Recently I came across a statement by the late Zane C. Hodges from a July 1964 Bibliotheca Sacra article in which he's reviewing William F. Beck's New Testament in the Language of Today.1 In the review, Hodges writes,"If in Solomon's day it could be affirmed that 'of making many books there is no end,' in our own day it might equally be said that of making many translations there is no end. Indeed, the proliferation of English versions of the Bible in modern times is so bewildering that each additional one ought to be required to furnish compelling justification for its existence."2
While there is, of course, a point to be made there; in response to Hodges I would quote a statement from the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation from June 1978 (revised August 1983), when they say: "There is a sense in which the work of translation is never wholly finished. This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible."3
While there is, of course, a point to be made there; in response to Hodges I would quote a statement from the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation from June 1978 (revised August 1983), when they say: "There is a sense in which the work of translation is never wholly finished. This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible."3
ENDNOTES:
1 This is a Lutheran translation of the Bible called The Holy Bible: An American Translation.
2 Bibliotheca Sacra 121 (July 1964), pp. 268-269.
3 From the Preface to The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1973, 1978, 1984).
For more information on Beck's translation and Hodge's review of it, see the article on the Bible Research website titled: "William Beck's 'Bible in the Language of Today' (1976)". The link is: https://www.bible-researcher.com/beck.html
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion of Beck's American Translation of the Bible?
ReplyDeleteI would basically agree with Zane Hodges’ review of it in Bibliotheca Sacra. And I should preface my comments by saying that I have not read Beck’s NT cover to cover. But from what I have read of it, I would agree with Hodges when he says that “the total result is disappointing.” That's not to say that there are not certain things that I like about it; there are indeed things I like about Beck’s translation. For example, and this might seem rather minor, but again, this is just my initial observations coming from someone who has perused the translation but not really studied it in depth, but what I can say I do like about it is the stauron, the Greek stauron on the front cover: which is the Greek symbol for the cross. And I believe that in the front flyleaf or inside the front cover, Beck has an explanation of it which I think is very interesting and informative. And this is coming from someone who is a student of Koine Greek. Notice I said “student”. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but as someone who is interested in the language of the New Testament, I find the stauron intriguing. It gives Beck’s NT a historical quality that sort of takes me back to that era, the era when the New Testament was first written. And actually, I kept Beck's New Testament just for that reason: because I like that the stauron (the cross) is on the front cover, along with his explanation of it. And I kept Beck’s NT for another reason too, well three reasons actually. And these are three things I like about his NT: 1) the stauron symbol on the front cover and his explanation of it. 2) The second thing I like about Beck’s NT is that he has an interesting summary of Bible translation in his introduction, and I found it quite inspiring actually. Beck talks about how there was persecution and how the pagans tried to stamp out the writings of the New Testament but that only caused it to be spread even more. That section is not Beck’s translation of the NT; it's his introduction. I’m just saying that I found it interesting. But again, that's not his translation of the NT per se, so it's sort of two different things. But that's the second thing that I like about his translation (or his NT) in general. 3) And then the third thing that I like about it is just that it's good to use as a reference. I would pretty much say that I would put a disclaimer on it: “FOR REFERENCE ONLY!” That's pretty much how I view Beck’s NT, or to sum it up that would be my view of it: use it for reference only! I agree with Zane Hodges when he says that the translation itself is “disappointing.”
ReplyDelete[Continued below....]
