Bible writing styles: RSV, NRSV, KJV etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter KnightIHSV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KnightIHSV

Guest
I own a Douai-Rheims, RSV-CE and a Catholic NRSV. I was also given a KJV many years ago. I realise that there are large differences in opinions on translations but I like both the RSV-CE and NRSV for their clarity. (I have a friend who is a lay Wesleyan preacher and he swears by the KJV only.)

One question that keeps coming up for me is what was the actual style that the New Testament authors wrote in? Was it a formal Greek or was it an informal Greek? In other words, did the New Testament authors write their accounts and letters in a formalistic style or a style that was to be simple and accessible to all?

Thanks to any experts out there.
 
Koine Greek, the Greek in which the New Testament writers wrote, is, when compared to Ancient Greek during and before the Hellenistic Era, is much like comparing Dr. Seuss to J. R. R. Tolkein.

Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire, and, as such, would have been written at a much more accessible level when used in that faculty. Stylistically, I think, the NAB or NIV comes close to the level of difficulty for comparison purposes (given the average level of education now and then).

As an aside:
The KJV is a work of art in the English language, and so, just because it is difficult or not produced by your favored religious group does not mean that you should not at least be familiar with it as a work of literature, if not devotion.
 
KnightIHSV said:
I own a Douai-Rheims, RSV-CE and a Catholic NRSV. I was also given a KJV many years ago. I realise that there are large differences in opinions on translations but I like both the RSV-CE and NRSV for their clarity. (I have a friend who is a lay Wesleyan preacher and he swears by the KJV only.)

One question that keeps coming up for me is what was the actual style that the New Testament authors wrote in? Was it a formal Greek or was it an informal Greek? In other words, did the New Testament authors write their accounts and letters in a formalistic style or a style that was to be simple and accessible to all?

Thanks to any experts out there.
Click to expand...
The NT contains various levels of literary quality. I remember hearing that John wrote in a very simple “second language” Greek, whereas Hebrews is much more formal and poetic. Unfortunately, most translations have a style of their own that flattens out the differences between the books to a uniform style. If you want to glimpse a bit of the literary style, I recommend you read the Revised English Bible, Richmond Lattimore’s New Testament, and Robert Alter’s translations of various books of the OT.

It is true that the writers of the NT wrote in what was, for their day, the lingua franca but something tells me that after all these centuries the style, translated precisely as is, would be a lot more dense to modern ears. To the people of that time it may have been relatively simple, but these days not so much. One example of this is how the Greek language they used distinguished between second person singular and second person plural, so that if an English translation wanted to carry that across it would have to use thees and thous (thee referring to one person, and ye/you referring to multiple).

For example:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:31-32[/BIBLEDRB]

Notice that Satan desires to sift all of them like wheat, but Jesus prays in particular for Peter.
 
This is exactly the question of the author’s style that I wanted answered. What I wanted to know was what style or mode were the NT authors themselves writing in - were they writing for everyone or for others educated like them?

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your expertise.
 
KnightIHSV said:
I own a Douai-Rheims, RSV-CE and a Catholic NRSV. I was also given a KJV many years ago. I realise that there are large differences in opinions on translations but I like both the RSV-CE and NRSV for their clarity. (I have a friend who is a lay Wesleyan preacher and he swears by the KJV only.)

One question that keeps coming up for me is what was the actual style that the New Testament authors wrote in? Was it a formal Greek or was it an informal Greek? In other words, did the New Testament authors write their accounts and letters in a formalistic style or a style that was to be simple and accessible to all?

Thanks to any experts out there.
Click to expand...
There are a number of different styles of Greek present in the New Testament as others have pointed out. Big chunks of the Gospels and the book of Revelation (for example) are written in a style that imitates classical Hebrew narrative grammar and syntax–sort of a “Bible-ese” if you will–that is really like nothing else in Greek literature, other than the translations of Old Testament narrative found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). Much of the rest of the New Testament (say, Paul’s letters for example) are written in reasonably simple, but not really what I would call “informal” Greek. I think “accessible to all” as an overriding generalization would be assuming too much.
 
