Full Text for The King James Version: The Beginning or the End? (Text)

Concordia Theological Quarterly Volume 75:3-4 July/October 2011 Table Contents Walther and the Revival of Confessional Lutheranism Martin R. Noland ................................................................................ 195 Grabau Versus Walther: The Use of the Book o/Concord in the American Lutheran Debate on Church and Ministry in the Nineteenth Century Benjamin T.G. Mayes ......................................................................... 217 C.F.W. Walther's Use of Luther Cameron A. MacKenzie ..................................................................... 253 Mission through Witness, Mercy, Life Together in Walther and the First Fathers of Missouri Albert B. Collver ................................................................................. 275 Eduard Preuss and C.F.W. Walther Roland F. Ziegler ................................................................................ 289 Wilhelm Lohe: His Voice Still Heard in Walther's Church John T. Pless ........................................................................................ 311 Walther, the Third Use of the Law, and Contemporary Issues David P. Scaer ..................................................................................... 329 The King James Version: The Beginning or the End? Cameron A. MacKenzie ..................................................................... 343 Theological Observer ...................................................................................... 367 Dean Wenthe: An Appreciation An Old Seminary, a New President, and the Unfolding of Divine History The Sacred Character of Human Life Book Reviews ................................................................................................... 372 Books Received ................................................................................................ 381 Indices for Volume 75 (2011) .......................................................................... 382 Observing Two Anniversaries Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther was born on October 25, 1811, in Langenchursdorf, Saxony, Germany. It is appropriate that this issue honor C.F.W. Walther on this 200th anniversary of his birth because of his significant influence as the first and third president of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (1847-1850 and 1864-1878) and also president and professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis (1850-1887). Most of the articles below, which were first presented at the 2011 Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions in Fort Wayne, reflect his influence in many areas of biblical teaching, confessional subscription, and the life of the church in mission. These historical and theological studies are offered here so that Walther may be understood in his context and continue to be a blessed voice in our synod as we face the future. This issue also recognizes one other anniversary. The venerated King James Version of the Bible, first printed in 1611, is now 400 years old. The article below on the King James Version was originally given as a paper at the 2011 Symposium on Exegetical Theology in honor of this anniversary. The importance of this translation for the English-speaking world is widely acknowledged. Although many may think that its day has passed, this article demonstrates the ongoing influence of the King James Version through other translations. The Editors CTQ 75 (2011): 343-365 ,0 or The King James Version: The Beginning or the End? Cameron A. MacKenzie When asked to write something for the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, I thought it would be an exercise in nostalgia, a fond remem­ brance of a Bible that few in the audience could actually recall but that at least I and a handful of others would recognize as the Bible of our child­ hood from which we first learned the word of God. The days when the King James Version was the Bible in the English-speaking world are long gone, and it survives today more as a museum piece than as a vehicle for Christian proclamation and piety. At least, that is what I thought was true when I began my work, and it probably is true in an assembly like this; but it is not as true as I had originally thought. According to the most recent list of best sellers compiled by the CBA (formerly the Christian Booksellers Association), the King James Version (KJV) was second only to the New International Version (NIV) among number of Bibles sold in the U.5., and the New King James Version (NKJV) was third!1 Given all the competition-to say nothing of the obvious changes in language and scholarship since 161l-that is really amazing. Now, of course, just because people buy a version does not mean they actually read it; nonetheless, these figures suggest that, 400 years after it first was published, the King James Version of the Bible still has a lot of life left. Moreover, besides the New King James, one other translation included in the list of the CBA's 10 best sellers also had direct connections with the King James, viz., the English Standard Version (ESV), which comes in fifth place. So both on its own and in its successors, the King James Version remains a powerful force in shaping the biblical message in the English­ 1 "February 2011 CBA Best Sellers" http:j jwww.cbaonline.orgjnmjdocuments jBSL<;jBible_Translations.pdf (accessed on January 16, 2011). When I first accessed this site (Nov. 24, 2010), it was posting the "December 2010 CBA Best Sellers." The Jist was very similar. According