TRANSLATION METHODS (Continued)
The translation methods, and the text which flows from these methods, will have an effect upon the faith life of the churches which use those Bible versions so translated. Indeed, we can see this effect in the history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Fuller (Which Bible) notes that, �Because of the changes which came about in the nineteenth century, there arose a new type of Protestantism and a new version of the Protestant Bible. This new kind of Protestantism was hostile to the fundamental doctrines of the Reformation.�
As we have seen, this new type of Protestantism was Biblically based on versions which used a very eclectic, and new, text. Although the claim was that this text was a return to an old text, it was a repudiation of the text which had spawned the entire Protestant Reformation.
This eventuality brought with it two real problems. The first was that a solid faith in the Scripture as the unalterable Word of God was replaced with a Scripture that was based on the best efforts of man at �reconstructing� a �lost� text. This meant that a faith which was based upon God was, in the final analysis, outmoded. After all, if the Text had been lost for many centuries, and man had been forced to use his own best efforts to find an approximation of what that text might have been, it meant that God was only a general guiding force. Real faith was rooted in the best efforts of man.
The �man� that must be trusted was the educated, and often nearly agnostic, man who held the �golden key� to Scriptural understanding. This meant that many churches, in their theological underpinnings at least, returned to a middle ages construct of a layered church hierarchy. There was the priestly caste, those who were responsible for the maintenance and construction of the Scripture, and there was the laity which just could not be expected to understand the intricacies of the �God Story.�
Reliance upon the Holy Spirit, although lip service was still payed to Him, was basically replaced by a reliance upon the learned theologian and textual critic. It was from them that the Scripture sprang, for all intents and purposes, and it was from them that this weakened �Bread of Life� was ladled out to the hungry souls at these churches.
This of course lead to a dead religion as the Life of the Spirit had been replaced. The work of the Spirit was even replaced by the �work� of the human element. This was not all bad in that this led to a greater emphasis on the �social gospel.� But, the social gospel is not a saving gospel. It is a serving gospel. Once again the Spirit had been removed as the emphasis of the service turned from a service to God and toward a service to mankind.
Gradually these churches turned their focus, in almost all ways, from God to man.
Also, it became increasingly clear that there was no chance to really have the Words which God had originally given. The concept of inspiration shifted from an inspiration of the Words which God had inspired to the general idea of the story He attempted to tell.
New and improved texts were updated quite regularly. It was a death knell for many to any semblance of a belief in the concept of an unalterable Word of God. It was reasoned that if even the �expert� could not settle on a single text, then no text was certain to be the Word of God.
In truth, the Word of God had been replaced with the Story of god. Small case intended and expected in such a situation.
In time this dynamic moved even further from God. It became, to the adherents of this new type of Protestantism, not the story which God had given to mankind which was important. The Bible narratives now were beginning to be seen as the story of the journey of an ancient people as they struggled to understand their place in the universe.
Thus, a personal God was replaced with a general force of mankind�s struggles to find his way in the vast world in which he lived.
These were the churches designated as �Modernist.� Today they are more likely called either �Liberal� or �Mainstream.�
There was opposed to these churches a group which sought to follow the �old paths.� For the most part these were the groups which still accepted the concept of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture and continued to place their trust in the God Who had verbally and plenarily inspired the Scripture. This concept kept these people close to the historic faith.
In the early years of the 20th century there were a series of pamphlets complied and distributed widely which defended the doctrinal stance of historic and Biblical Christianity. These pamphlets were called �The Fundamentals.� Those who agreed with these were called �Fundamentalist.�
So, the great battles of the Fundamentalist and the Modernist were waged over the proper repository of the mission of the churches. Was it to be service, and fidelity to God or was it to be service to man?
It should be noted that The Fundamentals has been reprinted and is now available at most Bible Book Stores. My personal copy is in a four volume set.
We will continue with this same idea in our next session.
8 June 2007
TRANSLATION METHODS (Continued)
Probably the biggest problem among the translation methods of the modern day Bible Critic is the slavish devotion which is payed to the mantra, �The oldest is the best.�
One of my favorite lines from �Porgy and Bess,� the old musical, is �The things that your preacha is lauble to teach ya, they ain�t necessarily true.� You could add �textual critic� to �preacha.� Just because they say, or even firmly believe, that something is true, does not make it so.
