Feminist Value in Liberal and Conservative Writing

The creation of The Woman’s Bible, a book published by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1895, marked the entrance of women into the field of exegesis, that is, interpretation of scripture. Whether or not other women of her period agreed with the points she made therein was irrelevant; any commentary or creative writing by women which involved the Bible was necessarily a kind of feminist work. After all, though men’s Bibles exist today, the Bible itself has always been The Men’s Bible, and thus any text which looks at it through a woman’s eye celebrates Stanton’s feminist milestone.

Stanton’s work immediately tries to put women on par with men in the context of the Bible, starting with the first chapter of Genesis in which man and woman appear to be created at the same time and as equals. Her interpretation is nuanced and contains contributions by various scholars, though readers must be mindful that placing feminist value in the ancient texts of patriarchal cultures can quickly become anachronistic. Furthermore, The Woman’s Bible was often too liberal for the Stanton’s contemporaries, being rejected by the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association. Therefore, readers must also give credit to conservative female writers of Stanton’s time for their place in women’s literature.

A notable example of a conservative, religious female writer is Sigourney whose poetry contained traditional and domestic motifs as seen in her poem “The Ark and the Dove” in which the speaker tells the flood story to her daughter. The simple act of exposing a woman’s relationship to the Bible in her private life is innately progressive. Sigourney’s speaker even goes so far as to make the dove a brave female character, thereby giving her daughter a relatable character in the story. Though the tale maintains a traditional view of Bible and household, Sigourney’s character insists that the Bible as is contains inspiration for women and proper guidance for young girls.

Though figures like Stanton and Sigourney were at opposite ends of the interpretive spectrum, their status as female commentators brings them together. Each demonstrated through an honest and faithful representation of her feelings about and engagement with the Bible in personal and private spheres an example of the variety found in women’s religious experiences. Regardless of their feelings on feminism, each exercised her agency by openly expressing unique thoughts on the Bible.

The Chicken or the Egg

Robert's "Pen of Iron" is an account of how the King James Bible has been declining in popularity in America for centuries. Giving reference to famous speakers and writers including Abe Lincoln, Robert's discusses the link between the declining King James version of the Bible and the decrease in literary talent that has left us today praising "flat and banal writing or prose of the most purple hue" (10).

However, is the decline in literary skill seen today a result of the decreasing availability of the King James Bible, or is it the other way? As America continued to mature away from its British roots, would it not make sense that certain texts -- such as the King James translation of the bible, a text that is dripping in English elements -- would begin to become obsolete? While Robert's views today's authors as below those of the past, this complaint seems subjective. That being said, it is clear that the rhetoric used today is significantly different from the writing 300 years ago. While the King James may be a translation from the time when America was first being colonized, newer versions such as the NRSV may just be a version that more appropriately reflects the rhetoric used today.

Therefore, Robert's may actually be off on his assessment of the King James' popularity. It could be simply that -- and this is what I believe is more likely to have happened -- as America grew away from English influence and began to develop its own style of language, the King James began to become essentially "out of date". This isn't to say that it should be done away with entirely, but more that for the layman reading the Bible, the King James became too distant from the way they lived their life opening the gap for a more "up to date" version?

Decline of the King James Version

Alter Robert’s chapter about the regression of the King James Bible was very intriguing because of his comparison to dialect and syntax that is being lost in the vernacular of modernity. When reading the King James Version, one can notice that the language is different than the dialect we use today. For example, 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 in the King James Version says, “3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; 4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God”. In comparison, the New Revised Standard Version says, “3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God”. The King James Version may be confusing to many people by using words similar to comforteth and tribulation instead of comforts and troubles. Therefore, it is apparent why people would prefer the version that has a clearer dialect than the King James Version, which has an aged language.

            One could argue that because people prefer to read modern or common language, the King James Version is not as popular. As a result, one can understand that the Bible needs to keep up with modernity in order for the Bible to still live on. The King James Version is a more direct translation from Hebrew and Greek, but the modern reader probably prefers clearer translations similar to the New Revised Standard Version.