to the website, the list is based on "actual sales in Christian retail stores in the United States through January 1, 2011, using CROSS: SCAN as the source for the data collection." The positions of NIV, KJV, and NKJV were the same in both the list determined by unit sales and in the one determined by dollar sales. Cameron A. MacKenzie is the Ellis Professor of Historical Theology and Chairman of the Department of Historical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 344 Concordia Theological Quarterly 75 (2011) speaking world. Whether this is a good thing or not is another question, one to which I will return shortly; but before I do so, I will consider briefly how this happened in the first place. How did the King James Version achieve such eminence in the English-speaking world? To answer that question, we need to review a little history and recall, first of all, that the King James Version was the culmination of much translation work that came before it during the Reformation. Or, to put it another way, the King James Version represents the end of the beginning in the story of the English Bible.2 The beginning of the beginning is, of course, the work of William Tyndale.3 His pioneering efforts resulted in an English New Testament in 1526 and parts of the Old Testament thereafter.4 Subsequent translations in the 16th century usually began with Tyndale. That was still true with respect to the King James Version. In the preface to the latter, Miles Smith indicated its relationship to its Protestant predecessors in answer to Catholics who criticized Protestants for publishing new versions of the English Bible: We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.S 2 See Appendix A on 364. For the prehistory of the King James Version, see Brooke Foss Westcott, A General View of the History of the English Bible, 3rd rev. ed. by William Aldis Wright, reprint ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998); J. Isaacs, "The Sixteenth-Century English Versions," in The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions, ed. H. Wheeler Robinson, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 146-195; S.L. Greenslade, "English Versions of the Bible, 1525-1611/' in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3: 7he West from the Reformation to the Present Day, ed. S.L. Greenslade, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 141-163; and F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxfql-d University Press, 1978), 24-95. 3 For Tyndale's translatiOl.ywork, see J.F. Mozley, William Tyndale (London: SPCK, 1937), 75-109, 173-186, and ¢vid Daniell, William Tyndale: A Biography (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 19~4), 108-116, 134-142, 283-315, 330-331. 4 Besides the Pent~tluch and Jonah that appeared in print during Tyndale's lifetime, both Mozley, Tyhdale, 179-186, and Daniell, Tyndale, 333-357, credit him with the translation of the historical books, Joshua through 2 Chronicles (Mozley) or Nehemiah (Daniell), that appeared in Matthew's Bible and became the basis for subse­ quent 16th-century translations. 5 "The Translators to the Reader," in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha: King James Version, ed. David Norton, (Cambridge: Cambridge University 345 MacKenzie: The King James Version m, Improving on their predecessors-but not repudiating them-was the fly goal of the King James translators right from the beginning. In fact, in the on "rules" provided for the translators, the first of them specified that "the ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit," andlIt a subsequent rule told the translators to use these versions-Tyndale's, ch Matthew's, and Coverdale's Bibles, the Great Bible, and the Geneva : it Bible-in places where they were more accurate than the Bishops' Bible. 6 ng Moreover, all of these versions incorporated huge amounts of Tyndale, and none of them besides his began totally afresh from the original 1m languages. Together, they constitute a family of closely related versions in known as the Great Tradition'? The similarities are quite evident when one in compares particular passages. ith Here are a couple of examples. Let's start with the first two verses of ith Genesis:8 to he Tyndale:9 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the water. Coverdale:1o In the beginning God created heaven and earth; and the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the water. Matthew's:l1 In the beginning GOD created heaven and earth. The earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the water. )ke am rhe Press, 2005), xxxi. Unless otherwise noted, all citations of the King James Version come ed. from this edition. For the ascription of the preface to Miles Smith, see Bruce, History, 98. Ide, b Alfred W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible: The Documents Relating to the .3: Translation and Publication of the Bible in English, 1525-1611 (London: Henry Frowde, 1ge: Oxford University Press, 1911), 53-54. . in 7 The first time I came across this designation, the Great Tradition, for the family of Bibles connected to the King James Version was in the title of Arthur L. Farstad, The New ::K, King James Version in the Great Tradition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989). 