Bible Translations-Why We Need New Ones Even When People Don't Want Them

I'll be giving a church history Sunday school lesson in a couple of weeks on the King James Version of the Bible. Here are some excerpts that deal with the nature of Bible translation:

“There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be reclothed… We must sometimes get away from the Authorized Version (King James) if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity the transporting or horrifying realities of which the Book tells may come through to us blunted and disarmed, and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame or struck dumb with terror or carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations. Does the word “scourged” really come home to us like “flogged”? Does 'mocked him' sting like 'jeered at him'?”
--C.S. Lewis

In this excerpt, Mark Strauss is responding to those who argue for 'literal' translation. Strauss supports what is referred to as 'functional equivalent' translation (such as the NIV).

“[Ray] Van Leeuwen warns that “The danger of FE [functional equivalent] translations is that they shape the Bible too much to fit our world and our expectations. There is a danger that the Bible gets silenced because we have tamed and domesticated it.” This is an important caution, and we must never convert the Bible into a self-help book for the self-indulgent worldview of the West. But again, this warning speaks to the need to accurately depict the Bible‟s culture and theology, not to mimic its linguistic forms. Indeed, Van Leeuwen's warning against the “domestication” of the text can be turned on its head. Traditional church language, canonized by the King James Version and its revisions, can become so staid and familiar that it has little impact on churchgoers who have heard it all their lives. For many, reading a contemporary version brings the Bible to life by piercing through the traditional language “domesticated” through familiarity. Witness for example the rhetorical power of J. B. Phillips‟ New Testament in Modern English and, more recently, The Message by Eugene Peterson.

Much of what [Leland] Ryken considers to be the exalted literary style of the Bible represents his preference for the vocabulary, rhythm and style of the KJV. For those of us who grew up reading and memorizing the KJV, it is the language of the church – “Godlanguage.” But while this style has made a profound impact upon the English-speaking world, it was not the style of the biblical writers, which to the original readers sounded natural and contemporary.

R. T. France has said this well:

The colloquial language employed by Tyndale so that the Scriptures would be accessible to the ploughboy has thus become, with the passing of time, the esoteric language of religion, and the more remote it becomes from ordinary speech the more special and holy it seems.”

--Mark Stauss, “Form, Function, and the ‘Literal Meaning’ Fallacy in Bible Translations”