TRANSLATION METHODS (Continued)
One thing that we definitely need to consider as we observe the translation methods of especially the modern Biblical critic, is to understand the mind of those early first century Christians toward the Scripture which they possessed.
Fuller (True or False) notes the presuppositions of the critics of this day.
�Naturalistic critics like to assume that the New Testament writings were not recognized as Scripture when they first appeared and thus through the consequent carelessness in transcription the text was confused and the original wording �lost� (in the sense that no one knew for sure what it was) at the very start.� Dr. Hort agreed with this basic assumption.
It could be argued why these documents even continued to exist if they were not considered as Scripture by the early church. At the least, why did they continue to exist in such a vast quantity and geographical area? Many other writings of the early �church fathers� were also collected. But, even the �best� of these did not enjoy the wide distribution of those early documents which make up our New Testament.
It is only logical to assume that the imprint of Inspiration upon these Words, the very action of God upon those manuscripts, would insure that the Holy Spirit would lead the churches to both accept and preserve those writings with the utmost care.
We do not have to appeal to even a perfectly logical argument such as that above. We have the New Testament manuscripts, copies of them, which give us the indication that those early churches did understand just how sacred were these Words.
Fuller, again, appeals to the Scripture. �In I Tim. 5:18 Paul puts the Gospel of Luke on the same level as Deuteronomy, calling them both �Scripture.� ... Note that I Timothy is generally thought to have been written within five years after Luke.�
Let�s take a look at the passage in question. �For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, the labourer is worthy of his reward.� (I Timothy 5:18)
The first part of this verse is taken from Deuteronomy 25:4 - �Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.�
The latter part of this verse is taken from the middle of Luke 10:7 - �...the labourer is worthy of his hire.�
If you will note, Paul begins this portion by saying �The Scripture sayeth.� He then puts quotations from the Old and the New Testaments in the same position. It is clear that he is alluding to both of these passages as Scripture!
Again, Fuller references II Peter 5:15-16 as well. �In II Peter 5:15-16 Peter puts the Epistles of Paul on the same level as �the other Scriptures.��
To again reference the above verses.
�And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also with the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.� (II Peter 5:15-16)
The important fact, and it is fact, in this passage is that Peter defended, and used, the words of the epistles of Paul as Scripture. He placed them in the same position as �the other Scriptures.�
The fact is that the early New Testament churches were guided by the Holy Spirit to understand that those Epistles and Gospels were Scripture - and to treat them as such.
We, as human beings, are an imperfect people. Although the Holy Spirit guided, not all would accept that guidance. Some churches would dismiss some portions. Other churches would include disputed books. But, in the totality of those first century churches, the Words of God were revered and accepted as Scripture.
Again, Fuller makes note what this acceptance of the writings of those Apostles had upon those early Christians.
�Many of the first believers had been devout Jews who had an ingrained reverence and care for the Old Testament Scriptures which extended to very jots and titles. This reverence and care would naturally be extended to the New Testament Scriptures. Peter�s statement concerning the �twisting� of Paul�s words were receiving (II Peter 5:16) suggests that there was an awareness as to the text and the way it was being handled.�
Once again this is a picture of churches which had documents which they accepted as Scripture. The words of Peter, in this instance, suggest the work of some heretical groups that would pervert the pure text. The true churches were warned to be vigilant in protecting the Words of the Scripture as God had inspired those Words.
As to the intentional changes of the heretic, the vast bulk of the true churches, transmitting the true Scripture, would insure that the properly inspired Words would be in the vast majority of manuscript copies. This is why even today the Traditional Text is contained in between 85% and 95% of the manuscript evidence. Sadly, the modern day English versions are generally based on the 5% to 15% which disagree.
Fuller (Which Bible) notes that �Paul warns, II Tim. 2:16-18, against those who would subvert the record of Scripture by trying to allegorize away the truth of that Scripture.
�But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is already, and overthrow the faith of some.� (II Timothy 2:16-18)
This we can also do with those who would subvert our faith in a preserved Word from God. The early church knew that God had inspired the Words of those epistles and Gospels. Others writings attempted to invade the garden of the New Testament canon. The Holy Spirit guided the church to �weed out� these false Gospels and writings.