Fuller (Which Bible?) makes comment on this very situation.
�The principle which the modern editors have adopted, namely, that of following the oldest manuscripts in settling all questions of doubtful or disputed readings, throws us back upon the two Codices [Vaticannus and Siniatic] which, though not dated, are regarded by all competent antiquarians as belongs to the fourth century; and its practical effect is to make those two solitary survivors of the first four Christian centuries the final authorities, where they agree (which is not always the case) upon all questions of the true Text of Scripture.�
Fuller actually understates the case when he says that Aleph and B do not always agree. Dr. D. A. Waite, of �The Bible for Today,� has noted that there are over three thousand disagreements between Aleph and B in the Gospels alone.
Think about that! Suppose that a judge had two witnesses to a crime. Suppose that those two witnesses told stories that conflicted that much. What would the judge do? He might try to ascertain the character of each of the witnesses to see if either of them had a reason to misstate the facts. He would probably try to figure out if one, or the other, was deficient in his reasoning skills to the extent that his word was not trustworthy.
Rather than being between �a rock and a hard place,� the judge would be between shifting sand and flowing water. There would be no firm foundation of evidence upon which he could base his evidence.
Such is the case when these two texts are put forth as the �final� arbitrator of what are the words of Scripture.
Suppose, now, that the judge had a video of the incident in question. He would be easily able to decide just which of the two witnesses was correct. If both of the witnesses disagreed with the video, the judge would discount the entire testimony of both witnesses as untrustworthy and base his decision in the case based on the video evidence. The video evidence would not lie; it would have no reason to misstate the facts. The video evidence would simply present an unbiased record of what had actually happened.
We have such evidence. There are lectionaries which predate both Aleph and B. We have the writings of �Church Fathers,� where reference is made to Scriptural quotations, which predate both Aleph and B. We have translations of the Scripture, which obviously point to a template even earlier than themselves, which predate both Aleph and B. These witnesses support the readings of the Traditional Text.
And yet, almost all of the modern day English language versions and translations fall back, for their base text, to a reliance upon Aleph and B. Even the �New King James Version� will often make �corrections� based on these two manuscripts. Even the footnotes and notations in most of our King James Bibles will attempt to make �corrections� in the text based on these two manuscripts.
As to the character of Aleph and B, we must note that both of them come from the sands of Egypt and the Alexandrian Scriptorium. The bear the imprint of Origen upon their genealogy. They both come from the land where Platonistic philosophy abounded. They both come the land of the hotbed of Gnostic Christianity.
Both of these would appeal to men who value wisdom over faith. It is not surprising, then, that the possibility that the power of God would preserve His Word is discounted while the probability that man can reconstruct what God would not, or could not, preserve.
Next session we will take a look at the translation method of Dynamic Equivalency. Dynamic Equivalency is simply another word for �paraphrase.� When we consider that the New International Version, for instance, is a paraphrase, we must reconsider the fidelity of that version to the actual Words of Scripture. This impounds upon even our definition of Inspiration.
15 June 2007
TRANSLATION METHODS (Continued)
During this session I want to take a short look at the concept of Dynamic Equivalency as a translation method. I intend to spend much more time on this subject either in our next session, or the one following.
Cloud (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work) states the obvious when he notes that, �...dynamic equivalency aims to translate thoughts rather than words.�
At first glance this seems a reasonable endeavor. The purpose is to move the thoughts of the writer of another tongue into understandable thoughts for an English reader. But, consider just this short snippet from John 3:16, using the King James Bible translation as a base since this is understandable to all of us, �For God so loved the world...�
If it is my plan to state the thought of this passage I might well say, �God loved the world so much...� Would I have done any violence to the meaning of this passage? Yes. I have moved from a grand statement of the depth of love which God bestowed upon the world (�God so loved�) to a simple statement of the fact that God did love (�God loved so much�).
It is nearly impossible that a paraphrase, which is the �everyday� meaning of �Dynamic Equivalency,� could possibly convey all of the nuance of a word for word translation method such as was used by the translators of the King James Bible.
Every single attempt at paraphrase is colored by the meaning which the translator puts upon the message. Again, as in deciding to use an inferior text as the eclectic method will demand, the end result is a commentary on what the words of the base text mean to the person doing the translating work.