Burning passion for the Bible

A quick Google search with the term “Bible” will list a good amount of links with various translation versions of the good book. It seems quite absurd that translation of the Bible use to be a banned practice. There is probably very few people who have not come into contact with the Bible’s influence. Even if they have not read it, they have heard of it or read something which references its stories or verses.

The Bible historically has only been access by those who are powerful and wealth. Scribes kept their scrolls hidden in their libraries and only those who were wealthy enough to afford language lessons were able to read it in Latin or German. The exclusivity of the Bible is a very intriguing phenomenon to me. I can’t understand why those in power and wealth would not want to share the knowledge and contents of the Bible. Did believers in medieval times not want to share their faith? Perhaps I am looking at this with a very modern view when the Bible is already available to everyone.

The Bible has gone through consistent change since its creation. Stories went from a oracular tradition to being written down by scribes. Scribes each add their own touch to every story they come into contact with. Then through each translation, the meaning of the words come to an altered sense of meaning. I wonder if any biblical stories came to mean something different than when they were created. In modern times, biblical interpretations takes on a new spin through picture books, movies, manga/anime, and biblezines. I wonder what ancient scribes would think of these new spin offs. Would they believe that we are on the right path? Would they think we should share Christianity with the world when they have cut off people from it?

Selling Convienience and the Bible

Like many who are raised Christian I tried reading the bible when I was young. Mine was brown with Gold letters on the front yet was made for grade school children and most likely shared some similarities to the bibles with limited vocabulary mentioned in Timothy Beal’s book The Rise and Fall of the Bible pg 139.
 Despite the assumed intentions of the publisher much of the bible still bored me to the point of falling asleep with it still open. It took many years before I finally read the complete bible. The first time I read the Bible it was from an app I downloaded, an action that may cause concern for those who value the medium of the message as well as the message its self.
The experience of reading a scroll, flipping through a book and getting daily notifications to read your bible every morning are indeed different ways of reading scripture. Considering the outdated and unwieldy nature of scrolls and the disappointing statistics on bible reading, maybe those concerned with increasing biblical literacy should judge not. I most likely would not have finished reading the bible if it were not contained in an app that continually knocked on the door to my daily life…and I am still debating how I feel about that and bible related media.
Timothy Beal writes about the unchecked consumerism present in the bible publishing industry, once money is involved bibles start looking very different to meet demand in niche markets. And that is what makes this app different, it’s free. The You version Bible app isn’t fault less they offer reading plans and have added video material however they are still the technological equivalent of the free bibles from Gideon’s international found in hotel rooms and elsewhere.
This app I downloaded offered numerous versions of the bible to choose from it was overwhelming to me since the app lacked a decent summary of how each version was created. Currently it has 1261 versions in 916 languages and still not any version summaries available. After reading about the Geneva bible and its problematic commentaries that latter led to its downfall I can see why YouVersion the creator of the app hasn’t added any summary material. (Or sold advertisement space for that matter) If they later decided to add information about the different versions how could they write with out bias?
 In an attempt to decide which version of the bible to read I read certain passages switching between the versions offered, and sometimes compared them side-by-side. The change of just one word can change meaning and interpretation entirely as in the example on page 142 where The council behind the creation of the RSV Bible decided to use the words “young woman” instead of “virgin” in respects to Mary and experienced the onslaught of angry Christians that thought they were trying to debate or deny the legitimacy of Jesus’s virgin birth. The presence of many versions drew me to contemplate why; there wouldn’t be 1261 versions of the same thing if there weren’t different opinions.
While I can agree that it is wise to avoid adding summary to bibles, I am not against adding more text to this bible app. What if the bible app I used or an entirely different app contained collections of biblical translations like that of the polyglot bibles (pg. 123), Having a collection of not only modern translations but old ones too would be useful for bible reading and make the study of how translations of the bible happened through history available to the general public in an convenient format. With more education bible readers might also clear false assumptions surrounding the King James Bible.
My understanding of the Bible at the time at the time I read it, was that the KJV was the oldest extant bible that had been copied from a long history of bibles that had been collections of text written and collected within 100 years of Jesus’s death.  It took me over a year but I finally read “the bible” I switched between versions sometimes but for the most part kept between an easy to read meaning-based translation and the KJV.
Now, understanding how meaning-based versions continue the long-standing trend of change in biblical history, I would have not made that choice. But I’m not sure I would have kept with the KJV either. The KJV bible was a response to all of the unfavorable notes found in Geneva Bibles, and also a counteraction to the political and religious unrest that was the Protestant reformation.

