A SENSIBLE APPROACH TO
TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS
Some Thoughts By
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.
BIBLE
TEXTS
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.]
TRANSLATIONS
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 16:17, and those who are hostile to
every modern translation are also a source of division. The King James
is a good translation that has stood the test of time, and the newer
translations can be helpful in understanding what is being said if we
do not place them in opposition to the King James.
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 18:16).
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.”]
CONCLUSION
Since the Holy
Spirit works through the Bible to bring people to faith, and our faith
is faith in the promises of His Word, in dealing with texts and
translations we need to avoid a course of action that will undermine
faith (Matthew 16:17, Luke 11:52). I believe that the course of action
outlined above offers a sensible way doing just that, by preserving our
Reformation heritage, while being sensitive to the needs of everyone.