The false writings languished in the dust of anonymity until they were unearthed by those who refused to accept the concept that God is, indeed, powerful and loving. He would not leave His churches without His Message for a thousand years, or even a thousand seconds.
In our next session we will take a short look at the Traditional Text which underlies our King James Bible.
13 July 2007
TRANSLATION METHODS (Continued)
When we consider the textual base of the King James Bible we find something very telling. Fuller (True or False) points up this simple fact. �That a reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the latest available evidence, we hold to be a prime circumstance in its favor.�
When we look at the earliest translations we find a text favorable to the Traditional Text. When we look at the early lectionaries we find a text favorable to the Traditional Text. When we look at the writings of the early Church Fathers we find a text favorable to the Traditional Text. And, as we look at the manuscript evidence of the middle and later years of church history we find a text favorable to the Traditional Text.
But, the critic argues, �We do not find early manuscript evidence of the Traditional Text. The earliest manuscript evidence favors the Alexandrian Text.� The only thing this really proves is that there was a very early Scriptorium which penned a false text designed to bolster false views which did not find ready acceptance in the preserved canon.
As to the dearth of early manuscript evidence for the Traditional Text, has anyone really asked why this is so? After all, those early lectionaries - some of them - have survived until this day. A great number of the writings of those early Church Fathers have survived until this day. Even copies of those early translations have survived to this day. Why has not the manuscript evidence enjoyed such a long �shelf life?�
We are not comparing equals when we speak of the lectionaries, the writings of the �Fathers,� and even when we speak of those early translations. The Bible, in those original languages, is not the work of humanity. The Bible is the very Words of God. As such it was given special treatment by Christian and antagonist alike. Also, of course, the Spirit guiding those early churches and Christians gave a special treatment in the transmission of those texts to the next generation of copies of those same texts.
To the Christian the Bible was a possession to be used. It did not set on a shelf from Sunday to Sunday. It was read, reread, and then read again. Many hands turned the scroll and the page. In time these sacred documents were worn away by much use. They were replaced by newer copies of the old words. This continued down through the ages as the oldest copies were discarded as worn out. Some were buried and some were ceremonially burned.
There were other fires. The persecutors of the churches would confiscate those valuable copies and burn them as well.
These reasons are why the oldest copies are not now available. With this in mind one must look with suspicion upon any copy which has survived from the very furthest antiquity. Why was it not �used up� as were other copies.
Part of the reason has to do with the hot and dry climate of Egypt, from which almost all of the recently discovered documents have come. They survived in an area which would inhibit the possibility of their rotting away. Also, the Holy Spirit did not lead the true churches into the use of these flawed documents.
When we come to the translators of the King James Bible we find men who had a different mindset toward Biblical criticism than do most of the modern day critics. The translation committee of the King James Bible was populated with men who had a holy view of the Scriptures. They considered that a God Who was loving enough to inspire His Words would be strong enough to have preserved those Words. Thus, instead of looking for new and novel readings from the belief in a weak God, they tended to follow the readings of the tradition of Godly men who had labored with the Word from the standpoint of faith in a powerful God Who had preserved His Words, as He said He would do - and as we must logically assume He intended to do when He first moved upon holy men with the inspiration of His Message to humanity.
In short, the translators of the King James Bible considered the work of translation which had gone on before them. They were not interested in producing a �new� Bible; they labored to translate the Words of God as He had preserved them in the English language.
The book, �How We Got Our Bible,� considers one such early Christian as he labored to give the Words of Life to the people of his day.
�In AD 735 Bede labored ... on his translation of the Gospel [into English]. ... Early in the morning of �Ascension Day� in 735 he summoned his helpers to continue with the task and dictated to them the translation of John�s Gospel from the words, �What are they among so many?� As the sun was setting one of the scribes told him there was only one more chapter, but it seemed hard for Bede to speak. He replied, �Nay, it is easy, take up thy pen and write quickly.� The young scribe wrote on until he could tell his master that only one sentence was wanting, when Bede dictated it the young man exclaimed, �It is finished, master!� Bede replied, �Aye, it is finished! Lift me up and place me by the window where I have so often prayed to God.� Then with the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit upon his lips he passed into the presence of the Lord.�
It was men such as this who labored to bring the Words of life to the people of their day while the dominate church of the day sought to hide the flame of those words under an ecclesiastical basket of a language in which only their hierarchy was able to read and understand.
