Posted on 01/29/2009 7:15:37 AM PST by John Leland 1789
Ronald Reagan on the Authorized Version
The following transcript is one of Ronald Reagan's famous radio addresses. In this address (which aired September 6, 1977), Ronald Reagan, the great orator, eloquently gives his thoughts on the "Good News Bible" (also called the Good News for Modern Man and Today's English Version) in comparison to the Authorized Version or the King James Bible. emphasis added
--------------------------------------------------------
What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?
I'll be right back. . .
Writing in the journal "The Alternative", Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.
Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote "make the Bible more readable & understandable" unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, "For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper." He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, "probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language."
They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it's peak of richness & beauty.
Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, "the natural English of everyday adult conversation." I'm sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can't help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.
Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said "How forcible are right words!" [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying "Honest words are convincing." That's only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow". Is it really an improvement to say instead, "The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts."
In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read "The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way." [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, "Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready." It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.
The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, "The Lord is my shepherd" but instead of continuing "I shall not want" we are supposed to say "I have everything I need."
The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words "Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy" has become, "Don't be afraid! I am here with good news for you."
The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
— aired September 6, 1977
"Indeed, it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book." —-- Ronald Reagan
The King James Bible, Newsweek, Dec. 27, 1982 p.46
Reagan hand wrote wrote all of his own radio addresses.
He was the most remarkably philsophical presidents of the 20th century, and the only one with a degree in economics.
God bless his memory and legacy.
Amen! Not to mention all the new versions use “dynamic equivalence” which is heresy and the garbage Wescott and Hort manuscript. Then put that all aside and take into account that to endeavor to depart from the Authorized Version is necessarily a Humanist endeavor.
I agree with the Gipper (big surprise). I personally love the language in the KJV. The language in the modern translations such as the NIV just leave me cold. We use the NIV at our church, and while it is probably best for those in a sermon to follow along to, it seems to be missing depth.
Fortunately our pastor often goes and gives us the original Greek words & meanings of areas where English isn’t rich enough (or unambiguous enough) to provide a direct translation from the Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT).
I have also picked up Logos (www.logos.com). It has been an incredible tool for Bible Study. I can go straight to the original manuscripts in their original language if I wish, as well as check many translations of the English Bible for differences in their translations.
Tons of commentaries, allusions to passages in the OT from the NT and vice-versa, auto lookups, etc... I find it a fascinating tool. I just picked it up last week, and its been a great way to learn.
“I personally love the language in the KJV”
Same here. But if you ever want a laugh, (or maybe raise your blood pressure, depending) check out the latest translation: The Message.
Some of it reads like the word of God as written by a stoner.
I kiddeth thou not. ; )
This single sentence speaks volumes. There are a few in our society who continue believing that, by forsaking the language of King James, we have forsaken the "richness and beauty" of the language. I continue to enjoy that language in King James' version of the Bible and can only say to those who protest that "the old version of the bible is too difficult to understand," embrace the beauty of your heritage. In discarding that heritage, you are discarding a part of your history.
And, I am completely aware that an "original" version of the Bible would be in a language that a rare few of us would even begin to understand. The King James version of that Holy Book was created to bridge the gap between the mystery of those ancient languages and to frame the scriptures in a language that is both beautiful and understandable to modern man.
One Hundred (PLUS) Percent Right on the Westcott and Hort garbage that got snuck into the Revised Version committee (1881-1884). Thanks!
See what I mean?
I believe they also use “Hey, listen up!” in place of “Hark!” in some passages.
And to think the media convinced America that Reagan was an ignorant buffoon.
He is right on about the KJV. I’m reading an interesting translation of the book of Genesis by Robert Alter and he says the poetic dynamics of hebrew are not carried over into any translation, in some ways they can’t be, but the translation that did the best and at least tried was...Authorized version. (I’m not advocating Alter’s theology at all but I read stuff outside my tradition a lot.)
Those KJV translators were doing things to preserve the literary dimension that scholars of the last 200 years completely missed.
Haha. I think that’d be a great translation to read for comic relief. I’m going to add it as one of the Bibles to do passage study in Logos. It will keep things light.
Thanks for the heads up, the Message was off my radar. I can just imagine the male models of Zoolander reading it.
You’re welcome!
“I can just imagine the male models of Zoolander reading it.”
That remark, however, has required you to put a fiver in the “Owes New Keyboard” jar!
(Ow! Coffee hurts going thru the nose.)
Excellent post. Thanks.
As opposed to not reading the Word at all .. would that suit you better?
Ethnocentrism doesn't establish truth .. doesn't own it either.
The KJV is about 11 pages longer than it would have been if it were based on the older, more reliable manuscripts that have come to light since it was finished 400 years ago. Should everyone stick to the KJV .. ... Mandarin Chinese speakers .. Spanish ... Arabic.
Someone once said
"I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some ... NIV ...
or was it
"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. " ... KJV ...
or was it
"I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. ... American Standard ...
or was it
"To all I have become all things, in order that at all events I might save some ... Darby
1 Corinthians 9:22
Sheesh
He truly was a one-man think tank. And such a great communicator.
The left will always think of him as the “amiable dunce”, but what brilliant things he accomplished and what gems he left with those 3 minute radio essays.
For the GOP to gain back its leadership position, it needs to go back to making these bedrock principles and policies that spring forth from them.
I agree with your sentiment wrt reading the Word, I just think The Message reads funny. As for the KJV I think it reads more like poetry than the newspaper-ish modern translations.
I use the NIV at Church, where I see it does much good. But personally I find rather flat. I don’t think I ever condemned any of these translations. I actually reference a wide variety of translations including original Greek and Hebrew texts when doing Bible study now (just started).
Anyway, I’m sorry that you felt I thought there was no value in these other translations.
The RNC should start with weekly radio buys, and rotate them around with various rising GOP stars.
In addition to the weekly Obamoron radio address.
Since I think the RNC is completely incompetent (and has been for some time), I’d prefer to see Congressional leaders (Boehner, Ryan, and Cantor (and maybe some others) start putting out 3-4 minute public policy proposals up on YouTube or its equivalent. No cost and the opportunity to get it circulated.
About a year ago I read a great book on the Education of Ronald Reagan (or something like that) that discussed Reagan’s learning his craft on the “mashed potato-circuit” as GE’s spokesman. This led up to “The Speech” for you, Senator Goldwater, in late October 1964. And, as they say, the rest is history. But it was those early years of thinking through these principles and putting them into essays that ordinary Americans could understand and relate to, just like his 4 minute radio essays, that seared this ideas into Ronald Reagan’s psyche. When he debated Jimmy Carter, he didn’t have to think about what he believed. He KNEW what he believed and SAID what he believed.
What a refreshing change that would be. We sure do miss him.
Very well stated.
I would add that Reagan also honed his understanding of the Left in his dealings as the Screen Actors Guild when Hollywood was ate up with Communist infiltration in the early post-war era. Not that it still isn’t today.
An excellent book on this period of Reagan’s development as a politician can be found in ‘Reagan’s War’ by Peter Schweizer.
Hey, the Message sounds pretty good to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.