Translating Biblical Readers' Needs through the Years

The introduction to Hamlin and Jones’ book The King James Bible after 400 Years traces the history of the English translation of the Bible, providing a brief outline of the rise and fall of the King James Bible. Although it was the predominant version of the Bible in Britain for a long period of time, the patterns surrounding the evolution of biblical texts have, in some ways, not really changed since the scribal rewritings of scripture in Second Temple times.

In Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, Sidnie White Crawford explores the role of scribes in changing scripture. Although the primary goal of these scribes would have been to copy biblical text, this process was an active one at the time. Through copying, scribes would revise the text to create their own critical interpretation.

According to The King James Bible after 400 Years’ history of the Bible’s translation into English, each version was created for someone’s different personal, political, or theological goals. The rise of a demand for the vernacular Bible led to some of the original translations, and Henry VIII eventually rethought his position on the vernacular Bible. According to David Scott Castan, the vernacular Bible allowed Henry to show separation from Rome and to "confirm the royal supremacy" (47). This version, the Great Bible, was banned during the reign of a Catholic monarch. The Geneva Bible was created to complete and improve upon the other translations while the Bishops’ Bible was commissioned to give church authorities a say in the version used in English churches. The Rheims New Testament was even translated to fulfill the Catholic ideal of having a vernacular text that resembled the Latin vulgate that was approved by Rome. With each of these earlier versions and the creation of the King James Bible, translators used “critical judgment” to fit the text of the new version to their needs (7). Hamlin and Jones also discuss the tension between functional and formal translations of the Bible. The King James Bible was created as a formal translation in an attempt to maintain as much of the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek as possible. However, the preference for functional translations has seemed to resurface in modern times, as people want more readable versions of the Bible. This transition results in the loss of meaning for simpler wording (10), and the desire for more altered biblical text allows modern translators to continue this tradition of rewriting scripture with a particular message.

It is fascinating to follow the motivations of biblical translators through the early history of English Bibles because it seems at times that the role of translator has simply been a continuation of early scribal revisions to manuscripts. Even today, it seems that a similar model still exists. As versions of the Bible continue to be created, different individuals and groups can still distribute widely varied Bible translations to serve their exegetical purposes.

Controversial Translation

The authors of The King James Bible After 400 years, Hamlin and Jones, provide us with an introduction to how the King James Bible was created and received. Everything that the authors revealed is very useful when learning about the development of translations in history. The one point that stood out to me the most was the banning and illegalization of translating the Bible to English.

It was not until the 14^th century that the translation of the whole Bible began. Translator, William Tyndale, took the task of translating the Bible to English. Unfortunately, Tyndale was not able to complete his task because he was “strangled as a heretic in 1536 and his body was burned (as Wyclif’s had been in 1428, his body was exhumed for that purpose forty four years after his death)” (Hamlin & Jones 3). It is so strange to think that Tyndale had a very accurate translation and kept the quality in the “accuracy to the Hebrew and Greek originals and in the strength of their prose style…” –but was still executed because he was translating the bible to make it more accessible for ordinary Christians who did not know the vernacular  (Hamlin & Jones 3). Why was the translation to the English language frowned upon and blatantly illegal? This knowledge is concerning because it could mean that the Bible was only being shared with the elites that knew and could read the tongue. As the authors say, “Bible translation has clearly always been controversial”, but we are leaving wondering why people were executed or exiled because of their genuine attempts to make the Bible more accessible.

