Diversity of Modern Versions, pt 3 – Formal Translations
As mentioned in the previous post, original translations can utilize either dynamic equivalence (idea-for-idea translation) or a more formal equivalence (word-for-word translation). These are not hard and fast terms since even the most formal translation will sometimes translate an idea instead of the words. Even the King James version translated the Greek ?? ??????? as “God forbid” , following the Hebrew formula ?? ?????, rather than its literal meaning of something like “let it not be!” (The term actually seems to be the direct antonym of the Hebrew ???.) So when we are classing translations as dynamic or formal, we are really placing them on a spectrum.
If you draw a horizontal line and label the two ends as formal and dynamic, you could place every English translation of the Scriptures somewhere on the line. The King James Version would be on the formal side, but not completely formal. The only completely formal translations would be those that appear in interlinear editions of the Scriptures, and these are not exactly easy to use for regular reading. More formal translations like Young’s Literal Translation are virtually indecipherable in English.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have paraphrases like the Living Bible or the Message. These are entirely dynamic and will be dealt with in the next post in this series.
Translations like the King James Version or the English Standard Version try to strike a balance, leaning toward formal equivalence. What we would class as dynamic translations are on the other side of the balance, leaning toward dynamic equivalence.
Original, recent formal translations are much less common (and arguably less popular) than more dynamic translations. They do exist, however. I am going to focus on three. (Keep in mind that most formal translations available today are revisions, which were dealt with in a previous post. You will find the entries on the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, and ESV here, and the article on the NKJV is still forthcoming.)
Holman Christian Standard Bible
The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) was published in 2004. It began life as a few personal translations by Arthur Farstad, the general editor of the NKJV. He was encouraged to develop the project into a full translation, but died only months into the project. Ed Blum took over the general editorship of the project and steered it differently than Farstad had envisioned. Blum said:
He [Farstad] wanted to do a MT translation of the NT. The Southern Baptists who were paying the freight, they agreed to do a parallel translation. We would do a critical text translation, and we would have an electronic MT translation that would be given to Art at the completion of the project. Unfortunately Art only lived 5 months into the project, and so that was dropped. So, our translation is based on the Nestle text. (Source)
Arthur Farstad believed that a New Testament translated from the Majority Text (not the Textus Receptus) was needed among conservative Christians. Because the ESV and other newer translations followed the ‘Critical Text’, he felt a Majority Text Bible would be widely accepted. His death, however, sent the project in another direction and instead of the MT translation Farstad envisioned, the HCSB followed newer Greek New Testament manuscripts to satisfy the demands of the SBC which was financing the project.
In the preface, the publishers explain their translation philosophy:
The HCSB has chosen to use the balance and beauty of optimal equivalence for a fresh translation of God’s word that is both faithful to the words God inspired and “user friendly” to modern readers.
The HCSB is certainly more formal than dynamic in its translation. It uses a form of educated English and is written on a high school level – as opposed to many dynamic translations which are written in grade school English.
The HCSB is considered by some to be a ‘Baptist’ translation and erroneously thought to have been done so the Southern Baptists could use it instead of the NIV in their Sunday School curriculum. This is patently false, although the HCSB has a growing popularity among Southern Baptist Churches.
To be honest, I did not know much about the origin of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) until I began this series of articles. One of our readers mentioned some links in a comment that are worth exploring.
The New English Translation (NET Bible)
Arguably one of the more innovative translations, the NET Bible is difficult to categorize. It features both dynamic and formal equivalence, often swapping the two between notes and text. Because of the online format, even the distinction between text and notes is blurred.
The project that became the NET began in 1995 as the internet was becoming a mainstream phenomenon. The idea was to create a completely free translation of the Bible which could be made available to everyone. Originally, the plan was to provide the NET via CD-ROM (like those AOL disks everyone used to get in the mail EVERYDAY), but once the internet became user-friendly, the NET team purchased the www.bible.org and began to make the edition available online.
The first edition was made available in 2005, ten years after the project began. Minor revisions have continued to be made over the past five years – which is both a positive and a negative.
Each one of us comes to the Bible from a different perspective; scholars need to listen to the person in the pew as much as the layperson needs to listen to scholars…The NET Bible is a truly symbiotic effort between the insights of biblical scholars and the needs of lay Christians. The combined effect of the notes and the nine year public review process has reinforced the translation’s primary goal of faithfulness to the original languages. By creating a translation environment that is responsible both to the world’s scholars and to lay readers, the NET Bible was read, studied, and checked by more eyes than any Bible translation in history. (Preface to the NET, 1st Edition)
The unique fact that people were constantly interacting with the NET as it was translated produced an interesting effect. It is truly the first translation of its type.