8 For ease of reading, I have either employed a modernized spelling and punc­ tuation edition or else have updated it myself. Ie's 9 David Daniell, ed., Tyndale's Old Testament: Being the Pentateuch of 1530, Joshua to 2 lith Chronicles of 1537, and Jonah, Translated by William Tyndale (New Haven, CT: Yale or University Press, 1992). lSe- 10 Unless otherwise noted, Coverdale Bible citations are from the electronic version of the 1535 text available in The Bible in English at http://collections.chadwyckcom. the ezproxy.lib.ipfw.edu/bie/htxview?template=basic.htx&content=frameset.htx, (accessed sHy November 30, 2010). I; co 346 Concordia Theological Quarterly 75 (2011) Great Bible:12 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The earth was void and empty; and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Geneva: l3 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters. Bishops':14 In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and was void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. King James: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. A New Testament example, Matthew 6:7, shows how a difference in understanding the Greek could affect the tradition. Should r)UnuAoYEw be rendered "babble" or "vain repetitions"? Then again, maybe it was just a matter of style: Does "babble'! belong in the mouth of our Lord or is "vain repetitions" more fitting? Whatever their thinking, the translators in the Great Tradition had a hard time making up their minds. Tyndale:15 And when ye pray, babble not much, as the heathen do, for they think that they shall be heard, for their much babbling's sake. 11 Unless otherwise noted, Matthew's Bible citations are from the electronic version of the 1549 text available in The Bible in English at http:/ / collections.chadwyck.com. ezproxy.lib.ipfw.edu/bie/htxview?template=basic.htx&content=frameset.htx, (accessed November 30,2010). 12 Unless otherwise noted, Great Bible citations are from the electronic version of the 1540 text available in TI1C Bible in English at http://collections.chadwyck.com. ezproxy .lib.ipfw .ed u/bie/htxview?templa te=basic.htx&content=frameset.htx, (accessed November 30,2010). 13 Unless otherwise noted, Geneva Bible citations are from TIle Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition, intro. Lloyd E. Berry (Peabody, MA: Hendrick.<;on Publishers, 2007). 14 Unless otherwise noted, Bishops' Bible citations are from the electronic version of the 1568 text available in The Bible in English at http://collections.chadwyck.com. ezproxy.libjpfw.edu/bie/htxview?template=basic.htx&content=frameset.htx, (accessed November 30,2010). 15 Unless otherwise noted, Tyndale New Testament citations are from David Daniell, ed., Tyndale's New Tcstamcnt Translated from the Greek by William Tyndale ill 1534, modern spelling ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). 347 T I . The If the And n the ~arth. , was ~ face ~arth. upon )f the erence in t..oy£w be las just a r is "vain Irs in the o,for nic version wyck.com. , (accessed version of :wyck.com. :, (accessed va Bible: A endrickson . version of lwyck.com. :, (accessed 'om David tale in 1534, MacKenzie: The King James Version Coverdale: And when ye pray, babble not much, as the heathen do, for they think that they shall be heard, for their much babbling's sake. Matthew's: But when ye pray, babble not much as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard, for their much babbling sake. Great Bible: But when ye pray babble not much, as the heathen do: for they think it will come to pass that they shall be heard for their much babbling's sake. Geneva: Also when ye pray, use no vain repetitions as the heathen, for they think to be heard for their much babbling. Bishops': But when ye pray, babble not much, as the heathen do. For they think it will come to pass that they shall be heard, for their much babbling's sake. King James: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. For the sake of contrast with the Great Tradition, consider two modern language versions, the Revised English Bible16 (REB) and the Good News Bible17 (GNB), in order to see that the Tyndale rendering is not inevitable. First, Genesis 1:1-2: REB: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was a vast waste, darkness covered the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. Verse one sounds like Tyndale, but verse two certainly does not. The difference is even more pronounced in GNB. GNB: In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the power of God was moving over the water. Similar departures from the Tyndale tradition are evident in Matthew 6:7 also: REB: In your prayers do not go babbling on like the heathen, who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard. 16 The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1989). 17 Good News Bible: The Bible in Today's English Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1976). 348 Concordia Theological Quarterly 75 (2011) GNB: When you pray, do not use a lot of meaningless words, as the tire pagans do, who think that God will hear them because their prayers Lut are long. Lut ehaThese passages show that an English translation does not have to Lutsound like William Tyndale, but the 16th-century versions to which the King James translators referred all show a reliance upon the first version, sarr abothat of Tyndale. Therefore, the King James Version was just one more step a. tr,in the development of this particular line of Bibles. Of course, it was a very impressive step since it involved dozens of translators from both Oxford arra pIa(and Cambridge as well as scholars outside the universities,18 and they committed themselves first of all to faithfulness to the original languages. nUll After all, Rule #1 directed the translators to follow the Bishops' Bible only insofar as "the Truth of the original will permit."19 Nonetheless, when the nab work was finished more than seven years after the king had first agreed to cha it, the end result remained quite close to its predecessors. In fact, one esti­ avo mate is that 90% of the King James is Tyndale,20 at least in those portions AgE that Tyndale had completed before his death: the entire New Testament, "ch the Pentateuch, Jonah, and very probably Joshua through 2 Chronicles. 