How We Got Our Bible

Part 4 – Translation

I. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

A. Three Main Branches of Manuscript Traditions

1. As the church became more established, certain definable New Testament manuscript traditions tended to become the standards within more or less defined areas.

2. These became known as "text-types" and there are three of them: The Byzantine text, the Alexandrian text, and the Western text.

3. The Byzantine (or Majority) text: Preserved by the Byzantine Empire, there are far more manuscripts of this tradition than the others, but most of them are from later dates.

4. The Western text: Sprang from fairly undisciplined scribal activity in Western Roman Empire, and therefore, considered the most unreliable of the "text-types”

5. The Alexandrian text: Prepared most likely in the region around Egypt, the oldest known manuscripts are from this family.

6. Because of this, all of today’s translations are based on either the Byzantine text-type or the Alexandrian text-type.

7. The “standard” Byzantine text is the Textus Receptus (Received Text)

8. The “standard” Alexandrian text is the Westcott & Hort (aka the Critical Text)

B. Two Major Texts of Controversy (TR vs. W&H)

1. Textus Receptus (Basis for the KJV)

a) In 1516, Erasmus, a Roman Catholic Priest and humanist, was pressured into to finishing a Greek text in order to be the first Greek text published.

b) Erasmus had studied hundreds of Greek manuscripts, but based his text on a small handful of Byzantine manuscripts he felt were representative of them.

c) After its first publishing, Erasmus and others would end up revising the text several times.

d) In 1611, The King James Version (known in Great Britain as the Authorised Version) was translated from Theodore Beza’s 1604 edition of the TR.

e) In 1633, another revision was published, which contained the words, “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immuta tum aut corruptum damus.” (“The reader has the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.”)

f) Thus, the text was named "Textus Receptus."

g) Note that it was not “received” in the sense that God was putting his stamp of approval upon this Greek revision alone.

h) It was received in that it was considered the standard text of that time.

i) In his original edition, Erasmus had no Greek manuscripts for the last six verses of Revelation, so he back-translated from Latin to Greek. Later revisions fixed that issue.

2. Westcott & Hort (Basis for many modern translations)

a) In 1881, after about thirty years of labor, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort published a Greek New Testament.

b) Westcott and Hort, liberal scholars, argued that the later manuscripts (Byzantine) were inferior to the older manuscripts (Alexandrian).

c) In their work, the scholars used manuscripts that dated back to the fourth century, some 500 years earlier than anything used directly by Erasmus. Most of their work was based on two manuscripts — the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

d) Most modern scholars have followed Westcott & Hort’s work, and the principle that “older is better.”

e) Although there are many differences between the Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, and the 28th edition of the Nestles-Aland Greek texts, the vast majority of variations are so minor that they are not even translatable, (the most common is the moveable “nu”, which is akin to the difference between ‘a’ and ‘an’).

3. The Controversy

a) There are, however, places where we find a substantial difference, such as verses or phrases being omitted (John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Mark 16:9-20; 1 John 5:7,8, etc.)

b) One theory (Critical text view) is that the oldest manuscripts are the most accurate. The theory is that the oldest manuscripts are most significant although they are few.

c) The other theory (Majority text view) is that the type of manuscripts that survived in greatest numbers are the most accurate (even if they are less ancient).

4. There are legitimate questions as to which Greek text is the most reliable.

5. However, the question must be answered by legitimate and careful scholarship in view of all the evidence

6. Honest disagreements still remain concerning which Greek NT is superior.

7. However, among those who love God’s Word there is no conspiracy or attempt to corrupt the Word of God.

II. Modern Translations

A. Historical View of Bible Translation

1. Up until the twentieth century, there has been only one identifiable philosophy of Bible translation, namely a literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

2. Around the middle of the twentieth century, a new philosophy emerged.

a) This philosophy attempted to reproduce not the words of the original text but the thoughts and ideas.

b) The leading proponents behind this philosophy were Kenneth Pike and Eugene Nida.

B. Philosophies of Bible Translation

1. The name of the historical philosophy of translation is called, “Formal Equivalence” which seeks to carefully translate word-for-word. It is also known, as “Literal Translation.”

2. The name of the more modern philosophy is called, “Dynamic Equivalence.” This philosophy seeks to capture the thoughts, meanings, and ideas of the original texts.

3. “Dynamic Equivalence” was the impetus for translation on the mission fields and was carried over to the retranslation of the English Bible.

4. Another philosophy of translation is called, “Paraphrase” which is simply a restatement of a text in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.