And so now I’ll get into the things that I don't particularly like about Beck’s translation. I mentioned the three things that I do like about it. And the things that I like are really not in regards to his translation per se, they are more just things I like about his NT (the book) in general. But as far as the actual translation goes, like Hodges, I too found it “disappointing.” Let me reiterate that I haven't read Beck’s translation cover to cover, but from what I have read of it and in perusing it, I would agree with Hodges’ assessment of it. I found Beck’s translation quite wooden actually. I didn’t find it to be in the language of the people or “in the language of today”. And maybe that's just a difference between the 1960s when Beck wrote it, to today in 2024: that would be 60 plus years, 65 years almost. Be that as it may, I thought the translation was much too wooden: it was stilted; the words didn't flow really at all. No offense to Beck, but it seemed to me as if it was written by someone who did not have a good grasp of the English language. It was almost as if English was his second language. Like I said, to me the language and wording was very stilted. The translation seemed choppy. It just seemed really choppy and difficult to read: not hard to read, but not enjoyable to read. And so I was not impressed with Beck’s translation for that reason, but also for the reasons mentioned by Hodges in his review of it. Some of which I will get to next.
ReplyDelete[Continued below....]
In Beck's translation he apparently removed all occurences of the word “grace” and replaced them all with the word “love”. And that's just bad theology. I mean, like Hodges said in his review, they're two different words with two different meanings. I like what J. Vernon McGee has said in regards to God’s love, and this is a great point. It's in McGee’s Thru The Bible commentary on Ephesians chapter 2. It's McGee's commentary on Ephesians 2:1-7 to be exact. McGee really explains it well: he points out that God doesn't save us by love. Now that might surprise some people to hear that. Yes, God does love us and God loves the whole world. And God is love. But He doesn’t save us by love; He saves us by grace! Ephesians 2:8-9 says: “for by grace are you saved….” It doesn't say, “for by love are you saved.” I refer you again to McGee's Thru The Bible commentary on Ephesians 2:1-7. (In McGee’s Thru The Bible radio broadcast, the timestamp is approximately at the 16:00 minute mark up to the 21:00 minute mark.) This is where McGee talks about how a hippie came up to him after a Bible study and the hippie was wearing a sort of funny looking hat that said “love, love, love,” and his pants and shirt also said “love, love, love,” and even his shoes had “love” written on them! And the hippie came up to McGee after the Bible study and they got talking, and McGee asked the man why he had the word “love” written all over his clothing? And the man said, “Oh, why because God is love.” And McGee said “Yes, I certainly do agree with that.” And the man went on to say, “And God saves us by love.” And McGee said, “Well now, I can't agree with you on that.” And the man said, “What do you mean?” And McGee explained to the hippie that God doesn't save us by love, He saves us by grace! And McGee explained it to the hippie. And in the radio broadcast, McGee says that he thought the hippie was going to cite John 3:16 to try to prove that God saves us by love. And McGee was surprised that the man didn't appeal to John 3:16. But McGee explained that even John 3:16 doesn't say that God saves us by love. What John 3:16 says is: “For God so loved the world, that….” What? That He saved the world? No! It says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave….” Right? God couldn't save the world just by love because God's justice must be satisfied (God is more than just love, He is also holy and righteous and just), and man also must accept the offer of salvation, i.e. believe! And so the point I’m making (and the point that McGee was making) is that there's a real distinction between love and grace. And Beck's translation confuses the two, and that's a real problem: not only theologically, but also just because they're two different words with two different meanings. I mean, to confuse those two words seems like a very elementary mistake! (It reminds me of how Sherlock Holmes always used to say, “It’s elementary my dear Watson.”) I'm surprised that Beck didn't see the difference between love and grace! But regardless of that, the fact of the matter is that his translation doesn't use the word “grace” at all! Instead, he replaces it with the word “love”. So I view that as one of the problems or at least a weakness of Beck’s translation, and I think theologically most people would probably agree that love and grace are two different things. And even in the second edition of Beck’s NT (which was published after his death), the editors went back to using the word “grace”. Because I think they knew, as I tried to explain, that love is not a synonym for grace. I mean, they're two different words and they have two different meanings theologically. So in the second edition of Beck's New Testament the editors went back to using the word “grace”: which I think is good. But my comments pertain to Beck’s translation, which is the first edition. So that would be the second thing I think is disappointing about his translation: that he completely omits the word “grace,” and replaces it instead with the word “love”.
