s.
4. Letter of Luther soon before he was condemned.
5. The Complutensian Polyglot, which was very well done but Erasmus got the Greek Bible onto the printing press first.
6. The Geneva Bible, which was the favorite English Puritan Bible of the 1500s, with its Calvinist notes.
7. Original 1611 King James.
8. Elzevir's Greek New Testament, which was the first to refer to the Erasmian Greek text as the "received text" or the textus receptus.
9. Letters of John and Charles Wesley.
10. King James first printed in the US after the Revolutionary War, only Bible printing ever sanctioned by Congress in the 1780s.
Fun stuff. Of course there are still, surprisingly, American Christians who insist on only using the KJV. When you tell them that they're using a version from the 1780s that had already been updated about 5 times, some retrench by saying, "Then we're going to use the 1611 KJV."
Then when you tell them it was an Anglican, compromise translation, that it originally had the Apocrypha, that King James may have been gay, they retrench and say, the Geneva Bible then. I've seen a version of the Geneva Bible that is called "The Patriot's Bible." Really?
The Geneva Bible was never printed in America. It was brought over on the Mayflower... along with the KJV. The Geneva Bible wasn't printed any more after the 1640's, so what patriot are they thinking about in this title?
Great Bibles, yes! Great history, yes! A lot of silly people out there, yes!
1. Some Dead Sea Scrolls that they own, dating from the century before Jesus.
2. The papyrus fragment known as p39, fragment of John 8 dating to the 200s.
3. Some of Codex Climaci Rescriptus, which in its discovered form was a Greek manuscript from the 600s or 700s, but using technology has been able to reveal an original Aramaic translation of the gospels that had been what was written on the vellum originally. It dates to the 500s.
4. Letter of Luther soon before he was condemned.
5. The Complutensian Polyglot, which was very well done but Erasmus got the Greek Bible onto the printing press first.
6. The Geneva Bible, which was the favorite English Puritan Bible of the 1500s, with its Calvinist notes.
7. Original 1611 King James.
8. Elzevir's Greek New Testament, which was the first to refer to the Erasmian Greek text as the "received text" or the textus receptus.
9. Letters of John and Charles Wesley.
10. King James first printed in the US after the Revolutionary War, only Bible printing ever sanctioned by Congress in the 1780s.
Fun stuff. Of course there are still, surprisingly, American Christians who insist on only using the KJV. When you tell them that they're using a version from the 1780s that had already been updated about 5 times, some retrench by saying, "Then we're going to use the 1611 KJV."
Then when you tell them it was an Anglican, compromise translation, that it originally had the Apocrypha, that King James may have been gay, they retrench and say, the Geneva Bible then. I've seen a version of the Geneva Bible that is called "The Patriot's Bible." Really?
The Geneva Bible was never printed in America. It was brought over on the Mayflower... along with the KJV. The Geneva Bible wasn't printed any more after the 1640's, so what patriot are they thinking about in this title?
Great Bibles, yes! Great history, yes! A lot of silly people out there, yes!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Passages in Atlanta
I'm about to get back on a plane this morning with Jerry Pattengale and head back to Indiana. I had a great time in Atlanta yesterday and gave a presentation last night entitled, "Are Differences in Manuscripts a Problem for Christian Faith." The visit started with a very long taxi ride by a young man from Ethiopia who was on his third day or so. I knew Atlanta better than he did.
Then I got to see the amazing collection the Green Foundation (owner of Hobby Lobby) has here. They have on display everything from the oldest Greek manuscript of Samuel (200s) to a strip of p39 (part of John from 200s) to copies relating to Luther, original Erasmus Greek New Testament, the Wicked Bible ("thou shalt commit adultery"), Stephanus, original KJV... If I were teaching a course on the text of the Bible in Atlanta, this would be on the schedule to be sure. The exhibition is off to Charlotte at the end of the month.
The paper went well, I thought, not least because I decided to paraphrase the second half of it. I had initially assumed the audience would be something along the lines of Dan Wallace, who is fairly mainstream when it comes to textual criticism. But I began to sense I would probably have some King James supporters in the room, so decided to move my sensitivity lines a little.
If you're a Bible scholar and in the Atlanta area, come up to Dunwoody and see the exhibit (it's within walking distance of the Marta stop). Thanks to the Green Foundation for a fun night!
