My notes for this episode:
Mark Ward is a freelance youtuber who has become well known as
an, and sometimes extremist, critic of popular contemporary use of the incessant
King James Version, even claiming that it should no longer be used in Christian
institution and declaring recently that it would be sinful to give a KJV to a
child.
If you’ve ever listened to any of Ward’s videos, there’s a
good chance you’ve heard him make the claim that he is simply following the
spirit of William Tyndale (1494-1536), the first person to translate the NT
into English from the original Greek, who once famously declared to a Roman
Catholic cleric, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that
driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”
In a recent debate with an independent Baptist pastor, Ward finished
his closing statement with several dramatic references to Tyndale and the plow
boy.
He lamented that some folk supposedly have put “having the Bible”
over “understanding the Bible.”
He claimed that “Literally no one has done more work than he
has to help people understand the KJV.”
He recalled (as he has often done in the past) that in his
senior year of high school he played Tyndale in the school play.
He declared, “I have the heartbeat of William Tyndale.” Continuing
in an impassioned and theatrical tone to say, “Please do not deny that my heart’s
desire is for the plowboy to understand God’s Word,” saying, “I don’t want to miss
a single [word], and I don’t want the plowboy to miss them either.”
And adding, “You cannot have the help of a preacher. You need
a translator.”
He closed his speech with this paraphrase, “Lord open KJVOnlyism’s
eyes.”
If you know Ward, you know he has a very broad definition of
KJVOnlyism, essentially encompassing anyone who prefers its use to other translations.
The question remains as to whether Ward has properly understood
what Tyndale meant in his famous statement, “If God spare my life, ere many years
I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than
thou dost.” Did Tyndale carry out his work of translation in the way that Ward suggests?
I’ve noted before some of many problems with Ward’s approach
is his insistence on “absolute intelligibility” in Bible translation. Unless
the reader—no matter his age, experience, or maturity—understands the meaning
of every single word and phrase at his first sitting, Ward suggests, then the
translation fails.
Criticism of Ward’s “absolute intelligibility” view was well
stated by James Snapp, Jr. on his blog on October 29, 2024, in an article
titled, “Mark
Ward and his Ridiculous Claim about the KJV.”, a critique that Ward has yet
to acknowledge, much less to offer a response.
In that post, Snapp said, “Dr.
Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is
incapable of being misunderstood. Unfortunately such a translation has
never existed and never will exist on earth….”
I
thought of this recently as a I read an essay by Alan Jacobs, an Humanities
Professor at Baylor University. The essay is titled, “Robert Alter’s Fidelity,”
and it appears in a collection of Jacob’s essays, titled, Wayfaring: Essays
Pleasant and Unpleasant (Eerdmans, 2010).
The
essay is about Jewish scholar and literary critic Robert Alter’s publication of
his translation of The Five Books of Moses. He has since completed the
entire OT. Jacobs praises Alter’s translation not for its readability but its
fidelity, and he makes much of that distinction.
In
the opening pages he also makes some interesting comments about Tyndale’s
saying about the plow boy and his interpretation of it is not the same as Ward takes
it to be.
See
Jacobs’ essay pp. 12-15.
Highlights
and conclusion:
Jacobs
says, “In translation, fidelity is the ultimate imperative and trumps every
other virtue: even clarity or readability” (12).
Jacobs
says we must not think that Tyndale assumed “the ideal experience of reading
Scripture” is one in which “clarity manifests itself fully and immediately”
(13).
He
warns against translations that are swayed by “an assertively egalitarian,
democratizing, and anti-clerical culture like our own today” (14).
He
warns also of translators who think of themselves as being in loco
parentis, thinking of readers as “little children” who need “scholarly fathers”
to protect them “from the agonies of interpretive confusion” (14).
Tyndale himself did not do this. He introduced
words in his translation that his readers would not know (because he himself
coined those words and phrases: like, Jehovah, atonement, Passover, scapegoat,
mercy seat, etc.).
Tyndale
was more concerned with fidelity than intelligibility. This same sense led AV
translators to use terms like “propitiation” to describe the atonement in
Romans and 1 John. The term was not well known to the readers of that day, but
it rightly taught the meaning of Christ’s atoning death.
Jacobs
says men of this era knew that Scripture “exhibits its clarity only to those
who undergo the lengthy intellectual discipline of submitting to its authority”
(14).
No
matter how passionately it might be stated, we must conclude that Mark Ward
does not, in fact, demonstrate “the heartbeat of William Tyndale.”
Ward’s
understanding of Tyndale seems frozen in a simplified and unsophisticated
version of Tyndale’s thought, retained from Ward’s memory of a high school
play.
It
does not represent a mature and accurate understanding of Tyndale or his view
of what makes for a good translation.
As
Paul puts it in 1Corinthians 13:11: “When
I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a
child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
One
of the marks of Ward’s confusion on this issue is that he claims the text
underlying a translation is an unimportant factor in evaluating the worthiness
of that translation. This is a total rejection of fidelity as the guiding
principle of Bible translation.
In
the end, we have to conclude, with Jacobs, that those who approach Bible
translation, as does Mark Ward, do not approach in the spirit of Tyndale, whose
concern was not that the plowboy might immediately have complete comprehension of
every word, but that he might, over time, with the Spirit’s help and the
instructions of officers appointed in Christ’s church, come to know it truly
and faithfully.
JTR
1 comment:
“[Mark Ward] lamented that some folk supposedly have put ‘having the Bible’ over ‘understanding the Bible.’”
Regardless of debates and emotional appeals, wouldn’t “having the Bible” logically come before “understanding the Bible”?
Post a Comment