Two of the reasons I love the KJV are: it tends to be a literal translation and it makes it easy to distinguish between you (singular) and you (plural). There are times when the King James seems to depart from the literal sense of the underlying Hebrew or Greek. Sometimes that is for readability. Other times, the reason is not clear. In six instances in Deuteronomy, the KJV seems to errantly use a plural pronoun to represent a word that is grammatically singular in Hebrew. The first instance is Deuteronomy 6:15.
Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
The corresponding Hebrew is this:
(Deuteronomy 6:15) כִּי אֵל קַנָּא יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּקִרְבֶּךָ פֶּן־יֶחֱרֶה אַף־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּךְ וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה׃ ס
The key word is "בְּקִרְבֶּךָ" (Bekirbecha or Bəqirbek̲ā), which the King James translates as "among you". The same Hebrew word, with the identical inflection, is found in a total of 19 verses in the Hebrew Scriptures (18 other places) using the Westminster Leningrad Codex text as the Hebrew text.
Internal Consistency
As mentioned above, in six places in Deuteronomy, the word is translated with a plural ("among you") in the KJV, with the the remaining instances all being translated with a singular.
- Exo 33:3 "in the midst of thee"
- Exo 33:5 "into the midst of thee"
- Deu 6:15 "among you" (apparent error)
- Deu 7:21 "among you" (apparent error)
- Deu 13:1 "among you" (apparent error)
- Deu 16:11 "among you" (apparent error)
- Deu 17:2 "among you" (apparent error)
- Deu 23:16 "among you" (apparent error)
- Deu 28:43 "within thee"
- Jos 7:13 "in the midst of thee"
- Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee"
- Jer 4:14 "within thee"
- Hos 11:9 "in the midst of thee"
- Amo 5:17 "through thee"
- Mic 6:14 "in the midst of thee"
- Nah 3:13 "in the midst of thee"
- Zep 3:12 "in the midst of thee"
- Zep 3:15 "in the midst of thee"
- Zep 3:17 "in the midst of thee"
Historical Basis
What is the source of this apparent error? One option is that this is the propagation of an error from the Tyndale translation, or from one of the other pre-KJV revisions of that Tyndale translation. In this case, all the apparent errors arise in a book that Tyndale translated.
Tyndale
Tyndale translated the Pentateuch and Jonah. He consistently translated this word as a plural:
- Exo 33:3 "among you" (different from KJV)
- Exo 33:5 "apon you" (i.e., upon you) (different from KJV)
- Deu 6:15 "among you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 7:21 "amog you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 13:1 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 16:11 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 17:2 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 23:16 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 28:43 "amonge you" (different from KJV)
Bishops
- Exo 33:3 "amongest you" (different from KJV, essentially Tyndale)
- Exo 33:5 "vpon you" (different from KJV, essentially Tyndale)
- Deu 6:15 "among you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 7:21 "among you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 13:1 "among you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 16:11 "among you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 17:2 "among you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 23:16 "among you" (same as KJV)
- Deu 28:43 "among you" (different from KJV, same as Tyndale)
- Jos 7:13 "among you" (different from KJV)
- Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee" (same as KJV)
- Jer 4:14 "with thee" (revised to "Within" in KJV)
- Hos 11:9 "in the middest of thee" (Same as KJV)
- Amo 5:17 "through thee" (same as KJV)
- Mic 6:14 "in the middes of thee" (same as KJV)
- Nah 3:13 "in the middest of thee" (same as KJV)
- Zep 3:12 "in thee" (expanded to "in the midst of thee" in KJV)
- Zep 3:15 "with thee" (revised to "in the midst of thee" in KJV)
- Zep 3:17 "in the mids of thee" (same as KJV)
King James Revision Committee
| Citation | KJV (post-Blaney) | Websters 1833 | YLT 1862 | Darby 1890 | ASV 1901 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exodus 33:3 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Exodus 33:5 | into the midst of thee | into the midst of thee | into thy midst | into the midst of thee | into the midst of thee |
| Deuteronomy 6:15 | among you | among you | in thy midst | in thy midst | in the midst of thee |
| Deuteronomy 7:21 | among you | among you | in thy midst | in thy midst | in the midst of thee |
| Deuteronomy 13:1 | among you | among you | in your midst | among you | in the midst of thee |
| Deuteronomy 16:11 | among you | among you | in thy midst | in thy midst | in the midst of thee |
| Deuteronomy 17:2 | among you | among you | in thy midst | in thy midst | in the midst of thee |
| Deuteronomy 23:16 | among you | among you | in thy midst | in thy midst | in the midst of thee |
| Deuteronomy 28:43 | within thee | within thee | in thy midst | in thy midst | in the midst of thee |
| Joshua 7:13 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Isaiah 12:6 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Jeremiah 4:14 | within thee | within thee | in thy heart... of thy strength | within thee | within thee |
| Hosea 11:9 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | In thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Amos 5:17 | through thee | through thee | into thy midst | through the midst of thee | through the midst of thee |
| Micah 6:14 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Nahum 3:13 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Zephaniah 3:12 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Zephaniah 3:15 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee |
| Zephaniah 3:17 | in the midst of thee | in the midst of thee | in thy midst | in thy midst | in the midst of thee |
Conclusion
It seems that the ASV is simply an improvement to the KJV in these six places in Deuteronomy, by providing a more literal rendering of the underlying Hebrew word, which is singular. Can Tyndale's original translation work be defended on a formal equivalence grounds? Of course.