C. Pros and Cons of Formal Equivalence (FE)

1. Pros

a) FE assures the reader that the translation is as close to the original as is allowable in translating from one language into another.

b) FE allows the reader to interpret the meaning of the original text and not the translators for him.

c) FE assures theological precision in preserving theological concepts through theological vocabulary.

d) FE eliminates the need for translation correction in teaching and preaching.

e) FE assures the original author’s scholarship and literary style (i.e. play on words)

2. Cons

a) Sometimes translating word-for-word can make idioms and colloquialisms difficult to understand.

b) If the translation is too difficult because it is literally translated, then there may be less interest in reading it.

c) Unless an individual is serious about Bible study, he may have difficulty interpreting Scripture accurately.

D. Pros and Cons of Dynamic Equivalence (DE)

1. Pros

a) DE simplifies difficult metaphors into direct statements for the reader’s understandability.

b) DE turns long, complex sentences into shorter comprehensible sentences.

c) DE reduces the level of vocabulary to a level suitable to the ability of today’s readers

2. Cons

a) If original writers would have wanted their text simplified, they could have written it differently.

b) If God would have wanted the original writers to write differently, then He would have moved them to write differently.

c) Not all scholars agree on the meanings of words so there can be multiple translations and interpretations.

d) If translators do not understand the original text particularly well, a free translation of it will likely convey less of the original meaning, and introduce a more spurious meaning, than will a literal one.

E. Problem Examples

1. I Thess. 4:4

a) (NKJV) That each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor.

b) (NIrV) He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor.

c) (RSV) That each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor.

d) The Greek word here is σκεῦος, (skeuos, vessel). Dynamic equivalence imposes an interpretation on the passage that may not be correct.

2. Ephesians 2:8

a) (KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith …

b) (CEV) You were saved by faith in God’s kindness …

c) The term “grace” means free unmerited favor and blessing” and it carries a lot of rich theological meaning when it is studied in the various contexts. To change this doctrinal word to “kindness” is to dilute the Word of God and change its meaning.

F. Conclusion

1. Based on the Scriptures own teaching, it would support word-for word translations

a) If “every word of God” is tested and tried, then translations should reflect the equivalent of every word (Prov. 30:15).

b) If Jesus declared that every jot and tittle would be fulfilled, then translations must make sure that every word is translated word-for-word (Mat. 5:18).

c) Man lives by every word of God (Mat. 4:4).

d) The Bible’s words are spirit words and words of life (John 6:63; Deut. 32:46-47).

e) Man is not to add to the Scriptures (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19)

2. Expositional teaching and preaching would support word-for word translations.

3. We must also realize that no translation is a 100% word-for-word translation. It simply would be unreadable.

4. There are times when all versions must adjust to idioms.

5. It may be helpful at times for the Bible student to read various translations to know about different views on a particular passage.

6. Furthermore, we must be careful that we do not blow the Bible version debate way out of proportion and neglect the great duty to read the Scriptures daily.

III. Addendum: Identification of Text-Type and Philosophies of Translation in CurrentEnglish Versions

Saturday, February 24, 2018

How We Got Our Bible, Part 4 – Translation

I. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

A. Three Main Branches of Manuscript Traditions

1. As the church became more established, certain definable New Testament manuscript traditions tended to become the standards within more or less defined areas.

2. These became known as "text-types" and there are three of them: The Byzantine text, the Alexandrian text, and the Western text.

3. The Byzantine (or Majority) text: Preserved by the Byzantine Empire, there are far more manuscripts of this tradition than the others, but most of them are from later dates.

4. The Western text: Sprang from fairly undisciplined scribal activity in Western Roman Empire, and therefore, considered the most unreliable of the "text-types”

5. The Alexandrian text: Prepared most likely in the region around Egypt, the oldest known manuscripts are from this family.

6. Because of this, all of today’s translations are based on either the Byzantine text-type or the Alexandrian text-type.

7. The “standard” Byzantine text is the Textus Receptus (Received Text)

8. The “standard” Alexandrian text is the Westcott & Hort (aka the Critical Text)

B. Two Major Texts of Controversy (TR vs. W&H)

1. Textus Receptus (Basis for the KJV)

a) In 1516, Erasmus, a Roman Catholic Priest and humanist, was pressured into to finishing a Greek text in order to be the first Greek text published.

b) Erasmus had studied hundreds of Greek manuscripts, but based his text on a small handful of Byzantine manuscripts he felt were representative of them.

c) After its first publishing, Erasmus and others would end up revising the text several times.

d) In 1611, The King James Version (known in Great Britain as the Authorised Version) was translated from Theodore Beza’s 1604 edition of the TR.

e) In 1633, another revision was published, which contained the words, “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immuta tum aut corruptum damus.” (“The reader has the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.”)

f) Thus, the text was named "Textus Receptus."

g) Note that it was not “received” in the sense that God was putting his stamp of approval upon this Greek revision alone.

h) It was received in that it was considered the standard text of that time.

i) In his original edition, Erasmus had no Greek manuscripts for the last six verses of Revelation, so he back-translated from Latin to Greek. Later revisions fixed that issue.

