"As Far as It Is Translated Correctly": Bible Translation and the Church

[caspianrex]

Dan,

Reading your article again, I was struck by your sensible statement: "In sum, a translation’s quality is primarily contingent on what, precisely, it is intended to do, and translations can do many different things." On our Bible Versions Discussion group on Facebook, the question often comes up from new members, "What is the best translation of the Bible?" People don't always like it when one of us replies, "That depends...what are you using it for?"  They want to hear a definitive answer: "The best version is <fill in the blank>."  But your point is absolutely valid. Personal devotion is different from in-depth study, which is different from public reading in a church setting, missionary work, literary analysis, etc. Also, it seems that various religious communities engage with the Bible in different ways: a conservative Baptist doesn't use the same interpretive lens as a progressive Methodist. And I would guess that Latter-day Saints, looking at the Bible alongside the Book of Mormon, employ an added layer of connection that is quite different from the way the Bible-reading public at large rarely considers. Thus the extensive footnotes in the LDS edition of the KJV, and (I would think) the importance of Wayment's work on the NT. 

Again, thanks for bringing this issue into focus. It's a topic I find endlessly fascinating!

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

Dan,

Reading your article again, I was struck by your sensible statement: "In sum, a translation’s quality is primarily contingent on what, precisely, it is intended to do, and translations can do many different things." On our Bible Versions Discussion group on Facebook, the question often comes up from new members, "What is the best translation of the Bible?" People don't always like it when one of us replies, "That depends...what are you using it for?"  They want to hear a definitive answer: "The best version is <fill in the blank>."  But your point is absolutely valid. Personal devotion is different from in-depth study, which is different from public reading in a church setting, missionary work, literary analysis, etc. Also, it seems that various religious communities engage with the Bible in different ways: a conservative Baptist doesn't use the same interpretive lens as a progressive Methodist. And I would guess that Latter-day Saints, looking at the Bible alongside the Book of Mormon, employ an added layer of connection that is quite different from the way the Bible-reading public at large rarely considers. Thus the extensive footnotes in the LDS edition of the KJV, and (I would think) the importance of Wayment's work on the NT. 

Again, thanks for bringing this issue into focus. It's a topic I find endlessly fascinating!

I find it fascinating, too! I'm glad you appreciated that statement. I think that realization is missing from a lot of the discourse about the translations we use, and particularly within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[The Nehor]

On 6/29/2019 at 12:19 AM, mfbukowski said:

One more question that I am sure will result in more comments on this thread, based on a passage from your review.

Underlining added

It never occurred to me that the KJV was possibly NOT - strictly speaking- canonical!

Is that the case?

The instruction in Handbook 2 is for English speaking members to use the LDS version of the KJV. Similar decisions were made about other Bible translations. Seems to me like it is pretty canon.

There is a list for other languages here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/pages/scriptures/preferred-holy-bible-translations?lang=eng

[cinepro]

FWIW, I thoroughly enjoyed Barlow's book on the subject:

Mormons and the Bible

Quote

Philip L. Barlow offers an in-depth analysis of the approaches taken to the Bible by major Mormon leaders, from its beginnings to the present. He shows that Mormon attitudes toward the Bible comprise an extraordinary mix of conservative, liberal, and radical ingredients: an almost fundamentalist adherence to the King James Version co-exists with belief in the possibility of new revelation and surprising ideas about the limits of human language. Barlow's exploration takes important steps toward unraveling the mystery of this quintessential American religious phenomenon. This updated edition of Mormons and the Bible includes an extended bibliography and a new preface, casting Joseph Smith's mission into a new frame and treating evolutions in Mormonism's biblical usage in recent decades.

 

[tkv]

On 6/29/2019 at 1:40 PM, caspianrex said:

Wayment chooses 70x7 in Matt. 18:22. In this choice, he follows the KJV (as well as the NKJV, MEV, and a few other modern versions).

In Matt. 1:25a, Wayment's text reads: "and they were not intimate until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

There is wide variation among modern versions on this verse, and like many other versions, Wayment includes a (fairly lengthy) footnote. Here is his note: "Some late manuscripts read she bore the firstborn son. Matthew appears to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin when he says until she bore a son. Matthew uses the traditional way of speaking about Joseph and Mary prior to the birth of Jesus and says literally that Joseph did not know Mary until she bore a son."

 

490 is now known to be inaccurate. The ESV, NIV, NRSV have it right at 77.

Matthew 1:25a: HCSB has something similar but better by keeping know: but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. Several newer versions keep know by itself. NIV goes with consummate marriage, NRSV with have marital relations.