Currently, there are two other online Bible projects in progress – The Free Bible and The Conservative Bible Project – but neither looks to have the widespread appeal of the NET Bible.
The International Standard Bible
Begun in the 1990′s, the International Standard Bible currently consists of a New Testament only. It is expected that the Old Testament will be completed sometime in the next couple of years.
The ISV uses ‘literary English’, intentionally avoiding idioms that might pass. As a result, it is more formal than dynamic although like the NET Bible, this distinction is blurred. The ISV translators refer to this as the ‘literal-idiomatic’ approach:
This is not because it happens to be the middle option, simply avoiding extremes, but because the literal-idiomatic translation is the only choice that avoids the dangers of over-literalness and of over-interpretation discussed above. (Preface to the ISV)
Like the NET Bible, the ISV is an online project. It is published only electronically and while not strictly open-source, it is made available through most major Bible software packages.
Trending Away from Printed Translations
As you can see, there seems to be a trend away from the printed Bible in the world of ‘formal’ equivalence. There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which is that if someone wants a formal translation those in the tradition of the KJV continue to be the best.
Another important reason is the financial risk. Christian printing houses must finance a printed Bible translation – a project that requires quite a bit of funding and effort, not to mention financial risk.
Imagine the cost of employing thirty world-class scholars for the better part of a decade. At even a modest $75,000 per year per scholar over a five year period, the bill would be around $11.25 million, and that is just salaries for the translators! Printing costs, advertisement, distribution – the overhead for such a project must be enormous. Printing houses are increasingly reluctant to do this when what will be produced will still be markedly similar to something that already exists and is widely available.
It is far easier to assemble revision committees or to adopt the work of individuals. Recovering the cost of such a massive project would take years. Even if the average profit on a printed Bible is $15, the printer would have to sell 750,000 copies just to recoup five years of direct loss in salaries to the translators.
In our next article, we will explore the ‘paraphrase’ translations which have become increasingly popular – namely, the Living Bible and its daughter the New Living Translation and Eugene Petersen’s The Message.
The World English Bible and the Apostolic Polyglot should also be mentioned.
I considered including these two, but the World English Bible is a state of flux (it’s sponsoring organization, Rainbow Missions, Inc) has been dissolved and the document is not owned by [oddly enough] some kind of engineering firm; and the Apostolic Polyglot is something of a niche translation/tool. Because they don’t really apply as ‘mainstream’ translations, I opted not to include them. (I went back and forth about the ISV being mainstream, but it is included in software like Logos and Bibleworks, so I opted to include it.)
I thought the NET Bible was also available in print. Great series so far, Erik. I hope you do cover the NLT as it has a wide appeal and audience, being in the top 5 Bibles sold currently.
Bob
I am going to cover the NLT in the post on paraphrases. Although strictly speaking, the editors considered it a translation, I still believe it is so dynamic that it has to be classed as a paraphrase.
I believe the NET Bible is available in print, although its primary access point is still the internet.
You’re right, it’s primarily online. I love the notes it has as they discuss manuscript evidence, translational and even exegetical concerns often. But it’d be hard to have as your church Bible!
I wasn’t sure if you were going to skip the NLT or discuss it in the paraphrase post. I hear you, it is quite loose in places. I’ll be interested to hear your assessment. Thanks for this series, I know you’re busy.
In Christ,
Bob
The NLT was actually my first ‘not-a-KJV-hide-it-so-my-pastor-doesn’t-see-it” Bible. It was a parallel NLT/KJV.
The NET Bible is indeed offered as a print edition.
Go here: http://store.bible.org/ One of the beauties of the NET is that is available as a free download on the website and/or you can order print copies of the First Edition which has the 60,000 footnotes (and yes it makes it a big Bible), but you can also purchase a Reader’s Edition which has fewer notes and is larger print as well as a compact edition which the ladies like to carry for church. The Reader’s Edition makes for a great pew Bible and Trinity Bible Church in Richardson, TX recently outfitted their pews with such as these. In addition, as you say, the NET is offered for free download on the internet. You can also download it to your iphone and/or ipad.
Thanks Gaye, I was not aware of the variety of print editions available. Thanks for the info.
Good read. Guys, if the only complaint the KJVOs had was “there are too many Bible translations” I think virtually everyone here would agree with that statement. There ARE too many.