Remembering that the Scripture is not just another book, it is an Altogether Another Book as it is the very Words of God to humanity, that Scripture may and will, speak to different men in their varying circumstance in differing manner as the Spirit energizes the inspired Words. By placing one particular meaning, the meaning which the translator chooses, at the expense of all other meanings which the Spirit may energize, we again see that man has made himself the master of the Word.
The energized Words of God are sacrificed for the static thoughts of men.
Cloud continues in this subject about Dynamic Equivalency.
�...dynamic equivalency aims to make the Bible understandable to non-Christians. ... God says in I Corinthians 2:14 and other passages that it is impossible for the unsaved man to understand His Word. ... Praise God there are simple passages such as John 3:16 that the unsaved and even children can understand and thereby come to salvation. But it is folly to attempt to translate the Scripture so that unbelievers can understand them...�
Romans 3:10 and 11 come to mind. �As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.�
It is complete folly, as well as completely unScriptural, to attempt to produce a translation of the Words of God which sinful mankind will accept. The Scripture, as the very Words of God, stems from God. The Scripture, as the very Words of God, is God speaking to humanity.
Sin still separates humanity from God. The sin nature within humanity will cause him to view the things of God as foreign to his basic nature. The only way to make the Scripture palatable to sinful humanity is to remove God from that version of the bible. (Again, small case intended and necessary in this context.)
The only thing that will cause a sinful, unregenerate human being to listen to the Words of God is that the Spirit bring conviction to the heart of that individual.
Remember when Cornelius was confronted by the angel in Acts, chapter ten. The angels did not give the message of the evangel to Cornelius. Did you ever stop to consider why this was so?
Did the angels not understand the message of sin and salvation? Since these angels were messengers sent from the very Throne of God, that is very doubtful. Were the angels just too shy to relay the message? The purpose of angels is that they are messengers. Shyness would not seem to be part of their makeup.
So, why did the angels reference Cornelius to Peter? This seems, somehow, very inefficient. The reason is simply that the angels were not entrusted with that message. We are!
Jesus said, in Luke 24:48, �Ye are witness of these things.�
That is our purpose, our job, our ministry, our very orders. We are to witness to the world about the old story in the Book that they will shun. We are to pray that the Holy Spirit send His convicting power upon the lives of those very people.
So, to �dumb down� the Words of God so that they become the words of the translators imagination, not only are we moving from a reliance upon the true Scripture, we are asking the impossible. We are asking that those who are yet dead in their sins will look unto a spiritual Book and commune with the God in Whom they are in opposition.
Ain�t gonna happen!
My father is, at the point of this writing, very close to death. I would expect that he will depart this world to enter the glories of Heaven sometime within the next few days. Dad has one television program that he really loves; he never misses it if at all possible. Suppose that I were to take a television set down to the mortuary and place it in front of his casket. What would happen?
Would he ask me to turn up the sound? Would he watch the program?
No. He will be dead to all of that.
The same must be understood about the person who is spiritually dead in his sins. He will not view the Words of Life from the Book of Life. He is dead to that stimuli.
It is our job, as Christians, to take the words to that person and pray that the Holy Spirit would so energize that person�s soul that they would begin to understand the Message.
How futile, and unproductive it is to take the Words of God and transform them into the words of man. Even the Christian will lose the power which those Words have to transform the world. He will lose that power because he will be unable to access that which is not available.
God gave His entire Word because all of it is for us to use as soldiers of the Cross.
22 June 2007
TRANSLATION METHODS (Continued)
Since it is assumed among the modern day Bible critics that God has not preserved His text, they feel that there is a need that they, the critic, reconstruct what they, the critic, believe that God had probably said. This means, of course, that the Words of God are not available in any specific manuscript, or even group of manuscripts. The teaching from these critics is that the Word, not necessary the Words, has been preserved in the cumulative body of all the manuscripts. Part of it may be here; a section of it may be there. Maybe a word or two of the actually inspired portions will be someplace entirely different.
The upshot of this mindset demands that the translation method seek among all the available evidence those minuscule sections which remain from the originally inspired text and seek to reincorporate them into as near a reproduction of what the original might have been as is humanly possible.
This means, of course, that the resulting work will be very eclectic in nature. Fuller (True or False) has noted that �The most serious defect of the eclectic method is that it is essentially subjective.�
The rational for the insertion of any reading into a text from an eclectic method is simply the reasoning of the critic that this appears to be what God must have said. This reading can come from just a single manuscript; but, if the critic feels it seems to him to be correct, it is inserted. Little consideration is made of the many manuscripts which might dispute this passage. If the critic likes it, it is in.