2. Westcott & Hort (Basis for many modern translations)

a) In 1881, after about thirty years of labor, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort published a Greek New Testament.

b) Westcott and Hort, liberal scholars, argued that the later manuscripts (Byzantine) were inferior to the older manuscripts (Alexandrian).

c) In their work, the scholars used manuscripts that dated back to the fourth century, some 500 years earlier than anything used directly by Erasmus. Most of their work was based on two manuscripts — the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

d) Most modern scholars have followed Westcott & Hort’s work, and the principle that “older is better.”

3. The Controversy

a) There are, however, places where we find a substantial difference, such as verses or phrases being omitted (John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Mark 16:9-20; 1 John 5:7,8, etc.)

b) One theory (Critical text view) is that the oldest manuscripts are the most accurate. The theory is that the oldest manuscripts are most significant although they are few.

c) The other theory (Majority text view) is that the type of manuscripts that survived in greatest numbers are the most accurate (even if they are less ancient).

4. There are legitimate questions as to which Greek text is the most reliable.

5. However, the question must be answered by legitimate and careful scholarship in view of all the evidence

6. Honest disagreements still remain concerning which Greek NT is superior.

7. However, among those who love God’s Word there is no conspiracy or attempt to corrupt the Word of God.

II. Modern Translations

A. Historical View of Bible Translation

1. Up until the twentieth century, there has been only one identifiable philosophy of Bible translation, namely a literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

2. Around the middle of the twentieth century, a new philosophy emerged.

a) This philosophy attempted to reproduce not the words of the original text but the thoughts and ideas.

b) The leading proponents behind this philosophy were Kenneth Pike and Eugene Nida.

B. Philosophies of Bible Translation

1. The name of the historical philosophy of translation is called, “Formal Equivalence” which seeks to carefully translate word-for-word. It is also known, as “Literal Translation.”

2. The name of the more modern philosophy is called, “Dynamic Equivalence.” This philosophy seeks to capture the thoughts, meanings, and ideas of the original texts.

3. “Dynamic Equivalence” was the impetus for translation on the mission fields and was carried over to the retranslation of the English Bible.

4. Another philosophy of translation is called, “Paraphrase” which is simply a restatement of a text in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.

C. Pros and Cons of Formal Equivalence (FE)

1. Pros

a) FE assures the reader that the translation is as close to the original as is allowable in translating from one language into another.

b) FE allows the reader to interpret the meaning of the original text and not the translators for him.

c) FE assures theological precision in preserving theological concepts through theological vocabulary.

d) FE eliminates the need for translation correction in teaching and preaching.

e) FE assures the original author’s scholarship and literary style (i.e. play on words)

2. Cons

a) Sometimes translating word-for-word can make idioms and colloquialisms difficult to understand.

b) If the translation is too difficult because it is literally translated, then there may be less interest in reading it.

c) Unless an individual is serious about Bible study, he may have difficulty interpreting Scripture accurately.

D. Pros and Cons of Dynamic Equivalence (DE)

1. Pros

a) DE simplifies difficult metaphors into direct statements for the reader’s understandability.

b) DE turns long, complex sentences into shorter comprehensible sentences.

c) DE reduces the level of vocabulary to a level suitable to the ability of today’s readers

2. Cons

a) If original writers would have wanted their text simplified, they could have written it differently.

b) If God would have wanted the original writers to write differently, then He would have moved them to write differently.

c) Not all scholars agree on the meanings of words so there can be multiple translations and interpretations.

d) If translators do not understand the original text particularly well, a free translation of it will likely convey less of the original meaning, and introduce a more spurious meaning, than will a literal one.

E. Problem Examples

1. I Thess. 4:4

a) (NKJV) That each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor.

b) (NIrV) He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor.

c) (RSV) That each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor.

d) The Greek word here is σκεῦος, (skeuos, vessel). Dynamic equivalence imposes an interpretation on the passage that may not be correct.

2. Ephesians 2:8

a) (KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith …

b) (CEV) You were saved by faith in God’s kindness …

c) The term “grace” means free unmerited favor and blessing” and it carries a lot of rich theological meaning when it is studied in the various contexts. To change this doctrinal word to “kindness” is to dilute the Word of God and change its meaning.

F. Conclusion

1. Based on the Scriptures own teaching, it would support word-for word translations