WHY THEN ARE NEW
TRANSLATIONS THOUGHT NECESSARY?
The question should be asked, "Why in
1881 (and even today) did we need a new Bible?"
There are at least five reasons for this rational:
1. The many archaic words, the "eth's"
as in doeth, knoweth, heareth etc., and the
"thee's" and "thou's";
2. The existence of the many variant (different)
readings in the extant Greek manuscripts;
3. The finding of a significant number of
ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries older than
those used by Erasmus and believed, by many
scholars, to be closer to the text of the
apostles' autographs;
4. Itching ears - winds of doctrine; and
5. Greed for Money.
We shall address each of these five, the first
three being the so-called "justification"
for the "need" to modernize and revise
the King James Bible.
(1) Archaic Words
There are only several hundred obsolete or
archaic words remaining within the 1611 King
James Bible - words such as "incontinent"
(lack of self control, I Cor. 7:5) and "concupisence"
(unholy desires, Rom. 7:8). These few could
and should be brought up to date. The
"eth" endings could also easily be
changed ("doeth" to "do")
although care must be taken as to its rendering
else many times the actual meaning may be lost.
This is due to Greek verb tenses which do not
exist in English. For example, often the
Greek word rendered "doeth" reflects
continuous action. In such cases, a simple
changing to "do" would not represent a
faithful translation from the Greek. The
"eth" ending which allows for such
meanings thus has served a vital function in the
King James Bible.
With regard to "ye" (plural), "thee"
(singular) and "thou" (singular) which
we find dispersed throughout the 1611 Bible, it
is shocking to discover the great value that
these 2nd person pronouns serve. O.T. Allis
informs us that these were not contemporary
words even in 1611!
"It is incorrect to claim that the 'thou'
represents the usage of the 1611 period when the
AV was prepared and that that usage is out of
date and should be rejected for that very reason.
Such a claim misrepresents the facts. The
AV usage is not Jacobean or 17th century English.
It is biblical English. The
Greek of the New Testament like the Hebrew of the
Old Testament distinguishes between the singular
and the plural forms of the second person.
The AV makes this distinction simply because NT
Greek does so, and because that is the only
way to translate the Bible correctly." [1]
(author's emphasis)
The second person in English is rendered
"you" in both the singular and the
plural. Thus, when "you" is
employed in a modern translation, one does not
know if it is to be understood as singular or
plural. However, "you", "ye",
and "your" are always plural in
the King James Bible whereas "thy",
"thou", "thee" and "thine"
always denote the singular - how easy.
In Luke 22:31-32, for example, the King James
Bible reads:
22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon,
behold, Satan hath desired to have you [plural!
all of the apostles] ... 32 But I have prayed for
thee [singular - Peter] ...
Other translations if desiring to indicate
such would have to supply a footnote to convey
this, and the reader might well not notice it.
Another example is in Acts 13:47.
Tyndale knew of such subtleties, and he
deliberately revived words that had already
passed from common usage to handle faithfully the
translating into English. In doing so, he
actually created a special variety
of English - a Bible English - for the purpose of
clearly conveying the precise meaning.
Tyndale thereby elevated the English usage
by Scripture rather than accommodating Scripture
to the English vernacular. [2]
(2) Variant Readings
It was Luther's translation of Erasmus' Greek
text into German that was the main weapon which
the Holy Spirit used in bringing about the
Reformation. [3] The impact of
the written Word was devastating to the teachings
and traditions of the Roman Church. The 16th
century Reformers placed their faith in the
precious truths contained in these Living Words
and the battle cry "Sola Scriptura" (Scriptures
alone) became, as it were, their creed and
rallying point upon which they rested for final
authority. God had breathed these
Scriptures. Now each man could read them,
and account to God for himself without the dogma
and rituals of Rome. In matters of conduct
and faith the Word of God was the final court of
appeal - not the priest or Pope. Indeed, as
McClure rightly reminds us:
"The printing of the English bible has
proved to be by far the mightest barrier ever
reared to repel the advance of Popery, and to
damage all the resouraces of the Papacy." [4]
This aggressive, vigorous move by the
Protestants placed Roman Catholicism on the
defensive resulting in its having to rethink many
issues and regroup. [5]
It was forced to define itself at the Council of
Trent in 1546 A.D.
Eventually, as the Greek manuscripts came
under close scrutiny by its Catholic opponents,
it became clear that they differed somewhat in
text and that variant readings existed.