In other words, we don't deny that the overall sense of the text is conveyed by the King James Version, even though the translation is not strictly literal here. It seems unlikely that the sense will be misunderstood by the reader who knows that "thee/thou/thy/thine" are singular and "ye/you/your/yours" are plural. So, I am not suggesting that this minor translational defect has created any problems.
On the other hand, the King James revision committee revised four other places in the Bishops' Bible where a plural was used for a singular when translating this word, and it would have been more consistent for them to have revised in these places as well. We have no indication at all from the revisers as to why they did not revise in these places. They may simply not have noticed the issue.
This is not an error. It is a common thing for God to address the plural "you" along with the singular "thee" or "thou" directed towards each individual within the "you" group of all the Israelites.
As Dr. Peter Van Kleeck explains - “It is singular—“you” is Israel as a unified whole....It is very common for God to go back and forth between the “you” plural and the “thee” or “thou” singular even in the same verse.
If Dr. van Kleeck (Kinney does not specify whether he means Sr. or Jr.) said that, he's speaking loosely at best. The word, "you," in Tyndale's English is not grammatically singular. Moreover, taking Deuteronomy 6:15 as an example, in the same verse "thee" is used of Israel as a unified whole:
Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
God did not give Moses the King James, he gave Moses the Hebrew. In the Hebrew, in this verse, God does not "go back and forth" as Kinney describes it: God consistently uses the singular.
I have suggested before and will increasingly suggest that we need to improve the King James Version. This is not a major error, or one that seems likely to me to be of any doctrinal significance. Nevertheless, it is a less literal translation of the Hebrew text.
Comparison to Ancient Versions
Ancient versions are not binding. Nevertheless, we are confident that the King James translators were aware of the Septuagint and Vulgate versions and that they at least considered them in some way in their translation process. It is trickier to confirm their handling of the word, because we are not always sure whether they had precisely verbatim the same underlying Hebrew text and because we are not sure that they are always woodenly literal in their translation style. The Vulgate and Septuagint texts handle this word thus:
- Exo 33:3 "in the midst of thee" | tecum | μετὰ σοῦ
- Exo 33:5 "into the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς
- Deu 6:15 "among you" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
- Deu 7:21 "among you" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
- Deu 13:1 "among you" | in medio tui | [13:2] ἐν σοὶ
- Deu 16:11 "among you" | vobiscum | ἐν ὑμῖν
- Deu 17:2 "among you" | *phrase omitted* | *phrase omitted*
- Deu 23:16 "among you" | tecum | [23:17] μετὰ σοῦ
- Deu 28:43 "within thee" | tecum | ἐν σοί
- Jos 7:13 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν ὑμῖν
- Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς
- Jer 4:14 "within thee" | in te | ἐν σοὶ
- Hos 11:9 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ
- Amo 5:17 "through thee" | in medio tui | διὰ μέσου σου
- Mic 6:14 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ
- Nah 3:13 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
- Zep 3:12 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ
- Zep 3:15 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν μέσῳ σου
- Zep 3:17 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
As you can see, in the vast majority of the cases, both the Vulgate and the Septuagint translate using a singular. For example, among all the verse, the only time that the Vulgate uses a plural is Deuteronomy 16:11. The Septuagint also uses a plural in Deuteronomy 16:11 as well as using a plural in Exodus 33:5 and Joshua 7:13. Interestingly, the Septuagint seems to change to third person in Isaiah 12:6. In Deuteronomy 17:2, there seems to be either a shorter base text or a translation that combines two phrases in Hebrew into one.
One word of caution about the Vulgate and Septuagint in the list of above. I have completed this section in a hurry - please verify before re-posting.
Based on this analysis, only one of the six places defensible on the basis of ancient translations would be Deuteronomy 16:11. However, if one defends on that basis, the other five places still need improvement.
N.B. Thanks to Mike Tisdell for bringing one of these verses to my attention, leading to the article.
