Interview with Ray Faircloth, translator of the Kingdom of God Version of the New Testament

I think I’ve met only two people who have translated the whole New Testament from the original Koine Greek to some modern language. One was an American evangelical missionary, who’d translated the New Testament into some obscure tribal language from South America. The other was the Englishman Ray Faircloth, who runs the biblicaltruthseekers website. (Some of his materials are also available here.)

In both cases, I was impressed. What an acheivement, and what a weight it must be, to try to effectively and accurately render what one regards as the most important texts in human history, the communications of God to humankind.

I was privileged to be able to interview Ray Faircloth a few days ago near Atlanta, Georgia, where we were both in town for a conference. Maybe at a later date I’ll post a few representative passages from his translation.

Congratulations on the publication of your translation of the New Testament, The Kingdom of God Version. How long did this take you?

This took three and half years.

Was that full time?

No, it was in blocks of time, so that you’d get so far, and you’d need to move on to another subject, and come back to it at a later time.

What, in your view, is most distinctive about your Kingdom of God Version?

It’s hard to say one thing, but much of it was attempt to get rid

of the jargonistic terms that are current even in quite modern translations. And the other point was to introduce many of the things I’d learned that the scholars were saying were better renderings of many texts.

I know that many translators, as they go along, compare with previous translations. Did you find any particular translations helpful?

I referenced about thirty-five translations after the basic thing was done, and found better word choices, at times. The latest one was N.T. Wright’s The Kingdom New Testament, and I thought there were some very good word choices there, which I then did use.
[2:50]

You mentioned jargon. But in your view, has the rendering of certain passages in the New Testament been biased by the theology of the translators?

I think most of the translations are very good. I don’t think there’s really a jargonistic connection there with what I think is faulty. What I think are faulty, are about half a dozen passages – sometimes it’s a matter of the phrasing of the grammar, perhaps a full stop needs to go in a certain place, splitting a sentence into two sentences, or a comma, or a rephrasing, because a word or phrase choice leans in a trinitarian direction, whereas the context gave [the translators] an alternative that they did not take. So I’ve taken that alternative.

How would you theologically describe yourself?

As a unitarian in terms of christology. As a futurist in terms of escatology, and sleep of the dead. Those are the basics. [Also as] a person of non-violence.

What would you say if someone objected that your translation must be biased because you’re a unitarian?

I’d say yes, it is biased. But, I do believe that all translations carry a certain amount of bias. But I have tried, in spite of the likely bias, to be as honest as I absolutely can. But even on “trinitarian” things, I do think I have the right to translate in a non-trinitarian way, because the context – either immediate or broad context – absolutely leans in that direction.

In your view, who would most benefit from your translation?

First and foremost, my wife and myself. Secondly, all of our friends and associates who have a unitarian mindset. Also those who are seeking and searching for truth, and are slowly getting there. I do expect it to be highly criticized by the church systems because of its non-trinitarian approach. But I think any sincere person, who not only references the various non-trinitarian passages and other different passages, if they look at the appendix, they will get the rationales for rending them in that way.

I can think of a couple of other translations by non-trinitarians. One was the “Improved Version” of the early nineteenth century. Did you consult that at all?

I did not.

Another one was the so-called “Scholars’ Version” done by some of the Jesus Seminar guys.

I have it, but actually I did not consult it, no. Every translation I consulted came out of a trinitarian background – they are the well known translations, and the fairly well known ones.

Thanks a lot.

You’re welcome.