Hi Folks,
“More formal translations like Young’s Literal Translation are virtually indecipherable in English.”
I’ve never seen Young’s as indeciperhable, it is reasonably easy on a readability level. Young makes a lot of errors, had his own quirky translation ideas. And it is fair to say that “Literal” translations (Emphasized, Young, Green) tend to be a tad stilted. Young the least of the three.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
I opened my Young’s literally at random and looked at the first verse I saw:
Someone with an understanding of Hebrew syntax and an appreciation for the way Hebrew sentences are constructed might have no trouble deciphering this, but for the average reader, it is just a mash up of words. Because English is an analytic language rather than an agglutinating language like Hebrew, to the non-technical reader this sentence makes no sense.
JP Green and Gary Zeolla (ALT) have good modern updates to Young. Green follows the TR and Gary follows the MT. Both of these (and the WEB) would be good supplements for close study to those that like and use the KJV.
Hi Folks,
And I actually find Jay Green more stilted in language than any other version (from experience – I tried using it as my main Bible in my days of transition away from the alexandrian minority versions to the Reformation Bible).
As for the above Young’s being “incomprehensible” .. maybe I ferget how much English teaching has been dumbed down the last decades. In the old days folks used the Authorized Version to learn English and the levels of English comprehension were far higher than today. Even the above sentence is quite comprehensible, albeti cumbersome.
Zeolla’s ALT will have the same problem as anything relating to the Byzantine Majority Text .. a text that can scarcely be said to be based on a sensible textual theory, a theory where counting Greek noses is the major element and all the other textual and internal components only come to play when the Greek has a major split. It is largely essentially a Greek-onlyism theory, while the modern versions are generally Greek-Aleph-B onlyism, or at best Greek-Uncial-Onlyism.
However Erik does say he is sympathetic to that textual theory of the Majority Text, leading to the question of why not simply emphasize such Majority versions ? Rather than all the ultra-minority Greek texts referenced in this series.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
This series is an overview of the main current modern versions. It is not intended to be exhaustive. Criticism of modern English education, the Byzantine text type or ‘ultra-minority Greek texts’ is not within the scope of the series. They are all themes addressed in other articles elsewhere.
Hi Folks,
One thing that is lacking, as an overview, is the breakdown by source texts. This is very simple.
1) Textus Receptus
2) Critical Text (NA-27 – W-H)
3) Other (e.g. Byzantine Greek, Peshitta, Vulgate)
This would seem to be first issue to consider on any version (along with avoiding paraphrases, which really have no place on the table). The textual differences, including whether whole sections are scripture, are generally far more significant than the translational differences.
Also, have you mentioned the following versions from the NA-27 text ?
New American Bible
Jerusalem Bible
New Jerusalem Bible
While they have the RCC imprimatur they are solidly in the textual and translational traditions you are highlighting, with substantial use and sales. Some conservative RCC are leaving those versions for offshoots of the RSV and NRSV, both covered here.
Shalom,
Steven
I did not feel such a ‘comparison’ was needed since, as I know you already know, most modern translations rely on UBS 4 and NA 26-27. I did not include any niche translations such as those from the Vulgate or LXX because they are strictly academic in audience.
As to the RCC editions, I did not feel it necessary to include them.
The series is what it is and covered the spectrum of translations I felt needed to be covered.
Steve, since it is apparent you feel the series is lacking, why don’t you write your own list & analysis and post it on your blog/website?
Hi Folks,
Carl .. you may have not noticed that this is billed as a KJV Debate blog. It seems like any materail that fits the bill is found to be discomfiting.
As to my making a list, here is the main reason I do not .. as previously mentioned I consider every text from the alexandrian textus corruptus to be deficient .. it really does not matter what translation philosophy is used .. the result is GIGO. Erik seemingly for awhile had a similar view, he was saying that his view was more Majority Text than alexandrian, but that potato has been hot-dropped.
Anybody ready for vigorous, friendly debate ? Paradigms and concepts and faith and understandings all examined, along with textual theories and early church writings and variants and this and that ?
Granted, we are all busy, but the idea is fine.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
This statement is patently false. I explained the scope of these articles in a comment you either did not read or chose to ignore. This is the type of false caricature you continually make to ‘prove’ your own views as superior. Anyone can show their position to be superior to a caricature they create.
Hi Folks,
Erik, here is what you wrote.