Update:
Christopher Yetzer offered the following reply:
I wouldn't call those an error for several reasons. 1. thee/thou/thine were already archaic, so to follow current standards wouldn't necessarily be an error. 2. "you" can refer collectively as a unit. 3. They never made the claim to follow this supposed principle throughout the Bible (similar to italics). 4. Possibly different translators working on different sections caused some inconsistencies, but not errors. Inconsistencies are not errors in and of themselves (consider amongst/among or Easter). If both renderings are possible, than neither is an error. 5. Several of the ones in Deuteronomy are in close proximity to "the Lord thy God." Possibly they felt that this was a good combination for English in those places. 6. Previous Bible translations had "among you" in more places than the KJV. For instance your first one on the list Exodus 33:3, Tyndale, Great, Matthews and the Bishops all had "among you".
Keep in mind that Yetzer qualifies his entire set of arguments by saying that he would not call those six places an "error." Whether they are a called an error or not is less interesting to me than whether there is room for improvement in the King James version when it comes to providing a highly literal translation of the underlying Hebrew text.
As to Yetzer's first argument, the premise that using the second person singular and second person plural distinctly was "already archaic" may have a little merit, despite Shakespeare famously distinctly using "thee" and "you" in literature contemporary to the King James revision and in literature intended for popular consumption. In support of Yetzer's idea, a 1660 Quaker book reports people being beat for using "thou" to address other people (link to source). This premise, even if sound in itself, nevertheless would not support Yetzer's conclusion. After all, the King James revisers did not generally revise the text away from using "thee" distinctly from "you." Furthermore, this wording is not traceable to the King James revisers, but instead is traceable to Tyndale, and the use of "thee" was not already archaic in the time of Tyndale. Tyndale's text, before and after the King James revisers handled it, contained a mixture of use of "thee" and "you."
As to Yetzer's second argument, once again, the premise that "you" can refer to a collective unit is not especially controversial. However, the referent of the Hebrew word translated by "you" in (for example) Deuteronomy 6:15 is the same as the referent of the Hebrew words translated by "thee" in the same verse. The switch between singular and plural pronouns is - at best - an unnecessary and confusing choice. In particular, there is an available English way to translate the Hebrew word, namely, "in the midst of thee," without introducing a plural pronoun to refer to the collective unit. Switching the number from singular to plural does not serve any apparent reason, given that it is not necessary to the task of translation.
As to Yetzer's third argument, once again, we can generally agree with the stated premise (although it's not perfectly clear which "principle" Yetzer is targeting). Whether the King James revisers claimed to follow the principle of literal translation throughout the Bible or not, this is a less literal translation than another available translation, namely, "in the midst of thee" or "in thy midst." Additionally, whether the King James revisers claimed to follow the principle of using "thee" for the singular and "you" for the plural, that was the convention in the time of Tyndale, and it is the most obvious explanation of the King James revisers' correction of the Bishops' Bible in at least four places just relating to this word. Indeed, inconsistently following the principle of using "you" only for plural undermines the primary benefit of having the thee/you distinction present in the text.
As to Yetzer's fourth argument, the first Westminster company is thought to have had the primary charge of revising the section of the Old Testament from Genesis to 2 Kings (See also, Alistair McGrath's "In the Beginning"). All six of the oversights and all four of the valid corrections come from this section. So, it is less likely that this came from a difference of translational methodology or style. Inconsistency is excellent evidence of error, even if there are cases where inconsistency is due to something other than error. In this instance, however, difference of translation committee does not adequately explain the discrepancy.
Nested in Yetzer's fourth argument is the suggestion that if both ways of translating are valid translations, than neither can be an error. In principle, we could grant, some Hebrew word could be translated by two English words that are precise synonyms of one another (perhaps "amongst" and "among" are an example of this), and consequently equally good word choices. On the other hand, "thee" and "you" are not precise synonyms in the English in which the King James is written. In this instance, the use of "in the midst of thee" is clearly superior to "among you" in terms of exposing the fact that the underlying Hebrew is continuing to use the singular. This may be only a small advantage, but it is an advantage. Moreover, this small advantage also seems to be the justification for four changes to the Bishops' Bible with respect to this specific Hebrew word.
As to Yetzer's fifth argument, the argument seems to premised on speculation that appears unconnected to the wording choice selected. Yetzer wrote: "Several of the ones in Deuteronomy are in close proximity to "the Lord thy God." Possibly they felt that this was a good combination for English in those places." First, it's unclear what measure of "good" Yetzer has in mind. Respectful? Something else? Of the 19 places where bekirbecha appears, "Lord thy God" (as a phrase) appears in the KJV only in Deuteronomy 6:15, 7:21, 16:11, 17:2, and Zephaniah 3:17. Furthermore, it is only directly proximate in Deuteronomy 7:21 and Zephaniah 3:17. So, even if we were to assume that it was somehow better as being more reverential or the like (which I don't agree with for even one second), this standard is not followed with consistency.
As to Yetzer's sixth argument, his premise is part of the argument presented above. The King James revisers properly corrected the Bishops' Bible in four other places, but failed to do so here. This is similar (but more severe) than their failure to fully correct the archaic usage of "Easter" found in a few places in the Bishops' Bible where the meaning was "Passover."
No comments:
Post a Comment