Previous post: C.S. Lewis on Bible translation, part 1: The Moffatt Translation
I have this terrible habit of starting blog series and then never finishing them. “Wouldn’t it be wonderful,” I think to myself, “to do a series of posts on such-and-such a topic.” I start writing away in a hot passion of inspiration and confidently put “part 1″ in the title and then immediately forget that I ever promised my readers another post as soon as I’ve pressed the “Submit” button. Such was the case with my first post on C.S. Lewis. But now I see that troublesome C.S. Lewis book is still on my desk, in fact it has followed me through four different countries and if I can just write one more post perhaps I can call this series “completed.”
In God in the Dock, in his essay, “On the Reading of Old Books,” Lewis talks about spiritual reading. He says:
Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity, you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke, or St. Paul, of St. Augustine, or Hooker, or Butler, but M. Berdyaev, or M. Maritain, or Mr. Niebuhr, or Miss Sayers, or myself.
There is of course an irony in his statements viewed several decades after the fact because with the possible exception of Dorothy Sayers, no modern reader has ever heard of the authors he mentions. Nowadays his modern writers have been replaced by a new generation of writers who are just as transient in the world of human thought. For every Augustine or Lewis there are thousands of Berdyaevs and Niebuhrs scribbling away despite a guarantee of obscurity.
Lewis continues:
Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet.
Later in his essay he advocates reading one old book for every new book. All this assumes that a person has limitless access to books new and old in the form of bookstores and libraries. When my wife and I were first married we came across a proverb that said, “Wear old clothes, read new books.” Since we were contentedly living on the brink of poverty we modified the proverb to “Go to the library naked.” Happy the book lover who has a public library nearby or at least a more prosperous friend with a well-stocked bookshelf. Did you know that book theft is not a crime? By borrowing a book you actually help your friends free up space on their bookshelf for other books. The general rule is that if a book is not next to a friend’s easy chair, sitting on his bedside table or in fact in his hands being read at that very moment it is fine for you to borrow the book. Not only are you freeing your friend to buy more books, but you are also increasing cohesion within your social network through lending behavior. Any anthropologist would tell you that is a good thing.
Well, we’ve strayed far afield from our central topic so let’s just get back to it! Lewis on Bible translation. At the end of his essay, Lewis states:
I don’t mention the Bible because I take that for granted. A modern translation is for most purposes far more useful than the Authorized Version.
Isn’t that a quaint thing to say? I wonder what translations he considered “modern?” Certainly he was thinking of Moffatt which I discussed in the previous post. In an amazing coincidence, I just stumbled upon a book in my friend’s library that contains the complete essays from God in the Dock. Should I ”borrow” it? In an essay called “Modern Translations of the Bible” Lewis makes reference to Moffatt, J.B. Phillips (the essay was originally a preface to his “Letters to young churches”) and Knox. I suspect that only Phillips’ translation is still in print.
Putting Lewis’ comment in its cultural context you have to imagine that there was a “Church” with enough influence to actually authorize a translation of the Bible. In the intervening years, churches and translations have multiplied and the average reader doesn’t give a hoot if the Church of England has authorized their translation or not.
While I agree that modern translations are needed for modern readers, I’d also like to suggest that the majority of modern readers are determining their choice of Bible based on two factors:
- If they go to church, what Bible is used there?
- What are the Bible marketers promoting?
Finally, there is a third factor that applies to the U.S. but is probably true everywhere: - Does the reader already have a copy at home?
If not, American Christians almost invariably express their spirtual yearnings through financial transactions. If they are feeling a bit blasé with regard to their Bible reading the remedy almost always involves the purchase of a new devotional or study Bible.
Of these three factors I would say that the second is probably the most influential. That’s why, to take an example from the ESV/TNIV Bible war, in the end ESV will lose simply because ESV may have some big name pastors behind it, but Crossways is a Mom-and-Pop organization in comparison with the marketing mega-giant Zondervan.
I think our post-modern era is wonderful precisely because there is no longer “The Bible” but “bibles.” Despite the wishes of megalomaniac pastors and theologians who would like to chain us to their metaphysical pews, we’re all happily dipping into a variety of bible translations and theological traditions and our devotion to Christ is enriched because of it.