This gave the Roman Church the impetus it needed
to launch a counter offensive to recapture the
minds and allegiance of its own as well as those
who had departed - "there are variants in
your Sola Scriptura - therefore return to Sola
Pope." Placed on the defensive by this
assault, the 17th century Protestant church was
forced into defining itself. This resulted
in the doctrine of Providential Preservation of
the text based upon God's many promises to
preserve His Word. That which emerged from
this point-counterpoint scenario was a
clarification delineating the antithesis between
the two positions. The defining process
forced both sides to their logical conclusions.
Initially, all of the various Protestant
Confessional statements (such as the Westminster,
the Philadelphia etc.) containing statements
concerning the preservation of Scripture were
written in response to text critical problems and
challenges.
[6] These creeds descriptively appealed
to the consensus of history for
determining the boundaries of the texts of
Scripture. Two examples are the Helveticus
Consensus and the Philadelphia Confession, as
follows:
THE HELVETICUS CONSENSUS (1675 A.D.)
"God, the supreme Judge, not only took
care to have his word, which is the power of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth,
committed to writing by Moses, the prophets, and
the apostles, but has also watched and cherished
it with paternal care ever since it was written
up to the present time, so that it could not be
corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man."
THE PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION (Baptist - 1742 A.D.)
"The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New
Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by
God, and by his singular care and
providence kept pure in all ages, are
therefore authentical; so in all controversies of
religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto
them" (taken from the 1646 Westminster
Confession, I, 8 - author's emphasis)
The texts these confessions had in view as
"authentical" were the Masoretic Hebrew
Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus
New Testament.
It is important that the Christian understand
that the previously mentioned struggle continues
behind the scenes in textual criticism today.
At the same time we must keep in mind that the
battle over final authority began with Lucifer's
rebellion (Isaiah 14, Ezek. 28) followed by his
attack on God's Word in the Garden of Eden.
Yet one may inquire, "just what is the
nature of this providence, and how did it
actually operate in manuscript transmission?"
Some of the more important and vital canons
included in the "doctrine of preservation"
are:
[7]
(a) As God promised many times to
preserve His Words, by faith in God's Character
we trust that He has kept His word.
(b) As God used the priesthood to
preserve His Word in the Old Testament, He has
done likewise in New Testament times through the
priesthood of born again believers.
(c) By multiplying copies to
such a large number it would be impossible for
anyone to corrupt them all, willfully or by
negligence.
(d) The familiarity with Scripture by
people from all walks of life assured that any
alterations in wording would have been detected.
(e)
Students (especially of Hebrew) were conscious of
every letter of the texts.
(f)
Unanimity exists of Old Testament readings in the
Mishna, Gemara and the Talmud with the Masoretic
text.
(g) Jesus accused the Jews of His
day of many sins, but not once did He charge them
with corrupting their copies - rather, He
attested to their purity (Mat.5:17-19).
(h) The checks and balances that the
Jews and Christians afforded each other would
prevent corruptions.
Basically, God's method of preservation may be
summed up in that there are many common readings
which must and should be accepted as correct
because they exist in hundreds and even in
several thousand copies. This occurrence of
common readings is found because God has
providentially intervened in the scribal copying
of Scripture, unlike the copying of non-Biblical
literature.
(3) Ancient Greek Manuscripts
It is true that several thousand mss have been
discovered since 1611. This is the major
factor that has been used to justify to the
church at large the need for a major revision of
the King James. It seems logical that if a
vast amount of data not available to the King
James translators has been brought to life -
these new materials must be considered.
This especially seems reasonable as some of these
mss were dated between 350-380 A.D. whereas
Erasmus' five mss were from the 10th to 15th
centuries. Admittedly this rhetoric seems
very compelling. However, of the several
thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the
great majority (90-95%) agree with the
Greek text of those five mss which Erasmus used.
Nevertheless, the new translations are rife with
footnotes informing the reader that "the
oldest, the best manuscripts read such and such"
as opposed to the King James. But is it not
devastating to realize that what has been kept
from the church at large is the fact that the
vast majority (c.90-95%) of these more recent
finds read the same as the Traditional Text which
underlies the Reformers Bibles and the King James
translation?
The Alexandrian manuscript ("A")
arrived in London in 1627. Consequently, we
often hear how unfortunate that was for the King
James translators as it arrived sixteen years too
late for their use. [8]
Being untrue, this serves as an example of the
unreliable manner in which most of the history
concerning the Authorized Version is reported.
In the first place, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus
Aleph
[9] were well known not only to
translators of the King James but to Erasmus.
