Fancy a spot of Bible Bashing??
Yes? Then pick up your cudgel and join Julien Foster…
Might I be forgiven for Blasphemy if I said that the Bible in front of me is a travesty which makes me cringe every time I hear it read in Church?
I suspect that many readers — who have not flung down their copy of Christis in disgust already at such sentiments — will think my position scarcely more tenable when I explain that I am referring specifically to one translation of the Bible. Its title, The Good News Bible certainly brings a wry smile to my face; is this, then, the ‘acceptable’ Christian face of gutter journalism? The Sun, The Star and The Mirror contain too much bad news, so why not give an old book a brand-new look? Give the punters some good news, rather than shootings in Belfast and famines in Africa.
But those people who do use The Good News Bible as their staple of daily white-sliced bread are defensive; the language of the Authorised Version is far too difficult for people to understand. The proponents of trendy new translations argue that the traditional face of the Church is driving youngsters away; they need language which is immediately accessible. Fling out Dickens, bring in Jeffrey Archer. You might accuse me of intellectual snobbery. Far worse, I would argue, are those who believe in pandering to these poor, uneducated ruffians. “Give them what they want,” I hear them cry. “Why should they have to think? Give them all the answers in clear unambiguous prose, always choosing the plain, unvarnished word. Joseph didn’t ‘know’ Mary. So out goes the euphemism. Intercourse, please. And Mary’s pregnant.” I suppose one might applaud this attempt to stop using euphemism in this new age of knowledge when we don’t cover up bodily matters — but pages of The Good News Bible sound more to me like a page of scandal in The Sun at times. Unimaginative and pedestrian, if easy to read.
The whole notion of simple translations, I would argue, ultimately stops people from thinking. Having to fathom a word or a phrase out is hardly unhealthy; why else are we students at this University? Why encourage people not to think, and dish all the answers up to them? You might argue back that such translations remove the restrictions to thinking, leaving behind plenty of food for thought and interpretations to be made. But it is clear that the process of thought makes it easier to progress to a higher plane of thought. Therefore, if someone spends time exploring the meaning of language, then it is automatic to progress to interpretation. The fact that the translation is unambiguous firstly removes this possibility that one thought can lead to another, and, additionally, prevents scope for alternative interpretations. Yet the Good News translation, by being unambiguous, removes the scope for thought and, additionally, removes space for different interpretations. is s meaning. In any case, is it not accepted that much Christian thought is a mystery? Why remove this idea? Still I suppose I ought to be thankful that the translators of The Good News Bible haven’t done an Enid Blyton job on it…. What would such a book be called? The Mystery of The Missing Corpse. Chapter 1: ‘Twelve go down to Jerusalem’.
A Missionary I heard speaking at a Church in York commented on the words of a psalm (within The Good News translation): “If you are impressed by the language then the writer has failed”, he remarked, making the point that we should be looking beyond the language and thinking more about following the instructions within the text. But, surely, all interpretation of any text must begin with exploration of the language. If language is beautiful, then you are partially manipulated (benevolently, in the case of the Bible) into seeing the sentiments as beautiful. If language is dull or over-simplified then your sympathy with the writer is lost. In support of modern translations, people argue that King James’s Authorised Version was, to its Seventeenth Century readers, the equivalent of a modern translation today, in that the language would have been far more comprehensible to them than it is to us. But the language of the Authorised Version was not the every-day language of the citizen in the Seventeenth Century. Literature was highly distinct from ‘normal’ conversation, expressing lofty sentiments in lofty language. It seems to me, therefore, that this style is perfectly suited to the Bible, which is, to put it crudely, about as lofty as you can get. The Authorised Version of the Bible is, I think, a happy blend between the poetic and the concise. It expresses the word of God in language which is beautiful, meaningful and elegant. Yet The Good News Bible, as I shall attempt to prove, fails to capture the true essence of the original writing, since it attempts to express high sentiments in insufficient, meagre terms which are not at all suited to the subject-matter. I do not believe that this tedious translation can ‘appeal’ to the young to a greater extent than the excellent New International Version of the Bible, which follows King James’s Authorised Version very closely, but removes genuine archaisms. This seems to be a far more acceptable way of changing the face of the Bible, rather than hurling out the work of centuries and beginning afresh.
