(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...On the first day of my undergraduate classes on the Bible each semester, I tell my students which Bible translations are acceptable for the class. The basic answer: most any modern translation is fine (though I myself prefer the New Revised Standard Version), but I do not allow paraphrases (such as the ol’ favorite, The Living Bible, or the more recent The Message — which are not actually translations from the original Hebrew and Greek, but are simplifications of previously existing English translations and as a result can be highly interpretive and misleading) or the King James Version.
When I tell them I do not allow the King James, I let them know that I think the King James is one of the great classics of English literature. As a piece of writing, it is arguably the most significant work ever produced in English. But it is decidedly not a good study Bible. That is for several reasons. As I’ve suggested and will say more about in a future post, one is that the manuscripts of the New Testament it is based on (going back to the Textus Receptus – i.e. the original edition by Erasmus) were not ancient or of high quality. Another is that the language used is from over 400 years ago, and can be easily misunderstood – or not understood at all.
Here let me give some examples (which I don’t give my students: I just ask them to take my word for it and to ask me about it later if they wanted some instances.)
But here are some rather amusing instances. Some involve changes in the English language: a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
- Almug
- Algum
- Charashim
- Chode
- Cracknels
- Gat
- Habergeon
- Hosen
- Kab
- Ligure
- Neesed
- Nusings
- Ouches
- ring-straked
- sycamyne
- trow
- wimples, ….
The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:
- unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
- satyr (Isa 13:21);
- dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
- cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
- arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).
Moreover,, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:
- ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
- collops of fat (Job 15:25);
- naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
- ien with (Jer. 3:2);
- the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
- brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
- rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
- urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)
- And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
- And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
- Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
- I trow not (Luke 17:9)
- We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
- Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
- He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
- The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)
Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a man who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10! And yup, that is indeed what the Hebrew text itself says. Ha!
So even though the KJV is a brilliant classic of English literature, it is not the best option for a study Bible. But there are other reasons, as I’ll indicate in later posts.
That was really helpful! I always thought that the Bible mentions mythical animals (are there such animals in the Bible?). That’s what happens when you follow atheist pages on Facebook.
In what way do you consider KJV to be a classic? It’s basically a translation, isn’t it? We discuss such questions in philosophy classes and we consider, for instance, the work of Josephus to be a classic but not its translation. So in what sense do you think the KJV is a classic?
The KJV is a classic not becuase it is an original English composition, like King Lear or Paradise Lost, but because it is the most widely read piece of English in the history of the language and shaped how people understood and used the language for centuries.disabledupes{8dcc98b97c9940e9fdd9a1f649f2c5bf}disabledupes
Did Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible have a similar influence on the German language?
YUP!
I checked the Hebrew words which the KJV translated as mythological creatures. Each of these words is translatable into real creatures. He-goat, basilisk or viper, bulls, etc. There would be no reason to invent non-existent animals. It would seem, then.that the confusion begins with the translation into English been done from the Septuagint. The Septuagint had its own translation woes.
The important question, to me, is why did the KJV committee assume the Ancient Israelites had unicorns and satyrs, or why would they have written about them in their sacred Hebrew book, being these mythological creatures of pagan origin and usage?
Or, did the members of the committee themselves believe that those animals existed for real, in their own geographical areas or elsewhere, for that matter?
I think the problem is knowing what the word may have meant at the *time* of the composition of the text, when it is a hapax legomenon. Later usage — what the word may have come to mean later — would not necessarily show what it meant in its first occurrence, especially if the cognate (Semitic) languages are ambiguous as well. (I.e., the problem is that if a word is a hapax, then there are no other surviving texts before or at the time that use it, so that unlike words that are *frequently* used in contemporary texts can’t help establish the context for a precise interpretation. But I don’t know off hand the issue with particular words (though it’s easy enough to find out with the help of one of the standard Hebrew Bible lexica) (my point — I’m not making it very well — is that later usage whether rabbinic, medieval, or modern would have no necessary bearing on how what a word meant when used, say, in a text many centuries earlier for the first and only time for centuries)
Wonderful post. Thanks.
Italians despise translators of their beloved operas. They use a word play
” Tradutore, traditore”. The translator is a traitor. There’s only one letter difference.
“Pisseth against the wall” is indeed the literal translation, and I can see how it can sound amusing or outrageous per se.
The words are coloquial in modern Hebrew.
The meaning of the expression, found only twice in the Tanakh, is extremely derogatory. It describes someone who is vulgar and/or at the bottom of the pile, a nobody, even a slave.
In the Samuel 1 context it means that the narrator will wipe out absolutely every man and boy.
In Kings 1, it may refer degradingly to king Jeroboam.
Interesting!
