What’s The Word
Going from “four score and seven years ago” to “87 years ago” may improve my understanding of the exact time reference described but that does not make it what the writer intended.
If Lincoln had wanted to say 87 years he certainly was capable of doing so. He chose the four score and seven phrase carefully, and changing it changes the reverence of the piece and the draw to the words that follow.
There is a certain lyrical cadence to a literary piece that is well written. Reading books written years ago is not necessarily easy, but overcoming outdated grammatical obstacles is not all that difficult either. As long as I have a desire to learn and understand what the text is purporting, I have the ability to seek further explanation of those words or phrases I do not understand.
The difference between the original text of classic writings and modernized versions can often mean the difference between what the writer originally intended and what the interpreter thinks that intent was.
I have seen modernized versions of some of Shakespeare’s classic works and quite frankly they are usually as hollow as they are boring and disjointed. Something is always lost in translation, either in the lyrical quality or in the actual meaning. When “Romeo, Oh Romeo. Where fore art thou Romero” becomes “Romeo, my man. Where you at” we lose all but the most base meaning of the quote. A deep and moving lovelorn lament becomes a peppy “wasssssup” that may as well have Juliet text messaging it as speaking off her balcony.
The same holds true for the most classic of all written word, the Holy Bible.
A Colorado Springs based company named Biblica holds the copyright to the NIV or New International Version of the Bible. The NIV version is the Bible of choice for most conservative evangelicals. The NIV was first published in 1978 and has more than 300 million Bibles in print worldwide. The text of this version was last updated 25 years ago, and Biblica has decided that due to changes in English language usage and supposed advancements in Biblical scholarship, they will be undertaking another grammatical update to be completed by 2011.
The CEO of Biblica, Ken Danby stated “We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand.” While I salute Mr. Danby in his quest for increased distribution I question the validity of his reasoning. I, like many others, have grave misgivings about the extent to which this holy text needs to be modernized.
There are currently 87 (four score and seven) English language versions of the Bible in distribution. That would indicate that these words are being delivered in just about every imaginable way. Some of these versions are religion specific like the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox versions, but the NIV is the leader of modern English non-religion specific versions. Updates to this version could have far reaching impact.
If Biblica updates the NIV to reflect advancements in translations of the original Greek or Aramaic text they will be doing all of us who read their version a great service. But if they decide to modernize the sacred text by incorporating political correctness they will very likely be faced with a revolt on a scale of biblical proportions.
It has been suggested by some that the NIV should be edited to expunge any gender specific verbiage such as changing the term “all men” to “people” and “sons of God” to “children of God”.
Such changes would completely change the intent and more importantly the historical value of the text.
The fact that American culture has changed does not mean that God has changed. If anything, the changes in modern culture have mostly served to move us farther away from God. It is not the function of biblical scholars to keep God hip enough to keep up with us.
I will reserve final judgment until after the revisions are complete. But in the end the Word is the Word.
And the Word is good.
