Wittenburg Wednesday Response: Michael Maynard

Michael Maynard, A.A.S., B.A., M.L.S, has authored the book, The Debate Over I John 5:7-8.  You can find out more about Mr. Maynard’s ministry by visiting the I John 5:7 Web Site.   

Once again, our topic for discussion has been:  Is it time for a New English Bible translation?  Here is part one of Michael Maynard’s response (For clarity’s sake, I have placed the sections were Mr. Maynard has quoted from my original letter in italics):

Dear Brother Thompson

   Nice to become acquainted. Thanks for writing in a peaceful manner.

    There is the matter of style, simplicity, and our monolinguistic society. Allow me to comment on these first. Then there are two matters you raised, that of grammar and of finality of the 1769 version.

    There is a lineage of formal writing. Although John Owen (d. 1683) flourished two centuries prior to Frederick Nolan (d. 1864). their style of writing was similar in that their sentences were long, and difficult to grasp. But I find it preferable, even if it involves more time to digest each sentence, provided it overflows with substance. The Greek N.T. is formal writing characterized by long clauses strung together.

    A portion of our modern society is preoccupied with a pursuit of elusive simplicity in detailed matters. It involves an understandable compassion for the illiterate, for which many social reformers would hope to eradicate all complexity. It will not occur. Formal writting is here to remain. It matters not if the uneducated finds formal writing distasteful. Formal writing appears in medical and law books and journal, as well as those for other disciplines. Universities and colleges are filled with it. What help is this to those who are the illiterate?

    This pursuit of simplicity may be the cause for the widespread fear among monoliguals of any acquistion of foreign languages, not only conversational types, but even of read-only languages, such as Biblical languages.

      My view is that we Americans would benefit, to acquire at least a reading knowledge of at least one modern foreign language. Europeans do it. We Americans at large, refuse to. Further, I believe every believer in Christ ought to attempt to learn Biblical languages. Muslims are required to learn Arabic. A Jewish child is required to learn Hebrew. But somehow, Christians en masse, show no interest at all in Greek.

      A broad cross section of upper class society never sets foot in research libraries. It is the same for the uneducated. This is to be expected since our society is preoccupied with the vocabulary of dialogue only, and nothing more. Novels are so popular since they are filled with dialogue among other things.

  When presented with certain readings in Bible class, I find myself constantly answering the question why our Bibles do not follow the same grammatical structure and rules we just learned an hour ago. 
 
For example, Proverbs 4:7 states, “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”  No one speaks this way today, and should a student come to me with such a phrase in his writing, I would ask him to return to his seat and correct it.  Then there is James 1:21, “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”  Most adults I know cannot explain to me what “superfluity of naughtiness” means. 

How we speak “today” changes. So the language of ‘today’ can (and ought) never to be the standard. Valspeak was unheard of in the 1970s. How do Americans speak today? With valspeak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valspeak

“Elements of valspeak can now be found virtually everywhere English is spoken, particularly among young native English speakers.” Expect a Valspeak Bible to appear soon.

If a student presented me with the language or style of Shakespeare, Proverbs 4:7, Owen, or Nolan, I would find no grammatical error. I may have a prospective Nobel prize winner in literature. Now if a student presented me with valspeak, I would find grammatic errors throughout and send him back to his seat to correct it.

 William F. Buckley, Jr. and James Kirkpatrick debated over “hard” words. To an extent, those overly sympathic with the dumbing-down movement, oppose nearly all words seldom used, i.e., the so-called “hard words”. Peter E. Meltzer demolished Kirkpatrick’s argument in the essay “In Defense of Hard Words” (The Thinker’s Thesaurus,  p. 34f). That debate had nothing to do with archaic Bible words. But the sutibility for that issue will be superb.

If a foreigner struggling to learn English, asked us what a seldom used English word meant, and we could not answer, he could ask in amazement, “What! You speak English, and you do not even know that word?”. We could say we do not know every word, because some are seldom used. But then why are some seldom used and others overused? (Consider the overuse and constant abuse of the word ‘like’ in valspeak.).

Why do we Americans adopt a certain selection of words, and remain content with our stunted development of vocabulary? Because we are a nation of followers pursuing a mythical standard of the “language of today.”
 
This seems heretical and hypocritical for me to say, but it seems odd to me that we still use a version of the Bible that was last updated in 1769.  When I studied the history of English translations at Pensacola Christian College, I was taught that the key factor in the demise of the Dark Ages and what led to the collapse of the stronghold the Roman Catholic Church once held over the word – was the new translation of the Word of God in language understandable to the common man.  Now, as Tyndale put it, even the plough boy could have a better understanding of Scripture than his priest. 

