 |
Choosing
the Best English Translation
Introduction
When
evaluating translations it is important to understand that there are two
issues in question. First, what Greek manuscripts was the version
translated from? Secondly, is the translation accurate?
Concerning
the Greek Text
Any
discussion about Bible translations needs to involve an examination of
the Greek text issue. Generally speaking there are two families of Greek
manuscripts used in making translations. These families are the Byzantine
(from which the Textus Receptus is derived) and the Alexandrian (from which
the Westcott and Hort is derived).
The
Textus Receptus (TR) is the Greek text used to underline the King James
and the New King James translations. It is Byzantine in it's origin
and is backed by over 5,000 manuscripts, which date from the 10th to 15th
centuries. This text was the accepted text for virtually every translation
until the late 1800's.
The
second Greek text is the Westcott and Hort, also known as the Critical
Text (CT). It is mainly comprised of two manuscripts which, though
recently discovered, date from 250 to 300 AD. It is Alexandrian in
origin and has been the Greek text used to underline virtually every English
translation since the late 1800's.
Concerning
Method of Translation
There
are three different approaches to translating the Scriptures;
1.
Complete (or Formal) Equivalency - This method translates the words of
the original languages seeking to use the closest word for word translation
possible. This is the method used by the KJV, NKJV, NASB translators.
2.
Dynamic Equivalency - This is a recent procedure in Bible translation which
commonly results in paraphrasing where a more literal rendering is needed
to reflect a specific and vital sense. For example, a completely
equivalent rendering of 1 Samuel 15:33 would read, "And Samuel hacked [or
hewed] Agag in pieces…" However, the dynamic equivalent method needlessly
softens the statement: "and Samuel put Agag to death…" (see Preface to
the NKJV). This is the method used by the NIV translators.
3.
Paraphrase - In this method the translator writes what is in reality a
story about the Bible as opposed to translating the words of the Scriptures.
This is the method used by the Living Bible translator.
Why
We Use the King James Version
The
King James Version is an accurate, literal translation of the original
languages. The method of translation used for the King James is Complete
Equivalency. Proverbs 30:5 says, "Every word of God is pure".
It is important that the "words" of the Scriptures are translated as opposed
to other methods which tend to paraphrase.
The
King James is based on the Textus Receptus (TR), which we believe is a
better Greek text than the Westcott and Hort (CT). Why is the TR
better?
1.
The TR was derived from the Byzantine tradition. This family of manuscripts
was the basis for virtually every translation until the late 1800's.
2.
God promises in the Scriptures to preserve His Word, "…the word of the
Lord endureth forever…" (1 Peter 1:25). The formation of the Critical Text,
in the late 1800's, introduced variant readings which were never before
used in translating the Scriptures. To accept this text as the closest
representation of the original autographs causes us problems in our theological
understanding of God's promise to preserve His Word. We understand
that there are minor variations within the manuscripts underlining TR.
But the Critical Text challenged the authenticity of whole passages of
previously accepted Scripture. Therefore, we hesitate to take out
of our Bibles, passages, which we believe God in His sovereignty preserved.
3.
There is also an objection to the methodology used to compile the Critical
Text. At the very root of their textual theory is the belief that the Christian
Church, over the centuries, added teachings to God's Word. This is
seen in the use of the "shorter" reading concept.
Dr.
B.F. Westcott and Dr. F.J. Hort believed that the "shorter" reading should
be given deference. Meaning, if two manuscripts differ on a passage the
Westcott and Hort text would give preference to the manuscript that omitted
certain words. However, such a method is contrary to common logic.
If an individual sat down to copy an encyclopedia he would be more likely
to omit words rather than create new ones. Hence, the Westcott and
Hort position is that the "woman caught in the act of adultery" passage
of John chapter 8 was simply added by the "Church" with the intent of teaching
against adultery.
This
concept of the "Church" adding teachings to the Bible is further seen in
the example of 1 Timothy 3:16 where it reads in the TR, "…God was manifest
in the flesh…" speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, Westcott
and Hort preferred the reading "…he was manifest in the flesh…" figuring
that the word "God" was added by the Church in the hopes of proving the
deity of Christ.
In
refutation of this methodology we point to John 5:4. In this passage
the CT omits the reference about an angel moving the waters. The "shorter"
reading, which omits the verse, was chosen. However, it should be
noted that the passage makes little sense without the reference to the
angel. As unusual as it may sound for an angel to be engaged in such
activity the context demands the verse. Hence, we see in the text
of the Scripture an example of the failings of the Critical Text methodology.
Further
example of the failings of the Critical Text methodology is seen in the
preference given to the "harder" reading. By "harder" reading it is meant
that if a variance exists between manuscripts, and one of the readings
does not make as much sense, preference is given to the more confusing
passage. This was based upon the belief that over the years the "Church"
corrected God's Word.
If
God did not promise to preserve His Word the CT methodology would have
been appropriate. But since we do have such a promise of preservation
the CT methodology is in our opinion very deficient.
We
should also mention that objections are sometimes raised against the TR;
that those who compiled it over the ages were careless or disingenuous
in their work. While most of these accusations are without
foundation it must be understood that even if one were true it does not
changed the fact that the TR (or Byzantine family) must be given strong
deference in Light of God's promise of preservation. This departure
from the TR came in the late 1800's. The new textual criticism, taken
up in at late date, needed to take into consideration the necessary presupposition
that God would preserve His Word.
4.
An argument is sometimes made that the Critical Text is better on account
of the age of the manuscripts underlining it. While we acknowledge that
the Alexandrian manuscripts are older we do no concede that their age makes
them more reliable. It is more likely the manuscripts of the CT are
available today because they were discarded for their inaccuracies.
An accurate text, like the TR, would have been used by the people and hence
older copies would have been worn out. Today the Textus Receptus
(or Byzantine family) is backed by over 5,000 manuscripts. In contrast,
the Critical Text is largely based upon two manuscripts, one found in the
Vatican library, and another discovered in a dumpster at St. Catherine's
Monastery in 1844.
Conclusion
It
has been our intention to set forth a brief explanation of why we use the
King James Version of the Bible. We recognize that even accounting
for the passages omitted from the Critical Text there is still remarkable
agreement between the manuscripts. Having said that however, we are
concerned that the Critical Text methodology undermines important aspects
of Bibliology such as Providential Preservation and the closure of the
Biblical Cannon. |
|
|