“I’m not a big fan of W-H, … I find the ‘Majority Text’ strains of the textual tradition to be much
more in keeping with context and message than many of the W-H readings. … W-H made edits that make no sense, and I would even say made no sense when they made them, … There are many of us who are not KJVO or TRO but also are not W-H advocates … the newer ‘Majority Text’ and ‘Byzantine Text’ editions strike a more moderate position,”
Surely that looks like your position is friendlier to the Majority Text than to the alexandrian versions.
Shalom,
Steven
Steven,
I never made a statement retracting my position in favor of many of the Majority Text readings. As explained before, I don’t believe any of the published editions are singularly THE reading, but rather I accept the entire corpus of Greek texts.
If you actually read the articles or the repeated comments in which I stated that I included only the popular, well-known modern translations (none of which are Majority Text) then you would not be circling this theme again.
Once again, let me reiterate that these articles are about the popular modern versions. Since none of them are strictly MT, there are no MT versions included. If there was a Majority Text translation with widespread acceptance, it would have been included. The fact of the realities of the world cannot be made to bend to my preferences or to yours.
This issue is now closed, and bringing it up again will be considered argumentative.
True, Eric. Plus, as the NA27 and UBS have all the important Greek variants, Church father quotations, and early translations in the footnotes, one could make even an MT translation from it. No translation committee simply translates the Greek Text exactly as the UBS defines it, but rather they use the UBS variant information to make textual decisions.
Indeed.
Hi Folks,
Andrew
“they use the UBS variant information to make textual decision”
Andrew, could you give say 3 significant departures each from the NA-27 by the NAS, NIV or ESV ? (Or many others.)
I would like to see where they make independent decisions away from UBS. An example would be.. James White was a Lockman critical consultant and James White says he prefers “God was manifest in the flesh..” so theoretically the NAS could have that reading .. yet it does not.
Do you have any examples of significant textual decisions away from the NA-27 ?
Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven,
This is an example of a style of writing that is unacceptable. Andrew is our guest at the site, and you are demanding he come up with examples for you. He doesn’t have to.
You say “I would like to see where they make independent decisions…”. That’s fine if you want to see that, but you can go do your own research.
You could instead have phrased your comment like this:
“I’m skeptical that those versions really make significant departures from the NA-27. Do you have any examples of significant departures made by those versions? Could you point me somewhere that discusses this?”
Huge difference in tone and still it registers your disagreement and requests more proof.
Please think before you post. We want all the interactions to be charitable and of a Christian spirit around here.
Some people may have been moderated out of other forums and places and try to use our blog to be their place to pontificate about this topic. We aren’t interested in having those who don’t want to discuss these things in a reasonable, calm manner. That style is conducive to productive discussion. That is the kind of interaction we want over here. We represent many different angles on this whole debate and have readers from many different camps. Everyone is helped by the debate when it is calm, rational, and Christian.
Hi Steven -
I am away from home, so I only have my KJV with me, so all I can do is pull up Bible Gateway in a web browser and look up some key passages.
From the NASB, I find the long ending of Mark 16, the Pericope Adulterae in John 8, Acts 8:37, Luke 17:36, and the traditional ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6. Some of these are bracketed, but they are in the text, not in footnotes.
Now, turning to my NA-27, which I do happen to have with me -
- The longer and shorter endings of Mark are included, but separated from the main body of text.
- John 7:53-8:11 is included, but in double brackets separated from main text body.
- Acts 8:37 is not in the text, but in the footnotes.
- Luke 17:36 is not in the text, but in the footnotes
- Traditional ending of the Lord’s Prayer is not in the text, but in the footnotes.
May I turn the argument back on you and ask if there are any key MT readings which are not found in the NA27 or UBS?
Hi Andrew,
Andrew, you miss the point a bit
. You have even highlighted a rather incredible problem in the modern versions.
Most all the versions contradict themselves, putting verses in (brackets) or small print or a margin note that *** they specifically indicate are not considered original scripture *** by their own theories. And they make no bones about it when asked, they consider those verses as unoriginal. That is why you only indicated inclusion/omission .. not alternate variants like John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 – because on inclusion/omission they can play both ends against the middle, leaving the reader totally unsure and perplexed as to what is the word of God and .. if they are astute .. wondering why their version includes verses they say are not God’s word by their own textual probability “beliefs”.
That is not a remotely a textual decision, a better name is confusion, even, from my perspective, hypocrisy. (If they really do not believe the ending of Mark is scripture, it should not be in the text … if any strong Christian could ** really believe ** that.)
