There’s another surprising place where provincialism raises its ugly head within the realms of Christianity. That’s in the area of translations.
Most people take a fairly healthy view toward translations. They choose a translation according to their needs and give others the freedom to do the same.
But within Christianity, there are some who feel that there is no choice among translations. They believe that only one translation bears God’s seal of approval. In the English-speaking world, that’s usually the King James Version, particularly the 1611 version of the KJV (from the first edition in 1611 to the 1769 revision there were some 75000 changes, mostly regarding spelling and grammar). In an Internet discussion, one minister made the comment:
I am of the persuasion that if there isn’t a perfect translation in the English language, I will stand down from the ministry and get a secular job rather than teach and preach falsehood. Mind you, I am NOT of the Ruckman mentality the the KJV is inspired and therefor equal (or even superior) to the originals. I believe it is perfectly preserved. It is exactly what God wants us to have. As God overrode the human element in divine inspiration and gave us His Word perfectly in the originals, He overrode the human element in divine preservation and kept His Word pure through translation.
To some degree, I wouldn’t have that much of a problem with the above, except that he used the same reasoning to reject all other translations. Since the KJV is what God wants us to have, according to this minister, no other translation will do.
So why is this an example of provincialism? Because such views only work when you limit yourself to one language. Someone in that same discussion group made a similar claim about the 1569 Reina Valera. I told these two men that their views were completely incompatible. If the KJV is a perfect translation, the R-V can’t be. And vice versa. First, because there are serious differences between the two. Second, because you can’t have an exact translation between two languages. Not word for word, jot for jot, tittle for tittle.
Only if you limit yourself to one language can you say that one translation is perfect, complete and infallible.
KJV-onlyism has lots of other problems, of course. But provincialism is a necessary ally. Without it, there is no way to hold to that view.
If those are they types of conversations you have you are in my prayers.
It’s actually a group for ministers who use Mac computers. They just get off topic once in a while.
I have taken upon myself a new habit over the last few years. When someone asks me what translation I prefer, or which one I think is best, I answer, “Well, for me… English.”
Thanks Tim
Ha! That’s funny, Danny.
I’ve thought about saying, “The Latin Vulgate… you can’t trust these modern translations like Wyclif’s Bible.”
Just last night I was chatting with a brother at Midweek about Bible versions. Nothing contentious. He just mentioned that the NIV (1984) has long been the “default” version of ICOC churches. So much so that now that our evangelist has been quoting the updated NIV (2011) he’s felt odd to hear the different wording. As for me, I tried really hard to like the NIV, but keep going back to the NRSV. In some circles, that makes me the worst kind of apostate. ;-)
One last note: the Bible college I attended briefly in Missouri (CCCB.edu) has the NASB as its standard classroom text. It’s been that way for quite a long time now. Probably one of the last bastions for that translation in the world. The student preachers who go out to do pulpit supply tend to use that version, just because it’s what they use all the time in class anyway. In the meantime, the people in the pews are using NIV.
Tim,
Which translation to use is a problem I believe every preacher faces sooner or later. Although I use the 1611 KJV as the primary version for my sermons due to local bias, I do not use it exclusively. If there is a translation problem, and I agree there are many, I generally note it in the sermon, article, or lesson. I give the best translation as an alternate and explain why. It might not work in every congregation, but it works where I am.
Since many also have computer Bibles with a KJV with Strongs numbers and a Strongs Hebrew/Greek dictionary to look them up in, I have spent some time teaching them to use these utilities. It’s not a perfect solution, but it does help them realize that many words have various shades of meaning and often more that one translation. I also try to help them understand that there is more than one version even in Hebrew and Greek, while also pointing out that only versions which tend to disagree almost completely with other versions are not trustworthy on the subject of salvation.
This may not work everywhere, but as I said, it works here and heads off any “this isn’t the inspired version” controversy.
Peace always,
Wes
Though I use the NIV (2011) and NRSV, as they are my preferences, I certainly encourage people to use whatever version they will read. But I recently ran into a person who was very disparaging of anyone who was not using the ESV version, saying that people who use other versions don’t have a love for the truth. I’ve just learned that it’s normally not worth the argument because people who hold such views generally are not interested in any view that is different from their own. Sad!
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Wes, I think I’d suffer greatly under a “local bias” like that! Consider that one more reason I’m no longer in full-time congregational ministry. :-)
Rex, WOW…the ESV? I mean, it’s a very good translation, in my opinion, but how on earth could someone hold it in such high esteem that they’d look down on non-users of the ESV? I rarely encounter people who use it, but then my interactions with Church of Christ and evangelical folk is limited almost exclusively to church these days. A year ago at the Metro Christian Convention in New York a young man who’s a student at Mid-Atlantic Christian University gave a talk on the atonement and made a point of mentioning he uses the ESV, but he didn’t quite rub our noses in the fact.
has anyone done an indepth study of Henry the VIII’s decision to violate the Catholic bible and form a new translation with his own bishops and theologians? I think not.
It seems that we take for granted what ever was handed down is God inspired. I for one think that is rubbish. Our perception is our own reality. For anyone to think that Henry was inspired and directed by God well believes in fairy tales. I have always used the King James for my own personal study. But in all seriousness does it really matter what translation we use? Its the subject matter that is important, not what translation we use. I always thought it to be extremely important what translation is used, but not any more. You can use any translation and still be ignorant of the message it conveys, as many people are. If my memory serves me Henry deemed Martin Luther a heretic, till the church wouldn’t allow his divorce.
Then he created his own……God inspired….hmmmmm
Adam,
My suspicion as to why someone would regard non-ESV users as not loving the truth has to do in part with the politics taking place behind the scenes regarding gender-inclusive translation (which the ESV translators opted against).