William Shakespeare famously said that it would. In Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2, Juliet says, "What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet." (lines 46-47).
But would it really? Somehow, I doubt it. I'm thinking of various English versions of the Bible, where the same verse seems to say different things depending on which version you happen to be reading.
For example, in the story of Elijah hiding in a cave in the book of First Kings, chapter 19, the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 reads:
"And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice" [emphasis mine].
However, in the New International Version (NIV) a late-20th-century translation, the same couple of verses read as follows:
"Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper" [emphasis mine].
Okay, "shattered" and "brake (broke) in pieces" mean essentially the same thing, as do "rent and "tore apart", but is a gentle whisper the same thing as a still, small voice? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure.
Here's another example. Proverbs 24:6 says in the KJV, "in multitude of counselors there is safety" but in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) the same verse says, "in an abundance of counselors there is victory."
Again, are victory and safety the same thing? I think not.
So what's a person to believe?
It may depend on whether your Bible was produced by Roman Catholics or Protestants. In the KJV (Protestant), Matthew 11:12 reads "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force" but in the Douay-Rheims version (1899, Roman Catholic) it reads "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away". So if you know that Flannery O'Connor's second novel is entitled The Violent Bear It Away you also have a pretty good idea which Bible she was reading.
Wait a minute. Suffereth? Suffereth? Another thing about words is that their meanings can change over time. Believe it or not, suffer used to mean permit or allow, which clarifies what Jesus meant when he said "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
There is also First Thessalonians 4:15 where the word "prevent" in the KJV can be confusing unless you know that in 1611 it meant "precede".
I don't know if any of this is of interest to you, but it interests me. However, since the quality of mercy is not strained (Shakespeare wrote that too), I will show some mercy and stop for now.
I reserve the right to bring up the subject again sometime.
Tonight's blank stares on Jeopardy!: What is Foreigner? (band that had a hit with "I Want To Know What Love Is")
I have several different Bibles but most are the King James Version. I'll admit some portions can be confusing if you are not accustomed to reading them. I have one copy that is a "modern English" type and it is simple to read and understand. However, I find that I prefer the traditional KJV Bible even though it is not written in "modern language". I guess I prefer it because that is what I grew up reading. I think it is important to remember just how long ago the Bible was written and people did talk differently then.
ReplyDeleteYou mean none of the contestants knew Foreigner? Wouldn't that be "Who is Foreigner"?
Bonnie, I prefer it too, and for basically the same reason. It’s also important to remember that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testanent was written in Greek, not 1611 English! Everything we have today, good and bad, are translations or, regrettably, paraphrases.
DeleteYes, none of the contestants knew Foreigner. They were much younger than I am. They probably wouldn’t know Winnie Ruth Judd either.
The subject of your post interests me. I've been reading through the Bible using the KJV. (Am in Ezekiel) I haven't been doing comparisons with other versions that I have (NIV, RSV). Your post lets me know that I should.
ReplyDeleteJeannelle, since this is the week before Christmas, I must tell you that the big scandal when the RSV came out in 1952, and it was perpetuated in the NRSV in 1989 (I'm doing this all from memory), is that in Isaiah 7:14 the word "virgin" was changed to "young woman". The NIV and NLT, though I'm not a big fan of either one of them, do retain "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14.
DeleteThings are certainly dependent upon translation, viewpoint, and language. It reminds me of the old joke about a priest translating the Bible. His translation was to be used to update the guidelines for the priests. Suddenly he jumped up and shouted, "It's celebrate, not celibate!"
ReplyDeleteEmma, that’s funny, but there is truth in that joke. Read ( in translation, of course) what St. Paul wrote to Timothy in the first few verses of First Timothy, chapter 4.
Delete