*If you will, please click one more time to my new site to read this post. It will help begin moving traffic there. Thank you so much for your help! I appreciate your being a loyal reader!
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Okay. So I know that I am picking a touchy topic. Anything related to Bible translation can get that way. But I wanted to get some ideas down that I have been pondering.
I have often heard people talk about something “sounding like the Bible.” By this statement they often mean that a translation has an elegance or a majesty about it, something about the wording that sounds elevated and higher than normal speech. Often, this is referring to either the KJV’s language or something that was in that tradition regarding the rendering of Scripture.
The idea is that the Bible is God’s holy word, his message to us. Since God is majestic and above us, surely his message should not sound like the newspaper. We should translate the Bible in such a way that it reflects that it is not everyday speech; rather, it should be translated in such a way that it points to something transcendent and other, something higher than us and our normal way of talking.
I do understand this idea. We never want to minimize who God is or what he has written to us. He is holy. He is high and lifted up. His message is to be heard and obeyed.
However (and this is where it gets touchy for some people, I fear), does the fact that God is holy and sacred mean that translations of his word should be written in speech that is not the way we would talk? I’m not so sure.
I often wonder if those hearing God’s word for the first time would have found the language elevated and somehow more majestic than their normal speech? Or would they have heard the message in their common, everyday way of talking? When the Israelites received the Old Testament, was the Hebrew wording somehow more majestic than the way they normally spoke? What about when the early Christians received the gospels and epistles in Koine Greek? (Keep in mind, I am not asking if other translations of the Bible were elevated and majestic. I’m asking how the original writings sounded to those who heard them.)
Now, I’m no language scholar, so I am relying on things I have read and heard here. But as I understand it, there was a while when New Testament translators were confused by the Greek of the New Testament. They were trained in classical Greek, which was much more elevated in its wording. When they read the Greek New Testament, it did not match classical Greek. So some assumed there was a “Holy Ghost” Greek, some form of the language inspired by the Holy Spirit as the authors wrote. Later, however, scholars found evidence of writing that matched the New Testament Greek. It was in the daily notes from one family to another, business transactions between people, shopping lists, etc. In other words, it was the everyday, common language of the people rather than the elevated classical language of Greek scholarship.
To me, this suggests that Scripture was meant to sound as normal and common as everyday speech. It wasn’t elevated. It wasn’t majestic. It wasn’t written in some way to separate it from the rest of the writing and speaking people would normally do.
I do understand, of course, that there are times when the language is more literary than others. Some books are much more rough in the wording (such as Mark), while some are relatively basic (like 1 John), and others are more developed and intricate (like Romans, and I think Hebrews). Poetic passages may have been more literary, though I know Hebrew poetic devices differed from ours in some ways. But those would be only parts of the Bible, not the entire thing.
What about the question of whether or not the Bible should be somehow “other” and “separate” from what we normally talk about? I think its separation comes not so much from the elevation of the language as it does from the message it contains. The Bible is separate because it speaks of eternal matters, of God’s ways of reaching out to bring salvation and restoration to people through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. It speaks of God’s plan to set things right forever. The message is what is elevated, and it is what sets the word apart.
But doesn’t that suggest that the words should be elevated, too? Should the Bible sound majestic so that the message is set apart even more clearly?
The interesting thing is, I’m not sure that is always what happens. I think it is at least possible (at least for some people) that the Bible has sometimes been translated in such a way that it is too elevated, too remote, too distant from our normal lives. The message is so majestic and elevated that it is hard to see how it meets us where we are and impacts our lives in the common, everyday living that we do.
I have been reading more comments on social media about people reading versions like the NIV, CSB, and NLT and having the word of God come to life and jump out at them like it never had when they read versions that were more literary, elegant, and majestic. They felt like God was speaking to them in a fresh way, and they have received more from their reading of His word.
Is it possible that in our desire to have God’s word sound majestic, we have actually served to make it so separate that it ceases to actually communicate clearly and impact our lives? At least for some people?
The incarnation itself was such a common thing. The eternal Son of God became human to reach out to us. He ate, he drank, he grew tired and slept. He wept, and I am sure he laughed. He got his feet dirty like the rest of us. His hands were calloused, I’m sure, from all of the building he did. (I use the word building, as some studies are suggesting that the word generally translated carpenter may have referred to building with various materials, not merely wood.) The majestic Son of God humbled himself to meet us on our level. He was (and is) “God with us.”
Perhaps our translations should reflect this same level of reaching down to us. Perhaps our translations should actually sound the way we talk, even as they communicate a message that is higher than any other.
I do understand that some people feel the opposite. Some grew up on more natural Bibles and feel that God speaks more to them through some of the more elegant-sounding versions. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. God is amazing. He can reach people in various ways.
But I do wonder if we shouldn’t give at least equal weight to those versions that reach us where we are. That speak like we do. That sound like everyday speech. After all, the word of God is supposed to impact our everyday lives. It is supposed to be a gospel that is proclaimed to the whole world, high and low, rich and poor, educated and uneducated.
At least, that has been my experience. After switching to the CSB (and when I used the NIV growing up), the Bible seemed more real and more tangible. It was as if the authors (and ultimately the Author) were speaking to me right now. I understood that the Bible was written in a different culture, of course. But I wasn’t having to sift through such elevated language to get the message.
If you prefer a more elegant version, praise God! If God communicates most clearly through those means, amen! We are blessed with such a richness of language and so many versions to choose from.
But if you have been reading the Bible and have not necessarily felt that it has been impacting you, if you have been reading it but feeling a little disconnected, if you read the Bible and walk away feeling like it is just too distant, try picking up a version that is more in our everyday language. You may find God meeting you there more clearly. You may find the word more applicable. You may find, as those who met Jesus on Earth did, that God reaches down and speaks to you in common, everyday speech. And you may find your life transformed more easily in the process.
martinwvickers 