Drat, now that I’ve stumbled on this essay of Lewis’ about modern Bible translations, I’m going to have to write a third part in this series. At the rate I’m going that could be months from now so in the meantime why don’t you grab your Bible, authorized or not, and spend some time reading it. “Modern” writings may quickly grow old but “the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isaiah 40:8 KJV)
Lingamish, by “the Authorized Version” CS Lewis certainly meant what you call KJV, not any version officially authorised by any church (which KJV in fact never was, it was “Appointed to be read in churches”). Lewis’ point was not that a modern translation is more useful than one that has been officially authorised, but that it is more useful than a particular version which was in archaic language.
“American Christians almost invariably express their spirtual yearnings through financial transactions.” But it seems you are the exception, if you avoid a financial transaction by “borrowing” from a friend.
So how did it end up with the name “Authorized Version”? Interesting bit of trivia, that.
Its translation was authorized by King James.
I sent a link to this to my “more prosperous friend with a well-stocked bookshelf” and asked him if he shared your views on how to acquire books. In reply he reminded me of the 8th commandment. But he did like your post.
Lingamish, although I am old enough to be your father, much of the Bible reading for me lately has been in THE CHILDRENS LIVING BIBLE, by Kenneth Taylor. I know this isn’t officially a real translation, but it speaks to me in a way that other translations haven’t . I’m putting together Amos, Hosea, Kings, etc. and applying it to events today. I also use the NASV and NIV and will have to get a new CEV as I think someone borrowed mine.
I guess if we subscribe to the belief that everything we have is The Lord’s, then it won’t be a problem when some one borrows something with no intention of returning it.
mtjeff,
I’m probably the one who borrowed your CEV. Although I thought I returned it…
There is a reason that adults prefer reading children’s Bibles: the language is easy to understand (also great pictures). When you and I sit down to read God’s Word we aren’t interested in doing a linguistic study or in having to re-translate awkward English. We want to hear the message.
If our preachers used easy-to-understand translations in church they’d have to spend less time telling us what it means (since that would be obvious) and they could spend more time telling us why the passage is important to our lives.
The Living Bible and the New Living Translation are both valuable translations of the Bible, even if critics disparagingly call them “paraphrases.”
“There is a reason that adults prefer reading children’s Bibles”
The Institute for Bible Translation, which works in the former Soviet countries, actually produced in the 1990s (and the work may be continuing) a series of “Children’s Bibles” in a number of languages for which the main target audience was apparently adults. These were in fact sets of Bible stories each with a picture, not in particularly simple language. By calling them “Children’s Bible” these works were acceptable to an audience part of which had rather fixed ideas of what a proper Bible ought to be, and would never have accepted such a work as a Bible. They would buy the book ostensibly for their children, but in fact the adults would read it.
The ESV/TNIV debate is interesting. I fall on the other side. I always believe in beauty and excellence as winning. The ESV is much more beautiful, readable and true. The ESV will be here for another 80 years. The TNIV maybe 20. dt http://www.davetilma.com
Heard of a translation made by missionary translators to the Eskimos of Alaska years ago? Used a limited vocabulary or something. Came in handy discipling a poorly educated country boy once in our church. I had mine “borrowed” and miss it.
David Ker,
Hooray for J. B. Phillips perhaps still in print. And C. S. Lewis wildly popular still both in print and in film. Since you bring up the printed gospel in film (i.e., “The Passion of the Christ”) at BBB, what do you think of Lewis’s Narnia series transposed now to the cinema? Is the CBMW accuracy issue around Lucy (i.e., as Mike Aubrey’s post shows it) a real issue for real men (if women there aren’t saying anything much or as stinky about it)?
Kurk, surely the discussion at CBMW and Mike’s post is about Susan, not Lucy? But in the books Susan is given a bow, and uses it if not in the thick of battle. Somehow it’s as if CS Lewis wanted Susan to be a warrior but because of his prejudices held back from making her fully one. CBMW is trying to make far too much of this one. I think it’s an issue only for doctrinaire complementarians, who take the Piper type of line that women shouldn’t be police officers or even bus drivers because these jobs imply some kind of authority over men.
I wrote “based on two factors” and then listed three. I was really dumb back then.
[...] Lingamish has just posted an interesting piece on CS Lewis and Bible translation. It’s a nice ‘Sunday afternoon ramble’ of a piece, meandering around a number of interesting subjects. I was particularly struck by this paragraph. Did you know that book theft is not a crime? By borrowing a book you actually help your friends free up space on their bookshelf for other books. The general rule is that if a book is not next to a friend’s easy chair, sitting on his bedside table or in fact in his hands being read at that very moment it is fine for you to borrow the book. Not only are you freeing your friend to buy more books, but you are also increasing cohesion within your social network through lending behaviour. Any anthropologist would tell you that is a good thing. [...]