As for MT readings (not that I particularly care about MT readings) not in NA-27, John 1:18, 1 Timothy 3:16, the Pericope and the resurrection account in the Gospel of Mark to start.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven,
Andrew does have a good point and you’re missing it. The translators use the NA27 but that doesn’t mean they agree with how the NA27 handles the passages he mentions them. Some of the translators of the NASB very well believe in the authenticity of the long ending of Mark. Others uphold the pericope adulterae, etc.
The MT readings you say aren’t in the NA-27 actually are in there. They are noted in the footnotes or set off in brackets (or double brackets). Again that is Andrew’s point and you are missing it.
We GET that you don’t appreciate the use of the NA-27, but use of it does not imply endorsement of every theory or position of that text. Translators pick and choose between the various arguments, sometimes going with an A reading, other times the B or C reading (using the UBS scale). They weigh options. The ESV for instance had places it took into consideration the papyrii in ways the NA-27 hadn’t (as the ESV is newer than the NA-27).
Hi Folks,
“The MT readings you say aren’t in the NA-27 actually are in there. They are noted in the footnotes or set off in brackets (or double brackets). Again that is Andrew’s point and you are missing it.”
I really have no idea whether that was Andrew’s point .. yet all you are saying is that the MV’s do not know whether their text is Scripture .. so they give you the kitchen sink in footnotes. (Which is why I call it the Probability Text .. no verse is sure.)
To say that a reading is “in there” because it is down there in a footnote is stretching logic and sense on its head. You are basically acknowledging that no verse out of thousands can really be accepted as scripture .. and that opposite meanings are both fine.
Precisely what James is asking about .. to have too much means having nothing at all. You might as well read an apparatus .. that way you will be sure of having more variants ! You will not know what is scripture .. but you will have lots and lots and lots of footnotes and margin notes and superscripts to peruse.
Shalom,
Steven
Eric,
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying when you state, “I accept the entire corpus of Greek texts.”
NA-27 and RP-Byz and the TR disagree at thousands of points, hundreds of which affect translation. Add the “Western” text to the equation, and you have thousands of translation-impacting variants in the Gospels alone. (Over 1,400 just in Mark.)
Are you saying that you accept rival variants and recognize each one as authoritative? That would be like accepting real gold, fool’s gold, and an empty pocket, all equally. But if that is not what you mean, what do you mean?
“If there was a Majority Text translation with widespread acceptance, it would have been included.”
Nothing is stopping you from listing and describing that World English Bible, Paul Esposito’s EMTV, and the Apostolic Polyglot if you wanted to.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I think Eric is including translations a regular joe might find on the bookshelf of his local Bible shop.
Corpus of Texts
My position is that there is no ‘perfect’ manuscript (and that would be true, whether you’re CT or MT or Byz or anything) that fits perfectly with a ‘perfect’ published text. All texts require a certain amount of editing to produce a single edited, published text (TR included) and so, the textual decisions are made by errant human beings and cannot be guaranteed to be 100% correct. Therefore, you can either choose to accept one published edition or you can accept the entire corpus. Make no mistake – I am not trying to persuade anyone of my position. It cannot be done in the comments of a blog, so I’d just as soon leave it as it is – a statement, not a seed for discussion. Yes, I know you disagree.
WEB, EMTC, Apostolic Polyglot
As already stated, this was not meant to be an exhaustive directory – only an overview of the more widespread translations.
James,
We actually have something up our sleeve that will help spread word about the Majority Text position. Look for an interview of Dr. Maurice Robinson to be posted here in 2 or 3 posts either next week or the following. He does mention the versions you pointed out that follow the MT.
Thanks,
Bob
The problem I see with the HCSB (As a baptist) is that the translators finally had the opportunity to correct the transliteration of “baptizo” – to actually translate it as “immerse.”
I’m ok with it being translated as baptize. The word has entered the English language with more significance than the word immerse has. Unfortunately, they have to work with the English language as it is, not as we wish it could be. This was one of the advantages the KJV translators had which cannot be duplicated.
Erik,
I’m still not sure of your position. To accept the TR and the RP and the NA-27 texts as important textual compilations and tools is one thing; and it’s an uncontroversial thing, to me at least. But when you state that, since each of those compilations was compiled by fallible editors, “you can either choose to accept one published edition or you can accept the entire corpus,” I cannot tell if you are saying that you accept the entire corpus as collections of some readings which ought to be regarded as the authoritative inspired words of God, and some readings which are merely mistakes of human origin, or if you are saying that you accept the entire corpus as collections of readings which should all be regarded as the authoritative inspired words of God, even at points where one reading has rival variants with starkly different meanings. Could you clarify this a little bit more?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I’m not sure that this is the best venue to explain it. It’s a complicated issue that I find I am not quite capable of committing to the written word, but I’ll give it a whirl.