The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus was
printed in 1587 so the King James translators in
1604 knew all about Vaticanus insofar as the Old
Testament was concerned.
Thus the men working on the 1611 publication
of the King James Bible knew the variant readings
in Vaticanus B and since they knew about B, they
already knew about Sinaiticus and its variant
readings even though the first portion of it was
not discovered until 1844 (the remainder in 1859)
as the two of them read so similarly. In
fact, the translators of 1611 had available all
the variant readings of those vaunted manuscripts
- and they rejected them! They also knew
the readings of the codices of Alexandrinus A, B,
C and D (the "old uncials"), where they
differed from the Received Text and they
denounced them all. How can this be so?
The readings of those much boasted manuscripts
recently made available are essentially the
same as Jerome's Latin Vulgate [10] which
finds its foundation in the works of Origen.
The Reformers knew all about the variant readings
of the Vulgate and they rejected them which is
the same thing as rejecting Origen. In
rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex Vaticanus
as it was copied from his work. Thus, the
Reformers had all the material necessary for the
task at their disposal. [11]
As to the oft heard claim that since much of
the newly discovered material was older than that
used by Erasmus and subsequently the Reformers,
they were more reliable, the reader is reminded
that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to the
corruption of the Word in his day. Hence
"oldest" is not necessarily the best.
This point will be more thoroughly dealt with
later in our exposé (pp. 1 ff.).
Furthermore, Erasmus was in regular
correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius,
the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant
readings which he desired. [12]
In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a
Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent
Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as
proof of its superiority to the Textus
Receptus. [13] He offered to
make the entire document available to Erasmus for
use in his latest edition of the TR.
However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the
Vatican manuscript because he considered from the
massive evidence of his day that the Textus
Receptus data was correct. Thus Erasmus
knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before
the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!
(4) Winds of Doctrine
A fourth reason Christendom is drawn to the
new translations is that of its having "itching
ears". Sadly, man does not want to believe the
Bible - he wants a "bible" that he can
believe - and he will keep searching until he
finds one. The Spirit of God has warned:
1 This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come. 2 For men
shall be lovers of their own selves ... 5 Having
a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof 7 Ever learning, and never able to come
to the knowledge of the truth. 8 so do
these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds,
reprobate concerning the faith. ... 13 But
evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived (II Tim. 3). ...
For the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall
they heap to themselves teachers, having
itching ears; ... (II Tim. 4:3).
Letis
[14] reminds us that Bible publishers
are always advertising that the Reformers wished
to put the Bible in the "language of the
people" ... in a "tongue they could
readily understand". However, the
Reformers did not mean that the Bible
should be in "conversational dialect"
or in the language of the street; rather they
meant that the Bible should be available in the
spoken languages of the European nations and not
merely in the Liturgical Latin of the
Roman Catholic Church.
The King James translators make this very
clear in their dedicatory to King James, where
they intended for "God's holy Truth to be
yet more and more known unto the people,"
whom the Roman Catholic Church desired "still
to keep in ignorance and darkness."
These men
[15] desired the Bible be accessible in
German for the Germans, in French for the French,
in Dutch for the Dutch etc. - not just restricted
to Latin, as it was no longer "the language
of the people." Those with vested
interest in promoting "plainer and more
relevant" (and more fleeting) translations
always present this out of context to justify the
latest, easier-to-read (and to forget)
translation.
Relevant to the duties, techniques, and
responsibilities of the translator, the following
excerpts extracted from an article by Dr. F.R.
Steele, himself trained by "one of America's
outstanding scholars in the field of Assyriology"
and an experienced translator of Babylonian and
Sumerian documents, are instructive sober truths
worthy of reflection:
"A translation should convey as much of
the original text in as few words as possible,
yet preserve the original atmosphere and emphasis.
The translator should strive for the nearest
approximation in words, concepts, and cadence.
He should scrupulously avoid adding words or
ideas not demanded by the text. His job is
not to expand or to explain, but to translate and
preserve the spirit and force of the original -
even, if need be, at the expense of modern
colloquialisms - so long as the resultant
translation is intelligible. ... there is a vast
difference between translating a Sanscrit poem
and the Bible into English. In the former
case we are dealing primarily with ideas, cast in
an alien mold, which may best be conveyed in
English by a rather free translation. In
the latter case we are dealing with a document
whose language and vocabulary were specially
chosen by the Holy Spirit for the communication
of particular truths. No translator - least
of all an evangelical Christian who holds to the
inspiration of the Scriptures - dare ignore that
fact. Not just ideas, but words are
important; so also is the emphasis indicated by
word order in the sentence.