Likewise, a reading my have vast manuscript evidence, the writings of the �Church Fathers,� and the evidence of the lectionaries, but, if the critic doesn�t feel it fits his scheme of things, it is out. Simply put, the eclectic method of Biblical criticism is wholly dependent upon the feelings of the critic - whether or not he or she is a consecrated, Biblical Christian!
That last point is more important than it might seem at first glance. After all, the purpose is to simply collate the evidence and decide just what is true and what is false. Paul S. Karleen (The Handbook to Bible Study) points out the fallacy that this is a job for just anyone.
�As with all Biblical study, we should keep in mind that anyone who works with the text and expects to put it together accurately must have a high regard for its integrity and inspiration and allow it to speak for itself. Just as there have been some who have written commentaries and theological studies who do not have a high regard for the text, there have been some who have engaged in textual criticism who have not held to the divine source of the text.�
I have just read the �letter�s to the editor� section of our local newspaper. Several persons have attacked the positions of conservative Christianity. Most of these persons are actually agnostic or atheistic who have written these letters. Should we be expected to accept their assessment on the various Spiritual topics simply because they have taken pen in hand and written down their thoughts?
There are deviant religious cults who publish magazines and other periodicals. Should we accept their assessment on the various Spiritual topics simply because they have taken pen in hand and have written down their views on doctrinal matters?
The answer in both of the above cases are obviously in the negative. We should not accept the views of these persons simply because they have given those views. I can make the claim that yellow is the darkest color available to the painter. I may even believe that this is true. Neither my assertion, nor my belief, make this true. I may be color blind and unable to even understand the difference.
Truth is not an opinion. Truth is what is true.
The preserved and inspired Scripture is not open to the suggestion of any person. This is especially so of the person who is not led by the Holy Spirit. Such a person not so led is guided by his own nature. If his nature be a sin nature then his selection of �facts� or �readings� is not valid. As a matter of fact it is diametrically opposed to any valid view from a Spiritual standpoint.
To imagine that the Scripture is �just another book,� is not a valid view. The true Scripture was given by the inspiration of God and preserved by His preserving power. The natural man is just not equipped to understand this fact. Any assessment which he may make will be tainted by the sin in his life.
Sadly, most of the base texts, not to mention many on the translating committees which access these texts, are produced by committees where sinners sit in the seats of the scholar. This is just one reason why so many modern day Bible critics are completely unable to see the error of dismissing between 85% and 95% of the available evidence, as contained in the Traditional Text, while continuing to insist that the small remaining witnesses are not only true, but stand as witnesses to their presumed belief that God either did not, or could not, preserve His Words to humanity.
Why is it upon the �faith� of those who refuse to accept the Power and Love of God that we are expected to find the only true Scriptural mode? Why is it upon the �faith� of those who refuse to accept the Power and Love of God that we are expected to accept that God somehow lost control of the Words He had so diligently inspired for humanity?
But, this is the case of too much of modern theology and translation work.
I wonder if God is really pleased at this state of affairs.
Next session we will look at the translation method of Dynamic Equivalency.
29 June 2007
TRANSLATION METHODS (Continued)
This session we will begin to look at the translation method known as �Dynamic Equivalency.�
This sounds as though it were a very �high energy� type of translation method which would give the reader an insight into the Word which would inspire him to a greater understanding of the message which would have for him in this day.
Such is not the case. Cloud (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work) gives the truth of this method of translation. He says, �...dynamic equivalency aims at the use of simple language and style throughout.�
In Orwell�s novel, 1984, one of the methods which �Big Brother� uses to control the population is by the use of a means called �Newspeak.� The concept was that of making the vocabularies of the population smaller and smaller. By limiting the vocabularies of the people, the possibility of the population even being able to consider any sort of revolt was lessened.
Both memory and cognitive thought are the result of language. To limit one�s language is to limit the ability of that person to conceive of thoughts of greater complexity. To say, for instance, that a mountain is �pretty,� is to give a very small description of that mountain. To describe the mountain as of a nearly violent green, so dark is the lower slopes with vegetation, with a band of dark hue circling the mountains midriff with a scalp of whitened hair showing though it�s snowy cap, is to give a description of meaning. This describes the mountain in such a way as to be able to envision it without even having to have seen it.