I don’t know first-hand about NT greek, but Fr. Mitch Pacwa commented on this in his Crossing the Threshold of Hope program on 12/13/11.

He said the gospel of John is clear and smooth and understandable, but that Acts is difficult, esp. at the end, where there are a lot of nautical terms.

He was answering a question or making a comment about chapter 3 of Dei Verbum (Vat II), which was talking about the different styles in scripture.

Now, if you’re talking about the various translations, yeah, you’ve got me. I think it has to do with the type of ordinary speech that people use at various times.

The modern English versions are hamstrung by copyright laws. They have to find ways to express themselves without plagiaring, intentionally or coincidentally. That’s a real trick, I bet.

Compare the versions, and they have to really dance around to express themselves in unique ways. I posted a comment about this a couple years ago, and I had an example where the meaning was actually different, depending on the version.
 
Thank you very much, again. I am interested in the styles of Biblical authors and the prose-style in which they wrote. Thank you for helping me to better understand the Bible’s human authors.
 
WoundedIcon said:
One example of this is how the Greek language they used distinguished between second person singular and second person plural, so that if an English translation wanted to carry that across it would have to use thees and thous (thee referring to one person, and ye/you referring to multiple).

For example:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:31-32[/BIBLEDRB]

Notice that Satan desires to sift all of them like wheat, but Jesus prays in particular for Peter.
Click to expand...
Wow… so we need to be reading the DR or another translation that includes thee/ye in order to get the full meaning of the text. This is cool.
 
What all Catholics should be aware of is that the New Testament writers did not write in a Protestant Greek style.

When they said “prosopon” they did not mean presence!

Course they believed that a priest could offer absolution for sins and could bind and loose–they didn’t fit the scriptures to their own rejection of the scriptures.
 
Some might actually say it means mask.

The Douay Rheims translators rendered it person. The King James translators rendered it person.

Evidently they felt that if Paul were forgiving in the face of Christ or in the mask of Christ that the word person would come closer to conveying what he was doing than saying in the presence of Christ–while indeed Christ is omnipresent and such a rendering would not be false and would be true–it would not convey a greater fullness of truth of the absolution that St. Paul was granting.

Remember however that at the time the King James translators were translating the scriptures that confession was not completely forbidden in the Anglican Church.

The KJV is less sectarian in Protestant bias than the RSV is.

What I don’t get is this… I can understand why a person might have problems with some of the translation renderings in the Douay Rheims and I can certainly understand how they might have problems with archaic language.

What I don’t get with this passage is how someone would think that “presence” would be a better rendering than person.

Does face or mask more closely convey person or presence?

I ask that regardless of whether a person believes in the truth of the doctrine of absolution of sin.

Do you think that presence is a better rendering than person?

Do you think that Paul in this instance of scripture offered the incestuous Corinthian absolution or not?

I understand how rthe Catholic doctrine of absolution would still be true if the rendering were presence because it does not depend upon this one verse of scripture.

The reason I ask is because I’ve been told millions of times around here that translation choice of words depends upon CONTEXT.

If that is true then wouldn’t the fact of whether St. Paul granted absolution or not in this case have bearing on whether person of presence should be used?

If it were up to me and there ever was a RSV-CE3 I would change presence in 2 Corinthians 2:10 to person just like the way BOTH the Douay Rheims translaors and the King James Version translators translated that word.

I believe that years AFTER the King James Version that this verse was one where later Protestant translators would say to themselves…o woops–let’s change it to presence–it will certainly be true since Christ is omnipresent–and it will still allow us to deny that absolution is in this verse.

Having said this I would not say that the RSV in any of its Catholic iterations has no value and there can be places where it does get a word or words more accuate than the Douay Rheims or Confraternity New Testament would.

I’m just saying this isn’t one of those cases.

The rendering is Protestant biased. The Douay Rheims translators and the King James Version translators aren’t both wrong.

There is no perfect version of the scriptures–I guess one chooses which set of inaccuracies they can tolerate more in one version than in another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top