This is also why men like Cummings (The Foundation and Authority of the Word of God) are led to praise the Loving Lord Who has preserved His Words, with testimonies such as the following.
�I believe the King James Version to be the very Word of God BECAUSE THE TRANSLATORS OF 1611 BELIEVED THEY WERE HANDLING THE VERY �WORD OF GOD.� This is not true of the modern day �translations.� They say that the Bible �contains the Word of God�...�
Now, I can�t completely agree with Cummings. The King James Bible is not the very Words of God. But, and this can be said only of the King James Bible in today�s English speaking world, the King James Bible is founded upon those Words, from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, which are the preserved Words of God.
To elevate any Bible translation, even the revered and blessed King James Bible, is to make the same mistake as did the Roman Church when she adopted the Vulgate of Jerome as a replacement for the inspired Words of God. God is The God of eternity and would never �correct� his originally inspired Words in such a time centric manner.
Effectively, for all practical intents and purposes, the King James Bible is the Words of God for the English speaker because it is an accurate representation of those originally inspired and preserved Words. It is our Bible for this day.
In our next session we will begin to consider some of the underlying texts.
20 July 2007
UNDERLYING TEXTS
As we begin this section on the underlying texts from which the translations are made we are struck with the simple importance of these texts. If one, for instance, looks at the New International Version he will find a weak translation of those underlying texts as the NIV is primarily a paraphrase of those texts from which it is drawn. The New American Standard Bible is a very good representative of the translator�s art. However, both the NIV and the NASB are translated from a poor textual basis. They both are translated from a base which relies heavily on a minority Greek text.
Fuller (True or False) has made the case that �...no amount of care in the work of translation will tend to cure defects in the original Text...� That is a true statement.
I recently found an old high school geography text book from the 1880's. I would suppose that I could use this book to teach the geography of the United States in a home school atmosphere with my two grandchildren. However, there are drawbacks. The maps are outdated. In this book there are not fifty States in the Union. There are not even forty eight States in the Union in this book. Try as I might to teach the geography of the United States from this book, regardless of how faithful I was to the text book, I would not be able to adequately teach the subject.
My fidelity to the text book might not be in question. I might give a very accurate and thorough rendition of the facts as presented in the text book. But my teaching and conclusions would not be valid because my factual base was outdated and wrong.
Now, we do not have to worry about the text of true Scripture being outdated. That is a charge made; but the charge is groundless. God�s Words must be eternal, and thus preserved, as they are predicated on His Own will. He willed to give this volume, the Sacred Scriptures, to humanity. It He so willed it would mean that He considered the information contained therein as necessary to His created beings. As such it would naturally follow that it was His will to preserve those Words unless His will was subject to change.
Since His will is perfect, it cannot change. Since His Words are a reflection of that will, they cannot change or be diluted by time. Satan may attempt to disfigure those Words. Satan is, however, a defeated foe. Satan can not overcome the will of God.
Man may attempt to obscure the Words of God. But, since these very Words are the gift of God to humanity, even man cannot destroy that which God has protected. To disallow this Divine protection of those inspired Words is to question both the goodness and the power of God to prosecute His will within the constraints of the very medium of time which He has created.
This is a very important issue. Fuller (Which Bible?), again, has made this case very clear. �There are tremendous issues involved; the text of the Word of God is in Question.�
If we are to be able to understand the Person of God, in any manner, we must have the picture of Himself which he has given us. My little five year old granddaughter fancies herself a very good artist. She is pretty good, really. But, she always draws her little three year old brother as about as tall as her own knees. She makes a nice picture, for a five year old, but her scale is off.