Then I got to see the amazing collection the Green Foundation (owner of Hobby Lobby) has here. They have on display everything from the oldest Greek manuscript of Samuel (200s) to a strip of p39 (part of John from 200s) to copies relating to Luther, original Erasmus Greek New Testament, the Wicked Bible ("thou shalt commit adultery"), Stephanus, original KJV... If I were teaching a course on the text of the Bible in Atlanta, this would be on the schedule to be sure. The exhibition is off to Charlotte at the end of the month.
The paper went well, I thought, not least because I decided to paraphrase the second half of it. I had initially assumed the audience would be something along the lines of Dan Wallace, who is fairly mainstream when it comes to textual criticism. But I began to sense I would probably have some King James supporters in the room, so decided to move my sensitivity lines a little.
If you're a Bible scholar and in the Atlanta area, come up to Dunwoody and see the exhibit (it's within walking distance of the Marta stop). Thanks to the Green Foundation for a fun night!
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Celebrating the King James Version
Part 1
It's 2011, and some time this year I should post something to celebrate the fact that in 1611, the King James Version was published. I love the magnificent KJV the way I like Shakespeare, and accordingly, believe it is generally an obstacle to the church's mission in the world. It points toward a congregation that is more inwardly than outwardly focused. It should thus be used sparingly at best within public worship today, especially when there are likely to be visitors among you (it's kind of like tongues in that regard--an obstacle to unbelievers in your midst). I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's hard to think of them.
Small groups that aim at discipleship can certainly use it. No problem there because the focus is more on personal growth rather than mission. But even if most of the people in your church use it, the ideal would be to wean them off it in public worship in a gentle and slow manner, because churches are meant to impact their surrounding context, and the KJV is a major linguistic obstacle in our current day and age. Move them to the NKJV (although don't cause a split over it--it's not worth that).
I know I must sound from time to time like I'm flippant about things that are very sensitive to others, but to have perspective on the ease with which I say such things you have to know that most of these things did not come easy to me at first. I felt the horror with which some might read some of my comments the same as you might--it's just that I did it 25 years ago. I preached and read from the KJV in college. I reacted with the same protest as others when a revivalist once scolded a camp meeting for putting an obstacle to faith in front of their children with the KJV. It's time that allows me to make such bald statements.
Most people don't understand how language works (I'm sure I don't either). Words change meanings over time. Old meanings fall out of the dictionary. New meanings enter. The KJV was never treated as a linguistic fossil to be maintained until the last century or so. It was regularly updated until the late 1700s (the version you buy in the bookstore is not the 1611 version but a version that has already been updated about 5 times). Those who think they understand the language of the KJV just fine probably don't--they don't know that the word that looks familiar actually does not mean the same thing that it did two hundred years ago when the KJV tradition fossilized (e.g., intercourse, conversation).
The KJV is thus a magnificent piece of art today. It is not, however, a magnificent piece of communication to anyone but those who have been schooled in it like learning a different language. It is thus a very bad tool to use with a view to the church's mission in the world.
Interestingly, the KJV was a compromise translation. The Puritans used the Geneva Bible at the time, with its Calvinist study notes. King James didn't like it because some of those notes were perceived to be anti-monarchy. Meanwhile the Puritans eschewed the Bishop's Bible, believing that it did not have a strong enough reverence for the authority of the text. The KJV was thus a compromise--a fairly "literal" translation using what was already slightly archaic language with no study notes.
It took about a century to catch on and I have heard some argue that that the Puritans who first came to America came as much with the Geneva Bible still as the KJV.
Part 2
There are other things I like about the KJV--things that are both strengths and weaknesses. For example, it is a formal equivalence translation. I personally like those sorts of translations (NASB, RSV, NKJV, ESV) because they come closest to giving you a window into the original wording and sentence structure.
It's important to recognize, however, that while this fact is nice for people who want to study the text in detail, such an orientation actually works against them being good translations as such. A good translation renders the thought of the original sentence in fluid English. If you have ever learned another language--especially one that is a little further removed from English than Spanish--then you know that different languages don't put words in the same order or in the same way. The American Standard Version of the late 1800s was very "wooden" in trying to follow the original Greek and Hebrew--and it is one of the worst translations of all time.