The way I see it, the textual issue is an all or nothing situation. The TR guys argue that God preserved his word in their particular edition(s) and anything discovered later that doesn’t agree with their received text is invalid. The CT guys argue that the TR has erroneous readings and limited resources, and thus you should accept the TR only where it lines up with their reading. The Byzantine Text, Majority Text – they come at the question of textual criticism with different apparatuses and produce something else.
All in all, the arguments revolve around a small minority of readings. There is after all only about a 2-5% variation among all the different published editions. The bulk of these variants are consumed by some large passages – such as the last 12 verses of Mark or the incident of the woman taken in adultery. Some variants are clearly erroneous (situations where something completely random is inserted which makes no sense or the predicate is completely missing from a sentence). All in all, there is so much textual evidence on both sides that a valid case could be made either way.
So, my thinking is – why choose? Take for example the last 12 verses of Mark. They don’t contradict anything in the text of Scripture. They strengthen the apostolic authority, but that is so obvious in the rest of the Christian Scriptures that it does not hang on those verses. These kinds of things only really matter to people who want to proof text positions rather than reading the Scriptures with a broader approach. (That’s opinion. No one lynch me for it.) Once I am not reduced to choosing one modern edition of the Greek text or another, I can embrace the diversity of the early church’s teaching.
Maybe the last 12 verses of Mark weren’t in Mark’s original. It doesn’t make them false. They teach something valid that is present elsewhere. Omit them? It doesn’t change apostolic authority one iota. Keep them? It adds a bit.
My point is that the textual traditions represent a beautiful variety, a reflection of the rich cultures the Church has inhabited and impacted. I’m perfectly happy to let them co-exist. Where there are obvious errors, we say “yep, definitely doesn’t belong” but to have to choose one side or the other of this textual debate – well, I just don’t feel it is necessary.
I guess I’m not willing to assume the superiority of the modern church and it’s ‘advancement’ of textual criticism. It is a non-issue for me, I guess. I know that it is probably poorly stated here, and I’m sure to catch all kinds of grief because it will be misunderstood, but that’s life.
(All this being said – as I read the text, I’ve noticed that I trend toward the Majority Text readings many times, but that may have more to do with my cultural context and training than it does with the quality of the text. This is something that is often misunderstood when I say I tend toward the Majority Text.)
I think I’m understanding you Erik. No stones from my corner. I think the conservative Bibles do a similar thing in retaining the various endings of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae in the text (as well as the Johannine Comma for that matter – kept in the footnotes, though)
To include or exclude these without explanation or footnote is the true disservice to the modern Bible reader. KJVOs would have us include without mentioning the diversity in the early Church Bibles.
On another note, I wonder what the differences between the texts really are, if you ignore the ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae. If you took those numbers out of it, how big is the percentage of difference really? That would be interesting.
One other note, do you know if anyone has thought of doing TC from the perspective of the various churches? Take the Latin standard Bible, the Syriac standard Bible, Greek standard Bible, Coptic standard Bible, Armenian, Gothic, Bohairic, etc. Compare and contrast those for you collation and have footnotes which say the Syriac church had these additional words here, etc. That would be perhaps a helpful look at matters.
Thanks for giving this explanation though, Erik.
~Bob
That would be part of the project I was proposing a couple weeks back. If we could truly harness the power of the internet and the global strength it gives to textual study, creating a massive open source project – an Encyclopaedia Corpus Texti – imagine what you would discover? (Forgive my poor Latin. I’m sure I got the cases wrong.) It goes beyond a published edition and footnotes or complex apparatuses (does anyone truly understand Tischendorf’s apparatus, no matter how thorough it is?) – a truly global, fully interactive corpus.
Andrew,
If that is the case then Erik’s assumptions seem somewhat obsolete. In the USA, for a lot of ordinary people, their Bible shop is online, and this trend is likely to continue with the rise of e-readers such as the Kindle.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
A good point, James, and to be perfectly honest, not one I had considered. I think the trend of e-books is still too young to make a final judgment on it. It will be an interesting tread to watch. Elsewhere, I advocated the development of an online textual resource that included all the readings, all the texts, and allowed you to do instant comparison. Such a tool would be a boon to translation work. I doubt the logistics of it could ever be worked out; but one can dream…
I’d be very surprised if there was not a greater standardization and reduction of the number of available versions in the coming decades. The NIV is being contracted (and hopefully improved, but I’m not holding my breath) and I think we’ll see a slow but sure attrition from this wide diversity. I think that in 20 years, there will be far fewer versions available – which is something that has both pro’s and con’s.
