Well, you've convinced me - I think I'll revisit the RSV for my February Psalter devotion. I usually cycle through ESV, HTM, and (New) Coverdale (1662/1928/2019, depending), but periodically pull KJV, NRSV, or NIV(84) just for a fresh sound.
Perhaps, the Wild-West-approach to English translations reflects the cultural approach to Scripture in the Protestant and non-denom world: The Bible is primarily seen as a document for personal study/me-and-Jesus American spirituality, rather than as a document for the corporate, liturgical body. Your article names for me what I've really struggled with when it comes to memorizing Scripture. Which translation should I memorize? I don't want to memorize a translation that's unrecognizable or clunky to others. When I officiate at funerals, one of the more powerful experiences is when I recite the KJV translation of Psalm 23 and others join from memory. Thus, my previous question about the Coverdale: Should I memorize psalms out of the Coverdale, the KJV, or what?
Yes, I agree about the non-denom world encouraging this approach. Ironically, it is contra the classical Protestant approach to Scripture, which is to read alongside the Church.
I would refer to my other comment for an answer to your question, but I think the easy answer is to memorize based on the liturgical habits of your congregation, family, and community. If you are Anglican and use the BCP daily (as one should!), memorize the Coverdale or New Coverdale. If you are not, memorize out of the translation your congregation, family, and community use.
I really enjoyed this article. Thank you for writing it. You mentioned Coverdale as the roots of the English Tradition. How does the Coverdale Psalter, particularly regarding the BCP, figure into your first criterion? For instance, the Coverdale translation of Psalm 23 would probably seem strange to those familiar with the KJV. Would you see the Coverdale translation as an equally valid translation in the English tradition?
Thanks for the kind words, Daniel. To try to answer, I would say that Coverdale's Psalter is still equally useful today for the same reasons, but liturgically focused instead.
For the Psalter, the English liturgical tradition has generally preserved the Coverdale Psalter instead of the King James for liturgical use, though I wouldn't admonish anyone who isn't Anglican for preferring the latter's Psalter (or a modern update like the ESV) and using it in worship settings. The tension between the Coverdale Psalter in the BCP and the KJV is a little odd, and Coverdale certainly sounds different in many places than the KJV. However, it is how it sounds that is part of its genius: it is great for congregational recitation and even chanting. I think the preservation of the Coverdale Psalter is actually part of this larger cultural memory, even if it is largely unfamiliar to non-Anglicans. Maybe it is something unique to us, though. I don't expect Baptists to adopt it. It's use and usefulness is grounded in Prayer Book worship. This is why revisionist prayer books (like the 1979) are as equal a scandal within Anglicanism as the Bible translation issue. They are parallel and intertwined, but distinct, issues: liturgical preservation and translation preservation. (As an anecdote, I have heard many people refer to the ACNA's 2019 BCP as the "ESV" of BCPs, and I think that explains the matter well if you are familiar with BCPs.)
Even with the differences in several Psalms, Coverdale's work certainly influenced the KJV Committee, and they have more in common linguistically than, say the NET and KJV do.
Treatise 1 by Cyprian in A.D. 251 quotes 1 John 5:7 and includes the Comma Johanneum.
"The Lord says, I and the Father are one; (John 10:30), and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)."
It has some support in the manuscript tradition (though a late minority report), just like the Adulterous Woman, but less so. With Cyprian, however, it is not clear he is quoting 1 John 5:7 there as he says "Son" and not "Word." There is an argument to be made that he is quoting it, and some have, but it is hotly contested. Wallace's brief thoughts are worth reading: https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
I appreciate the way the NKJV handles these passages, that is my preferred method. Keep it in the body, note how both the MT and CT diverge, and at points note when there are very few and late manuscripts, such as in the case of 1 John 5:7-8.
I trust that the Church didn't add things to God's Word, much more than I trust 'scholars' not to have removed things. In my lifetime, I have seen things dropped, and we have a very early Christian witness to the Rabbis removing things and tampering with the text. Like Justin Martyr. The longest reading should always be in the text. It is much more likely that something was dropped than that it was added. Secular scholars and unbelievers should have nothing to do with our text. The Church is the keeper of Holy Writ, not the college.
