Lost in Translation #1: How the King James version of the bible got it so wrong about Hell.6/10/2015 So often, when we try to express ourselves in a foreign language, the true intended meaning gets 'lost in translation'. As an English man living in Sweden trying to express myself in a foreign language I know how hard this can be to make myself understood. Sometimes although we are using a form of words that should accurately express what we want to say we are missing the idiomatic way of saying it and our words come over as clumsy and strange. Sometimes it is simply because there is simply no word or concept in the other language for what we mean. Similar problems confront translators of the bible. Their intention is to translate into a modern, living language, texts written in languages no longer spoken (modern Hebrew is different in many significant ways from biblical Hebrew) and written by people living in a very different world. When the translators of the new English version of the bible commissioned by King James in 1604 started work, they adopted a very important principle that was to profoundly influence the character of the work they produced, namely that consistency was less important than clarity. So the same Hebrew or Greek word could be translated by different English words depending on the context. One of the most significant results of this approach was that the Hebrew word Sheol was sometimes translated grave or pit but in the great majority of cases as hell. Sheol really means something like the land of the dead (like the Greek Hades . . . but different) and 'grave' or 'pit' is therefore quite an accurate translation, but their principle of inconsistency meant that many generations of readers found in the King James version Old Testament references to 'hell' where none was intended in the original Hebrew. This has had an enormous (and deleterious) influence on present day assumptions about the biblical teaching on hell. The concept of Sheol as the land of the dead, or as the grave, was simply 'lost in translation'. Thus inconsistency in translation was then, a deliberate policy and implied a rejection of the advice of one of the greatest English Hebrew scholars of the age, Hugh Broughton, who although not invited to join the panel of translators, nevertheless gave them his advice in a letter, where, among other points, he urged them to translate words consistently. In his opinion the same word or phrase in the original Greek and Hebrew should always be translated by the same English word. This was advice they ignored. So, the translators felt at liberty to translate Sheol sometimes by grave or pit, but more often by hell. They seem to have used grave when there was an overwhelmingly clear reference to death, especially as expressed by a biblical hero (such as Abraham). They used hell in the great majority of cases.
So far I have argued that, for the most part, the Hebrews thought that those who died ended up in Sheol, the realm of the dead, the shadowy silent place of forgetfulness, where as Rephaim (or shades) they would sleep forever. The godly hoped to avoid Sheol for as long as possible, while there was a general expectation that the wicked would end up in Sheol a good deal quicker. There was no judgement or reward once you got there - the reward was precisely NOT to be there. But if that is true why do so many christians believe that their Old Testament supports the idea of the existence of hell? And the answer is that (as so often), the meaning was "lost in translation". When the bible was translated into English by the King James committee between 1604 and 1611, in very many cases, when they came across the word Sheol they translated it as hell. What they understood or meant by the word 'hell' is another issue, but what their decision meant was that, for centuries, readers of the English bible got the impression that hell was mentioned (frequently) in what most of them would have called the Old Testament, when in fact the Hebrew text simply said Sheol i.e. the place of the dead where the Rephaim sleep. Below are some examples. The NRSV translation which correctly used the original term Sheol is on the left and the King James version of the same verse(s) is on the right.
Remember, until 1885 and the publication of the Revised Version, most readers of the English bible had nothing to compare this to and most would not have been able to read the original texts. This was 'the bible' as far as they were concerned, in which they read the Psalmist and other writers affirming the existence of a place called 'hell', somewhere they already knew to be place of eternal post-mortem punishment for the wicked, an underworld dominion lorded over by Satan and populated by demonic hordes. Into the graveThere are 63 uses of the word Sheol in the Hebrew Bible. In 41 of those, the King James version translates Sheol as hell. In the other 22 places where Sheol occurs, they translate it differently, with words that more accurately represent the Hebrew original. In the references to Abraham's sorrow over the loss of Joseph his son they translate Sheol, correctly, as "the grave". So in Genesis 37.35 we read
They used the same translation in 42.38; 44.29; 44.31. Clearly, for the translators it was difficult to imagine the great patriarch Abraham going down into Hell! The same is true in 1 Samuel 2.6 where Hannah proclaims the power of God to reverse the fortunes of his faithful ones
I wonder if here they were reluctant to imagine that someone could be brought out of hell! Grave is also used to translate sheol in 1 Kings 2.6; 2.9; Job 7.9; 14.13; 17.13; 21.13; 24.19; If you go down to the 'pit' today . . .In Numbers 16.30 and 16.33, the story of Korah and his followers being swallowed "alive" by sheol, the King James version uses the word pit instead of hell
The inconsistency of the translators is shown clearly in the following passage from Job 17. In verse 13 sheol is translated as grave while in verse 16 it is translated as pit. Both refer to death rather than hell.