Another strength of the KJV is that it follows the catholic text of the church of the ages. No, I'm not being mischievous and pointing out that the original KJV included the Apocrypha (although it did ;-). I mean that the text of the KJV basically reflects the words of the New Testament as Christians had read it for 1200 years.
Again, it is only because I have some 25 years of study behind me that I say with relative ease that this precise wording of the original texts (not talking about the way they are translated now but in what the precise words were in the original that you are translating in the first place), while completely appropriate for Christians to use in worship if they wish, is not at all likely to reflect the precise wording of the original text of the Bible at a few points. This may require a little more explanation. We do not have the original copy of any book of the Bible, only copies of copies of copies. There are variations between what these copies say at various points, and one branch of biblical studies is dedicated to working through the variations to try to decide what the very first copy of, say, Mark actually said in Greek.
We are not talking about a lot of passages, only a few. No one should get worried. In fact, if you're that focused around the details of the biblical text, your faith is probably out of focus. No one can lay any foundation but that which is laid: Jesus Christ... not the Bible!
But you should know as a preacher that it is very unlikely, for example, that Mark 16:8-20 was part of the original copy of Mark. There's nothing incorrect in those verses. I actually don't mind a person preaching from these verses because the church has preached from them for 1600 years. But you should know that the overwhelming majority of those who know the issues involved do not believe they are original.
When you are first encountering these issues, they can seem significant, but no doctrine is lost with this small handful of variations. And, if you know my theology, a lot of our theology has come as much from Christians reflecting on the text as on the original text itself anyway, and there's nothing wrong with that. We have often been too focused on "getting back" rather than on how God brought us forward.
An educated pastor should know the key verses of this discussion. The story of the woman caught in adultery could be historical, but it was not likely in the earliest versions of John. 1 John 5:7 almost certainly did not exist in its KJV form until the Latin translations of the 400s. Acts 8:37 is not there because the verse divisions come from the 1550 Greek New Testament of Stephanus. It's a great verse... just not at all likely original. They wisely did not change the versification when printing modern versions so the verse now does not appear at all in modern translations. There are others but these are the best known.
Can a case be made for the originality of these sorts of verses? Sure. But know thyself. Those who argue against such things are almost certainly oriented around whether it is possible to maintain what I grew up believing rather than around what is the most probable truth. There is no question, however, that those who are willing to come to either conclusion have overwhelmingly come down on the side of almost all modern translations (as far as I know, the Holman Standard is the only exception outside the KJV tradition).
This may seem like a strange celebration of the KJV. But we cannot celebrate it properly until we understand it. It was a magnificent work of art and millions have heard and experienced God through it. There's no other translation I'd rather hear the Christmas story from. For many, it is still the best version for them to have their devotions in or for their small group to study from. Long live the King James!
It's 2011, and some time this year I should post something to celebrate the fact that in 1611, the King James Version was published. I love the magnificent KJV the way I like Shakespeare, and accordingly, believe it is generally an obstacle to the church's mission in the world. It points toward a congregation that is more inwardly than outwardly focused. It should thus be used sparingly at best within public worship today, especially when there are likely to be visitors among you (it's kind of like tongues in that regard--an obstacle to unbelievers in your midst). I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's hard to think of them.
Small groups that aim at discipleship can certainly use it. No problem there because the focus is more on personal growth rather than mission. But even if most of the people in your church use it, the ideal would be to wean them off it in public worship in a gentle and slow manner, because churches are meant to impact their surrounding context, and the KJV is a major linguistic obstacle in our current day and age. Move them to the NKJV (although don't cause a split over it--it's not worth that).
I know I must sound from time to time like I'm flippant about things that are very sensitive to others, but to have perspective on the ease with which I say such things you have to know that most of these things did not come easy to me at first. I felt the horror with which some might read some of my comments the same as you might--it's just that I did it 25 years ago. I preached and read from the KJV in college. I reacted with the same protest as others when a revivalist once scolded a camp meeting for putting an obstacle to faith in front of their children with the KJV. It's time that allows me to make such bald statements.
Most people don't understand how language works (I'm sure I don't either). Words change meanings over time. Old meanings fall out of the dictionary. New meanings enter. The KJV was never treated as a linguistic fossil to be maintained until the last century or so. It was regularly updated until the late 1700s (the version you buy in the bookstore is not the 1611 version but a version that has already been updated about 5 times). Those who think they understand the language of the KJV just fine probably don't--they don't know that the word that looks familiar actually does not mean the same thing that it did two hundred years ago when the KJV tradition fossilized (e.g., intercourse, conversation).
