No one would suggest that translation is an easy task. Languages differ considerably in grammatical structure, vocabulary and idioms. The expression “lost in translation” is all too often true! With the Bible there are additional complexities. The languages being translated are ancient and differ from their modern counterparts. Furthermore, there are those variations found in the original manuscripts. Although in the majority of cases choosing a translation should be objective, there are clearly times when it will be subjective—and indeed must be. One’s belief (or lack thereof) will affect the translation, and when it comes to the Holy Scriptures this is most significant. In fact, to make the translation of the Bible a human and not a spiritual endeavor is a serious mistake.
Though a little ahead of ourselves, let us consider an example of what we have been discussing from the New International Version (the NIV). The translation for Hebrews 1:5 appears to be a combination of an overzealous desire to rid the text of archaic words and, at best, a lack of understanding of the eternal sonship of Christ. The text in question is a quotation from Psalm 2 and is translated: “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” (Heb. 1:55For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (Hebrews 1:5)a NIV). Neither the Greek text nor the Hebrew of Psalm 2:77I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7) contains any thought of God becoming a Father to the Son. It is quite simply false and suggests that the Son did not become son, in fact, until His birth. We should note, lest there be any confusion, that the second part of that same verse reads: “And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son” (Heb. 1:55For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (Hebrews 1:5)b KJV). At first glance, this may appear to contradict what has just been said; it does not. It speaks of the Father’s care for the Son in manhood—He would be to Him a Father; again, it is not saying that He would become a Father to Him. Incidentally, the NIV footnote reads begotten which is correct.
New Manuscripts
As time has gone on, new manuscripts have been discovered and adjustments have been made to the Greek text. I wish, for a moment, to turn our attention to the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Beginning in 1853 they worked for twenty-eight years to produce a Greek New Testament consisting of the so-called critical text—it was published in 1881. They were neither the first nor the only men who labored in this regard. Whereas Erasmus’ work, and as a result the Textus Receptus, may have been unduly influenced by the Byzantine texts, Westcott and Hort’s work was heavily biased toward Alexandrian texts—especially the Codex Vaticanus (commonly identified by the letter B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (identified by the Hebrew letter aleph, א). While the former had been held by the Vatican since the fifteenth century, the latter was discovered in 1844, and it captivated many, including Westcott and Hort. Although the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete Bible (it dates from 325 A.D.), age alone does not decide the superiority of a text. In fact, the Sinaiticus codex contains numerous marginal corrections.
Westcott and Hort
As to Westcott and Hort themselves, there is much to concern us as to their Christian faith. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Westcott wrote, “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did—yet they disclose to us a Gospel.” Westcott viewed the creation story as poetry and not literal. As to the Lord’s appearing, Hort viewed this as figurative. He wrote concerning 1 Peter 1:7, “There is nothing in either this passage or others on the same subject, apart from the figurative language of Thessalonians, to show that the revelation here spoken of is to be limited to a sudden preternatural theophany. It may be a long and varying process, though ending in a climax. Essentially it is simply the removal of the veils which hide the unseen Lord, by whatsoever means they become withdrawn.” A great deal of material is available as to these men; nevertheless, in researching some of the more common accusations made against them, it must be sadly acknowledged that many quotations are taken out of context. That does not mean to say that I agree with them; their statements are usually shrouded in an intellectualism that makes them open to interpretation and difficult to represent accurately in a few sentences. Darby and Kelly, contemporaries of Westcott and Hort, used language far more moderate compared to the violent attacks now brought against them. Unfortunately, nothing is terribly surprising as to the views expressed in the quotations given above. It is the sad, lifeless expression of rationalism and liberalism (they seem to go hand-in-hand) of which the Apostle Paul warned Timothy: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5). It is with a note of caution, therefore, that we observe that the influence of these two men over Bible translation since their time has been considerable. The critical text they prepared has formed the basis of many modern versions of the New Testament.
By no means do I wish to paint Westcott and Hort as being solely responsible for the questionable renderings in our modern translations. Many translations, including that of the King James, have been undertaken by a committee. The New International Version prides itself in the broad range of denominations and nationalities involved in the translation: “Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches—helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.” Rather than safeguarding the truth, such diversity has every potential for compromising the truth.