Translation in Conflict

Hamlin and Jones make many good points in their introduction to The King James Bible After 400 Years. Once the bible came together as one (mainly) finalized text, the next challenge was crossing the language barrier. However, it seems there is always a conflict between the church as a majority power and the advancement of the text as it parallels the changing of cultures and technologies. The church as a whole likes having authority over the text, and because it is not available to all people in a more common language, they can shape the text to mean whatever they want it to, which lets them stay in power because of their ultimate hold over all biblical knowledge. However, once the bible is translated into English, even more problems arise, because now the sacred texts are available for anyone’s translation and interpretation. Not only does the text and interpretation change, but the authority of the bible itself seems to lessen; taking the mystery and limited availability out of the text creates less of a divine appeal to the book. Not only that, but people begin to study the bible in an academic setting, or simply for the entertainment a normal book may provide. It seems that the more available the bible becomes, the less sacred it appears.

Another issue to address is that of the printing press. The KJB and the Geneva bible have wrestled with popularity for so long; that is, until the authority of the printing press takes over and establishes the KJB as the standard, simply due to nothing more than wise business decisions and marketing agendas. The printing companies basically dictated what people of that time period would read, because they were the main source of availability for texts. I wonder what would have happened if the Geneva bible had won, and was the most popularly printed book of that time period. Would it have the same authority we see in the KJB today? Chances are, I believe, it would. 

Translator Martyr 

After reading The King James Bible After 400 Years and Reform and Reaction n Henrican English.  I learnt how we got the King James Bible. I thought it was interesting how all this bibles were made by people like Tyndale, who decided to risk their lives to translate the Bible and allow the English speaking people, to actually understand what they are reading.

First  thing I thought about while reading, was should Tyndale and Wycliffe who were murdered for translating the Bible, be consider as martyr, and from further research Tyndale is considered a martyr by the Christians, and became known as the Father of the Protestant Bible.

On the other hand Wycliffe died of natural causes, the religious authority did not cut ties with him, and take him to court to be sentenced. As they were afraid of the public opinion, people loved Wycliffe and he was also very famous internationally. However 30 years after he died a council of the religious authority decided to take revenge on him by banning all his book and burning his dead buried body. This act of them burning his remains, was seen as a form of martyrdom.

I feel like every translator knows that they are interpreters, as there is no translation without interpretation. And so Bible translators are like teachers in a sense as they are interpreting to us texts in the Bible, that us English speakers would not have understood if it was in Hebrew or Greek. Furthermore in James 3:1 states” not many of you should become teachers, because teachers will face a more severe judgment”. And this is exactly what happened to these translators, they face “sever Judgement” not from God but from man.

Hebrew to English, English to....Pictures?

        The King James Bible English translation was protested by many high powered church and government officials in antiquity. At this time, "Wyclif's remains were burned for Englishing the Bible, Tyndale died for it, the Coverdale, Matthew, Geneva, and Rheims translations were made in foreign countries by religious exiles and printed abroad," but today you could find a Bible in any language you could think of. What was all the fuss about? How could translating the Bible into the vernacular language be problematic?

        Further, though it seems crazy to read about how the English translation was contested against by hundreds, isn't that what we are doing today with illustrated Biblical translations? Our country, or better yet the world, would be so remarkably different if the common man couldn't read the words of the Bible. Think about it-- there are Biblical allusions in many government papers and the United States was founded on Christian values. The reason our country was founded on Christian values was because it became more accessible to read the Bible and understand it. In today's world, Biblical literacy is down because people just aren't understanding the concepts. Creating illustrations rendering exactly what was happening, it can be assumed that more people would have access to understanding the Bible. In a few centuries,religious scholars will probably say that our religious authorities were limiting who had access to the Bible just as we often say that in antiquity, the Bible was only for those who could read and understand Greek or Hebrew which limited the audience to a small fraction of the higher class.Not everyone can decode the complicated language and outdated material that flows between the covers of each translation of the Bible, but it's fairly simple to look at a picture and grasp the concept. 

