Every time the KJV and its lineage come up in discussion, there is invariably discussion of the placement of a simple word: “not”. Critics of traditional English Bible language, aka “Biblish”, like to point out that natural English speakers do not go around asking questions like, “Are we not going to the store today?” Instead, we ask the natural equivalent, “Aren’t we going to the store today?” (Note the difference in placing the “not” when we form the contraction.)
Yet in most Bible translations, at least those leaning in the median and formal categories, there is an extreme reluctance to use contractions. They are evidently considered too informal for literary language and translation teams will go to various lengths to avoid them, including switching from passive to active voice and/or rearranging the phrase.
The simple example of Romans 12:2 will suffice as illustration:
| NLT’07: “Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.” | TNIV: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will.” |
| REB: “Conform no longer to the pattern of this present world, but be transformed by the renewal of your minds. Then you will be able to discern the will of God, and to know what is good, acceptable, and perfect.” | KJV: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” |
The directness of replacing “be” with “do” in the TNIV (and HCSB and ESV) may be easier on modern ears than the KJV’s passive phrasing, but which is grammatically correct in the Greek? I wonder if a gentler modernization would be “Do not be conformed to this world…” (cf. ISV), but of course that sounds somewhat clunky unless we use the contraction, “Don’t be conformed to this world…” But then we’re back to the contraction issue.
And of course, never mind the rhetorical cadence that has been discarded from the KJV, e.g. “be not conformed”//”be ye transformed”. To keep that effect, you’d need to also use active voice in the secondary part of the phrase:
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but transform your life by renewing your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
But whoops! That sounds like it might assign too active a role to ourselves in our transformation, so we need to keep the passive voice so that we remain the object of transformation, not the transformer.
Next, switching language to avoid the passive ‘not” leads to the result that the balance of the passage is thrown off. In the KJV, the “be not conformed” is an introduction to the meat of the passage, which is be transformed in order to know the will of God. (I’m reminded of the HCSB’s translation of John 3:16, “For God loved the world in this way: he gave…”)
In modern translations, we instead end up with a “if/then” logical arrangement: if you don’t conform, but are transformed, then you will know the will of God. The change in logical balance and use of an active command “Do not” shifts the emphasis of the argument from the positive being transformed to the negative not conforming.
Finally, with all of the above in mind, here’s an attempt at modernizing the effect of the KJV, while avoiding the “unnatural” negative:
Don’t be conformed to the practices of this world. Instead, be transformed by the renewing of your mind so that you might know the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
HT: the Preface of the God’s Word translation.
15 Comments
Great topic, great coverage agree with your literal treatment. Of course the bigger problem is the translation of aeon to “world”, even age doesn’t really capture it. I’d leave it as aeon. But world is just wrong. Other than that the KJV, NRSV… handle this well, Paul is being precise in his language I think we should be precise in anything other than an easy to read translation. I’d rather people who are going to blow this passage entirely do it like the CEV, “Don’t be like the people of this world, but let God change the way you think. Then you will know how to do everything that is good and pleasing to him.” or be literal. This is a very bad passage for mediating.
Thanks, CD – I’ll have to take a closer look at the difficulties regarding aeon.
> This is a very bad passage for mediating.
I’m beginning to think that way about a great many passages.
You seem to have missed the point that in their primary and most common modern English usages “conform” is an intransitive verb but “transform” is a transitive one. That is illogical, I know, but language is often like that. I accept that “conform” can be used transitively and so “do not be conformed” is not ungrammatical; it’s just that “do not conform” is a much more natural way of saying the same thing.
Thank you for that insight, Peter – I really do appreciate it, especially since “to have missed the point” implies that I knew it to begin with! Is there any difference in the underlying Greek suggesting the difference in verb forms?
The Greek verbs are both formally middle or passive imperatives, but of verbs which are found in the New Testament only in these middle or passive forms so it is very dangerous to come to any semantic conclusions about the significance of the Greek voice. The verb translated “conform” is found in the active elsewhere in Greek, but I don’t think the one translated “be transformed” is. The Greek verbs are unrelated, so there is no reason in the text to insist on using the English cognates “conform” and “transform”.
Your REB quote shows it. The NEB does
“Adapt yourself no longer to the pattern of this present world but let your minds be made and your whole nature thus transformed….”
“this present world” does a nice job of capturing aeon in this passage. You have to capture a long duration which “age” doesn’t since we tend to use “age” for stuff like “the age of trust” or “the age of banking regulation”. On the other hand you need to clearly imply there was a previous and future aeon, which is why “world” is terrible.
aion is word with a large number of technical meanings having to do with the positioning of the Precession of the equinoxes, a period of 25,771.5 years. It could also refer to the changing of the pole starts which would be the period from roughly 3000 BCE to 14000 CE when Vega replaces Polaris as the “North Star”. Is could mean the Arian age (1658 BC and ended in ca. AD 498). The issue with translation is that a modern Western reader just doesn’t know enough Astronomy / Astrology to translate this issue away. The concepts don’t exist in our culture so there is no way to accurately translate the word. Without more cultural context we can’t figure out exactly what Paul meant but you need some sort of astro theology.
In Corinthians (example 1Cor 10:11) Paul makes it a central point that “now” (when he is writing) is a transition between two aions. This is generally interpreted as the transition between the pre Messianic and post Messianic age, a period transition from the age of Moses to the age of Jesus.
What makes this even worse is Paul uses the same word 2 lines earlier in calling Jesus the “glory of the aions”. And then you see translations like “To him be the glory forever (aion?)”. So they have Paul using aion to mean “forever” 2 lines earlier and “the world” in 12:2?
Gaus doesn’t do bad with this in his translation of rom 12:2, “And don’t follow the outlines of the present age, but be so completely changed by the renewal of your mind as to ask ….” It captures the non static nature of what Paul is saying. And in 11:36 he has, “Let his be the glory for all ages indeed”. And then at least you see the play on age and age.
I guess it is about time to jump off the soapbox.
CD – I didn’t want to lose track of your comment. There’s much to chew on here – thank you!
By “post Messianic age”, do you mean post-Resurrection or post-Second Return? The “meanwhile” between advents has been the subject of a sermon series at my church for the past few months, mostly based from 1 Peter, but with plenty of dipping in Paul as well.
I mean post resurrection. Take a look at the very first passage in Romans, how this letter starts. “…set apart for the gospel God promised this good news long ago, through his holy prophets…”. In other words what is going on RIGHT NOW is the fulfillment of God’s promise. We (the Roman congregation) are at a turning point between the promise of the Lord Jesus and the realization of that promise.
There’s the Elshaddai Edwards I know and love.
…and you’ve got to love Peter Kirk too, don’t you?
… “haven’t you”, surely? Yes, I’ll go on being a pedant unless people ask me to stop. And it’s good to have you back blogging, ElShaddai.
Thanks, Peter – I’m trying to ease back into it, but I may get ahead of myself. And please don’t stop being pedantic (your word, not mine) – I learn too much from you.
“haven’t you,” indeed!
I actually caught myself before I submitted “you gotta’” but you and ElShaddai ain’t from Texas, so I cleaned it up as best I could.
Actually I *do* have some Texas in my blood – my dad grew up south of Houston on the coast… combine that with my mom being from NYC and I can handle most dialect issues!
Thanks, Peter (L.) – I’m trying to take our burnout discussion to heart!
Well, being half Texan makes you twice as good as most.