ReplyDelete[Continued below....]
So just to recap, the first thing that I don't like about Beck's translation, or that I think is a weakness of it, is that it's very choppy and stilted to read. For example, the King James Version is, in a way, difficult to read just because it's old English. But to me, when I read it, at least it flows smoothly; there's a rhythm and a cadence to the King James Bible in the way that it's written. Yes, it's hard to understand (or it can be hard to understand), but to me at least the words seem to flow more or less smoothly and there's a rhythm to it. There is a cadence to it, almost like a poetic rhythm and cadence. Whereas in Beck's translation, although he was trying to improve upon the King James Bible, in my opinion he failed to do so. Or to say it another way, IMO he did not succeed in improving upon the King James Version. Yes, some things are translated more colloquially in Beck’s translation. Beck said that he tried to make his translation read as if Jesus was having coffee and donuts! But as another reviewer has said, “it seems inappropriate to picture Jesus holding a doughnut as he says, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ or a cup of coffee as he says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega.’ There is something peculiarly tactless about this attempt to give a conversational tone to the discourses of Christ and his apostles, which are anything but casual.” I completely agree. So those are two things that I don't particularly like about Beck’s translation: 1) to me it reads very choppy, and 2) I don't like how Beck removed the word “grace” from his translation, and what's more, he used the word “love” to replace it. I mean, if Beck would have substituted some other word or phrase that was accurate to the meaning of grace it would have been fine. Beck could have explained the concept of grace by saying something like “undeserved favor” and that would have been fine because that is actually what “grace” means! That would have been helpful. But unfortunately that’s not what he did. So that's the second thing I don't particularly like about his translation.
ReplyDelete[Continued below....]
And then the third thing that I don't particularly like, or that I find disappointing about Beck's translation, is that for the word “justification” he replaced it with the phrase “become righteous”. But technically that's not what justification means. Justification means “to declare righteous”. The emphasis being that it is a declaration of righteousness. Not that the person literally "becomes" righteous (in their behavior). Yet that's what Beck’s translation might lead someone to believe. But that would be incorrect. So that's more of a theological issue. It's more of a nuanced theological discussion than the difference between love and grace, which is maybe a more obvious difference or distinction. But justification technically is a declaration, not a transformation (which the phrase “become righteous” might lead a person to think). In other words, by removing the word “justification” and replacing it by saying “becomes righteous,” someone might easily be led to believe that what is being referred to is a transformation of behavior, rather than a declaration of righteousness (as the word “justification” properly signifies). It's true that at the point of justification each and every believer does become a new creation in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17), but that's a positional truth. That's how God views us. In other words, that’s our new standing in God's eyes. Whereas in our condition in this world we are still sinners! And we still sin. We didn't necessarily “become righteous” in the sense of a change of behavior. So I think Beck’s explanation of justification is confusing at best. I'm not going to say that it's necessarily wrong because if you understand it, we do “become righteous” in the sense that in God's eyes we become righteous in terms of how He views us in Christ. But my point is that justification does not technically mean “to become righteous”. Rather, it means “to declare someone righteous”. So for that reason I think Beck’s translation is just not helpful. At best it's unhelpful, at worst it's incorrect. So this is just another example of why I think that overall, Beck’s translation is (as Hodges said) “disappointing.” So just to review, the three things that I would say are disappointing about Beck’s translation are: 1) the wording is stilted, wooden, and choppy, 2) Beck completely omits the word grace, and he substitutes the word “love” for "grace," and 3) he removed the word "justification" and replaced it with the phrase “become righteous” (when more accurately it should be translated “to declare righteous”).
ReplyDeleteSo to sum it up, those are three things that I like about Beck’s New Testament and three things that I think are rather disappointing about it. But basically I would agree with Hodges' review of it. For more information I would point you to the link in my first comment. At the conclusion of that article the author also includes Hodges’ review of Beck’s NT. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.