21 (Lu (LuFor Lutherans, it is probably also worth noting that Tyndale was indebted to Martin Luther for both his Bible translation and his theology. In fact, the history books sometimes call him "Lutheran."22 This is not en- Mor 18 For the origins and organization of the King James translation, see Westcott, 107- El'lgl 121; J. Isaacs, "The Authorized Version and After," in Robinson, Ancient and English, Mac 1%-204; Bruce, History, 96-112; and Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 (Oxford: University Press, 2010), 32-85. Also very informative are the Edit following (although aimed more at a popular audience than an academic one): Gustavus (Phi S. Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959, 294, paperback ed., 1977); Olga S. Opfell, The King James Bible Translators Oefferson, NC: Mcfarland & Co., 1982); Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible alld How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (New York: Doubleday, 365­ 2001); and Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2003). pam 19 Pollard, Records, 53. 133. 20 See G. E. Duffield, "Introduction," in TIle Work of William Tyndale (Appleford, Bershire, England: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1964), xxxv-xxxvi, but Campbell, Bible, Cam 15, says only 83 percent. ed. ( 21 Perhaps the best book demonstrating the literary connections between the King James Version and its predecessors is Charles C. Butterworth, The Literary Lineage of the -Ty King James Bible, 1340-1611 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), but Lutl see also Gerald Hammond, The Making of the English Bible (Manchester, Great Britain: Sept Carcanet Press, 1982); Isaacs, "Authorized Version," 204-223; and Westcott, 123-284. 22 E.g., Conrad Russell, "The Reformation and the Creation of the Church of Mar England, 1500-1640," in The Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor and Stuart Britain, ed. John 19~ 349 MacKenzie: The King James Version he tirely accurate, especially regarding the sacraments, but Tyndale did use Luther's works to create his own, often just translating or paraphrasing Luther's German into English, e.g., his An Exposition Uppon the V. VI. VII Chapters of Matthew,23 and other times, just integrating large portions of ~ve to Luther into his own material, e.g., The Parable of the Wicked Mammon.24 The ch the same is true of the materials that accompany his Bible translations, e.g., ~rsion, about 75 percent of Tyndale's prologue to Romans in his 1534 Testament is ~e step a translation of Luther's preface that first appeared in 1522.25 Tyndale even a very arranged the books of the New Testament the way Luther did and so)xford placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation at the end without:i they numbering them.26 uages . .e only Finally, Tyndale also translated like Luther in that he employed a len the natural vernacular instead of a more stilted and latinate style that often 'eed to characterized the pre-Reformation versions27 and, again, like Luther, le esti­ avoided terminology that reinforced the aberrant theology of the Middle )rtions Ages. For example, Tyndale used 1/congregation" for EKKA1]oLa instead of 3ment 1/ church" (Luther used gemeyne); II elder" for rrpw~ln:epoc; instead of priest ~S.21 (Luther used Elltiste); and "repent" for lletavOelt£ instead of 1/ do penance" (Luther used bessert euch).28Ie was !ology. lot en- Morrill (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 267, and Richard Rex, Henry VIII and tile )tt,107- English Reformation, 2nd ed. (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England: Palgrave English, Macmillan, 2006), 113. '1g James 23 Duffield, Work, 180-304. For Luther, see Martin Luther, Luther's Works, American ! are the Edition, 55 vols., ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann ~ustavus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955-1986), 21: 1­ sc,1959, 294 (hereafter LVI/). on, NC: 24 Daniell, Tyndale, 156-169, discusses this work, including its relation to Luther. '1g James 25 Duffield, Work, 119-146; Westcott, General View, 147-148. For Luther, see LW 35: lbleday, 365-380. ,Ie (New 26 For the degree of Tyndale's dependence upon Luther in the material that accom­ panied the biblical text, see Westcott, General View, 139-153, and Daniell, Tyndale, 113­ 133. 'pleford, 27 for medieval vernacular versions, see "The Vernacular Scriptures," in The ~ll, Bible, Cambridge History of the English Bible, vol. 2: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, ed. G.W.H. Lampe (Cambridge: University Press, 1969), 338-491. :he King 28 For examples of each of these, see Matt 18:17 ("congregation"), Titus 1:5 ("elders" Ige of the -Tyndale's first edition used "seniors"), and Matt 3:2 ("repent"). For references to )41), but Luther's Bible, I have used Martin Luther, Das Neue Testament Deutsch Wittenberg 1522: . Britain: Septembertestament, facsimile ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) . ·284. For Luther's influence on Tyndale as a translator, see especially Heinz Bluhm, lUrch of Martin Luther: Creative Translator, reprint ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ed.John 1984, c. 1%5), 169-180, and