"... when translating the Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek text into English, we are not faced
with serious problems of cultural extremes.
The physical and social background of the ancient
Near East is much closer to our general European
society and economy than to either a tropical
culture of Central Africa or the arctic culture
of the Esquimaux (i.e., Eskimo, author). ... By
and large, the pastoral of urban society of Bible
times can be transferred directly and in its own
terms into intelligible English. Moreover,
the past four centuries of acquaintance with the
Bible have introduced into our common speech many
words and ideas originating in the society of
Bible lands (such as 'crucifixion,' animal
sacrifices, and so on) which though initially
strange to the European scene, are now quite
familiar. This makes the task of
translating the Bible into English simpler than
into the language of a people with an opposite or
primitive culture. It is therefore easier
to achieve a nearly word for word transfer which
the nature of the inspired text deserves." [16]
(author's italics)
For many of us who have been contrarily "informed"
over the years, Dr. Steele's words take on a near
"too good to be true" character. They
capture our attention and fire the soul. He
continues with the following which depicts one of
the outstanding features rendered by the King
James translators but lacking in the modern
versions:
"Anyone familiar with word studies in the
original languages can testify to the amazing
consistency of employment of particular terms
throughout the Bible. ... men violate a basic
principle of translation when they choose to
substitute for individual words or short phrases
long 'homiletic' passages of private
interpretation. ... Frequently the full weight of
meaning conveyed by repetition of the same Greek
root word is lost in translation, since different
English words are used where one word
consistently used could have preserved the
original force intact." [17]
To illustrate this point, Professor Steele
gives an example from II Corinthians 2:16-3:6 in
which over this seven verse span four Greek words
are encountered which are all similar forms and
are derived from one root of the same word (hikanos,
iJkano"). The King James Bible
rendered the English of these four as "sufficient",
"sufficient", "sufficiency",
and "sufficient" thereby allowing the
reader to pick up on the similarity between their
relationship as well as the continuity of thought
in the original language. Other
translations, however, do not exhibit this
constancy. Instead, they choose several
different words (usually adding others for which
there is absolutely no textual evidence) and thus
lose both the force and connection which the
repetition would have preserved. The result
is often misleading to one who "seeks the
words of the Author." Dr. Steele
continues:
"... it is impossible to make a perfect
transfer from one language to another ... the
translator must make choice of those words in the
second language which he thinks best convey the
thought of the original. But frequently the
translator appears to forget that the original
words were chosen purposefully, and ... cast the
sentences into new molds which convey the idea in
a significantly different spirit or emphasis.
He thus unnecessarily robs the text of at least
some of its original import. This practice
may be justified in some fields of literature,
but it is inadmissible when one is dealing with
the inspired Word of God. [18]
"Certainly many words and even passages
in ... the Bible will benefit from a more
extended treatment. But such treatment
belongs in a commentary, not in a translation." [19]
To these last two observations by Dr. Steele,
this author adds a resounding "amen".
The final citation is given to provide - from one
who is eminently qualified to so warn - a grave
caution to us all.
"Moreover, it is doubtful if all the new
translations provide the correctives they profess.
Not infrequently they simply substitute their own
confusion for that which they claim to have
dispelled. This is especially true in their
claim to the title 'Translation'. Few
recent works have any right whatever to that
title." [20]
(author's emphasis)
How often we hear from the pulpit or from the
Sunday School teacher, "I like the way the
xxxxxxx translation says it". But who
cares what man prefers. We do not gather
together to hear the personal opinions and whims
of men. The only question is - What saith
the Lord? What saith the Holy Scriptures?
The new Bible translations appeal, not because
they are faithful to the original text, but
because they have placed the ability to communicate
over and above fidelity to the actual Words
of God. The obvious reason for this being
foisted upon the public is ...
(5) Greed for Money
The majority of modern Bible publishers (not
to be confused with Bible Societies) are neither
religious organizations nor missionary societies
deserving our unqualified trust. [21]
Operating in the cold hard world of business,
they care not whether their product is a faithful
rendering of the true text. Their interest
lies along the lines of profit. They are
not after the souls of men unto salvation or
edification; rather it is their purchasing power
which attracts these companies. Tragically,
the same is true concerning most owners of "Christian"
book stores who sell not only any translation but
paperbacks and commentaries espousing nearly
every wind of doctrine. The reason this
continues year after year at a more maddening
pace takes us back to reason number four -
itching ears for winds of doctrine. The
circle is ever widening and vicious.
|