The language of the early versions, Geneva, Tyndale, the 1611 version, was the language of the common man, for the next three centuries. Arguably, it still is. Only in the mid-1900s, did people begin to say that the Authorized Version is something they “cannot understand.” It would be hard to find any precedent for such expressed difficulty prior to about 1950. Perhaps a skeptic began that modern idea. And many followed that myth until it became a popularly held myth.

From 1382 to 1611 is 223 years.  During this time frame, nine different English Bible translations were produced.  Though some were better than others, all seemingly were used of God.  From 1769 (the last KJV update) to 2008 is 239 years.  During this time frame, most men I respect, would say only one acceptable translation existed – the King James Version.  Why is this? 

There was a year, when I prefered the Tyndale version above any. But I later switched to the 1611 version. There are an impressive array of professors of English and literary experts who attest to the 1611 as a literary masterpiece. [You may already know their names.] In that time frame of 240 years other versions vied, but none survived the test of time. Many others were “acceptable”, but none attained the enduring fame of the 1611.
 
What happened in 1769 that brought such finality?  The English language has greatly changed in the last 200 years.  Many young people today struggle with some of awkward readings found in the KJV.  Now, I do not believe these reading are wrong or poorly translated.  I also do not believe that these difficulties cannot be overcome through the use of Bible dictionaries and sometimes even the context of the verse itself.  However, this does not seem to fit the Tyndale notion of a Bible easily understood by the plough boy. 

Many high school seniors are required to read Shakespeare, because it is said to be a masterpiece of English literature. In high school I struggled for hours with its awkward readings, and never could grasp its literary value at the time. In English literature, it is agreed on all hands, that many poets, and short story writers who won the Nobel Prize highly deserved it.  What is remarkable with these poets and prose writers is the breadth of their vocabulary. They are bold to use numerous seldom-used words in their works. Then this is given to high shoolers to read and appreciate. [As a high school senior I never could appreciate Shakespear. I can now.]
 
Many have spent much of their ministry and effort exposing the errors in modern translations of the Bible.  Yet, what can be done with the Bible we all hold so dear?
What can be done? Parents, teachers, anyone in a position of leadership ought to begin learning Greek, and ought to set out to appreciate the Greek N.T.   This will meet with stiff opposition. The opposition stems from oughtright laziness and widespread apathy.  Even if they refuse to even begin to learn the Greek alphabet, they can read Archaic Words and the Authorized Version by Lawrence M. Vance. This books shows, that many words considered archaic, are actually used in major newstand magazines.

Why is there not a new English translation of the Bible from the TR?  It seems as though we spend so much of our time throwing rocks at others, while the problem is still not fixed. 

There are. There is KJVII and the 21st Century King James. In the 20th century there were many many attempts to render the Bible into the “language of today”. Most failed. The NKJV has survived so far.

Background is interesting. You were blessed to “grow up in an independent Baptist church that used the KJV exclusively.” I was not. After I was saved at 21, I used the NASB exclusively for three years. In that time I despised the “thee’s and the thou’s.” I read D.A. Carson’s attack on the KJV, and it had a reverse effect from the intended one. I was encouraged to see if the KJV was indeed comprehensable, I was surprised to find that was, with a minimum of effort.

Providence has granted me ten years of employment in an environment of an undereducated cross section of society, viz. inmates. I still work among inmates. New laws require mandatory education. They are to attain a minimum of an eighth grade education.

For a three year period, 2003-2006, I was permitted to teach inmates foreign languages. It was a memoriable experience. Many myths were simply shattered. Take, e.g., the myth that the uneducated will not take any interest in foreign languages. False. They did. True, I had the problem students that would not do homework. But I had many others who did. I taught reading comprehension of six foreign languages. I was immersed in grammar. I had a class each Wednesday, with my student of Latin and Greek. To see these inmates excell, was something that many professors of college students will never seen in a lifetime.

For years, as opportunity existed, I have offered to teach fellow Christians, koine Greek, free. Year after year, I meet with apathy! In 30 years, I have had about three educated believers agree. But in one year, among inmates, I had a class of half a dozen inmates all learning N.T. Greek as well as Latin.

Why, for their initiates or youth,  do the Muslims require Arabic, the Jewish require Hebrew ? The answer is that they may know their law (Koran or Tanaach) in depth.  Why do Christians remain so apathetic toward N.T. Greek? Do they not care about their law, the New Testament, in depth?

Later, My Mayanrd wrote me again and brought my attention to this intersesting quotation from A.T. Robertson:

“No one today speaks the English of the Authorised Version, or ever did for that matter, for though, like Shakespeare, it is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet unlike Shakespeare IT REPRODUCES TO A REMARKABLE EXTENT THE SPIRIT AND LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 56)”

This quotation was cited in an article by David Cloud entitled Do We Nedd “Thee” and “Thou.”