Heinz Bluhm, "Martin Luther and the English Bible: ...J 350 Concordia Theological Quarterly 75 (2011) Some of this material made it into the King James version, e.g., "elder" somet and "repent." But in general, there is little direct influence from Luther on debate the King James Version. Coverdale omitted the prefaces, the Great Bible all, no reintegrated Luther's antilegomena into the New Testament canon, and James. Geneva brought back in "the church." In fact, the King James translators PE were ordered to use "the old Ecclesiastical Words ... the Word Church not becam to be translated Congregation, etc,"29 Moreover, by the time we get to the over tl second half of the 16th century, the most direct influences upon the alists,English versions were Reformed scholars like Theodore Beza; the so-called Anglin, for ex- translators prepare a New King James Bible in the first place? This brings 1. This has us to the second factor that accounts for the new versions, viz., language, Ices at the the English language. Even if the Revised Version of 1881 and 1885 did not !d for sev­ update the language, all of its successors in the Great Tradition have done statement SO,68 but the degree to which the newer versions have modernized their Clot in the diction has varied. So, for example, "and it came to pass" in the King James survived in the New King James (although sometimes "and" became "now"), became "now it came about" in the NASB Update, and dis­ lave come appeared entirely from the ESV. Here is an example, Genesis 6:1. Clts in part King James Version: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply !k text that on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. r~stament, Samuel 10 New King James Version: Now it came to pass, when men began to the newer multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them. New American Standard Bible (Updated ed.): Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were so meD1bers born to them. eek text ap­ :tory, 139). A NasJohn W. 66 The preface (p. ix) indicated the ESV translators' commitment to "translate dif­me with the ficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text" but left the door open toonly as their emendations or alternative readings in "exceptional, difficult cases." One online re­!?, ed. David viewer indicated that the ESV is much more conservative in this respect than even the d the home­ original RSV, which emended the Hebrew text of Job 63 times. The ESV, in contrast, Authorized emended it only six times. Cf. Michael Marlow, "English Standard Version."ranslation of ,and Greek http://vvww.bible-researcher.com/esv.html. (accessed January 3, 2011). 67 "Preface," NKJV, v. See also Lewis, The English Bible, 332-333, and Farstad, New .society.org/ King James, 110-117. However, the New King James translators (Preface, iv-v) were a little more adventuresome in the Old Testament and used an updated version of the (but not the Masoretic Hebrew rather than the 17th-century version. They also left the door open forScanlin, The the versions and the Dead Sea scrolls in difficult cases. See Farstad, New King James, 93­ndaleHouse 101. However, according to Scanlin, 34, "evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls is cited in only six footnotes in the entire Old Testament" of the NKJV and in just one case, Isaiah nesithe RSV 49: 5, does the text actually follow the Qumran material.D. 68 This began already with the 1901 American recension of the Revised Version Vi however, which, for example, changed the Lord's Prayer from "Our Father, which art in heaven" dEvaluation, to "who." See Lewis, The English Bible, 73-74, and Bruce M. Metzger, I11e Bible inthe evidence Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 103-104. 360 Concordia Theological Quarterly 75 (2011) English Standard Version: When man began to multiply on the face of int( the land and daughters were born to them. era This example also indicates differences over the extent to which the translation should retain the idiom of the originaL Although all the ver­ facl sions in the Great Tradition are basically literal translations, some are more by literal than others.69 The New King James is probably the most literaL The the preface called its translation philosophy"complete equivalence" because Wa this version"seeks to preserve all of the information in the text." This even Goc includes the interjections that other versions omit (e.g., "behold" in Luke Vel 2:9).70 ienl harProbably the least literal of the newer translations in the Great Tradition is the New Revised Standard Version, but this, in turn, raises yet rev bir1another explanation for the differences between the versions: not language per se, but ideology. In the case of the NRSV, the translators committed off~ "dEthemselves to feminist terminology and deliberately avoided traditional 22::English usage like generic "man" and indefinite "he."71 But in order to carry out this commitment, the NRSV departed in thousands of instances trac not only from the King James Version but also from the original Greek and Hebrew (e.g., turning singulars into plurals and third person pronouns fon ide Bib 69 By "litera!," I mean a translation that commits itself to translating the form of the has original text into English, e.g., grammar, style, idioms, figures of speech, and individual Yet vocables, to the degree possible still consistent with understanding. The opposite kind of translating commits itself to choosing the form in English that best expresses the meaning of the original without reference to its form in the original language. See David 0(1