The KJV is thus a magnificent piece of art today. It is not, however, a magnificent piece of communication to anyone but those who have been schooled in it like learning a different language. It is thus a very bad tool to use with a view to the church's mission in the world.
Interestingly, the KJV was a compromise translation. The Puritans used the Geneva Bible at the time, with its Calvinist study notes. King James didn't like it because some of those notes were perceived to be anti-monarchy. Meanwhile the Puritans eschewed the Bishop's Bible, believing that it did not have a strong enough reverence for the authority of the text. The KJV was thus a compromise--a fairly "literal" translation using what was already slightly archaic language with no study notes.
It took about a century to catch on and I have heard some argue that that the Puritans who first came to America came as much with the Geneva Bible still as the KJV.
Part 2
There are other things I like about the KJV--things that are both strengths and weaknesses. For example, it is a formal equivalence translation. I personally like those sorts of translations (NASB, RSV, NKJV, ESV) because they come closest to giving you a window into the original wording and sentence structure.
It's important to recognize, however, that while this fact is nice for people who want to study the text in detail, such an orientation actually works against them being good translations as such. A good translation renders the thought of the original sentence in fluid English. If you have ever learned another language--especially one that is a little further removed from English than Spanish--then you know that different languages don't put words in the same order or in the same way. The American Standard Version of the late 1800s was very "wooden" in trying to follow the original Greek and Hebrew--and it is one of the worst translations of all time.
Another strength of the KJV is that it follows the catholic text of the church of the ages. No, I'm not being mischievous and pointing out that the original KJV included the Apocrypha (although it did ;-). I mean that the text of the KJV basically reflects the words of the New Testament as Christians had read it for 1200 years.
Again, it is only because I have some 25 years of study behind me that I say with relative ease that this precise wording of the original texts (not talking about the way they are translated now but in what the precise words were in the original that you are translating in the first place), while completely appropriate for Christians to use in worship if they wish, is not at all likely to reflect the precise wording of the original text of the Bible at a few points. This may require a little more explanation. We do not have the original copy of any book of the Bible, only copies of copies of copies. There are variations between what these copies say at various points, and one branch of biblical studies is dedicated to working through the variations to try to decide what the very first copy of, say, Mark actually said in Greek.
We are not talking about a lot of passages, only a few. No one should get worried. In fact, if you're that focused around the details of the biblical text, your faith is probably out of focus. No one can lay any foundation but that which is laid: Jesus Christ... not the Bible!
But you should know as a preacher that it is very unlikely, for example, that Mark 16:8-20 was part of the original copy of Mark. There's nothing incorrect in those verses. I actually don't mind a person preaching from these verses because the church has preached from them for 1600 years. But you should know that the overwhelming majority of those who know the issues involved do not believe they are original.
When you are first encountering these issues, they can seem significant, but no doctrine is lost with this small handful of variations. And, if you know my theology, a lot of our theology has come as much from Christians reflecting on the text as on the original text itself anyway, and there's nothing wrong with that. We have often been too focused on "getting back" rather than on how God brought us forward.
An educated pastor should know the key verses of this discussion. The story of the woman caught in adultery could be historical, but it was not likely in the earliest versions of John. 1 John 5:7 almost certainly did not exist in its KJV form until the Latin translations of the 400s. Acts 8:37 is not there because the verse divisions come from the 1550 Greek New Testament of Stephanus. It's a great verse... just not at all likely original. They wisely did not change the versification when printing modern versions so the verse now does not appear at all in modern translations. There are others but these are the best known.
Can a case be made for the originality of these sorts of verses? Sure. But know thyself. Those who argue against such things are almost certainly oriented around whether it is possible to maintain what I grew up believing rather than around what is the most probable truth. There is no question, however, that those who are willing to come to either conclusion have overwhelmingly come down on the side of almost all modern translations (as far as I know, the Holman Standard is the only exception outside the KJV tradition).
This may seem like a strange celebration of the KJV. But we cannot celebrate it properly until we understand it. It was a magnificent work of art and millions have heard and experienced God through it. There's no other translation I'd rather hear the Christmas story from. For many, it is still the best version for them to have their devotions in or for their small group to study from. Long live the King James!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