[caspianrex]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

FWIW, I thoroughly enjoyed Barlow's book on the subject:

Mormons and the Bible

 

Thanks for sharing the link to this book! I'm definitely going to check it out/

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Thanks for sharing the link to this book! I'm definitely going to check it out/

You should be on your guard as you read this book. Consider this excerpt taken from the 2013 edition (pages 27–28):

Quote

Like other translators of ancient texts and following the precedent set with earlier revelations, Smith cast the book into seventeenth-century prose, though his own vocabulary and grammar are evident throughout. Because Jacobean speech was not his native idiom, he sometimes rendered the style inexpertly: “ye” (properly a subject) sometimes lapsed into “you” (object) as the subject of a sentence, as in Mosiah 2:19; an Elizabethan suffix attached to some verbs but was inconsistently omitted from others (“yields … putteth,” Mosiah 3:19). Much of this strained language was refined in the second edition (Kirtland, Ohio, 1837). The preface, for instance, was changed from its 1830 rendering, “… now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men.” Similarly, some 227 appearances of “saith” were changed to “said.”

As I wrote in 2017:

Quote

Despite Oxford’s mission to “[further an] objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education,” much of this Barlow quotation is, lamentably, inaccurate. Although he is correct in saying Jacobean speech wasn’t Joseph’s native idiom, Barlow didn’t research 1611 King James grammar before criticizing Book of Mormon usage, and he didn’t consult text-critical materials for his updated edition of 2013, when oversights could have been more easily avoided. Because Barlow’s observations are taken by many to be accurate, this book contributes to misperceptions about Book of Mormon language.

 

[Dan McClellan]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The instruction in Handbook 2 is for English speaking members to use the LDS version of the KJV. Similar decisions were made about other Bible translations. Seems to me like it is pretty canon.

There is a list for other languages here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/pages/scriptures/preferred-holy-bible-translations?lang=eng

I would point out that policy and canon are two very different things. The role of the KJV is an ongoing discussion right now, too. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I would point out that policy and canon are two very different things. The role of the KJV is an ongoing discussion right now, too. 

Ongoing discussion by whom?

[Dan McClellan]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ongoing discussion by whom?

Employees and leaders at Church headquarters. 

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Thanks for sharing the link to this book! I'm definitely going to check it out/

Check every path you find but know that Champatsch's work should be included in your search.  To say that the Book of Mormon is an enigma is the understatement of ...... several centuries.  

Just sorting out the issues to see the full mystery could take years if you get into it

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/barlow-on-book-of-mormon-language-an-examination-of-some-strained-grammar/

Edited July 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[caspianrex]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Check every path you find but know that Champatsch's work should be included in your search.  To say that the Book of Mormon is an enigma is the understatement of ...... several centuries.  

Just sorting out the issues to see the full mystery could take years if you get into it

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/barlow-on-book-of-mormon-language-an-examination-of-some-strained-grammar/

Thanks! Reading this article now...

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Employees and leaders at Church headquarters. 

Nice.

It will have to happen eventually but I did not think it would be so soon. No language is timeless and the King James Bible is getting harder and harder to read for many people. I know they have changed it in other languages. A companion told me the church used to use an early Lutheran translation for the German (possibly because Joseph Smith said it was the best translation he had ever seen) but that my companion found it very hard reading. It has changed to a more modern version used by the Roman Catholics since then.

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nice.

It will have to happen eventually but I did not think it would be so soon. No language is timeless and the King James Bible is getting harder and harder to read for many people. I know they have changed it in other languages. A companion told me the church used to use an early Lutheran translation for the German (possibly because Joseph Smith said it was the best translation he had ever seen) but that my companion found it very hard reading. It has changed to a more modern version used by the Roman Catholics since then.

Yeah, the German changed around 1980. We don't actually know for sure which translation in German the Prophet was talking about. He just said, "the German." When a new Bible translation is released in an active language, we'll usually conduct an evaluation to see if it meets our needs better than the current preferred one. Most commonly, the preferred translation will get a new edition or revision and we'll switch to the newer one. I put together a new process a few years ago for evaluating Bibles that removes any role for the KJV. It used to be about seeing which one was closest to the KJV, but now we evaluate them according to how well they reflect their own source texts. 

[champatsch]

Wayment's NT has valuable material at the beginning of books and valuable notes at the end of books.  I noticed, however, on page 70 of McClellan's article the following, which I was surprised and dismayed to read:

Quote

Importantly, the notes also indicate intertextual relationships with the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants (although I note that the Book of Mormon is always alluding to New Testament passages and never quoting them).