       In a few centuries, are fully illustrated Bible translations going to be the norm? Will future scholars critique the way religious authority figures in the twenty-first century denounce, or rather do not give authority to, these new translations of the Bible?

Example of an illustrated Bible. More information on this work can be found here.

Canonical Confusion

    The idea of what constitutes canon has been a subject frequently brought up in this class, and seems to me to be an important question when looking at the formation of early English bibles. As we learned in the readings, Englishmen were required to be members of the church when English bibles were first being created. As the throne switched back and forth between Roman Catholic, Protestant, and finally Church of England rule, the bibles that were in use changed as well. Hamlin and Jones note that many people would secretly use their preferred bible translation when another was made the official bible of England's churches, which leads me to question which text at the time, if any, were canonical? If the ruling power names one bible canon and the masses name another bible as canon, are either of them well enough supported to be considered a true canon? How did Englishmen reconcile the fact that they worshipped with one bible at church and another at home? It seems to me that at this time the idea of canon was a much more important concept for the aristocracy than for the average citizen.
   Another interesting point is the reason why there was such a great struggle by monarchs over which text is preferred, it speaks to how crucial religion was to the control of a population. Originally English bibles were feared by leaders because they thought it would incite revolts, and the fact that they had this fear at all goes to show what a great influence religion played in Tudor England.
   

Translation Troubles

The main point that I took away from Beal’s sixth chapter of The Rise and Fall of The Bible is that there has never been one bible. Even before the Bible was translated in many different ways for the common person, there was not one agreed upon collection of books or translation. Beal underscores this point as he discusses Jerome’s Vulgate Bible, noting that there were Vulgates, not one singular Vulgate. Conflicting collections of books to be included in the Bible and various translations have always been a part of Christianity, but this issue was intensified when the Bible was translated into common languages. With widespread availability of the Bible, individuals were able to form their own opinions and in turn support a translation that reflected their own beliefs.

Today, different Christian denominations favor different translations of the Bible based on their varied beliefs. Just by looking at the translation choices on biblegateway.com makes it apparent how many translation options are out there. Are some translations better than others? Eugene Nida offers two categories of translations: formal and functional. Formal implies word-for-word, and functional aims to translate thought-for-thought. In my opinion, a Bible translation should have a balance of staying true to the original words of the Bible, yet also convey the meaning behind the words. By translating the Bible, the original text is compromised. There is no way around it, yet translating too functionally dilutes the text even further. Let’s look at these two translations of Galatians 3:2-4.

NRSV:

2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? 4 Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing.

The Message:

2-4 Let me put this question to you: How did your new life begin? Was it by working your heads off to please God? Or was it by responding to God’s Message to you? Are you going to continue this craziness? For only crazy people would think they could complete by their own efforts what was begun by God. If you weren’t smart enough or strong enough to begin it, how do you suppose you could perfect it? Did you go through this whole painful learning process for nothing? It is not yet a total loss, but it certainly will be if you keep this up!

The Message translation takes functional translation to another level, as it tries too hard to speak plainly. I think it is problematic to translate the Bible in a way that disregards the complexities present in the text in favor of boiling passages down to what their “point” is. I feel that it is the individual’s role to decide what the text means to them in the present if they so choose, not the translator’s. These two very different translations further highlight Beal's point that there are many different Bibles. Even though these two translations come from the same source, they do not seem interchangeable.

Collecting a Canon

            Reading about the formation of the bible as we know it today, the versions, translations and controversy that surround the process make it clear that there was nothing particularly smooth about bringing the different scriptures together into a single book. This is no surprise.  The apocryphal works of scripture are not unknown, and the issues regarding translation are easy to find.  The interesting point for me, however, is that, initially, there was no intent to compile the different texts into a single piece.