I saw a Jehovah’s Witness on the High Street once, who was indulging in wanton deforestation by pressing a pamphlet into everyone’s hands as they passed. Up and down the street were sad-looking pink heaps of said pamphlets, immediately tossed aside by people who had better things like Jeffrey Archer to read. I read mine, however. It was fairly conventional. “Have you read your Bible recently?” it demanded, then offered its readers a free one-way trip to heaven, in slightly, but only slightly less racy terms. I had heard most of it before, but they did raise an interesting issue: that the Bible is not only a Theological document, but it is a great work of literature, highly poetic with great dramatic scenes and thrilling stories. Additionally, the pamphlet enthused, the Bible is encyclopaedic in its scope, containing history and/or legend depending on your beliefs, biography, not to mention good advice. I agreed entirely with these sentiments, especially those concerning the literary merits of the Bible, as do the translators of The Good News Bible. How distressing that they have transformed great literature into such an impoverished piece of writing.
I could spend a great deal of time comparing the different translations. I would like to demonstrate what I have argued so far just by looking at a few snippets from a passage in St Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter XIII, on Faith, Hope and Charity, or, as the Good News puts it, Faith, Hope and Love. I don’t find this first word-change objectionable, since the word Charity has altered its Seventeenth-Century meaning dramatically, now conjuring up images of rattling collecting tins and Bruce Forsyth simpering “Oh isn’t that wonderful?” However, its twentieth-century replacement, ‘love’ remains ambiguous, not fully expressing the idea of ‘love towards humanity’, which is so clearly implied in the original. I can’t really suggest an adequate translation for modern editions; my point here is that the modern translations do not necessarily succeed where the older versions allegedly fail.
My belief that the Authorised Version is considerably more meritorious than some modern translations lies in the astonishing sense of rhythm within prose that is a feature throughout. For example, Paul of the Authorised Version states that love “Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil” (v4). It hardly requires paraphrasing into so-called modern English. But Trendy Paul of The Good News Bible says: “love is not ill-mannered or selfish or irritable”. The verse certainly sounds more irritable and brusque than the expansive language of the Authorised Version, which, when read aloud, has a beautifully incantatory tone. Similarly, in verse 11, Paul says: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child”; But in The Good News, “When I was a child, my speech, feelings, and thinking were all those of a child”. Try reading the two aloud, and seeing which one sounds more appealing; and I fail to see here why any alteration or simplification are required. The verbs ‘speak’, ‘understand’ and ‘think’ are learnt long before the nouns used in The Good News Bible, ‘speech’, ‘feelings’ and ‘thinking’. The Preface to The Good News Bible is revealing: the editors state that their desire was to “use language that is natural, clear, simple, and unambiguous.” In this instance, they seem more interested in word economy, so people can rush through the Bible as quickly as possible rather than savour each word. Additionally, they admit that their concern is not for accurate translation, but for a concise paraphrase of what was really said.
Finally (I could go on forever picking holes in this appalling translation), in verse 12, one of the most memorable lines in the passage, “For now we see through a glass, darkly” (Authorised Version) is rendered thus in The Good News: “What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror.” A beautifully compact image is destroyed, and replaced with a rather dull sentence, grammatically complete, and making it clear in the most laboured fashion that Paul did not mean that we go around with mirrors attached to our foreheads. Are people really as ‘dim’ as the passage seems to imply?
But I don’t disagree with the editors’ view that the Bible is extremely relevant today. Why, I can even use Paul’s first thoughts on the subject of love to sum up my argument. “I may be able to speak the languages of men and even of angels, but if I have no love, my speech is no more than a noisy gong or a clanging bell.” (Good News Bible) To me, Paul of The Good News Bible certainly does not speak the languages of angels, and, his lack of love for language renders his speech less thrilling to me than a noisy gong or a clanging bell.