So I checked Wayment's notes, and did indeed find that he conspicuously avoided using the verb quote to describe NT quoting in the Book of Mormon. He freely calls OT passages found in the Book of Mormon quotes, but not NT passages. Wayment usually avoided using the verb allude for NT quotes, but not in the case of the Mormon 9 quote of Mark 16:

Quote

16:15–18 These verses are alluded to in Mormon 9:22–24 and partially in Mormon 9:24; Ether 4:18.

Wayment usually just wrote "compare <Book of Mormon verse(s)>" instead of alluded in his notes. (His insertion of "partially in Mormon 9:24" doesn't make sense to me, but the inclusion of Ether 4:18 is accurate; it also quotes Mark 16:16.)

Now, why is this disconcerting? Because this is an instance of doublespeak. The term allusion doesn't fit the reality. Mormon 9:23–24 quotes 80 words of Mark 16 verbatim, with only one extra word: and. Misclassifying the reality will end up confusing Latter-day Saints.

For those who have difficulty thinking that the Book of Mormon could have content that wasn't on the plates, there's almost always a way to argue that similar content was on the plates. And it is not wrong to allow for a loose, conceptual translation of this similar content. (But that doesn't mean there was no tight, literal translation. The better way to think of the translation is dynamic, ranging between literal and non-literal.) Also, it's possible that the Lord could have inserted some original material, although creative minds can usually make the case for some conceptual nexus.

I've just used translation in the restricted, default sense; and in this narrow sense Joseph Smith wasn't the English-language translator. There is a lot of textual evidence that backs up such a conclusion, including the the nature of the Book of Mormon's extensive biblical quoting, both from the OT and the NT. Yet there is another primary sense of the term which encapsulates Joseph's role as the translator of the text. And this fits nicely with what he apparently said in February 1840, as recorded by Matthew Davis: "If there was such a thing on Earth, as the Author of it, then he (Smith) was the author; but the idea that he wished to impress was that he had penned it as dictated by God.”

Latter-day Saints will have no problem with the fact that NT quotations in the Book of Mormon are quotes, once they are clearly presented with the textual reality (instead of the confounding unrealities they are frequently given by a variety of scholars):

The original Book of Mormon text was the result of a creative, dynamic translation.

Joseph Smith was not the author of the English translation.

Edited July 6, 2019 by champatsch

[caspianrex]

On 6/29/2019 at 1:27 PM, Dan McClellan said:

We can't do a Church-published revision of the Einheits because it was first published in 1980 and doesn't have a public domain edition. There's a bit of a debate going on about what to do about the German.

Today I was browsing in a local used bookstore, and stumbled over a copy of the Einheitsübersetzung for three bucks. So I immediately snatched it up! Nice addition to my Bible library. It even includes the deuterocanonical books.

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

Today I was browsing in a local used bookstore, and stumbled over a copy of the Einheitsübersetzung for three bucks. So I immediately snatched it up! Nice addition to my Bible library. It even includes the deuterocanonical books.

Yeah, it's a great translation. It was reading 2 Maccabees as a missionary that made me want to study the history and literature of the Bible more.

[caspianrex]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

Yeah, it's a great translation. It was reading 2 Maccabees as a missionary that made me want to study the history and literature of the Bible more.

My German isn't at a very high level of fluency, but I have sung an awful lot of German. I have a few Luther Bibles in my collection, so it was great to add one more. This particular edition of the Einheitsübersetzung is the 1980 printing, so I understand it's not the most recent edition. But the notes seem to be excellent, with loads of cross-references. My Spanish is better than my German, so someday I may end up getting a copy of the LDS edition of the Reina-Valera.

One of these days, I really want to learn Russian. I have a Russian New Testament (not sure which version) and the Russian edition of the Book of Mormon!

[Islander]

On 6/29/2019 at 9:05 AM, Dan McClellan said:

"Canon" is a weird thing in the Church, but because more than half of the membership doesn't actually speak English as a first language, the majority of members do not read the KJV. There is a common assumption that those members just read "the KJV in their language," but that's like saying I speak German, but in Spanish. The KJV is a specific English translation of the Bible, so while it is the preferred translation in English, and it is the translation that governs all the Bible-related content creation in English, it has no formal "canonical" status. We already publish LDS editions of the Bible in Spanish and Portuguese, and we have others in the works, and they're not based on the KJV. They differ in many and sometimes significant ways. If you'd like to see all the "preferred" translations, see here.