 The texts found in the bible were not originally written as books, but were handwritten on scrolls of parchment, each scroll comprised of the skins of numerous animals.  A scroll large enough to fit the entirety of the bible would be utterly impractically large, extraordinarily expensive, and require countless hides to fabricate.  Scrolls did not facilitate any sort of cross-referencing, as they were tedious to roll through, so having multiple texts in a single scroll would not be useful.  Even when codices became more popular in the early Christian circles, a codex with all the books of the modern bible as extraordinarily rare. The issue with the parchment would still stand, the text becoming unwieldy and heavy.  The oldest surviving copy of the Vulgate Bible dates to the eighth century, and is impractical: at thirteen inches wide and seven inches thick, it weighs seventy five pounds (Beal 119). 

All the fuss around the canon and apocryphal texts has been going on for hundreds of years, but the initial followers and composers of the writings themselves had no intention of the texts being brought together to form a single work.  Such emphasis is put on canon and non-canon, when the intent was initially just scripture.

Bible Translation and Church Fragmentation

In order for the famous King James Bible and the numerous subsequent English Bibles to exist, English-speaking church and state officials had to accept that such a cause was neither blasphemous nor dangerous. Initially, the idea of translating the Bible into English brought with it controversy and difficulty. Bibles were printed out of the country at first, sold illegally, and William Tyndale, the first person to begin a Bible translation project, was killed for his work. With time and the unique situation of Henry VIII establishing the Anglican Church, however, the idea was accepted. Then the above issues became mere bumps in the road in comparison to the broad changes which Bible translation would bring about.

The effects of widely available English Bibles are felt even (and perhaps especially) today. One of the concerns which figures of authority had at the time was about how the laity would interpret the Bible, and official attempts were made to discourage or restrict interpretation. Such attempts failed, and different people ended up reading the text differently as expected. Variety in interpretation led to a number of changes. At the most basic level, the Bible’s availability encouraged reading and therefore resulted in increased literacy rates. More people reading led to more people forming opinions and discussing. Sometimes these discussions turned sour and ultimately led to schisms in the church. Groups broke off then and continue to do so today, allowing for the vast range of Christian denominations. On the other hand, debate also encouraged studying the Bible with a scholarly eye. The advent of Higher Criticism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the Bible treated as a historical document rather than a sacred text. Secular Biblical scholarship has obviously proceeded from there.

In the end, Henry VIII and the church leaders of his day were right to be suspicious of the implications of English Bibles. The spread of the English Bible ended up causing problems for the preservation of the English Church as it was because of the internal disagreements and availability to criticism which necessarily came along with it. However, without the English Bible and the interpretations of the English-speaking world, we would not see today the same diversity of Protestant Christianity.

Formal vs. Functional Translations

Throughout the century’s the Bible has been re-written and transcribe in order to spread the word among the people. In today’s society, though, not as many individuals devote themselves to the bible as they use to. Those that do go to biblical sermons, the pastor or priest usually have to cite which translation of the bible they are reading from because there are so many translations of the bibles in today’s society. However, there are some individuals that will claim a religion without ever picking up a bible. Why is that?

One of the most challenging aspects of the bible is that it is not easy to read. The text is out of date and due to the multitude of translations over the centuries, the original text becomes skewed. Part of the reason that the most biblical text is so difficult to read because the transcribers try to copy an older version of the bible usually in another language. Not every language is the same. This leaves gaps in the text where words could/should be added to make the read easier. This approach to translations is, as Eugene Nida would say, formal which only allows for the word for word translation. Thankfully both Nida and I don’t agree that formal translations are the best but functional, thought for thought, translations are better. This allows the transcriber to fill in the blanks which does not mean they are completely altering the texts, just wording it so as the target society will have a better understanding of the texts.

I know during the course of this semester, we have been debating what is scripture and authority and what does not; If altering a script’s text will take away its authority. By translating texts ‘functionally’, I believe that would make it easier for the readers to read. There is not a different message. The text is not saying something completely different. Instead, it is making the text more available to the general public and might even draw back in some of the followers that the church lost.