When we sink to a dynamic equivalency mode of translation, with the focus on simple language so that �all� might understand, what we are really doing is emasculating the message. We have taken steps, in that case, to remove the great shades of meaning which God has woven into the Living Word which He has given mankind.
We can attend a funeral and say, �My, doesn�t the deceased look natural.� It is not the truth. We only, on these occasions see the dead body in a state of repose. For that person to appear truly natural it would be necessary for that person to stand, or sit, as he spoke to us. He would speak with the gesturing of his hands. He may shrug his shoulders. He may raise an eyebrow. The inflection of his voice may rise and fall as he imparts a story toward us.
The image in the casket is a frail picture of a formally vibrant human being. The use of dynamic equivalency gives a frail picture of the message, the lively message, which God had intended to convey through His inspired and preserved Words to humanity.
Cloud continues by noting that �...dynamic equivalency assumes that the Bible was originally written in language easily understood by the people then living.� Such is not necessarily the case.
Cloud appeals to the Scripture to bolster his point. �The prophets themselves, according to I Peter 1:10 - 11, did not always understand what they were prophesying!�
�Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you. Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.� (I Peter 1:10 - 11)
I have heard it said that the people of the Old Testament were saved by looking forward to the Cross even as we look back to the Cross. This is not so. Most of the Old Testament saints did not, even those who were used of God to pen the Words of the Old Testament Scriptures which prophesied the death and resurrection of Christ, understand the concept of the Cross of Jesus Christ.
The salvation of these Old Testament saints was effected by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, they did not understand this. They understood that they must have faith in God. �Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.� (Galatians 3:6) God has always related to mankind through the medium of faith in His Own righteousness.
The point, here, is that the Scripture was never a �simple� Book. It is, indeed, so simple that even one of low intellect would not stumble over the truth that Jesus Christ died in time so that others might live in eternity.
But, since the Bible is inspired, and therefore the very �Breath� of God, it is an eternal Book, as God is eternal, and speaks to us anew in each age. The message is the same. But, the depth and shades of that meaning are dependant upon the leading of the Spirit as we study that Word in prayer. To attempt to make that Word �simple� is to make an attempt to rob the holy vitality and passion of that Word.
To attempt to make that Word �simple� is also against the very purpose for which God gave His Words to mankind.
Cloud also appeals to Daniel 12:8, �And I heard, but I understood not...� to bolster his point that the Words need not be so simple that the mystery be removed. Daniel did not understand that which he had just written under inspiration. He asked that the passage be explained. The angel told him that the meaning was not for him to know; it was just for him to give the message of God. (See the remainder of the twelfth chapter.)
Cloud gives wise counsel when he ways that �The translator�s job is not to water down the Word of God so the average man on the street ... can understand it, but to faithfully reproduce that which God has given from Heaven.�
Gundry, writing in Moody Monthly (Which Version is Best) makes an admission about the value of those modern day translations which are produced by the method of dynamic equivalency. This is instructive since the general thrust of his article was that the �best� depended upon the needs of the reader. �Dynamic equivalence versions are New International Version, Modern Language Bible, New English Bible, Today�s English Version, Phillips� paraphrase, and Living Bible. ... These versions tend to become interpretations rather than translations.�
Folks, it is good that we listen to Godly preachers of the Word. But, the caveat there is, �Of The Word!�
As we have seen, most - nearly all! - of these modern day English language translations are based on a flawed base.
Even had they been based on the truly preserved Words of God, what we need is His Words to us rather than what someone else believes those Words to mean. Let God speak to me rather than man in a commentary. This is especially so when studying the Base Line of our faith - The Written Word of God, or even a translation of that Word into our spoken language.
The outworking of the Dynamic Equivalency method of Bible translation work is a paraphrase. It is not the Words of God. It is the words of man. We need a more accurate translation, based on the Words of God, if we are to have God truly speak to our souls.
I like candy bars and ice cream. But I need vegetable and real dairy products more than I need sugar if I am to be strong and healthy. A paraphrase may read easily. A commentary, as these versions are in reality, may give us the insight that someone else has gathered. But what we need is the solid food of the Words of God.
In our next session we will begin to look at the view of the early Christians toward the Scripture.