A SENSIBLE APPROACH TO
TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS
Gary
Ray Branscome
In many ways the past century was a century of ideological
conflict. During that century the Bible endured one attack after another, and
the very foundation of our faith was assaulted. Nevertheless, the Bible
remains, even as the ideologies of this world wane, and the case for the
reliability and divine preservation of Scripture is stronger than ever before.
In that spirit, I would like to call for a fresh look at the traditional New
Testament text, for I believe that there are several
good reasons why it is more reliable than the text currently in vogue.
The traditional, or Byzantine, text
is the text that was used by the Greek Orthodox Church from the fourth century
(or earlier) to the end of the nineteenth century. That text includes most of
the New Testament manuscripts, and there is very little variation between them.
In addition to that text, we also have a few manuscripts that omit a number of
words and phrases found in the Byzantine text (the Alexandrian text), and a few
manuscripts that include words and phrases not found in Byzantine or
Alexandrian texts (the Western text).
Because the Alexandrian manuscripts are few in number and inconsistent
in their readings, they would never have received serious consideration if it
were not for the fact that two of them (code named “Aleph” and “B”) are written
on expensive vellum (calfskin). Because of the cost involved in the manufacture
of vellum, it is assumed that they were made at government expense, and that
the government made certain that they were copied from the best manuscripts
available (an assumption that anyone familiar with government waste and
bungling must find laughable).
What is conveniently overlooked, is
the evidence against manuscripts “Aleph” and “B”.
First of all, those two manuscripts
differ with each other in over three thousand places. Second, they omit an
entire section of Scripture (the last twelve verses of Mark) that is included
in every other Greek manuscript in the world (that contains Mark). That section
of Scripture is also included in all Syriac
translations except the Sinatic Syriac,
and in all old Latin manuscripts except “K”. Some of the early church fathers
also quoted from it. Hippolytus in 200AD, Irenaeus in 180AD, Tatian in
175AD, and Justin martyr in 150AD.
Therefore, the evidence that the
last twelve verses of Mark belong in the Bible is just about as strong as you
can get. If those verses belong in the Bible, then manuscripts “Aleph” and “B”
were not copied from the best manuscripts, are not copied accurately, and are
not reliable. And, if they are not reliable, the case against the traditional
text falls apart. [See Mark 16:9-20.]
Since our faith is faith in what
the Bible says, it is important for us to have a translation that is the Word
of God, not an interpretation. While some people claim that no translation can
ever be the Word of God, the Bible says otherwise every time it quotes a Greek
translation of the Old Testament. Even though God does not guide the
translators by direct inspiration, He uses the original Greek or Hebrew text to
tell them exactly what He wants them to say.
At the same time, even though the
translator has some leeway in deciding what words to use, because the salvation
of souls will depend upon that translation, objectivity is important. Because
the men who prepared our king James translation understood the importance of
objectivity, they sought to provide a formal equivalent of what the original
language said. As a result, their translation has been greatly used of God, and
those who rely on it have carried the gospel around the world. Furthermore, the
fact that it has been accepted by many denominations, and has endured for
centuries, is a great comfort to those who fear being misled. Nevertheless,
there are others who find its older language confusing, and prefer a
translation that they find easier to understand.
Therefore, in deciding which
translation to use, it is important for a church to consider the needs of
everyone. Congregations, which replace the king James with a modern
translation, have gone to one extreme; while those that ban every modern
translation have gone to the other extreme. What we want,
is to maintain a direct link with the past while making certain that the Bible
is understood, and that its teachings are known and accepted. I believe that we
can achieve that goal by continuing to use the King James translation in
preaching, worship, and the memorization of God’s Word, and by using other
translations along side of the King James Bible, in Bible classes and in our
study of God’s Word.
I personally use a Bible that has
the King James in one column and the Amplified in the next. However, this will
only work if everyone understands that both translations are essentially saying
the same thing in different words. What we want to do is to compare the
translations, just as we might compare Matthew and Luke, and gain a better
understanding of what is being said, by hearing it expressed two different
ways.
We never want to make the mistake
of pitting the translations against each other by interpreting them to
contradict. Nor do we want to create a conflict by insisting that one is right
and the other is wrong. People who are continually trying to pick apart the
King James translation, are causing division contrary to Romans
In dealing with the newer
translations, we need to understand that many of them follow the Alexandrian
text, rather than the traditional text, and that they do not all maintain the
same level of quality. However, as long as we allow the King
James translation to be our standard, and follow the rule of “two or three
witnesses” (each translation being a witness), we should not have any problem
(Matthew
Since manuscripts “Aleph” and “B”
omit some words or statements that are in the traditional text, translations
that follow those manuscripts may also omit them. However, instead of feeling
threatened by those omissions, we need to learn what we can. What we want to do
is to compare the translations just as we might compare Matthew and Luke, while
hoping that someday those translations will include all of the readings
included in the traditional text.
[Note: Just to give you an example of what kind of omissions
I am talking about, In Matthew alone, all of these verses omit something.
Matthew 1:25, 5:22&44, 6:13, 8:29, 9:13, 12:35, 13:51, 15:8, 16:3, 19:21,
18:11, 19:9, 20:7,15,16,22, 22:20, 23:14, 24:36, 25:13, 27:35&54.]
When it comes to dealing with
translations that vary in quality, as long as we make the King James our
standard, and follow the rule of “two or three witnesses,” it should be easy to
spot a translation that departs from the generally accepted meaning of the text
(2Corinthians 1:13). However, because it is easy for those who are not
trained in theology to assume that every translation is saying something
different simply because the wording is different, we need to emphasize what
the translations agree on. The last thing we want is for people to become
confused by the differences in translations, and wind up not knowing what to
believe. It is only when we compare the translations without assuming
disagreement or superiority on the part of one (much as we compare Matthew with
Mark or Luke) that we can gain a better understanding of the Bible by seeing
various ways that the original might be translated.
Finally, because the English
language is continually changing, the King James translation has been revised
in the past, and will need to be revised in the future. However, in order to
maintain an unbroken link to the past, we need to avoid unnecessary change,
while making certain that future generations are able to read and understand
the King James translation. [Note: You might want to get a copy of the “21st
Century King James.”]