Man will never understand the scale of sin. His attempts to fashion a Bible, by picking and choosing which text he might wish to consider, is clouded by the nature of sin which stands like a fog over our spiritual reasoning. In order to understand anything truly spiritual we must go to The Book which God has inspired. If, in attempting to do this, we expect other men to decide what it is which is allowed to be put into The Book, we can never have any real confidence that those Words are correctly constructed.
We can be very confident that those Words are incorrectly constructed when we refuse to acknowledge that God would preserve His Words and see the attempt of mere men to interject their own flawed reasoning power into the mix of words. Metaphysically speaking, the Words of God are not of the medium of time as they are issued from the very breath of God. Man is a creature of time and could never reconstruct, had it been possible that it were to be lost in time even for an instant, that which was handed to him from the realm of eternity..
This was the genesis of our newer versions. The seeds of their efforts were planted one hundred and fifty years ago (actually much more) when men began to search for �older� discoveries which might allow us to �reconstruct� a �lost� Scriptural base.
Do you understand the above? Man had decided that the Text was flawed so he set about to reconstruct that which God could not, or would not, preserve. I ask, is this an endeavor which is based in a faith in God, or is it an endeavor which is based in a lack of faith in God? Is not the primary faith in such a project vested in man and his best efforts?
What a shallow foundation, and a poorly constructed foundation at that!, on which to base our hope for an eternal salvation. We are asked to trust our very immortal souls, for an eternal salvation, into the hands of a god (small case intended) who was not even able to control his own words in the frame of time which we are told he created. Foolish? I think so!
Fuller has further noted that Dean John Burgon wrote [concerning the Hort and Westcott translation of 1881], in a letter to Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, �It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me; for this nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source.�
Further, as for all those �discoveries� of the past four hundred years which we are assured has made the Textual base of the King James Bible unreliable, we should understand that there have been no new discoveries of different �readings� during this time frame. There were examples of the variants of all those new discoveries available to the translation committee of the King James Bible. They rejected these as inconsistent with the preserved Scripture.
Of course the operational plan of the translation committee of that Authorised Bible was of a different mindset than are the translation committee�s of the newer translation. The former just believed God had superintended His Words, as would be reasonable to assume if the God of power and love were the Author of those Words. The latter committees want to search for something new and novel as they ask us to believe that they are only searching for words �closer to the originals.� These do not even believe that they can find those original Words - just an approximation.
This very fact presents us with doctrinal problems. McKingly (Why: The King James Version) has noted that �Inaccurate Scripture will give us an inaccurate understanding of our Redeemer, which will make it impossible for us to be accurately conformed to the image of God�s dear Son.�
An inaccurate textual base for the Scripture is like that old geography book about the United States. In that geography book we might see �Indian Territories� where a modern map would say �Oklahoma.� A false label gives a false view of reality. So, also, do the variant texts of the modern versions, culled from the best time centric man could attain, give us a false view of the spiritual truths which the God of Eternity had sought to convey to sin blinded humanity.
Fuller (True or False), again, has said that �...if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what else but incorrect must the English Translation be?�
I am always amazed that the purveyors of the modern English translations which are founded on the eclectic, and minority, texts will say that their editions are far superior to the venerable King James Bible, founded on the Traditional Text, because the newer versions make the Bible easier to understand. Then, when it is pointed out that some of the cardinal doctrines of historic Christianity are watered down in these version, those same people will say that all the doctrines are in there; one must just search harder to find them.
Which is it, easier to understand or harder to find doctrine? Doctrine is important. This is the stuff from which our understanding of God, and His purpose in the world and in our lives, is drawn. Without doctrine we have no real knowledge of God, Christian conduct, or even of salvation in Christ.
The bottom line is that it does not matter how �conservative,� or �evangelical,� or even �fundamental� may be the theology of the translator. Unless he has the true Words of God in his text he cannot give the true Word of God in his translation. It is not possible to draw pure water from a polluted pond.
In our next session we will take a look at the textual base of the Douai - Rheims edition of the Bible.
27 July 2007
UNDERLYING TEXTS (Continued)
The importance of the Douai-Rheims Roman Catholic edition of an English Bible translation can not be overlooked. The New Testament was published in 1582 with the Old Testament following in 1609. This means that this Bible version is older than the King James Bible.