I found another 2 cases of the graceful Pisseth on the Wall expression in the Tanach, so there are 4, all of them used in the same way and meaning.
The insult was akin to calling someone ” a dog” ,an obvious wall-pisser itself.
They say Tyndale was executed not because he translated the Bible into the vernacular, but because his translation included thousands of errors. These errors, such as substituting the term “elder” for “priest,” were deemed by the church to be deliberately heretical. Has anyone ever done a study to determine if Tyndale’s translation was more (or less) textually sound than the RCC’s Bible?
No, I don’t think that’s right. Who is the “they” who says that? There was a law against doing a translation and that’s what he was charged with, I believe.
I can’t argue with a good translation being essential to understanding the Bible but it’s far from sufficient. Most of the Bible, by itself, is pretty opaque to me.
At least with regard to the NT, trade and text books like yours are incomparably more helpful to me. For the same reason I feel sympathetic with those who prefer paraphrases.
How difficult would it be (or would it have been) for you or EP Sanders, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, among others, to write a “scholarly” paraphrase of the NT? Actually though, I’m not sure whether I’m looking for that or for a “story-like” account of the historical Jesus.
We could each do it (except Ed and Geza, who have now passed away), but in places we would paraphrase the meaning differently.
Hey Bart!
I also love the “pisseth against the wall” verse!
My question is somewhat related, but a little aside from the specific topic of the post. I was listening to your recent discussion with Jennifer Knust on your podcast and I found the conversation about the word Paul uses in Greek that is often mistranslated as “homosexual” or “sodomite” to be fascinating. Do you think what the word actually meant had something to do with a form of male prostitution that Paul found particularly offensive? Or is there already a word for something like that which would have made more sense? Perhaps it did mean something like that but it’s just a completely outdated and particularly nasty slang reference? Just curious what your thoughts are about it.
Thanks!
Some have argued that it had to do with male prostitution; when it does start to get used later it is often in the context of other sins that involve money. The reason it’s hard ot know what the word means is because it is never used before Paul (so it wouldn’t have been old fashioned or out of date)
Would Sara Ruden’s “The Gospels: A New Translation” be acceptable in your course?
I’m not sure if it would be considered a paraphrase or more of a “fresh” translation into modern “colloquial” English. I suppose also that in a work like this it’s extremely hard to avoid all interpretation.
It’s been a while since I read it. I recall it being refreshing and stimulating and easier to read and understand but not really startlingly new.
I don’t think she’s a NT scholar but I do think she’s a respected Greek scholar.
Anyway, I give it a “thumbs up.”
I’m afraid I haven’t looked at it.
I can’t decide between Naughty Figs or Sod Pottage for my band name.
And I’ve wanted to read through the Bible for a while, and will probably go for the NRSV when I do, but man I’d love to tackle the KJV for the poetry of its language. I got through a good chunk of Le Morte de Arthur before getting distracted, so with a good historical dictionary i hopefully could manage it.
I was at a few Sod Pottage shows (with their original lineup!) back in the early 90s.
On a serious note though: I consistently switch between the NRSV and the KJV, finding wonderful nuggets in each of them while they balance each other’s flaws. My favorite by far is the Jerusalem Bible. JRR Tolkien edited its book of Jonah!
Did he?!? (And without knowing Hebrew, I assume? The NRSV had a literary figure — can’t remembrer who — go over the final translation for suggestions as well, without knowing a stitch of Hebrew or Greek. Most of the suggestions were, well, not adopted)
Yes, and I take your point about the “literary figure” 🙂 The large committee of Jerusalem Bible French Catholic scholars who went back to the original hebrew and greek translated it into, of course, french. I think this was a response to the RSV (or whatever “protestant” version was most reputable at the time). The popularity of the French JB was later taken up by English scholars who wanted a new Catholic bible in english. Tolkien was busy with his section of the Oxford english dictionary and so allowed that he could work on the very short book of Jonah. The editors were going for mellifluous turns of phrase that they felt would capture the stately beauty of the original languages that the french version had achieved. I think they accomplished this with perfect panache.
In your opinion, is the NKJV easier to understand?
If you don’t like thees and thous and “pisseth,” its the way to go. It’s still not a good translation though, for reasons I’ll be explaiing.
Great!
Hello Bart. Thanks for this post. I would have thought you would discourage use of the NIV ? I know it’s popular, but………………….
I do, actually. It’s slanted in unhelpful ways, sometimes translating texts in ways to get rid of contradictions that are right there!
Thank you Bart.
Dr. Ehrman,
A little off topic, but do you reserve any thought that there was something a little different about Jesus’ message (and maybe John the Baptist’s, who might’ve inspired him, if Luke is right in chapter 3) as compared to the (probably multiple) other apocalyptic prophets going around at the time?