Well, you've convinced me - I think I'll revisit the RSV for my February Psalter devotion. I usually cycle through ESV, HTM, and (New) Coverdale (1662/1928/2019, depending), but periodically pull KJV, NRSV, or NIV(84) just for a fresh sound.
Thanks for this, and the Defense of ESV article.
Perhaps, the Wild-West-approach to English translations reflects the cultural approach to Scripture in the Protestant and non-denom world: The Bible is primarily seen as a document for personal study/me-and-Jesus American spirituality, rather than as a document for the corporate, liturgical body. Your article names for me what I've really struggled with when it comes to memorizing Scripture. Which translation should I memorize? I don't want to memorize a translation that's unrecognizable or clunky to others. When I officiate at funerals, one of the more powerful experiences is when I recite the KJV translation of Psalm 23 and others join from memory. Thus, my previous question about the Coverdale: Should I memorize psalms out of the Coverdale, the KJV, or what?
Yes, I agree about the non-denom world encouraging this approach. Ironically, it is contra the classical Protestant approach to Scripture, which is to read alongside the Church.
I would refer to my other comment for an answer to your question, but I think the easy answer is to memorize based on the liturgical habits of your congregation, family, and community. If you are Anglican and use the BCP daily (as one should!), memorize the Coverdale or New Coverdale. If you are not, memorize out of the translation your congregation, family, and community use.
I really enjoyed this article. Thank you for writing it. You mentioned Coverdale as the roots of the English Tradition. How does the Coverdale Psalter, particularly regarding the BCP, figure into your first criterion? For instance, the Coverdale translation of Psalm 23 would probably seem strange to those familiar with the KJV. Would you see the Coverdale translation as an equally valid translation in the English tradition?
Thanks for the kind words, Daniel. To try to answer, I would say that Coverdale's Psalter is still equally useful today for the same reasons, but liturgically focused instead.
For the Psalter, the English liturgical tradition has generally preserved the Coverdale Psalter instead of the King James for liturgical use, though I wouldn't admonish anyone who isn't Anglican for preferring the latter's Psalter (or a modern update like the ESV) and using it in worship settings. The tension between the Coverdale Psalter in the BCP and the KJV is a little odd, and Coverdale certainly sounds different in many places than the KJV. However, it is how it sounds that is part of its genius: it is great for congregational recitation and even chanting. I think the preservation of the Coverdale Psalter is actually part of this larger cultural memory, even if it is largely unfamiliar to non-Anglicans. Maybe it is something unique to us, though. I don't expect Baptists to adopt it. It's use and usefulness is grounded in Prayer Book worship. This is why revisionist prayer books (like the 1979) are as equal a scandal within Anglicanism as the Bible translation issue. They are parallel and intertwined, but distinct, issues: liturgical preservation and translation preservation. (As an anecdote, I have heard many people refer to the ACNA's 2019 BCP as the "ESV" of BCPs, and I think that explains the matter well if you are familiar with BCPs.)
Even with the differences in several Psalms, Coverdale's work certainly influenced the KJV Committee, and they have more in common linguistically than, say the NET and KJV do.
Treatise 1 by Cyprian in A.D. 251 quotes 1 John 5:7 and includes the Comma Johanneum.
"The Lord says, I and the Father are one; (John 10:30), and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)."
It has some support in the manuscript tradition (though a late minority report), just like the Adulterous Woman, but less so. With Cyprian, however, it is not clear he is quoting 1 John 5:7 there as he says "Son" and not "Word." There is an argument to be made that he is quoting it, and some have, but it is hotly contested. Wallace's brief thoughts are worth reading: https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
I appreciate the way the NKJV handles these passages, that is my preferred method. Keep it in the body, note how both the MT and CT diverge, and at points note when there are very few and late manuscripts, such as in the case of 1 John 5:7-8.
I trust that the Church didn't add things to God's Word, much more than I trust 'scholars' not to have removed things. In my lifetime, I have seen things dropped, and we have a very early Christian witness to the Rabbis removing things and tampering with the text. Like Justin Martyr. The longest reading should always be in the text. It is much more likely that something was dropped than that it was added. Secular scholars and unbelievers should have nothing to do with our text. The Church is the keeper of Holy Writ, not the college.
I wish the NKJV had the Deutrocanon.
I wish things were so straightforward.
Do pray Thomas Nelson will commission a translation of the Apocrypha for the NKJV!