Methods of Translation
Before we leave this subject of modern translations, we must address two alternate methods of translation. These go by the rather lofty names of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. They may be more simply understood as sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation. Clearly, no readable translation is ever literally word-for-word; nevertheless, since we believe in the inspiration of the very words themselves, a faithful translation should be as close to literal as possible. The King James, Darby, American Standard, Revised Standard, and English Standard are examples of those that use varying degrees of the word-for-word approach. At the other end of the spectrum, however, we have those translations which merely attempt to convey the sense of the original text, that is to say, a sense-for-sense translation. The New International Version and various other modern translations use this methodology. Then there are those translations which go further still; these are the paraphrased versions. As we move from word-for-word to sense-for-sense and then into paraphrasing, the translation becomes increasingly subjective. At some point, it ceases to be Scripture. At best, it may be viewed as a commentary; at worse, a corruption of the Word of God. The reader is encouraged in the strongest of terms to stay away from these.
Readability Versus Accuracy
In a related vein, improving the readability through the modernization of the English is a stated goal of all modern translations. It is true that the English of the King James may be difficult for some. The use of thou, thee, thy, and thine, with their related verb forms, and even the use of you and ye, is foreign to many modern readers. Incidentally, these words were not used in the King James to make it more reverent. They were used because the original Hebrew and Greek used these pronouns and verb forms. Thou is the second-person singular pronoun in familiar speech, whereas you is the second-person plural. Thou corresponds to the French tu and the Spanish tú. The other forms of thou—thee, thy and thine—follow the same pattern as me, my and mine. When the Lord addresses Peter and says, “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32), this is singular; He is talking to Peter. Immediately prior to this, however, the Lord had said: “Satan hath desired to have you” (vs. 31). This is plural; the Lord was speaking to all of His disciples and not just Peter. F. F. Bruce notes that the Revised Standard Version “blurred some of the finer distinctions in New Testament wording which, while they are of little importance to the general reader, have some significance for those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text.” No doubt, this was not a specific reference to the abandonment of the archaic, second-person singular forms; nevertheless, the observation remains true. Despite the reference to the general reader, no matter who we are (and perhaps more so, when we have no knowledge of the original language), we have every reason to be concerned for the accuracy of the text.
Even though the pronouns thou and thee were not terms of reverence in the days of King James, they ultimately became that. In modernizing the English of the Scriptures, it has become more familiar in tone, and it might be added, this has done nothing to stem the tide of irreverence so characteristic of this present day. “These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 88Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Jude 8)).
The Darby Translation
It is rather remarkable that while the established Church was working on a revision of the King James, we find, in quiet obscurity, John Nelson Darby working on a translation of the New Testament. This was first published in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884. The complete Bible was published posthumously in 1890. It was never Darby’s intent to replace the King James. His desire was to provide a resource to the student of Scripture. In his preface he gives his rationale for his translation. “I have used all helps I could, but the translation is borrowed in no way from any; it is my own translation, but I have used every check I could to secure exactness. I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God, received by the Holy Ghost and communicated by His power, though, thank God, through mortal men: what is divine made withal thoroughly human, as the blessed Lord Himself whom it reveals, though never ceasing to be divine. And this is its unspeakable value: thoroughly and entirely divine, ‘words which the Holy Ghost teacheth,’ yet perfectly and divinely adapted to man as being by man. My endeavor has been to present to the merely English reader the original as closely as possible. Those who make a version for public use must of course adapt their course to the public. Such has not been my object or thought, but to give the student of scripture, who cannot read the original, as close a translation as possible.“ As to the Darby Translation, F. F. Bruce makes this observation: “In the New Testament especially it is based on a sound critical appraisal of the evidence, and was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised New Testament of 1881.”
Tests of Fidelity
If, as the preface to the Revised Standard Version states, the King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying, how are we to trust it? Firstly, a translation that stood essentially alone for 300 years, to the great blessing of the English-speaking world, speaks for itself. Secondly, the King James translation calls into doubt no doctrinal positions—not the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His death, His resurrection—no, nothing! This cannot be said of some modern revisions. The greater danger, it seems to me, is in the use of a modern translation with its doubtful interpretations. It seems as if every committee of modern time has blundered down some path or another in an attempt to arrive at the original Greek or to present it in modern English. This is not to say that every modern translation is inherently evil or that they offer no benefit to the Bible student. Nevertheless, they should be used wisely and with an understanding as to their origin and character. I would rather trust the Darby translation, as I know where the translator stood on questions of doctrine, than trust myself to a committee consisting of Evangelicals, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Unitarians, Jews—believers and unbelievers alike.
N. Simon, The Holy Scriptures (adapted)