Could it have been something that essentially struck a chord with his compatriots that is essentially timeless (for instance, having grown up in a period of growing inequality, and realizing that sharing of wealth is most important) rather than “getting right with God before it’s too late”?
Now I don’t think he was God, anymore than you or I are, but my question is: was he trying to communicate an essential message that was heard by just enough of the right people, or was his being remembered (in a major way) more a matter of being in the right place at the right time?
My view is that every preacher/teacher/prophet has unique elements to her/his message. But I don’t think the followers of Jesus thrived because his message was so different, but because they claimed he was raised from the dead. (Nearly all of Jesus’ teachings can be found in one or another other teachers)
True, but some even claimed that the baptist had been raised from the dead, thinking he was the messiah! Why are we to assume this story is unique to Jesus, especially considering resurrection of the righteous (starting with the messiah) was not an uncommon belief amongst the Jews in those days? I guess my question, stripped down, was “what makes Jesus so special”? Why did conditions favor the preservation of that particular teacher’s memory? I know it’s a question that can’t be satisfactorily answered based on how little data we have, but where have your ( obviously highly informed ) speculations taken you, no matter how outlandish they might seem?
I”m afraid we only know about that from a Christian source, and it appears to be referring to reincarnation rather than resurrection. I really do think that what made Jesus so special was that his followers believed he was raised from the dead. That started everything and made all the difference. I talk about the matter at length in my book How Jesus Became God.
Thankyou Prof Ehrman for this post. It reminded me of the WBWJR (What Bible Would Jesus Read) debate that apparently rages out there, and those who stake their lives on the conviction that Jesus wouldn’t be seen dead taking anything other than his trusty KJV to church – into YOUR church! Just amazing!!
What is it about archaic language from 400 years ago that gets people so fired up religiously? Do they not realise that at the time it was first published it was modern English (& not that from further back – from 1211)? I think there’s some undercurrent of psychology in this (there always is / has to be in everything every human does), and some similarity with how incantations are used & have appeal? They sound special & other-worldly & holy in themselves since they are NOT every-day language. Right up there with Abracadabra. What do you think?
PS. Mind you, even today’s modern English translation wordings might as well be from 400 years ago in the face of popular Gen-whatever vernacular eg. “Hey dude, yeah I was like you know man”
Yup, the mystical powers of hte Bible as an object, and the use of it’s language to that end, is very interesting. I don’t know much about the study of the matter in the modern period (though I have studied a bt about the magical use of the bible in antiquity), and would love to know if others have some bibliography/information for us.
Dr. Ehrman, which version of the Bible do you recommend for your students?
I have them use the HarperCollins Study Bible, which uses the NRSV and includes very nice introductions and notes. Also good is the Oxford Reference BIble (also the NRSV)
Something I noticed about the KJV that I wanted your thoughts on. In Luke 9 where it speaks about Jesus feeding the 5000 it says that they were in the town of Bethsaida. Later on it says that the disciples said that they were in a remote place. This contradiction can of course be answered by looking at Luke’s source, mark which does not say they were in Bethsaida but in a solitary place. But the KJV says that they were actually in a desert near Bethsaida, which no other Bible translation has. Do you think that this probable change to the text was intentional to “fix” the story? What are your thoughts?
Yes, there is a scribal alteration of the text in Luke 9:10 (well, several alterations by various scribes). It is usually thought that Luke himself changed Mark’s statement (Mark 6:32) that it occurred in “an isolated place” to “the city of Bethsaida,” but that he didn’t then realize that this created a problem (an apparent discrepancy) with v. 12. Scribes who recognized the problem then changed the text of v. 10 to make the text say what both Matthew and Mark said, to eliminate the problem.
Thanks for your answer. What other scribal alterations to amend the text are there in the New Testament besides like 9:10?
Well there are thousands. You’ll find my discussion of them in my book Misquoting Jesus.
The “they” are Catholic apologists who say that Tyndale wasn’t executed for translating the Bible into the vernacular, but for heresy (defying the RCC). The Synod of Oxford in 1408 forbad *unauthorized* translations, but authorized translations did exist before Tyndale’s time and were even encouraged by the Church. The law prevented a private individual from publishing his own translation without Church approval. Even protestant Henry VIII condemned Tyndale’s Bible, not because it was in the vernacular, but because of the choices he made in his translation. I’m just wondering if Tyndale’s translation choices were more accurate to the texts he was translating.
His translation was not authorized.
== Nearly all of Jesus’ teachings can be found in one or another other teachers. ==
The most original teaching of Jesus is one that few Christians obey: love your enemies and turn the other cheek.
I’ll be dealing with that in my next book!