I speak 4 languages, English being one of them and can attest from practical experience that what you have stated is absolutely true. Most members of the church, currently, have never nor will they ever read the KJV of the bible and thus oblivious to such attributions of quasi-canonical status. The fact remains that there are nearly 4000 copies or fragments of biblical documents in existence today. All available for use as source material for translation. And, as sated previously, the church has made LDS editions of the scriptures available in many languages (other than English) using Greek and Hebrew source materials and therefore bypassing the KJV altogether. Personally, I also utilize the NASB and the ESV for study and comparison in English. As translations go, it is practically impossible to accurately and precisely convey linguistic, cultural, historical, religious and experiential meaning across a contextual gap of 2000 years. Though we can certainly try.

[Boanerges]

On 6/29/2019 at 7:24 AM, Steve Thompson said:

But what about this excerpt from a statement from the First Presidency (Benson, Hinckley, Monson):

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (no date is given, but I believe it was sometime in the mid 90s). 

I guess that's not exactly "canonical," but it's close.

I don't know about anyone else's experience, but in my area at the time it became a badge of faith to only use the KJV, much as dropping the use of the term Mormon has become more lately.  It's good to see that this approach to the Bible has changed.

 

 

I'll just point out that some General Authorities (particularly Elder Uchtdorf who seems to favor the NIV) do quote from other versions from the pulpit. I have done so myself locally (I favor the NRSV, but I do own a copy of the NIV) and not ever had a word of blow back - and the SP has been present when I have done so.

[caspianrex]

@Dan McClellan I was going through some files on my laptop, and stumbled over your article "As Far As It Is Translated Correctly." So I was rereading it, and thoroughly enjoying it. I appreciate your take on the various uses of the Bible, both the KJV and other versions, and some historic defenses of the KJV leadership (Pres. Clark and Philip Barlow, for example). It seems that tradition in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has generally tended towards a sort of de facto KJV-Onlyism in Church circles that, although not as vehement as some strains elsewhere in Christendom, still leads many of the Saints to favor a translation that, as you point out in the article, is not English as anyone actually speaks it. (Indeed, by the time the KJV was published, its particular dialect was already tending towards archaism.) It makes me wonder, if the Church were ever to really embrace modern Bible translations, would there eventually be a greater push among Latter-day Saints to update the language of the BOM? I know there have been a few attempts to do just that (I'm thinking of the many revisions made in the Revised Authorized Version of the BOM published by the RLDS). Anyways, thanks again for writing such an excellent, thoughtful (and thought-provoking) article!

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

It makes me wonder, if the Church were ever to really embrace modern Bible translations, would there eventually be a greater push among Latter-day Saints to update the language of the BOM?

This is something I have wondered about for a long time.

Once entering that path, adopting a revised Bible and Book of Mormon would create new problems such as keeping the revisions current with new scholarship and maintaining doctrinal continuity. Revisions could be handled if we only used electronic versions, but there could be confusion and inconvenience when printed versions don’t match the latest e-version. I don’t know if most members would be happy with printed or electronic versions that include lengthy commentary, footnotes, and references about changes.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

2 hours ago, caspianrex said:

 It makes me wonder, if the Church were ever to really embrace modern Bible translations, would there eventually be a greater push among Latter-day Saints to update the language of the BOM? I know there have been a few attempts to do just that (I'm thinking of the many revisions made in the Revised Authorized Version of the BOM published by the RLDS). Anyways, thanks again for writing such an excellent, thoughtful (and thought-provoking) article!

I think the Church would be more open to embrace modern Bible translations than modern BOM translations because of the differences in how the volumes were originally translated.  Many view the BOM translation as more correct and in the language intended by God as it was translated through the gift and power of God.  It would surprise me greatly if the church ever softened their stance from what they have said.  See here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1993/04/news-of-the-church/modern-language-editions-of-the-book-of-mormon-discouraged?lang=eng

It could be argued however that the language used in the Book of Mormon was heavily influenced by language familiar to Joseph Smith and not necessarily dictated verbatim in the language intended by God.

Edited March 6, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Many view the BOM translation as more correct and in the language intended by God as it was translated through the gift and power of God.  It would surprise me greatly if the church ever softened their stance from what they have said

The Book of Mormon is already translated into every language but one, English, and even that one has been modified over the years for clarity of understanding.

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Book of Mormon is already translated into every language but one, English, and even that one has been modified over the years for clarity of understanding.

From the church's perspective, and from the title page and D&C, the BOM is considered an English "translation". 

Quote

We discourage this type of publication and call attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated “by the gift and power of God,” who has declared that “it is true.” (Book of Mormon title page; D&C 17:6.)

The link I posted addressed the risks of translating it into different languages and discourages any attempt to modernize the language in the original translation.  I am simply giving caspianrex the church's published stance on the issue.  We may disagree with what has been said, but they are the decision makers.  I just don't see it happening.