C.S. Lewis on Bible translation, part 1: The Moffatt Translation
What did Uncle Jack think about the various Bible translations available in English? Of course, the question needs to be refined since back in his day there were far fewer translations to choose from. In this occasional series on “C.S. Lewis and Bible translation” I’d like to share a couple of quotes from Lewis on Bible translation and encourage anyone else to share examples of his thinking on this topic.
The Moffatt Translation
In Letters of C.S. Lewis, pp. 180-181, Lewis is talking about reading the Gospels and he says:
“The first thing you find is that we are simply not invited to speak, to pass any moral judgment on Him, however favorable; it only too clear that He is going to do whatever judging there is; it is we who are being judged, sometimes tenderly, sometimes with stunning severity, but always de haut en baus.
He goes on to recommend looking at the Gospels in fresh ways, either through a retelling, or a version for children. Then he states:
If childish associations are too intrusive, in reading the New Testament it’s a good idea to try it in some other language, or Moffatt’s translation.
Modern readers are probably unaware of the Moffatt translation. James Moffat published The New Testament: A New Translation in Modern Speech in 1913. He went on to publish the entire Bible as A New Translation of the Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, in 1926. Moffatt’s translation today is primarily of interest for his use of an eclectic source text as well as his practice of reordering passages. Famously, he put Genesis 2:4 at the beginning of the book of Genesis. He also tried to capture some of the original wordplay found in the Hebrew. Edward at Ralph the Sacred River has two articles on Moffatt’s translation: Re-reading the Moffatt Translation and Moffatt and Hebrew Wordplay. Michael Marlowe at Bible Researcher captures something of the general spirit of critical comments about the Moffatt Translation on his website.
You might try reading through some of the pages of the Moffatt translation on Amazon and seeing what you think. Considering that it is an early twentieth century translation the language is still very clear and natural. Lewis’ reference to Moffatt wasn’t meant to be an endorsement per se. Instead he was simply encouraging us to take a look at the story of Jesus in a fresh way. And a different translation from our “favorite” is certainly a wonderful way to wake us up and make us think about the Biblical message.
Here are a few verses of Moffat, Genesis 2:8-9:
In the land of Eden, to the far east, God the Eternal then planted a park, where he put the man whom he had moulded. And from the ground, God the Eternal made all sorts of trees to grow that were delightful to see and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree that yields knowledge of good and evil in the centre of the park.
The park! I love that word choice. I can imagine strolling through St. James’s Park in London and there where all the walkways converge in the center are the tree of life and the tree of good and evil.
Related post: Martin Luther on Bible Translation
Great post and information. The more I read the OT in english, the more I realize that I don’t have all the connections. I’m heading back to Sem to focus on the OT and pick up Hebrew. But your post was inspirational. Thanks–DT
Bible Researcher Marlowe might take it as a compliment to be given the name of the famous playwright and contemporary of Shakespeare. But his actual first name is Michael.
As for “park” in Genesis 2:8-9, I can imagine an early 20th century British gentleman like Moffat thinking in terms of a place like St James’s Park, minus the tourists like Lingamish and family who make it more like nearby Piccadilly Circus these days. (For those who don’t know, “like Piccadilly Circus” is a British idiom for “extremely crowded and busy”.) I suppose in this image Adam and Eve hid behind a thick cypress hedge, where in a real park the gardeners’ shed might be. And “park” is a good rendering of paradeisos, the Greek word used here in LXX. But somehow I can’t imagine Eden actually being a formally laid out park, with avenues radiating out from the Tree of Life at the centre. I’m sure it had a more natural and informal feel to it. Or am I simply importing here my presuppositions and preferences for modern informal church life rather than the very formal atmosphere of most British churches in the early 20th century?
Peter, thanks for pointing out my brain burps. Corrected, I hope!
Here in Mozambique people would probably imagine the Garden of Eden as farm overflowing in good food: trees heavy with fruit and acre upon acre of maize.
Thanks.
Let’s make sure that we get Moffatt’s name right as well, with two t’s at the end. This caught out you and me, and also coincidentally yesterday Trevor on the b-trans list who claims to have copied the spelling with one t from the British Library. But the printed Bible itself has two t’s.
It’s an interesting insight on the whole idea of translation that, imho, you have misread the meaning of “park”.
A park need not mean a formal garden for public recreation. It also means the grounds laid out around a mansion; very extensive but not necessarily manicured and certainly without formal paths, swings and roundabouts. Surely that’s much closer to the idea of Eden than Hyde Park could be, but what does it say about understanding any text when that meaning has been so much forgotten already?
BTW, Moffatt was minister of our congregation at Broughty Ferry East (now New) Kirk, Dundee, Scotland.
during the time moffatt was ……coming up with his translation, “park” had an entirely different meaning in addition to the way we use it today. At that time, for instance, huge valleys and basins in and around the mountains and foot hills were called “parks”……i, personally, have no problem with thinking of Eden as being a “park”…..mac