By
Leland Ryken
“But approximation is not duplication.”
“To adapt a quip by Mark Twain (when his death was erroneously reported in a news paper), rumors of the demise of the King James have been greatly exaggerated.”
I was reluctant to purchase this book. I am a little gun shy on reading books about the King James, on either side of the issue. Even when someone who doesn't use the King James praises it for any reason, there is always the obligatory “apology” for praising said aspect. I recently read someone pointing out the 400th anniversary of the KJB and the first half of the sentence was amazement at the endurance, the second half was the “BUT…”; I guess to keep the street cred you have to say something badd too? Not really.
For some people, it is difficult for them to say nice things about the KJV without the "but..." comes from groups that go so far in the other direction who follow Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. No doubt there are such groups, but just because a person uses the King James doesn't mean they are part of these groups.
This characterization is just as dishonest or illinformed as the errors of Riplinger and Ruckman. This is why I didn't want to read the book, I so did not want to pay money to read a book, only to be categorized, in a cartoon-like manner, with groups that I am not part of, or want to be part of.
Through a series of events, I had a lot of credit on my Amazon account, and decided to give the book a try. I am pleased to say that I am happy that I got the book. Not only does Dr. Ryken not feel it necessary to apologize for the KJB, he defends and sings its praises. So I'm the one that has to apologize for judging the book before I read it.
Now, to the book itself.
The author not only does not use the King James personally, he has not in several decades. In fact,he worked as the literary advisor on the English Standard Version (ESV). So, naturally, there are several plugs for the ESV and a few other translations, but even at that, he does not come out to claim superiority, nor does he feel it necessary to trash the King James to uplift his preference. Ryken addresses this issue in the book. I was pleasantly surprised to find such a fair, charitable dealing with the Bible.
There are many aspects of the book that I did not agree with, and this is defiantly not a King James Only book. However, I enjoyed the book for its overall theme. The English speaking world is better off for the King James, and worse off without it.
Ryken deals with the history of the translation and the translators in how we got our English Bible. I don’t know his theological views, but he seemed to get right to the edge of the providential aspect of the translation, but never quite getting there. Regardless of your opinion of the KJV, it is undeniable that it was THE English Bible for 350 years, and regardless of the WHY it happened, it was providential that it did. This point is made several times and from several different perspectives.
The main focus of the book is dealing with the influence of the King James primarily in English literature (which makes sense, Ryken is a literary professor, so this is his wheelhouse). He labors on showing how the King James has influenced authors (religious and secular) in the last 400 years. It is surprising to read how authors were influenced by the KJV both directly and indirectly. Though toward the end, it seemed a tad redundant to one who isn't familiar with some of the authors. But, that is my fault, not his. My ears perked up when he mentioned Charles Dickens, and Hemingway, so if you are familiar with all the case points, I doubt it would seem redundant or tedious.
There is another theme running throughout the book; the denigration of the culture and the rise of modern translation coincide. Does one thing have anything to do with the other? Perhaps, and I believe that it does. Ryken slays the “archaic” argument, and shows how the even the soft endings (runneth, instead of runs)takes away from the translation. Even better than pointing this out, he tells you WHY this is, from a literary perspective.
"The sentiment is widely held that because today we find the KJB archaic and difficult, it must have been equally archaic and difficult for readers in previous eras. It is a great fallacy. Readers of the KJV through the centuries did not struggle with its language, just as modern readers who never relinquished the KJV manage just fine with it. Are we better off today without the KJV than Christendom was for three centuries with it? NO: those eras had many advantages over us. Although we cannot turn back the clock, we should lament what has been lost, not claim an illusory superiority."
Now, I don't think the KJV is "lost" and he kind of contradicts himself when earlier in the book he says that the King James Bible is still consistently in the top three of Bible sales. How can a "lost" book be in the top three? But, as for the overall point he is making, I thought it was spot on.
Here is how he sums what we have lost.
"What has been lost? A common English Bible, nearly universal reverence for the Bible as an authoritative book, and biblical literacy. Finally we have lost the affective and literary power of the King James Bible – not in an absolute sense, inasmuch as the RSV, NKJV, and ESV do a wonderful job of approximating the qualities of the KJV in updated English vocabulary. But approximation is not duplication. OF course dynamic equivalent and colloquial translations do not come close to the King James standard, and modern readers of those translations have no reason to gloat; they have exchanged a birthright of excellence for something manifestly inferior."
He also weighs in on the profitability of multiple English versions.
“If Bible knowledge in our day has declined across the board, where is the alleged gain from modern translations? The very proliferation of translations has discouraged the Christian public from seeking to know what the Bible actually says.”
Indeed. Where is the fruit? Look at our English culture and can we say that Biblical knowledge and literacy is higher than it was 100 years ago? Even 50? There could be many factors that play into that, but it is certainly an interesting thought to consider the rise of multiple Bible translation with the fall and degeneration of society in the English Speaking West. Could higher textual criticism have caused society to distrust and disregard the Bible? There is a danger in always telling people why their Bible is wrong (even if you mean "translation" the hearer often hears "words" and many times won't make the connection).
I enjoyed the book and found it refreshing to read a book that had good things to say about the Bible I have used all of my life and will continue to do so, without apology.
No comments:
Post a Comment