Bible Translations

[SteveF]

Steve wrote

The consultation of the dynamic versions is like listening to someone's well-researched exposition, or reading a good commentary. They often reveal a lot of the ingenuity that scholars can bring to the interpretation of a passage—which can be a very enlightening thing.

I think this is a healthy perspective. As long as one is aware of which type of translation they're reading then they can all be beneficial. I've been a reader of dynamic and formal translations my entire Christian life. Unfortunately I find that many don't differentiate between the two. In bible study groups I often find myself encouraging people to not necessarily develop their ideas around particular words they read in a dynamic translation (never mind looking at the original languages). I guess that's where the role of teacher comes in....we're not all eyes or hands etc...

[Paidion]

A passage in Revelation does not provide a fair test of the general quality of a New Testament textual tradition, for the simple reason that the "Group A" translations all followed the "Textus Receptus" (Hereafter, the "TR")—in which, in the absence of a complete Greek copy of Revelation, Erasmus translated these verses from the Latin Vulgate to the Greek. This would obviously make the TR's version of this portion of Revelation less authoritative, though it would have no bearing on the quality, authority or value of the TR with respect to the rest of the New Testament.

Yes, I discovered that "simple reason" after awhile. But before I knew they were simply translated from TR, I discovered that they seem to have added to and changed the Greek text in the various ways I indicated in my post "Late textual tradition? Or early manuscripts?" I discovered a consistency in these changes in the certain translations, and so I called them "Group A", and those which do not have these changes "Group B". However, I do mention that they are based on TR in that post.

I think the Revelation 22:19 test identifies those translations which are based on TR, and consequently identifies those which are based on textual tradition rather than early manuscripts.

I am privileged to possess a book which contains transcripts in Greek of all the extant manuscripts which were made prior to 300 A.D. They agree with "Group B" translations. I don't know of a single instance where they agree with the additions and changes which appear in the translations based on TR, which I discussed in the "Late textual tradition? Or early manuscripts?" post. That's what makes "Group A" translations unreliable, does it not?

The difference between them sometimes spans periods much greater than "a few hundred years". For example, there is no sure evidence that the Comma Johanneum existed in any Greek manuscript until the 16 century. Yet it occurs in Textus Receptus.

[CThomas]

Thanks very much for all the helpful responses. What a great group you guys have here!

Best regards.

CThomas

[Suzana]

Hi Suzana, I assumed he meant Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Referring to someone as OCD is a common expression in my neck of the woods and seemingly in Steve G's as well (if my assumptions are correct). I've heard Australians are not as introspective and neurotic as North Americans (we're constantly analyzing ourselves...psychology is huge up here), hence the likely reason you haven't heard of this psychological buzz word.

Thanks, Steve, that sounds likely then. Perhaps Aussies aren't quite as neurotic & are more likely to have an attitude of "she'll be right mate"; though I think there is a comparable phrase to OCD that is somewhat bandied about here, but is rather less elegant!

[steve]

Just a tag line or two...

Yes, I was referring to "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder"—and anyone who knows my opinions about psychology and psychobabble will understand the spirit in which I intended the remark.

As for the late appearance of the Comma Johanneum in the TR, it is a well known error in the TR, which even Erasmus (ultimate creator of the TR) did not believe to be genuine. There is an interesting story that goes with that insertion, which, I think I may have related elsewhere in the forum (God only knows where!).

[SteveF]

Suzana wrote:

Thanks, Steve, that sounds likely then. Perhaps Aussies aren't quite as neurotic & are more likely to have an attitude of "she'll be right mate"; though I think there is a comparable phrase to OCD that is somewhat bandied about here, but is rather less elegant!

Whoops, I just realized after reading your reply that I meant to say we're narcissistic, not neurotic (although, that may apply as well ). You still seemed to be able to read between the lines and get the gist of what I was saying. Our tendency to be introspective can be paralyzing at times. Sometimes you just need someone to say something like "she'll be right mate" so you can get on with the rest of your life.

[steve]

Sure dinkum!

[Paidion]

Another word about Rev 22:19. It may sound as if I'm harping on this verse, for there is no great theological import whether it reads "tree of life" or "book of life". The important matter is how, after Erasmus back translated from the Latin to Greek, and wrote "book of life" in his Greek New Testament, this textual tradition continued in spite of all evidence that it was incorrect.

Erasmus is excused. He did the best he knew how. He did not have available any Greek manuscript containing the last verses of Revelation. But what about such text editors as Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir (if they may be accurately referred to as such)? It seems that they slavishly followed Erasmus' text in their editions with only minor variations. Were no Greek manuscripts available to them which had the original words "tree of life"? I suspect they didn't bother to find out, but were content simply to copy the text of Erasmus.

But in our day, when the fact of Erasmus' back translation is known, and when we have many Greek manuscripts containing the original words, there is no excuse to continue the textual tradition of copying Erasmus' error simply because it is so written in Textus Receptus! Even the majority text (which some mistakenly confuse with Textus Receptus) has "tree of life" in Rev 22:19. So why would modern translations such as AV, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, R Webster, and YLT still translate "book of life" in the verse? Could it be that those who produced such translations adhered to Textus Receptus with a similar tenacity which King James only proponents cling to the AV, insisting that it is the "only inspired version"? Did those who based their translation on Textus Receptus consider TR to be the original and only true text?

[Suzana]

Sure dinkum!

Fair dinkum, Steve, I think you’re in urgent need of a refresher course in Strine! I recommend another sojourn in our fair land. (Though I do suspect deliberate misuse!)

[Singalphile]

I like how the NIV translators have this website: http://www.niv-cbt.org/

I haven't had more time to look through it, but it seems pretty neat. It would be great to have detailed explanations about why they translate every verse the way the do, at least when there's any dispute or ambiguity. Anybody know of something like that?

I like the sound of that NET version with its extensive translation notes.

I enjoyed that list in this related thread from Paidion about some possible possible revisions or ... what do you call them? ... interpolations? in the old manuscripts.

Edit:

This page from Aug 2010 is interesting: http://www.niv-cbt.org/niv-2011-overvie ... ors-notes/

The translation of Sarx to "self" was mentioned in this thread. On the Aug 2010 page above, the committed mentions that for 2011, "Most occurrences of 'sinful nature' have become 'flesh.'" They wrote: "Especially in Paul, sarx can mean either part or all of the human body or the human being under the power of sin. In an effort to capture this latter sense of the word, the original NIV often rendered sarx as ‟sinful nature.” But this expression can mislead readers into thinking the human person is made up of various compartments, one of which is sarx, whereas the biblical writers’ point is that humans can choose to yield themselves to a variety of influences or powers, one of which is the sin-producing sarx. The updated NIV uses ‟flesh” as the translation in many places where it is important for readers to decide for themselves from the context whether one or both of these uses of sarx is present."

Also, they have apparently changed "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death ... " to "Even though I walk through the darkest valley ...." I do not like that!

Some of the other changes are interesting.