But in Job 26.1-6 the translators use hell instead. Comparing the "wisdom" of his advisers with the true wisdom of God Job says
And speaking of the wisdom of God in Job 11.8 we read
Commenting on this approach, David Norton (in his great history of the King James translation A History of the English Bible as Literature) points out that this came to be seen as one of the failings of the King James version In this the translators were following the example of their predecessors and also reflecting a certain looseness in the spirit of the age. Variety of translation is at one with the tendency to inconsistent phrasing of quotations from the Bible evident in the preface itself and in a number of seventeenth-century writers . . . However, a large number of scholars came to think, with Broughton, that inconsistency was a mistake. The preface to the RV NT calls it ‘one of the blemishes’ in the KJB, and the RV followed the opposite policy. (Norton p 68) But then consistency in translation was not something that mattered very much to the King James translators. In the preface to the King James Bible, Myles Smith states that the translators felt that in some cases they could more accurately translate the original Hebrew and Greek words and phrases by using a variety of English terms, depending on the context. An other thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done ...But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by ‘purpose’,never to call it ‘intent’, if one where ‘journeying’, never ‘travelling’ . . . we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously? ...niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling. (p 11) Thus inconsistency in translation was a deliberate policy and implied a rejection of the advice of one of the greatest English Hebrew scholars of the age, Hugh Broughton, who although not invited to join the panel of translators, nevertheless gave them his advice in a letter, where, among other points, he urged them to translate words consistently. In his opinion the same word or phrase in the original Greek and Hebrew should always be translated by the same English word. This was advice they ignored.So, the translators felt at liberty to translate Sheol sometimes by grave or pit, but more often by hell. They seem to have used grave when there was an overwhelmingly clear reference to death, especially as expressed by a biblical hero (such as Abraham). They used hell in the great majority of cases. But Norton also points out that this very inconsistency, the variation in translating the original words, could also enrich the literary quality of the translation. That wasn't necessarily the explicit intention of the translators, who, he argues, never strove for literary elegance, but the freedom from the literalness demanded by some, allowed them to use language in a variety of ways. For example although the Greek phrase ou kopia oude naythei is identical in Luke 12.27 and Matthew 6.28, in Luke it is translated "they toil not, they spin not" which exactly matches the phrasing of the Greek original while in Matthew they translate it "they toil not, neither do they spin". The latter has become the more memorable version although strictly speaking it does not render the original as exactly as the Lukan version does. The fact that the translators deliberately adopted this policy of inconsistency (even if only because of precedent) is the only evidence that shows a sense of reponsibility towards the English language. However, the passage from the preface does not show genuinely literary motives, even if it lays open the way for choice of vocabulary on literary grounds. The concern is still with precision. ‘Fit’, as has been shown, does not carry aesthetic connotations,and ‘commodiously’is used in the sense of usefully or beneficially for conveying sense. A similar point is made by Ward Allen about the final phrase quoted: ‘by niceness Dr Smith means the domination of thought by words rather than the domination of words by thought, or exactness’ (Translating for King James) (Norton p 69) That obviously raises the question of why they made the choices they did when it came to using the translations 'grave' or 'hell' for sheol. I hope to explore this in a another post, but the fact that they used 'hell' in so many instances has, I think, had a monumental impact on the growth of the belief that the bible teaches the existence of a place called 'hell'. For three hundred years, readers of the English bible found a 'hell' in their Old Testament where there was none!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2016
GalleryThis blog is as much about images as it is about text. Below is a slideshow of the pictures and images used in this blog. Click on any of the pictures to go to the post where that image is featured.
PostsLocating Paradise #1 In a Garden, Far, Far Away
The Testament of Abraham and the Threefold Judgement of God #5 'Stuck in the Middle With You'
The Resurrection According to Rahner
Today You Will Be With Me in Paradise
The Testament of Abraham and the Threefold Judgement of God #4 'And Who by Fire'
The Testament of Abraham and the Threefold Judgement of God #3: Held in the Balance
The Testament of Abraham and the Threefold Judgement of God #2: Once, Twice, Three Times a Sinner
The Testament of Abraham and the Threefold Judgement of God #1: The Broad and Narrow Gates
Daily Dante 7: Many Rivers to Cross
Daily Dante 6: 'You Gotta Serve Somebody'
In Hell Everyone Can Hear You Scream. The Vision of Tundale #3
Teeth, Spikes and Cleavers: At the Sharp end of Hell. The Vision of Tundale #2
'No Pain No Gain': The Vision of Tundale #1
'Hellzapoppin':
Illustrations from Le Livre de la Vigne nostre Seigneur, #2 'It's The End of the World as We Know It (and we feel fine)'. Illustrations from Le Livre de la Vigne nostre Seigneur, #1
Visions of Heaven. Botticini's Assumption of the Virgin #2 Blinded by the Light
Visions of Heaven. Botticini's Assumption of the Virgin #1: Glorious and Immortal
Daily Dante 5: What the gates said.
Daily Dante 4: When I find myself in times of trouble
Daily Dante 3: I'll take you there
Daily Dante 2: Fierce creatures
Daily Dante 1: If you go down to the woods today
In Seventh Heaven or 'What Enoch Did Next'
A World of Fire and Ice: Heaven according to Enoch
The Power and the Glory: Visions of God as king in the Hebrew bible
The Beautiful Bestiary of Catherine Cleves: Monsters and Demons in detail.
Heaven is for Real: Heaven as a physical space up above the sky
Resurrecting the Dead or Reviving the Flowers? The loss of resurrection faith in Judaism.
The Defeat of Death #1: The promise of resurrection in the Isaiah Apocalypse.
The Defeat of Death #2: Death as a hostile power and promise of God's victory in Isaiah
Scary Monsters and Super Creeps: The 'Last Judgement' according to Stefan Lochner
Hell in the Hospital: The 'Last Judgement' of Rogier van der Weyden in the Beaune altarpiece.
'Hell' in the New Testament #2: The gates of Hades shall not prevail
The Hours of Catherine Cleves: Imagining hell and purgatory in Catherine's prayer book
'On Earth as in Heaven': The kingdom of God as a revelation of heaven
'Hell' in the New Testament #1: Gehenna
Lost in Translation #1: How the King James version got it so wrong about hell
Heaven is not our home
Domes, Depths and Demons: The cosmology of the Hebrew world
A Bigger God
"See you in Sheol" - Sheol, the common destination of all
Heaven, Hell and Christian Hope
BooksBelow are some of the books which have helped me the most in the research and writing for this blog. Click on any image to find out more about that book at its page on Amazon uk.
Categories
All
|