But that’s my opinion and not a prophecy.
Bob and Erik,
Wow; to me that’s a seriously flawed approach — sort of like saying that we have been given a recipe for bread, but since the recipe has been rewritten so many times, with mistakes and changes being made along the way, our best option is to use all the different forms of the recipe, instead of reconstructing the original. It’s not the sort of approach that makes one want to say, “Yes, now that’s the authoritative word,” when one is referring to two or three or half a dozen rival variants, only one of which was written by a divinely inspired individual.
Bob wrote, “To include or exclude these without explanation or footnote is the true disservice to the modern Bible reader.” So if a base-text were reconstructed which agreed fully with the autographs — which certainly did not contain notes about variant readings! — and someone made a good formal translation of that reconstructed autographic text, without mentioning non-original readings, this would be a disservice to the modern Bible reader??? It’s almost as if you’re saying that the Bible should contain not only an English text based on the autographs, but readings based on scribal errors as well. Do you really think that an English Bible based on the autographs and nothing else would be inferior to an English Bible that represented the autographs and the scribal mistakes?
Bob: “KJVOs would have us include without mentioning the diversity in the early Church Bibles.” That diversity is the result of scribal errors. So to put it another way: KJV-Onlyists desire to avoid treating scribal errors as if they are part of the Bible. (I think they’re repeatedly wrong about which reading is original and which is a scribal error, but the goal is commendable.)
It’s too bad this isn’t the place for a focused discussion; it might make an interesting topic some time in the future.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
But James, how certain can we be of our reconstructed text? Barring near total certainty, aren’t we being less than transparent when we don’t acknowledge the presence of variants? Even the KJV translators added a footnote about many manuscripts not having a certain verse (Luke 17:36).
Since we have to depend on faulty humans and their attempt to recover the original Greek text, we need to be honest when we include or exclude the ending of Mark. We should let people know there is some dispute about it.
James, the analogy of a recipe is not the same. You’re saying that unless you have ‘all the parts in once place’ you don’t have the Scriptures, but in no single manuscript do we have all the parts of the Received Text (any edition) or the Critical Text (any edition) or any printed edition I am aware of. Thus, according to your analogy, the recipe has never worked – which means we’ve never had the Word of God.
My study of history tells me that modern human beings are not all that great. Sure, we invented the indoor toilet, string theory and lots of ways to blow each other up, but we’ve lost the sense of connection to our past. We think we are better equipped to ‘filter’ the Scriptures than previous ages were because we’re modern and that makes us ‘good.’
I have a hard time saying that we can produce a ‘correct’ Bible now but the medieval and ancient church (and I mean the true church, not just the hierarchical Roman church) did not have such a thing. Sure, the TR guys argue that they have the ‘received text’ which was passed down; but they completely ignore the fact that Western Europe did not use their received text anyway, so it didn’t really matter.
For the better part of Christian history, churches have had to ‘make due’ with imperfect Bibles. You cannot show me a single place in the Scriptures where God says, “But one day, Europeans will invent the printing press and then you will have my word.” In my thinking, the Word must be bigger than printed editions and it must exist independent of our modern collations and arguments. Thus, I have no choice but to accept that inspiration is far bigger than any theory we’ve come up with and God is using the entire corpus.
I am perfectly at ease with allowing scribal variances in the diversity of the textual corpus. Like I said, there are obvious errors which can be corrected; but I am convinced that if you were to collate and index all of the existing manuscript evidence, you would find that nothing is lost. Sure, there might be some debatable sections – but they do not remove any of the power of the Scriptures. They do not alter the core faith of Christian orthodoxy.
I can sense your unease with this position, but in my defense, I did tell you that it would be difficult to discuss in comments like this.
[...] Diversity of Modern Translations pt 3 – Formal Translations [...]
Bob and Erik,
Bob, at certain points in the text (for instance, Jude vv. 22-23) where a textual variant makes a significant difference in the translatable meaning of a passage, there are sound reasons to be uncertain about what the author wrote. At those points, I think it’s appropriate to add a footnote indicating the variation. This is comparable to drawing a map and, at a certain point, indicating that the path drawn on the original map went either this way, or that way, and no matter which way you go, it is clear that the path converges and continues just a little further on. It’s not an ideal situation and it’s not what the autographs looked like; it is a last resort. But sometimes it is justifiable.