For many years the stance of the Catholic Church was to discourage the use of the Bible in the language of the people. They have a sad history of making martyrs of those who sought to make translations into the vernacular.
For much of the time leading up to the offering of the Douai-Rheims this tenacious stand had become a problem for the propagation of the Catholic faith. As Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) noted, the �Protestants had long refuted and neutralized Roman Catholicism by the phrase, �The Bible says so.��
Now, with the new edition, they Roman Church was ready to take on the Protestant churches on their very �home� field of an appeal to the Scripture as an authority. The Roman Church was not ready to accept the Scripture as a final authority even with the new Bible in their hands. They still held that church tradition, and church teaching of course, was the entry way into understanding what it was that the Bible had to say. In this manner they still subjugated the authority of the Scripture to the authority of the Church.
Some argued, as MacGregor (The Bible in the Making) asserts, that the style of English used in the Douai Bible was such that its effect was to mystify rather than to enlighten even the more intelligent reader. More serious still, however, were the attempts of the translators to perpetuate the misconceptions which the Latin Vulgate of Jerome had helped to install.
The above is an important point. As Gipp, above, had pointed out the Douai-Rheims (1609 and 1582) is based on the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The basis of this translation is the Alexandrian Greek base to which appeal is made in our modern day English versions and translations. �Strangely enough, the desire ... to �correct� the Authorized Version with Jerome�s corrupt Vulgate is exactly what Protestant scholars did in 1881, 1901, 1952, 1960, 1973, and in every �new� and �improved� translation since 1611.�
The importance of this is staggering when one considers the reasoning given for the new English language translations. We are assured that all of the new discoveries of the past four hundred years have rendered the base text of our King James Bible outdated. All of these new discoveries have given us, we are assured, a better glimpse of what the original text might have been. The translators of the King James Bible did not, we are told, have access to this �new� material so recently uncovered.
Folks, we are being fed a lie which is robbing us of the preserved Words of God!
There have been no new readings �discovered� in the past four hundred years. Read that sentence again. There have been no new readings �discovered� in the past four hundred years. All of those readings which have been unearthed from the sands of Egypt and elsewhere were available in the Douai-Rheims Bible which predated the translation, in the New Testament by nearly thirty years!, of our King James Bibles!
The truth is that we have seen these new translations reintroduce a Bible edition which is more Catholic than Protestant. That is the reason why we are beginning, in the last twenty years especially, more �Protestant� Bibles which include the Apocrypha.
The early editions of the King James Bible had included the Apocrypha. But, rather than placing these books in the text of the Old Testament, as did the Catholic Bible, the King James translators included these writings between the Testaments where they were clearly labeled as non-canonical; they were not included as Scripture but as historical readings. Even this was shortly done away with as there were those who were confused by the inclusion.
Again, the Apocrypha was included as historical readings, maybe even devotional reading as we might consider �The Pilgrim�s Progress,� but were clearly marked as not being part of the inspired and preserved Scriptural record to mankind.
The doctrinal mindset of the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches were diametrically opposed when it came to the Scripture. The Protestant churches based their doctrine and faith on the preserved Words of God. The Catholic Church subjugated those Words under the authority of that Church. As such, as MacGregor (The Bible in the Making) pointed out, �The people for whom the Douai Bible was intended were spiritually unprepared to desire an English Bible. ... Only where the Reformation had touched men did they seek the Bible.�
As we see the �church world� moving back to the Alexandrian texts, and the �faith� issue that God either did not, or would not, preserve His Words, we are slipping back into a Catholic mentality. Since we can have no Scripture, under this reasoning, which we can trust without the �experts� to distill what it is we are allowed to believe and accept, we are placing the Scripture under the Authority of a priestly caste.
How much better it would be if we would return our faith to the Words which defined that Faith. God, in his goodness and power, has providentially preserved the Words of Life for His churches and people of every age. That is only a logical assumption if we trust Him to be Who He said He was in the pages of Scripture.
To teach and believe otherwise is to shift the focus of our faith from the Creator God to the creature Man.
In our next session we will take a look at the Revision Version.