But (turning to Erik, hoping that I still have Bob’s attention) Erik, your approach, as you described it, looks like something else. Instead of maintaining that at some points we can’t tell which variant is the original reading, and which variant is a scribal invention, it looks like you are proposing that we ought to treat the original text and the scribal inventions equally as the Word of God, on the grounds that God and the church has used them both. It is as if you’re implying that inasmuch as God is content to use imperfect manuscripts, and doesn’t care enough to send down angels to correct the scribes’ mistakes and restore the text to its pristine condition, then we shouldn’t care enough to make our best effort to do something similar.
But what if it has been the church’s job, rather than exclusively God’s job, to preserve and perpetuate His words, as servants entrusted with a treasure? In that case I think that we cannot be blamed if we admit that at some points the evidence that has been handed down to us does not allow a confident text-critical decision, but I think we can certainly be blamed if we “embrace the whole corpus” and make no attempt to differentiate between genuine words and counterfeit ones. Perhaps you’ve confused divine toleration of scribal errors with divine approval.
I agree with the sentiment that the Word of God must be bigger than printed editions. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, which words shall we regard as part of the definitive written revelation from God; which words were produced by the producers of the Scriptures, and not by sleepy or creative copyists? Do you really think that God wants us to treat scribal mistakes as if they are His inspired words? And, when you wrote that you “have no choice but to accept that inspiration is far bigger than any theory we’ve come up with,” are you suggesting that the scribes were inspired like the NT authors were??
Erik, you said that you’re convinced that “if you were to collate and index all of the existing manuscript evidence, you would find that nothing is lost.” If you really think that “nothing is lost” no matter which NT base-text one adopts, then what possible answer can you give to the KJV-Onlyists? Your approach prevents an appeal to the notion that they are on a better textual foundation when they use versions based on the critical text. One would think that you would readily and immediately embrace the TR in the name of Christian unity.
Also, regarding the ending of Mark: there’s a lot that could be said about this. Why not write something specifically about it, using the best resources you have, and then I will attempt to engage what you have to say about it.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Just responding to your last point – this is the difficulty of discussing this. I don’t believe there is a ‘base text’ and that’s why I don’t embrace the TR position. It presupposes that there is a ‘base text’ from which you can operate. My base text is the entire corpus, so it excludes any kind of -onlyism.
I agree we want to decide on the best readings possible. I think the NA27 is closest we’ve come yet to the originals, in the last few hundred years. But even then we don’t have full certainty. That’s what I meant about Mark. Even if we come to a fairly firm conclusion on the ending of Mark, we still have to admit there is strong evidence for flux in the ending. Not having a footnote or explanation, and just giving us the text as in the KJV or something, is to not tell the Bible reader the whole story. I’m not arguing for each and every minor textual variant’s story to be told, but in major variants I think we have to use some kind of footnote method. Plus we have the problem with the traditional Bibles saying one thing and the newer versions another, and so footnotes help in explaining why.
Erik and Bob,
Erik – you don’t believe there is a base-text?? It looks like we need to define terms. A base-text is the text that is the basis for a translation. The TR is the KJV’s NT base-text. Most translations explicitly identify their NT base-text in the introduction or preface to the version, like when the NASU “Principles of Translation” states that “in most instances the 26th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece was followed.” (A somewhat inaccurate reference, btw, since Eberhard was long gone by the time the 26th edition came out; his son Erwin succeeded him, and Kurt Aland succeeded Erwin Nestle, before the 26th edition.) To deny that distinct base-texts exists, and that they are not equally authoritative where they disagree, just seems like a surreal position, because saying “My base text is the entire corpus” at points where the MSS disagree seems tantamount to saying that your base-text at those points is not just the original text, but also all its rivals! I hope you’re just on a stepping-stone to a more thought-through position.
Bob – Again, regarding the ending of Mark, I invite you to try to justify the footnotes and heading-notes that are linked to Mk. 16:9-20 in modern translations such as the NIV, NLT, and ESV. Are you interested in discussing this, or will you just assert that “there is strong evidence for flux in the ending” and let readers be uninformed about the nature of the “strong evidence” to which you refer?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I told you that writing my position out is difficult. There’s too much to bounce around in comments. Maybe I’ll record a video and post it.
Erik,
Maybe. If you do that, I hope that you keep asking yourself, “Am I essentially telling people that I think we should treat the inspired words of the apostles and the uninspired mistakes of scribes as equally authoritative?”.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.